Opinion
No. 66626
12-22-2014
TERRA CONTRACTING, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ADRIANA ESCOBAR, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and HECTOR LOPEZ; AND LUCIA LUCAS BARRAGAN, Real Parties in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss.
This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Writ relief is typically not available, however, when petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.330; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P. 3d 556, 558 (2008). This court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying a motion to dismiss because an appeal from the final judgment is usually a speedy and adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. In some instances, this court will consider such petitions if no factual dispute exists and the district court was obligated to dismiss the action pursuant to clear authority or if an important issue of law needs clarification. Id. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 559.
Petitioner challenges the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss. Given the pleading standard set forth in NRCP 8, we decline to intervene through extraordinary writ relief at this time. See Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P. 3d 670, 672 (2008) (explaining this court's standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Our denial, however, is without prejudice to petitioner's right to seek review again after the district court resolves any motion for summary judgment in the matter below.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Pickering
/s/_________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge
Shumway Van & Hansen
Dixon Law Firm LLC
Esther Rodriguez
Eighth District Court Clerk