From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas & Kathleen Garland Family Tr. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 24, 2018
No. 76546 (Nev. App. Oct. 24, 2018)

Opinion

No. 76546

10-24-2018

THOMAS & KATHLEEN GARLAND FAMILY TRUST; AND COURTNEY DOLAN, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, Respondents, and RAYMOND L. MELTON, AN INDIVIDUAL; BART KOLBER, AN INDIVIDUAL; WILLIAM HOGARTY, AN INDIVIDUAL; OLYMPIA FUNDING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, A/K/A BANK OF AMERICA, A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION, D/B/A BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ON BEHALF OF CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST A-2004-24CB, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; MERS CORP, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION; AND NEVADA TITLE COMPANY, A NEVADA COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.


ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI

This is an original petition for writs of mandamus and certiorari seeking to disqualify a district court judge from sitting in the underlying case.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Writ relief is typically not available, however, when the petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558.

A writ of certiorari is available to correct a lower tribunal's judicial action if the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and "there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate remedy." NRS 34.020(2); Dangberg Holdings Nev., LLC v. Douglas Cnty., 115 Nev. 129, 138, 978 P.2d 311, 316 (1999). Whether a writ of certiorari will be considered is within this court's discretion. Id.

The supreme court has held that the availability of an appeal is generally a speedy and adequate remedy precluding writ relief. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). And petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Having considered the documents before us, we conclude petitioners have not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Id.; NRAP 21(b)(1); NRAP 21(c). Accordingly, we deny the petition.

We note that petitioners recently filed an appeal arising from the underlying district court case, which is currently pending before the Nevada Supreme Court in Docket No. 77182 (Garland Family Trust v. Melton).

It is so ORDERED.

The Honorable Jerome Tao, Judge, voluntarily recused himself from participating in the decision of this matter. --------

/s/_________, C.J.

Silver

/s/_________, J.

Gibbons cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge

Dolan Law Group, Ltd.

Black & LoBello

Akerman LLP/Las Vegas

Bart Kolber

Vegas Valley Law, LLC

Skrinjaric Law Office

William Hogarty

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Thomas & Kathleen Garland Family Tr. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 24, 2018
No. 76546 (Nev. App. Oct. 24, 2018)
Case details for

Thomas & Kathleen Garland Family Tr. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS & KATHLEEN GARLAND FAMILY TRUST; AND COURTNEY DOLAN, Petitioners…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Oct 24, 2018

Citations

No. 76546 (Nev. App. Oct. 24, 2018)