Fiore v. Dist. Ct. (Estate Of Ben-Kely) ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
FELICE J. FIORE; AND SPEEDVEGAS, No. 83590
LLC,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN
AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND
FILED
THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ALLF, APR 2 9 2022
DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZiDETH A. DROWN
Respondents, ;,ENK • F17REME COURT
.
D
and DEPUTY 4"4-1.
CLERJ )
ESTATE OF GIL BEN-KELY BY
ANTONELLA BEN-KELY, THE DULY
APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE AND AS THE WIDOW AND HEIR
OF DECEDENT GIL BEN-KELY; SHON
BEN-KELY, SON AND HEIR OF
DECEDENT GIL BEN-KELY; NATHALIE
BEN-KELY-SCO1T, DAUGHTER AND
HEIR OF THE DECEDENT GIL BEN-
KELY; GWENDOLYN WARD, AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF CRMG SHERWOOD,
DECEASED; GWENDOLYN WARD,
INDWIDUALLY, AND AS SURVIVING
SPOUSE OF CRAIG SHERWOOD,
DECEASED; AND GWENDOLYN
SHERWOOD, AS MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN OF ZANE
SHERWOOD, SURVIVING MINOR CHILD
OF CRAIG SHERWOOD, DECEASED,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
(CO I947A
- sa
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition challenging a district court's denial of petitioners motion for
summary judgment in a tort action. Having considered petitioners'
argument and the supporting documents, we conclude that our
extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted as to
petitioners' request for mandamus relief. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Pan
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844
(2004) (stating that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy
precluding writ relief and recognizing that petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that writ relief is warranted, unless the district court is
obligated to dismiss or summarily adjudicate the action or an important
issue of law requires clarification); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113
Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (observing that this court
generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying
motions to dismiss or for summary judgment); Smith v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d. 849, 851 (1991) (observing that
issuance of the writ is subject to this court's discretion).
Petitioners do not address the general rule that the court will
not entertain writ petitions challenging district court orders denying
summary judgment, and we conclude that the petition presents no reason
to deviate from it. See ANSE, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev.
862, 867, 192 P.3d 738, 742 (2008) (declining to consider such petitions
"unless summary judgment is clearly required by a statute or rule, or an
important issue of law requires clarification"). Insofar as petitioners seek a
writ of prohibition, they provide no cogent argument regarding that relief,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
0) I 947A agaglo
and we need not consider it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122
Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
Parraguirre
..
J.
Cadish
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas
Taylor Anderson LLP
ER Injury Attorneys
Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP/Las Vegas
Brenske Andreevski & Krametbauer
Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP/Los Angeles
Eighth District Court Clerk
'We deny petitioners request for a stay as moot.
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(01 I947A 4401m
I