Yusi v. Dist. Ct. (Felsner) ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
EDGARDO P. YUSI; AND KEOLIS No. 82625
TRANSIT SERVICES, LLC,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JAN 2 8 2022
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELI2ABETH A. BROWN
F VPREME COURT
NANCY L. ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE, BY
DEPUlY CLERK
Respondents,
and
HEATHER FELSNER,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging
a district court order adopting a discovery commissioner's recommendation
that examination of the real party in interest's medical and physical
condition proceed under NRS 52.380.
Petitioner, Edgardo Yusi, alleges the district court manifestly
abused its discretion by adopting a discovery commissioner's
recommendation that NRS 52.380 supersedes NRCP 35. We elect to
entertain this petition because "judicial economy and sound judicial
administration militate in favor of writ review." Scarbo v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 118, 121, 206 P.3d 975, 977 (2009).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A 04/90
•
a ,
In Lyft, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, we held NRS
52.380 unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers
doctrine. 137 Nev., Adv. Op. 86, P.3d ____ (2021). Specifically, NRS 52.380
violated separation of powers because it is a procedural statute that
conflicts with NRCP 35—a preexisting court rule. See State v. Connery, 99
Nev. 342, 345, 661 P.2d 1298, 1300 (1983) ("[T]he [L]egislature may not
enact a procedural statute that conflicts with a pre-existing procedural rule,
without violating the doctrine of separation of powers, and . . . such a
statute is of no effect."). Given our holding in Lyft, writ relief is appropriate
in this case because the district court's adoption of the discovery
commissioner's recommendation that NRS 52.380 supersedes NRCP 35
and, its resulting denial of Yusi's motion, constituted a manifest abuse of
discretion. Cf. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601,
603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). Further, issuance of the writ is
appropriate because the parties are still in the early stages of litigation and
issuing the writ serves the interests of judicial administration. Int? Game
Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 198, 179 P.3d 556,
559 (2008). Accordingly, we vacate our January 20, 2022, temporary stay
and
ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK
OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the
district court to vacate its order adopting the discovery commissioner's
2
report and instruct the district court to analyze the parties positions
consistent with NRCP 35.1
44 )1111marr"re0--
arraguirre
AA*. , J. ,4114, , J.
Hardesty Stiglich
, J. LIZE44) , J.
Cadish Silver
Pieike4 J. J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
Hon. Linda M. Bell, Chief Judge
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas
Shook & Stone, Chtd.
The Powell Law Firm
Schwab Law Firm PLLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
lIn light of our decision, we do not address the parties' remaining
arguments.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A me*.
• • ai-k,.• ;14; -