eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2022-05

Jdd, Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Item 9 Labs Corp.) ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JDD, LLC; TCS PARTNERS, LLC;                             No. 83344
JOHN SAUNDERS; AND TREVOR
SCHMIDT,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,                               FILED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
MAY 1 3 2022
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
ELIZABETH A. BROWN
TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT                            CLERK 9f ByPREME COURT
JUDGE,                                                  aY ?El;IYff-e
CLERI
AIA
Respondents,
and
ITEM 9 LABS CORP., F/K/A AIRWARE
LABS CORP., AND CROWN
DYNAMICS CORP.; ITEM 9
PROPERTIES, LLC; STRIVE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, PK/A; STRIVE
LIFE; VIRIDIS GROUP 19 CAPITAL,
LLC; VIRIDIS GROUP HOLDINGS,
LLC; SNOWELL HOLDINGS, LLC;
ANDREW BOWDEN; DOUGLAS
BOWDEN; BRYCE SKALLA; AND
CHASE HERSCHMAN,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for writ of mandamus challenging
two district court orders awarding attorney fees.
Petitioners JDD, LLC; TCS Partners, LLC; John Saunders; and
Trevor Schmidt (collectively, petitioners) sued real parties in interest, Item
9 Labs Corporation, Item 9 Properties, LLC, Strive Management, LLC,
Pc7-is.214
Viridis Group 19 Capital, LLC, Viridis Group Holdings, LLC, Andrew
Bowden, Douglas Bowden, Bryce Skalla, Chase Herschman (collectively, 19
Parties), Snowell Holdings, LLC (Snowell), and assorted other parties in
relation to petitioners ownership interest in a marijuana company.
Snowell moved to dismiss all . claims against it for lack of
personal jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion. The 19
Parties moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them for failure to
state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the district court
granted this motion as well. Thereafter, the 19 Parties and Snowell
independently moved for attorney fees as prevailing parties under NRS
18.010(2)(b), claiming that the petitioners' litigation was frivolous. The
district court granted Snowell's motion in a minute order and granted the
19 Parties' motion in a written order. Petitioners now seek a writ
mandating the district court to vacate its orders awarding attorney fees.
Mandamus relief is unwarranted because petitioners have an adequate
remedy at law
Petitioners contend that this court should entertain this writ
petition because they lack a speedy or adequate legal remedy, mandamus is
proper for prejudgment orders of attorney fees, the dispute involves an issue
of statewide importance regarding whether a party that has secured a
dismissal without prejudice is a prevailing party under NRS 18.010(2)(b),
and entertaining the writ petition would preserve judicial economy. We
disagree.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel a district court to
perform an act the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious
exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial
Dist. Court,
    124 Nev. 193
    , 197,
    179 P.3d 556
    , 558 (2008). "Mandamus is a
proper remedy to compel performance of a judicial act when there is no
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A    Alete
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.. . . ." Smith v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court,
    107 Nev. 674
    , 677,
    818 P.2d 849
    , 851 (1991) (citing NRS 34.170).
Petitioners must show why writ relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court,
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228,
    88 P.3d 840
    , 844 (2004). Whether a writ
petition will be considered is within this court's sole discretion. Smith, 107
Nev. at 677,
    818 P.2d at 851
    .
We determine that petitioners arguments in favor of writ relief
lack merit. The district court entered its order granting attorney fees to the
19 Parties. Petitioners thus had an adequate remedy at law by way of
appeal from that order. Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
    127 Nev. 518
    , 524,
    262 P.3d 360
    , 364 (2011) (noting that the opportunity to appeal
from final judgment typically provides an adequate legal remedy); see also
Pan, 120 Nev. at 228,
    88 P.3d at 844
     ([An] appeal is generally an adequate
legal remedy that precludes writ relief.").
And, we are unable to entertain this writ petition as it pertains
to the district court's minute order awarding Snowell attorney fees. See
Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist.,
    103 Nev. 686
    , 689,
    747 P.2d 1380
    , 1382 (1987)
(determining that a minute order is "ineffective for any purpose"). Thus,
the district court's award of attorney fees to Snowell may not be challenged
until the district court enters a written order.' After the district court does
so, Snowell may then appeal that order. Based upon the foregoing, we
'While no party raised this issue, we raise it sua sponte as it concerns
this court's jurisdiction. See Landreth v. Malik,
    127 Nev. 175
    , 179,
    251 P.3d 163
    , 166 (2011). We offer no opinion on the merits of such an appeal.
Swann COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 440310
conclude that writ relief is not warranted. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/A,
Hardesty
, J.
A4;i5G.i..i0        , J.                    (34----"'D, J.
Stiglich                                  Herndon
cc:   Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge
Iglody Law, PLLC
Fennemore Craig P.C./Reno
Messner Reeves LLP
Quarles & Brady LLP/Phoenix
Bianch & Brandt
Smith Larsen & Wixom
Eighth District Court Clerk
Summe Cower
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A