Gollard, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Hidalgo) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    RUSSELL GOLLARD, M.D.,                                  No. 85164
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT                              F1L
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF                                  SEP 2 3 2022
    CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIC
    JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE,
    Respondents,
    and
    STEPHANIE V. HIDALGO,
    Real Party in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION
    This is an original petition for a writ of mandarnus challenging
    a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical malpractice
    action.
    This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandarnus
    and the decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is within
    our sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; Srnith v. Eighth Judicial
    Dist. Court, 
    107 Nev. 674
    , 677, 
    818 P.2d 849
    , 851 (1991). Petitioners bear
    the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief
    is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.
    See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    , 224, 228, 
    88 P.3d 840
    ,
    841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate rernedy precluding writ
    relief. Id. at 224, 
    88 P.3d at 841
    . Even when an appeal is not immediately
    available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact
    that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final
    judgment generally precludes writ relief. 
    Id. at 225
    , 
    88 P.3d at 841
    .
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (I))   1')47A
    Z.7 —z qct9.9--
    Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our
    extraordinary intervention is warranted.      To begin, petitioner has not
    demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment would not be a plain,
    speedy, and adequate remedy.          Nor has petitioner demonstrated a
    persuasive basis for deviating from the general rule that this court will not
    entertain writ petitions challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss. See
    Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    133 Nev. 816
    , 824-25, 
    407 P.3d 702
    , 709-10 (2017). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.
    , C.J.
    Parraguirre
    -, \Cdat            , J.                                         J.
    Hardesty                                   Stiglich
    cc:   Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge
    Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
    Clark Newberry Law Firm
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    ‘I I; I,MTA
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 85164

Filed Date: 9/23/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/27/2022