Peccole Vs. Dist. Ct. (Fore Stars, Ltd.) ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ROBERT N. PECCOLE; NANCY A. No. 82593
PECCOLE, INDIVIDUALS; AND
ROBERT N. AND NANCY A. PECCOLE
TRUST,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FILE
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, SEP 2 1 2021
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
ELLZAB . 1-1.k BROWN
CLARK; AND THE :HONORABLE CLEE1tOE JUPRíitE COURT
JERRY A. WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE, BY
DEIUTY CLERK
.Respondents,
and
FORE STARS, LTD., A NEVADA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; 180
LAND CO., LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY; SEVENTY
ACRES, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
LIABILITY; AND EHB COMPANIES,
LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED 'LIABILITY
COMPANY,
Real Parties in Interest.
OR.DER DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a
tort action.
Having considered the petition and supporting documentation,
we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention
is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88
P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the
burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
I447A
Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing
that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole
discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition).
Assuming without deciding that EDCR 7.10(b) prohibits a
district court from exercising "subject matter jurisdiction" over a case
whenever one of its orders might contradict a different district court's order
in a different case, the order that petitioners challenge plainly sets forth a
means by which relief could be granted on each of real party in interest's
claims that would not conflict with any prior ruling in the Binion matter.
Although petitioners cite to three paragraphs of the complaint that
arguably suggest otherwise, they did not include the entire complaint in
their appendix, and it is apparent from the challenged order that the
respondent district court based its decision on different allegations in the
complaint. Cf. Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603,
172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007) (observing that it is a party's responsibility for
providing an adequate record for this court's review and that when a portion
of the record is missing, "we necessarily presume that the missing portion
supports the district court's decision"). Accordingly, petitioners have failed
to establish that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus, see Walker v.
Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1197
(2020) (stating conditions requisite to mandamus relief including that
petitioners have a legal right to the act the petition seeks to compel,
respondent has a plain duty to perform such act, and the absence of an
alternate legal remedy), or that respondent has clearly exceeded its
1 The text of EDCR 7.10(b) suggests that it would be inapplicable in
such a scenario, but because petitioners have not addressed that issue, we
do not definitively resolve this petition based on that issue.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A .4BNip
jurisdiction, see NRS 34.320 (providing that a writ of prohibition is available
to restrain a tribunal's proceedings that "are without or in excess of [its.)
jurisdiction"). We therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.
J.
Stiglich
Cadish
Ibmo
J.
Herndon
Saitta
cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge
Peccole & Peccole, Ltd.
EHB Companies, LLC
Sklar Williams LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(01 IRITA atai4E,