Chartered Dev. Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (Cottonwood on Alexander) ( 2013 )

 motion in a September 2010 order in which it ruled that Cottonwood had
satisfied NRCP 23's class action prerequisites and could therefore litigate
the alleged defects on behalf of its members.
Petitioners then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus,
contending that the district court failed to undertake a thorough NRCP 23
analysis and that, had the district court done so, it would have concluded
that Cottonwood did not satisfy NRCP 23's class action prerequisites. In
their writ petition, petitioners ask this court to direct the district court to
vacate its September 2010 order."
"A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of
an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station . ." International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197,
179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see also NRS 34.160. Here, we conclude that
partial relief is warranted, as the district court's order demonstrates that
it did not conduct a thorough NRCP 23 analysis. See D.R. Horton v. Dist.
Ct. (First Light II), 125 Nev. 449, 459, 215 P.3d 697, 704 (2009) ("[W]here
a homeowners' association brings suit on behalf of its members, a
developer may . . . challenge whether the associations' claims are subject
to class certification. In doing so, the district court must conduct and
document a thorough NRCP 23 analysis." (emphasis added)). For
instance, the district court determined that NRCP 23's numerosity
requirement had been met because more than one homeowner was
alleging defects. Similarly, the district court determined that common
'Alternatively, petitioners ask that we order the district court to (1)
deny Cottonwood's motion for declaratory relief, (2) order the joinder of all
Cottonwood's individual members, or (3) prohibit the action from
proceeding as a representative action under NRS 116.3102(1)(d).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
issues of fact predominated because all of the alleged defects existed in the
duplexes' building envelopes.
This NRCP 23 analysis falls short of what is required by law.
See id. ("[A] shared experience alone does not satisfy the threshold
requirements under NRCP 23. Instead, the court must determine, among
other issues, which units have experienced constructional defects, the
types of alleged defects, the various theories of liability, and the damages
necessary to compensate individual unit owners." (citation omitted)); see
also Beazer Homes Holding Corp. v. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d
128, 136 (2012) ("[U]pon a motion to proceed as a class action, the district
court must 'thoroughly analyze NRCP 23's requirements and document its
findings." (quoting First Light II, 125 Nev. at 459, 215 P.3d at 704)).
Accordingly, we grant the writ petition in part and direct the clerk of this
court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate
its September 2010 order and to conduct a proper NRCP 23 analysis. 2
Afterward, the district court shall administer the underlying litigation
consistent with our recent opinion in Beazer Homes.
It is so ORDERED. 3
' J.
Saitta
2 We decline to grant petitioners' alternative requests for writ relief.
3 We lift the stay of district court proceedings imposed by our April 7,
2011, order.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge
Lee, Hernandez, Landrum, Garofalo & Blake, APC
Feinberg Grant Mayfield Kaneda & Litt, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A