Phillip Morris Usa Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Rowan) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., A FOREIGN No. 84805
    CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    V5.
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FLED
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ~
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AUG 11 2022
    AND THE HONORABLE VERONICA
    BARISICH, DISTRICT JUDGE, CLC OF S)PREME COURT
    Respondents, BALM
    and
    DOLLY ROWAN, AS AN INDIVIDUAL,
    AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR
    THE ESTATE OF NOREEN
    THOMPSON; NAVONA COLLISON, AS
    AN INDIVIDUAL; RUSSELL
    THOMPSON, AS AN INDIVIDUAL; R.J.
    REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, A
    FOREIGN CORPORATION; LIGGETT
    GROUP, LLC, A FOREIGN
    CORPORATION; QUICK STOP
    MARKET, LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED
    LIABILITY COMPANY; JOE’S BAR,
    INC., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION;
    THE POKER PALACE, A DOMESTIC
    CORPORATION; SILVER NUGGET
    GAMING, LLC, D/B/A SILVER NUGGET
    CASINO, A DOMESTIC LIMITED
    LIABILITY COMPANY; AND JERRY’S
    NUGGET, A DOMESTIC
    CORPORATION,
    Real Parties in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION
    This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition
    challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in an action
    Supreme Court
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 19474 136 Nev. 678
    , 683, 
    476 P.3d 1194
    , 1198
    (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later appeal was available); 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. 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). Generally, we will not
    consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and
    we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here.
    Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 
    124 Nev. 193
    , 197-98,
    
    179 P.3d 556
    , 558-59 (2008) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials
    of motions to dismiss); see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Eighth Judicial
    Dist. Court, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 55, ___ P.3d ____ (2022) (denying writ relief
    in a similar challenge to an order denying a motion to dismiss in a Nevada
    Deceptive Trade Practices Act action). We therefore
    Silver Gibbons
    1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
    decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
    Supreme Court
    oF
    NEVADA >
    (0) 19474                             

Document Info

Docket Number: 84805

Filed Date: 8/11/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/12/2022