Las Vegas Dragon Hotel, Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Crawford) ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LAS VEGAS DRAGON HOTEL, LLC, A No. 85081
NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, D/B/A ALPINE MOTEL
APARTMENTS,
Petitioner,
vs. FILED
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AUG 1 8 2622
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERK O SU.-cEME COURT
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE By \
DEPUTY CLERK
MARIA A. GALL, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
DEBORAH CIHAL CRAWFORD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HEIR TO THE
ESTATE OF TRACY ANN CIHAL;
JOHN DOE ADMINISTRATOR, AS
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF TRACY ANN CIHAL;
DIANE ROBERTS, INDWIDUALLY
AND AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF
DONALD KEITH BENNETT; MIA
LUCILEE BENNETT, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF
DONALD KEITH BENNETT, BY AND
THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD
LITEM DIANE ROBERTS; DONALD
ROBERTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF DONALD
KEITH BENNETT; JOHN DOE
ADMINISTRATOR, AS SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE
OF DONALD KEITH BENNETP;
FRANCIS LOMBARDO, III,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HEIR TO THE
ESTATE OF FRANCIS LOMBARDO,
JR.; JOHN DOE ADMINISTRATOR, AS
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0 , I , l47A
pig -A5-1357
ESTATE OF FRANCIS LOMBARDO,
JR; RICHARD AIKENS; MICHELLE
AIKENS; MICHAEL AIKENS, A MINOR
BY AND THROUGH HIS NATURAL
PARENTS, RICHARD AIKENS AND
MICHELLE AIKENS; BRIANNA
AIKENS, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH
HER NATURAL PARENTS, RICHARD
AIKENS AND MICHELLE AIKENS;
DEJOY WILSON; JOHNATHAN
WILSON; RETOR JONES, JR.; HELEN
CLARK; VICTOR COTTON;
CHRISTINA FARINELLA; HAILU
ADDIS; DENICIA JOHNSON; PAUL
WISE; CARMAN MCCANDLESS;
PARALEE MINTER; ATJDREY
PALMER; SARA RACHAL; KELVIN
SALYERS; JOE AGUILERA;
DAYSHENA THOMAS; ANDREW
THOMAS, A MINOR BY AND
THROUGH HIS NATURAL PARENT,
DAYSHENA THOMAS; SANDRA
JONES; TIACHERELL DOTSON;
A'LAYNA DOTSON, BY AND
THROUGH HER NATURAL PARENT,
TIACHERELL DOTSON; CLEA
ROBERTS; NELSON BLACKBURN;
FLOYD GUENTHER; DOYLE MYERS;
LAURA EDWARDS; ROY BACKHUS;
JIMMY BROWN-LACY; DELMARKAS
COMBS; CHARLES COUCH;
STEPHANIE COUCH; ASHLEY
ROGERS, A MINOR BY AND
THROUGH HER NATURAL PARENT,
CHERYL ROGERS; CHERYL ROGERS;
MATTHEW SYKES; THELMA SYKES;
DAVID BARBARA; EDDIE ELLIS; C.
EUGENE FRAZIER; JEREMY GORDON
SCOTTI HUGHES; TOMMY
CALDERILLA; AND KAREN KELLY,
CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
2
FOR CHRISTIAN SPANGLER,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively,
prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in
a tort action.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus
and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely
within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc.
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37
(2007). 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 remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even
when an appeal is not irnmediately available because the challenged order
is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be
challenged on appeal from a final judgrnent generally precludes writ relief.
Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.
Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our
extraordinary intervention is warranted for several reasons. To begin,
petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment would
not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. This court typically will not
entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss,
especially where, as here, issuance of the requested writ relief would not
dispose of the entire action. See Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
133 Nev. 816, 824-25, 407 P.3d 702, 709-10 (2017). Further, our
SUPREME C OURT
OF
NEVADA
3
1( II 941.-\
extraordinary intervention is not warranted given the substantial amount
of time that has elapsed since the district court issued the order being
challenged, petitioner's failure to provide an explanation for its delay in
seeking writ relief, and petitioner's failure to include records in its appendix
that are essential to this court's understanding of the matters set forth in
the petition, including records pertaining to the procedural posture of the
proceedings below. See NRAP 21(a)(4). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre V)
J. A44G.,0
Hardesty Stiglich
CC: Hon. Maria A. Gall, District Judge
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LL1?/Las Vegas
Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP
Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP/Las Vegas
Eglet Adams
Murdock & Associates, Chtd.
Leach Kern Gruchow Anderson Song/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
l'447A