Fed. Housing Fin. Agency v. Dist. Ct. (Westland Liberty Vill., Llc) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE                                  No. 84573
    AGENCY, IN ITS CAPACITY AS
    CONSERVATOR FOR THE FEDERAL
    NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION;
    AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE                              FILE
    ASSOCIATION,
    NOV 111 '2072
    Petitioners,
    vs.
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN
    AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK;
    AND THE HONORABLE MARK R.
    DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE,
    Respondents,
    and
    WESTLAND LIBERTY VILLAGE, LLC;
    WESTLAND VILLAGE SQUARE, LLC;
    AMUSEMENT INDUSTRY, INC.;
    WESTLAND CORONA LLC; WESTLAND
    AMBER RIDGE LLC; WESTLAND
    HACIENDA HILLS LLC; 1097 NORTH
    STATE, LLC; WESTLAND TROPICANA
    ROYALE LLC; VELLAGIO APTS OF
    WESTLAND LLC; THE ALEVY FAMILY
    PROTECTION TRUST; WESTLAND
    AMT, LLC; AFT INDUSTRY NV, LLC;
    AND A&D DYNASTY TRUST,
    Real Parties in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION
    This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a
    district court order denying a motion to dismiss. Having considered the
    petition, answer, reply, and record, we conclude that our extraordinary and
    discretionary intervention is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170;
    Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Cou,rt, 
    124 Nev. 193
    , 197, 
    179 P.3d 556
    , 559 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228,
    SUPREME COURT
    OF      
    88 P.3d 840
    , 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    107 Nev. 674
    ,
    NEVADA
    (0) 1947A
    22- 55pLk
    677, 679, 
    818 P.2d 849
    , 851, 853 (1991). In particular, interlocutory writ
    relief is generally not available because the district court's order may be
    challenged on appeal from final judgment, providing an adequate legal
    remedy. See Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 559. And we
    conclude that petitioners have not shown that we should consider the
    petition on the grounds that either (1) there's no factual dispute and the
    district court was clearly obligated to dismiss pursuant to a statute or rule
    or (2) an important legal issue requires clarification and judicial economy
    favors entertaining the petition.          See id. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 559.
    Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.'
    p ,,1.6.•44.10' :.N
    Parraguirre            ',,,,i
    C.J.             / Act, x
    Hardesty
    J.
    J.
    Stiglich                                        Cadish
    Ada,.                                                          J.
    Pickering                                      Herndon
    cc:       Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge
    Fennemore Craig P.C./Reno
    Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
    Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Reno
    Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP/Washington DC
    Cooper & Kirk PLLC/Wash DC
    Campbell & Williams
    Law Offices of John Benedict
    John W. Hofsaess
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    'The Honorable Abbi Silver having retired, this matter was decided
    SUPREME COURT   by a six-justice court.
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) I947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 84573

Filed Date: 11/14/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/15/2022