Nuveda, Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Terry)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
NUVEDA, LLC, No. 82767
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
FILE
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
FEB 1 6 21M
ELIZAI3ETH GOFF GONZALEZ,
EUZABEiti A. BROWN
DISTRICT JUDGE, CLERK le NPREME COURT
Respondents, By 5.•/
DEPUTY CLERK 9
and
SHANE M. TERRY,
.Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition or,
alternatively, mandamus challenging a district court order denying a
motion for judgment based on preclusion grounds.
We have reviewed the petition and its supporting
documentation and are not persuaded that our discretionary and
extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Direct Grading & Paving,
LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 137 Nev., Adv, Op. 31, 491 P.3d 13, 17
(2021) (stating that the decision to entertain a writ petition is solely within
our discretion); see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth judicial Dist. Court, 133
Nev. 816, 821, 407 P.3d 702, 707 (2017) (stating that the
"petitioner.. . bears the burden of [showing] that writ relief is warrantee).
First, the petition appears premature in that it does not appear that the
district court has denied petitioner NuVeda, LLC's (NuVeda) motion to
dismiss or grant summary judgment on real party in interest Shane Terry's
clahns. Rather, it appears that the district court denied NuVeda's
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
01) I 947A
-0
subsequent motion wherein it asked the district court to rule on its previous
motion to dismiss or grant summary judgment. It is inappropriate for this
court to address an issue "by the extraordinary writ of mandamus before
the district court has dealt with [the issue]." See Archon, 133 Nev. at 825,
407 P.3d at 710 (quoting Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 560 F.3d 976, 984 (9th
Cir. 2009)). Second, NuVeda has not shown that it lacks an adequate legal
remedy. See Bd. of Parole Conun'rs. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court
(Thompson), 135 Nev. 398, 400-01, 451 P.3d 73, 76 (2019) (stating that
mandamus "is not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" and that an appeal is
generally an adequate remedy). For these reasons, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Silver
Cadish Pickering
Piek. J.
cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge
Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 11.
Flynn Giudici
Law Office of Mitchell Stipp
Mushkin & Coppedge
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
KM 1947A
at:14;1•Z'