Golightly & Vannah, Pllc v. Dist. Ct. (Renown Reg'l. Med. Ctr.)

 In contrast, the action underlying this writ petition is an
interpleader action initiated by the attorney. In such an action, it is the
attorney, not his client, who is the plaintiff. Thus, as the plaintiff, the
attorney is a party to the action and has the right to appeal from any
adverse final judgement. See NRAP 3A(a). Moreover, in an interpleader
action, a final, appealable judgment is generally held to be one that grants
the interpleader request, discharges the plaintiff from further liability,
and adjudicates the claimants' competing interests in the funds placed
with the court. See, e.g., Abex Corp. v. Ski's Enters., Inc., 748 F.2d 513,
515 (9th Cir. 1984); Custom One—Hour Photo v. Citizens & S. Bank, 345
S.E.2d 147, 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986); Scruggs, Millette, PA. v. Merkel &
Cocke, 763 So. 2d 869, 872 (Miss. 2000); K & S Interests v. Tex. Am.
Bank/Dallas, 749 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988); see generally 44B
Am. Jur. 2d Interpleader § 81. Thus, in this case, petitioner has a right to
appeal from the challenged April 3, 2015, order, which discharged
petitioner and adjudicated the remaining non-defaulted claimants' claims
to the interpleaded funds. Because the right to appeal is generally a plain,
speedy, and adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief, NRS 34.160;
NRS 34.330; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124
Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008), we decline to consider this writ
petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Saitta
I CACI
Pickering
SURREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A sem
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Golightly & Vannah, PLLC
Maupin, Cox & LeGoy
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I 947A 420.