U.S. Bank, National Ass'n v. Colorful Rain, LLC

 ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition, Docket No.
64817, and an appeal, Docket No. 64822, both challenging the same
district court order denying a motion to set aside an order clarifying a
default judgment in a quiet title action.
"This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the
proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions, when such
proceedings are in excess of the jurisdiction of the district court." Greene
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 115 Nev. 391, 393, 990 P.2d 184, 185
(1999); NRS 34.320. Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy, and it is
petitioner's burden to demonstrate that this court's intervention is
warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d
840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the parties' arguments, we conclude that
our intervention is warranted. 1 Id. Specifically, a final judgment was
entered in the underlying action in September 2012, as that judgment
resolved all of the underlying action's pending matters. Lee v. GNLV
Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000); Valley Bank of Nev. v.
Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994). "[O]nce a final
judgment is entered, the district court lacks jurisdiction to reopen [a case],
absent a proper and timely motion under the Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure." SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 608, 612,
'In particular, while we recognize Colorful Rain, LLC's arguments
regarding the effect of the recorded lis pendens, we are not persuaded that
this argument and the doctrine of harmless error warrant a different
resolution of this writ petition.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19MA e
TaIrMSAVierA44/.4189D144640431 .4463/415.."1:1610,-, 22E32:ZEISSI1aF
173 P.3d 715, 717 (2007). Thus, if Colorful Rain, LLC wanted to reopen
the finally adjudicated case, such a request needed to be made in
conformity with the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Colorful
Rain's June 2013 motion for clarification of order failed in this regard, the
district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion. Id.; see NRCP 59(e)
(providing that a party must file a motion to alter or amend a judgment
within ten days from when written notice of entry of the order is served on
that party). Accordingly, our intervention is warranted. SFPP, L.P., 123
Nev. at 612, 173 P.3d at 718; Greene, 115 Nev. at 396, 990 P.2d at 187.
We therefore
ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK
OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION directing the
district court to vacate its July 30, 2013, order and precluding the district
court from conducting any further proceedings in District Court Case No.
A658387. 2
Parra guirre
Douglas
J.
2As the order being challenged is not an appealable order under
statute or court rule, and in light of our resolution of this writ petition,
Colorful Rain's unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal in Docket No.
64822 is granted.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 4V0
cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas
Charles L. Geisendorf, Ltd.
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 947k e
MtStr=