Kim, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Chisiu)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JOON YOUNG KIM, M.D., AN No. 85244
INDIVIDUAL; FIELDEN, HANSON,
ISAACS, MIYADA, ROBISON, YEH,
LTD., A NEVADA PROFESSIONAL FILED
CORPORATION, D/B/A USAP-
NEVADA; AND DIGNITY HEALTH, SEP 23 2022
D/B/A ST. ROSE DOMINICAN E11ZŠE A. BROWN
CLE • F PREME COURT
HOSPITAL-SIENA CAMPUS,
Petitioners, DEM !CLERK
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
CARLI LYNN KIERNY, DISTRICT
JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
LIVIU RADU CHISIU, AS SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE
OF ALINA BADOI, DECEASED; AND
LIVIU RADU CHISIU, AS PARENT
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF
SOPHIA RELINA CHISIU, A MINOR,
AS HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF ALINA
BADOI, DECEASED,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to
compel the district court to grant a motion for summary judgment.
The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief
lies within the discretion of this court. Smith o. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
Z - etsci
relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in
determining whether to entertain a writ petition). A writ of mandamus is
available only to compel the performance of a legally required act or to cure
an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen.
Improvement Dist. u. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536
(1981). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is
warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d
840, 844 (2004).
This court will generally not exercise its discretion to consider
writ petitions that challenge district court orders denying summary
judgment rnotions. State ex rel. Dep't Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358,
662 P.2d 1338 (1983). However, the rule under Thompson is not absolute.
See Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Di,st. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-
43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006). This court may consider writ petitions
challenging district court orders denying summary judgment motions
"where no disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority
under a statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss an action."
Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1345, 950 P.2d 280,
281 (1997).
Having considered the petition and the accompanying
documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of
extraordinary writ is warranted. Here, petitioners asserted that the district
court was required, as a matter of law, to dismiss the underlying matter
under NRS 41A.097(2) based on the filing of a complaint after the expiration
of the applicable statute of limitations. However, the district court found
that there was "genuine issues of material fact" as to whether real parties
in interest had been placed on inquiry notice, and therefore disputed factual
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(o) 19471
issues exist. Accordingly, this case does not fall under the limited exception
to the general rule in Smith. Although the rule under Thompson is not
absolute, petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not
afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. Interlocutory review by
extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. For these reasons, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
,C.J.
Parraguirre
. rt
i
-- - A r47P
Hardesty-
.1444(.1%-.0
Stiglich
cc: Hon. Carli Lynn Kierny, District Judge
John H. Cotton & Associates, Ltd.
Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas
Christiansen Trial Lawyers
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
10) 14-17A