Premiere Auctions, Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Braneff)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
PREMIERE AUCTIONS, LLC, A No. 85344
DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY,
Petitioner,
vs.
F t:,
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, SEP 2uLi
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
• 7.7
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE K LiFi:Lr. •
NADIA KRALL, DISTRICT JUDGE, DEP r'f aKizz
Respondents,
and
LINDA BRANEFF, AN INDIVIDUAL,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging
a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a personal
injury action.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's
discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners
bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such
relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88
P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy
precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is
not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in
SUPREME COuRT
OF
NEVADA
0.17.1•
nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from
a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we
are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. As a
general rule, "judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate
against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying
motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment." State ex rel. Dep't
of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as
modified by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d
233, 238 (2002); ,see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343,
1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (recognizing that this court generally will
not entertain writ petitions challenging the denial of a motion for summary
judgment). Although the rule 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), petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final
judgment below would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate legal
remedy. See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre
, J. , J.
Hardesty Stiglich
cc: Hon. Nadia Krall, District Judge
Messner Reeves LLP
Cogburn Law Offices
Eighth District Court Clerk
2