DocketNumber: 62453
Filed Date: 9/16/2014
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
petitioner's right to petition. Petitioner thereafter filed this petition for writ relief ten months later. As an initial matte, this court must address whether petitioner's writ petition is procedurally proper. The Nevada Legislature amended the anti-SLAPP statutes in October 2013, providing for a direct appeal from a district court order denying a special motion to dismiss. See NRS 41.670(4). The anti-SLAPP statutes previously referred to an appeal, and the Legislature's amendments to Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes appear to clarify the statute. See In re Estate of Thomas,116 Nev. 492
, 495,998 P.2d 560
, 562 (2000) (explaining "that '[w]here a former statute is amended, or a doubtful interpretation of a former statute rendered certain by subsequent legislation, it has been held that such amendment is persuasive evidence of what the Legislature intended by the first statute" (quoting Sheriff, Washoe Cnty. v. Smith,91 Nev. 729
, 734,542 P.2d 440
, 443 (1975))); see also Pub. Emps. Benefits Program v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't,124 Nev. 138
, 157,179 P.3d 542
, 554-55 (2008) (stating that "when a statute's doubtful interpretation is made clear through subsequent legislation, we may consider the subsequent legislation persuasive evidence of what the Legislature originally intended" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Metz v. Metz,120 Nev. 786
, 792,101 P.3d 779
, 783-84 (2004) (noting that the Legislature's change to a statute demonstrates legislative intent). Petitioner's writ petition challenging the denial of his special motion to dismiss is therefore procedurally improper, as the order was independently appealable. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,120 Nev. 222
, 224-25,88 P.3d 840
, 841 (2004) (holding that writ relief is not available where the petitioner has a plain, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A age. speedy, and adequate remedy in the form of an appeal and writ relief is not available to correct an untimely notice of appeal). Further, petitioner's ten-month delay in filing his petition prevents this court from treating his petition as an appeal of the challenged order. See NRAP 4(a)(1). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. 1 J. J. cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge Joe Panicaro Martin G. Crowley Washoe District Court Clerk 'The clerk of this court shall file the documents that petitioner submitted to this court and that were provisionally received in this court between April 1, 2013, and January 24, 2014, and in light of this order, we deny all pending requests for relief as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e