Opinion
No. 80510
02-19-2020
ACE CAB LLC, a Domestic Limited-liability Company; and Tibebu Gebremichael, Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Joseph Hardy, Jr., District Judge, Respondents, and Robert J. Lang, an Individual and as Parent and Guardian of; Ivana Lang, a Minor; Antonio Lang, a Minor; Rebecca Lang, an Individual; Daniel Lang, an Individual; Francisco Lang, an Individual; and Administrator for the Estate of Lidia Yuejun Lang, Real Parties in Interest.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas Wheeler Trigg & O’Donnell LLP Shook & Stone, Chtd.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas
Wheeler Trigg & O’Donnell LLP
Shook & Stone, Chtd.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, prohibition challenges a district court order granting real parties in interests’ partial motion for summary judgment in a tort matter.
This court has original jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus and prohibition, 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). As a general rule, "judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders [granting] motions for summary judgment." State ex rel. Dept 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 also In re Irrevocable Trust Agreement of 1979, 130 Nev. 597, 601, 331 P.3d 881, 884 (2014) (noting this court generally declines to exercise its discretion to consider petitions challenging orders granting summary judgment). Although the rule is not absolute, see Int’l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court , 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), 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
In light of this order, we vacate the order granting petitioners’ motion for submission of video exhibit "D" to petitioners’ petition for a writ of mandamus, entered on February 18, 2020.