Opinion
No. 64596
02-13-2014
ASPEN MANUFACTURING HOLDINGS, INC. F/K/A ASPEN MANUFACTURING, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN NEVADA, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE SEASONS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A NEVADA NONPROFIT CORPORATION; RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF NEVADA, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN NEVADA; AND RED ROCK MECHANICAL, LLC, A NEVADA COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order partially denying a motion to dismiss in a construction defect action.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Writ relief is not available, however, when an adequate and speedy legal remedy exists, and the right to appeal is generally considered to be such a remedy. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Moreover, it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844.
Having considered petitioner's arguments, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. Id. Specifically, the arguments raised in petitioner's writ petition do not appear to be dispositive of the underlying action, and petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from a final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; Westpark Owners' Ass'n v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 349, 357, 360-61, 167 P.3d 421, 427, 429-30 (2007) (recognizing that a homeowners' association may pursue common-law claims against a defendant even when the defendant is not subject to NRS Chapter 40's scheme). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
__________, J.
Pickering
__________, J.
Parraguirre
__________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge
Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
Canepa Riedy & Rubino
Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk