Opinion
No. 57695.
03-24-2011
Thomas CICCARELLI, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE of Nevada, in and for The COUNTY OF CLARK; and The Honorable Susan Johnson, District Judge, Respondents, and Santa Fe Station, Inc. ; Bombard Electric, LLC; The Penta Building Group, LLC; and The Penta Building Group, Inc., Real Parties in Interest.
Gazda & Tadayon Cisneros, Clayson & Marias Pyatt Silvestri & Hanlon
Gazda & Tadayon
Cisneros, Clayson & Marias
Pyatt Silvestri & Hanlon
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to compel the district court to grant partial summary judgment in petitioner's favor.
Extraordinary writ relief “may only be issued in cases ‘where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy’ at law.” Sonia F. v. Dist. Ct., 125 Nev. 38, ––––, 215 P.3d 705, 707 (2009) (quoting NRS 34.330 ). As an appeal from the final judgment is usually an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief, Pan v.. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 88 P.3d 840 (2004), this court will generally not intervene to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss, unless “pursuant to clear authority ... the district court is obligated to dismiss an action,” Smith v. District Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344–45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997), or “an important issue of law needs clarification and public policy is served by this court's invocation of its original jurisdiction.” Sonia F., 125 Nev. at ––––, 215 P.3d at 707. “The interests of judicial economy ... will remain the primary standard by which this court exercises its discretion.” Id. at 1345, 950 P.2d at 281 ; see also County of Clark v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749, 752–53, 961 P.2d 754, 756–57 (discussing judicial economy as follows, “courts must also consider whether speedy resolution of the issue might promote economy in the litigation process or might lead to meaningful pretrial settlement.”) (citation omitted). Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted in this matter. NRAP 21(b)(1) ; Smith v. District Court, 107 Nev. 674, 818 P.2d 849 (1991). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.