Opinion
No. 69772
03-18-2016
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order dismissing, for failure to state a viable claim, the portion of a complaint seeking to renew a judgment against real party in interest Joyce King. Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel legally-required action by an inferior state tribunal, but the writ generally will not issue when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Mineral Cty. v. State, Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Res., 117 Nev. 235, 242-43, 20 P.3d 800, 805 (2001). Here, petitioner has indicated that, after King was dismissed, the underlying case was removed to the federal district court. As a result, the respondent district court lacks jurisdiction, and petitioner's remedy properly lies with the federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(d) and 1450 (2012); Ackerman v. ExxonMobil Corp., 734 F.3d 237, 249 (4th Cir. 2013); Laguna Vill., Inc. v. Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., 672 P.2d 882, 885 (Cal. 1983). Accordingly, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted or appropriate, Mineral Cty., 117 Nev. 235, 20 P.3d 800 (denying a writ petition out of deference to the proper, federal court forum), and we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/s/_________, J.
Hardesty
/s/_________, J.
Saitta
/s/_________, J.
Pickering cc. Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Christensen Law Offices, LLC
Harper Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk