Summary
In Valley Health, the Nevada Supreme Court recognized the similarities between federal magistrate judges and discovery commissioners, who both submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations to the district court for approval, and held that principals of waiver apply to issues resolved in the first instance by a discovery commissioner.
Summary of this case from Highroller Transp. v. Nev. Transp. Auth.Opinion
No. 57206.
01-25-2011
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC d/b/a Centennial Hills Hospital Medical Center, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, in and for the COUNTY OF CLARK; and The Honorable Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge, Respondents, and Roxanne Cagnina, an Individual; American Nursing Services, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation; and Steven Dale Farmer, an Individual, Real Parties in Interest.
Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas Law Office of Neal Hyman Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Mandelbaum, Ellerton & McBride
Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas
Law Office of Neal Hyman
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Mandelbaum, Ellerton & McBride
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders dismissing a complaint against two defendants without notice to petitioner, another defendant, and an order regarding discovery and trial scheduling.
Having considered the petition and its exhibits, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention by way of mandamus is warranted at this time. NRAP 21(b)(1) ; Smith v. District Court, 107 Nev. 674, 818 P.2d 849 (1991). The dismissal of the two defendants from the underlying case does not bar petitioner from bringing contribution or indemnity claims against them in an independent action; notably, such claims are not ripe until petitioner pays damages to the plaintiff in the underlying action. Doctors Company v. Vincent, 120 Nev. 644, 650, 98 P.3d 681, 686 (2004) (“The remedies of contribution and implied, i.e., noncontractual indemnity allow parties extinguishing tort liabilities by way of settlement or payment of judgments to seek recovery from other potential tortfeasors under equitable principles .”). Moreover, petitioner was free to include such claims in its original answer and failed to do so, and it has offered no reason for why it waited more than a year to seek to amend its answer to include claims against American Nursing Services, Inc. Under these circumstances, we conclude that writ relief is not warranted.
Also, issues regarding discovery and scheduling are within the district court's discretion, and petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court has manifestly abused its discretion in these matters so that writ relief is warranted. Int'l Fidelity Ins. v. State of Nevada, 114 Nev. 1061, 967 P.2d 804 (1998) (stating that the district court has broad discretion in addressing internal matters); Hetter v. District Court, 110 Nev. 513, 874 P .2d 762 (1994) (providing that writ relief is generally unavailable for discovery matters, with two exceptions not applicable here).
Notably, petitioner is free to raise all of these issues in an appeal from any adverse judgment, and thus, has an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170 ; Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 88 P.3d 840 (2004). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.