Las Vegas Paving Corp. Vs. Dist. Ct. (All Net Dev., Inc.)

2021-11-02

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition is denied, as Las Vegas Paving has an adequate alternative remedy through appeal and extraordinary intervention is not warranted.

Las Vegas Paving Corporation sought extraordinary relief from the Nevada Supreme Court by petitioning for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to overturn a district court order that denied its motion for summary judgment in a mechanics lien dispute. The Supreme Court declined to intervene, applying its established precedent that it rarely exercises discretionary power to review district court orders denying summary judgment motions.

The court determined that Las Vegas Paving had an adequate alternative legal remedy available through the normal appellate process. Because the underlying case was scheduled for trial in the following month and the issues could be raised on appeal after a final judgment, the court found no justification for extraordinary writ relief. The Supreme Court emphasized that interlocutory review of summary judgment denials would not promote judicial economy or resolve the entire controversy.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Availability of writ of mandamus for review of summary judgment denials
Adequacy of appellate review as alternative legal remedy
Judicial economy and timing of interlocutory relief

Procedural posture

Las Vegas Paving Corporation petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for an extraordinary writ challenging the district court's denial of its summary judgment motion in a mechanics lien matter.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAS VEGAS PAVING CORPORATION, No. 83227

A NEVADA CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE

ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ,

DISTRICT JUDGE,

FILED

Respondents, NOV 0 2 2021

and

A. BROWN

ALL NET DEVELOPMENT, INC., A UPREME COURT

NEVADA COMPANY; ALL NET, LLC, A CLERK

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANY; DRIBBLE DUNK, A

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANY; SAHARA LAS VEGAS

CORP., A NEVADA CORPORATION;

ALL NET LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANY; SUBGALLAGHER

INVESTMENT TRUST, A/K/A SUB

GALLAGHER INVESTMENT TRUST

AND SUB-GALLAGHER INVESTMENT

TRUST; P. MOORE, AS TRUSTEE; AND

JOSEPH R. BERLIN, AS INDIVIDUAL

SURETY,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition

challenges a district court order denying summary judgment in a

SUPREME COURT

NEVADA

i0.47A

-31q

mechanics lien matter. Real parties in interest have timely filed an answer

to the petition, as directed, and petitioner has filed a reply.

Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and supporting

documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention

is warranted. Walker v. Second Judicial Dist, Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80,

476 P.3d 1194, 1197 (2020) (recognizing that, for purposes of traditional

mandamus, petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief

sought and the absence of an alternate legal remedy). Subject to very few

exceptions, we have declined to exercise our discretion to entertain writ

petitions that challenge district court orders denying summary judgment.

Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280,

281 (1997). We decline to deviate from that rule here, particularly because

the underlying matter is set for trial next rnonth and because the issues

presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment, such that

petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy that precludes

writ relief. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Walker, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476

P.3d at 1198, 1199 (noting that an appeal is usually an adequate and speedy

legal remedy precluding writ relief and explaining that advisory mandamus

is generally not available to resolve factual disputes or ones in which the

petitioner does not demonstrate that our interlocutory consideration would

promote judicial economy); see also Moore v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96

Nev. 415, 416-17, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980) (declining to issue writ relief

SUPREME COURT

NEVADA

(Or 19,17A OS* 2

when doing so would not resolve the entire underlying controversy).

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

arraguirre

A44G4-.0 J.

Stiglich

Silver

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge

Marquis Aurbach Coffing

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP/Las Vegas

Joseph R. Berlin

Hanratty Law Group

P. Moore

Eighth District Court Clerk

'In light of this order, petitioner's motion to expedite, and real parties

in intereses motions for oral argument and to stay the district court

proceedings, are denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT

NEVADA

Iv47A adiSt3c,