Harrison v. Dist. Ct. (Denniston)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ARTHUR HARRISON, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 72272 Petitioner, vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR

THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE

FEL D HONORABLE ELIZABETH GOFF MAR 17 2617 GONZALEZ, DISTRICT JUDGE,

Respondents, OLE I and J CLER; BRUCE DENNISTON, AS GUARDIAN FOR

THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF JEREMY

DENNISTON; BRUCE DENNISTON AS

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

ESTATE OF KERRI DENNISTON AND ON

BEHALF OF STATUTORY WRONGFUL

DEATH BENEFICIARIES JEREMY

DENNISTON, ASHLEY TEXLEY AND

MICHAEL DENNISTON; ERNEST STEVE

AND RACHEL UNDERLAND, HUSBAND

AND WIFE, AND THE MARITAL

COMMUNITY COMPRISED THEREOF AND

THE NATURAL PARENTS OF GARRETT

UNDERLAND; STACY TAYLOR, THE

COURT-APPOINTED PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF

GARRETT UNDERLAND; AND LEWIS

KINDER AND CHERYL KINDER,

HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND THE MARITAL

COMMUNITY COMPRISED THEREOF,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or for forum non conveniens.

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

(0/ 1947A e Having considered the petition and the supporting documents, we conclude that our intervention is unwarranted, as real parties in interest have made a prima facie showing that petitioner is subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada. See Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 109 Nev. 687, 693, 857 P.2d 740, 744 (1993) ("In determining whether a prima facie showing has been made, the district court is not acting as a fact finder. It accepts properly supported proffers of evidence by a plaintiff as true."). Nor are we persuaded on the record presented that the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. See Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 35, 350 P.3d 392, 395-96 (2015) (reviewing a district court's decision regarding forum non conveniens dismissal for an abuse of discretion and recognizing that exceptional circumstances must exist to support such a dismissal); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibboris Pickering cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Reno Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Las Vegas Law Office of Julie A. Mersch

Coluccio Law

Friedman Rubin/Bremerton

Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.

SUPREME COURT Eighth District Court Clerk

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A m:giDE)