Sutter Creek Homeowners Ass'n v. Dist. Ct.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SUTTER CREEK HOMEOWNERS No. 71377 ASSOCIATION; AND SFR

INVESTMENTS POOLS 1, LLC,

Petitioners, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, OCT 0 3 2017 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EL ETElp OWN CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE • 3, JERRY A. WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE,

Respondents, and

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a quiet title action.' Having considered the parties' arguments and the record, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is unwarranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). The parties' arguments in this writ petition have evolved from those that were presented to the district court such that this writ petition raises legal issues that were not first considered by the district court. Based on the parties' arguments that were intelligibly presented in district court and subsequently presented in this writ petition, we are not persuaded that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously

"As indicated in this court's October 14, 2016, order, we have elected to construe this petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus.

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

(01 1947A 0). exercised its discretion in declining to dismiss Nationstar Mortgage's entire complaint or that dismissal of the entire complaint was required pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule. See Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (explaining that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (observing that writ relief with respect to the denial of a motion to dismiss is appropriate only when dismissal is required "pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule"); cf. United States v. U.S. Dist. Court, 384 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2004) (declining to consider as a basis for mandamus an argument not presented to the district court because a district court's decision cannot be "so egregiously wrong as to constitute clear error where the purported error was never brought to its attention"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, J.

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge

Kim Gilbert Ebron

Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP

Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas

Gerrard Cox & Larsen

HOA Lawyers Group, LLC

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 194Th e