IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GRAND CANYON VILLAGE No. 66603 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A NEVADA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, OCT 20 2017 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 5.

SUSAN JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, By f l DEPUT• ittr4 Respondents, and VEGA SPECIALTIES, LLC, RCR PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL, INC.; LPC DEVELOPMENT, INC. D/B/A BIG SKY DEVELOPMENT, INC.; GRAND CANYON INVESTORS, LLC; NEVADA GYPSUM FLOORS, INC.; LDI MECHANICAL, INC.; WESTCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; GENERAL ALUMINUM, LLC F/K/A GENERAL ALUMINUM COMPANY OF TEXAS, LP; COOPER ROOFING CO.; HENDERSON FLOOR COVERINGS, INC. D/B/A CLOUD CARPETS & DRAPERIES; JOHNSON ELECTRIC, INC.; AND QUALITY IRON, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order granting a motion for partial summary SUPREME COURT judgment in a homeowners' association's construction defect action.

OF NEVADA Petitioner Grand Canyon Homeowners Association initiated a construction (0) 1947A .9e4 /7-3(0019 defect action on behalf of the unit owners in the association against real parties in interest. During the litigation, several unit owners sold their homes. Real parties in interest filed a motion seeking to have the original unit owners dismissed from the action and to prevent the subsequent purchasers from joining the action. The district court granted the motion, holding that (1) petitioner cannot represent the former unit owners of the units that sold, (2) petitioner may continue to litigate claims concerning those homes that did not change ownership, and (3) petitioner may represent subsequent unit owners if the former unit owners assigned their claims to the subsequent unit owners.

We recently addressed this issue in High Noon at Arlington Ranch Homeowner's Ass'n v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 133 Nev., Adv.

Op. 66, P.3d (2017). Therein, we held that an HOA could continue to represent subsequent unit owners in representative actions under NRS 116.3102(1)(d) (2007) because the subsequent unit owners were now the members of the association. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to vacate its September 5, 2014, order granting partial summary judgment and to enter an order consistent with this court's

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A holding in High Noon at Arlington Ranch Homeowner's Ass'n v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 133 Nev, Adv. Op. 66, P.3d (2017). 1

1 1, itetA; Hardesty

Laltisal Parraguirre en dettiatli Stiglich ,J.

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Angius & Terry LLP/Las Vegas Luh & Associates Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Wolfe & Wyman LLP Bullard, Brown & Beal, LLP Shumway Van Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Las Vegas Cooper Levenson, P.A.

Eighth District Court Clerk

'We deny petitioner's alternative request for a writ of prohibition. We also deny real parties in interest's motion to submit additional authorities because it seeks to introduce issues beyond the scope of petitioner's writ petition. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 229, 88 P.3d 840, SUPREME COURT OF (2004) (explaining the limited scope of writ review).

NEVADA

(0) 1947A e 3