Lemper, D.O. v. Dist. Ct. (Ideal Bus. Partners, Inc.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Lemper, D.O. v. Dist. Ct. (Ideal Bus. Partners, Inc.)

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BRIAN A. LEMPER, D.O.; BRIAN A. No. 75916 LEMPER, D.O., LTD.; THE CENTER FOR SURGICAL INTERVENTION, LLC; AND AMERICAN REGENERATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Petitioners, vs. FILE THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUL 20 2018 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ELIZABETH A. BROWN IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY AND THE HONORABLE MARK R. DEPUTY CLERK

DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and IDEAL BUSINESS PARTNERS, INC., Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss an interpleader action. The decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is purely discretionary. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). We decline to exercise that discretion in this case for two reasons. First, we are not convinced that this matter fits an exception to the general rule that this court will not exercise its discretion to consider a writ petition that challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss, particularly given that the district court's decision was without prejudice. See generally Smith v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (acknowledging exceptions to general rule (1) "where considerations of sound judicial economy and administration militate[ in favor of granting [the] petition[ r such as to prevent a gross miscarriage of SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A -2-772.3 justice, (2) "where no disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss the action," or (3) where "an important issue of law requires clarification"). Second, the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment, so petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

P'eitabf. Gue , J.

Gibbons

/ its istoti ,J. Hardesty

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Jeffrey It Albregts, LLC Ayon Law, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2

Reference

Status
Unpublished