Dayco Funding Corp. v. Dist. Ct. (Mona, Jr.)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DAYCO FUNDING CORPORATION, A No. 78785 CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

Petitioner, vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE

ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, JUL 1 0 2019 DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABETH &pR±OW11. _ CLERK? TISEME COURT Respondents, .

DEPUTY CLERK and

MICHAEL J. MONA, JR. AND RHONDA

H. MONA, AS TRUSTEES OF THE

MONA FAMILY TRUST; NORMAN

FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A

CALIFORNIA LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP; A.O.E., LLC, A

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANY; HAMID M. MAHBAN, AN

INDWIDUAL; MICHAEL J. MONA, JR.,

AN INDIVIDUAL; ISAAC NORMAN, AN

INDWIDUAL; AND ISAAC NORMAN

AND HOMA NORMAN AS TRUSTEES

OF THE NORMAN FAMILY TRUST,

DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1989,

INDIVIDUALLY AND IN ITS

CAPACITY AS GENERAL PARTNER

OF THE NORMAN FAMILY LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of• mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order in a real property action. Having SUPREME Count considered the petition and supporting documentation, we conclude that our OF

NEVADA extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. Intl Game (0) 1947A ea Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) ("A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires . . . or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion."); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). In particular, we note that petitioner has filed a cross-appeal from the district court's order, and, to the extent the order is not a final judgment, petitioner may appeal after a final judgment is entered. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that the right to appeal a final judgment generally precludes writ relief). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

C.J.

Hardesty

J. Stiglich cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Kolesar & Leatham, Chtd.

Marquis Aurbach Coffing

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1047A .:ADD