Smoketree Grp., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Newton)
Smoketree Grp., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Newton)
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
SMOKETREE GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA No. 80966 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND SMOKETREE, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, INCLUSIVE, Petitioners, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUN 2 4 2020 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ELIZABETR .4. eRrmt IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; CLERK OF S 'PREME COURT BY AND THE HONORABLE MARY KAY HOLTHUS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CARSON WAYNE NEWTON, AN INDIVIDUAL; KATHLEEN NEWTON, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND WN ARAMUS ARABIANS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting a motion for preliminary injunction in a personal property action.
Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted because petitioners had an adequate remedy at law. See NRAP 3A(b)(3) (providing that appeals may be taken from orders granting an injunction); 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 and that the right to appeal is SUPREME Collin OF NEVADA 40) 1947A esABOD generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); Smith v. 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). "Additionally, writ relief is not available to correct an untimely notice of appeal." Pan, 120 Nev. at 224-25, 88 P.3d at 841. We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre
, J.
Hardesty
, J.
cc: Hon. Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge Wiley Petersen The Jimmerson Law Firm, P.0 Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 1947A malt.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.