State, Comm'R Of Ins. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Chur)
State, Comm'R Of Ins. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Chur)
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE FOR No. 81857 THE STATE OF NEVADA AS RECEIVER OF LEWIS AND CLARK LTC RICK RETENTION GROUP, INC., Petitioner, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, NOV 11 2020 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF I A EIP.C%-41 PREM:E COLIRT CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BY Puri C.LIZR: NANCY L. ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ROBERT CHUR; STEVE FOGG; MARK GARBER; CAROL HARTER; ROBERT HURLBUT; BARBARA LUMPKIN; JEFF MARSHALL; ERIC STICKELS; UNI-TER UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT CORP.; UNI-TER CLAIMS SERVICES CORP.; AND U.S. RE CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioner's motion to amend in a tort action.
Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted because petitioner has an adequate remedy. See 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 generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 SUPFIEME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) I947A 44ggpr4 2o -(4ici6d 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). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
-6.94' Parraguirre
J.
Hardesty
J.
Cadish
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Hutchison & Steffen, LLC/Las Vegas Lipson Neilson P.C.
McDonald Carano LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.