Murray Vs. Dist. Ct. (Dubric)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL MURRAY; MICHAEL RENO; No. 82126 GERRIE WEAVER; MARCO

BAKHTIARI; AND MICHAEL

BRAUCHLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON

BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY ti rrf SITUATED, r Li Petitioners,

VS.

DEC I 0 2020 EUDY: .a.. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ODER 'PictOtiCi. COURT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, BY OZ:PUN IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE

KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT

JUDGE,

Respondents, and

JASMINKA DUBRIC; A CAB, LLC; A

CAB SERIES LLC; EMPLOYEE

LEASING COMPANY; AND

CREIGHTON J NADY,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of prohibition seeks to enjoin the district court in the underlying Minimum Wage Act action, Dubric v. A- Cab, et al, Case No. A-15-721063-C, from proceeding with any NRCP 23 class action settlement of claims that were already granted class action certification and proceeded to final judgment in a separate case, Michael Murray v. A Cab Taxi Service LLC and A Cab LLC, Case No. A-12-669926- C. Petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to allow petitioners counsel to opt out of Dubric on behalf of all Murray class members. Petitioners have moved to stay the district court proceedings SUPREME GRUM oç

NEVADA

7,0 — Litt ctZS- pending our consideration of this writ petition, real parties in interest have filed oppositions thereto, and petitioners filed a reply. Real parties in interest have filed answers to the petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus, as directed by this court.

Having reviewed the petition, answers, accompanying appendices, and affidavit from petitioners counsel regarding the continuance of the final fairness hearing, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted at this time. 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); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Petitioners will be allowed to participate in the final fairness hearing, and if aggrieved, petitioners may appeal from any judgment following that hearing. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. "

J. Gibb

.414G-L-0 J. Stiglich

J.

'In light of this decision, petitioners' motion for a stay is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT

Of

NEwoA 2

40) I947A .040. cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge

Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation

Rodriguez Law Offices, P.C.

Bourassa Law Group, LLC

Eighth District Court Clerk

'