Nuveda, Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Terry)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

NUVEDA, LLC, No. 82767 Petitioner, vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

FILE CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE

FEB 1 6 21M ELIZAI3ETH GOFF GONZALEZ,

EUZABEiti A. BROWN DISTRICT JUDGE, CLERK le NPREME COURT Respondents, By 5.•/ DEPUTY CLERK 9 and

SHANE M. TERRY, .Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition or, alternatively, mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion for judgment based on preclusion grounds.

We have reviewed the petition and its supporting documentation and are not persuaded that our discretionary and extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Direct Grading & Paving, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 137 Nev., Adv, Op. 31, 491 P.3d 13, 17 (2021) (stating that the decision to entertain a writ petition is solely within our discretion); see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 821, 407 P.3d 702, 707 (2017) (stating that the "petitioner.. . bears the burden of [showing] that writ relief is warrantee). First, the petition appears premature in that it does not appear that the district court has denied petitioner NuVeda, LLC's (NuVeda) motion to dismiss or grant summary judgment on real party in interest Shane Terry's clahns. Rather, it appears that the district court denied NuVeda's SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

01) I 947A subsequent motion wherein it asked the district court to rule on its previous motion to dismiss or grant summary judgment. It is inappropriate for this court to address an issue "by the extraordinary writ of mandamus before the district court has dealt with [the issue]." See Archon, 133 Nev. at 825, P.3d at 710 (quoting Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 560 F.3d 976, 984 (9th Cir. 2009)). Second, NuVeda has not shown that it lacks an adequate legal remedy. See Bd. of Parole Conun'rs. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Thompson), 135 Nev. 398, 400-01, 451 P.3d 73, 76 (2019) (stating that mandamus "is not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" and that an appeal is generally an adequate remedy). For these reasons, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Silver

Cadish Pickering Piek. J.

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge

Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 11.

Flynn Giudici

Law Office of Mitchell Stipp

Mushkin & Coppedge

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

KM 1947A at:14;1•Z'