Fiore v. Dist. Ct. (Estate Of Ben-Kely)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FELICE J. FIORE; AND SPEEDVEGAS, No. 83590 LLC,

Petitioners, vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN

AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND

FILED THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ALLF, APR 2 9 2022 DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZiDETH A. DROWN Respondents, ;,ENK • F17REME COURT .

D and DEPUTY 4"4-1.

CLERJ ) ESTATE OF GIL BEN-KELY BY

ANTONELLA BEN-KELY, THE DULY

APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

ESTATE AND AS THE WIDOW AND HEIR

OF DECEDENT GIL BEN-KELY; SHON

BEN-KELY, SON AND HEIR OF

DECEDENT GIL BEN-KELY; NATHALIE

BEN-KELY-SCO1T, DAUGHTER AND

HEIR OF THE DECEDENT GIL BEN-

KELY; GWENDOLYN WARD, AS

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

ESTATE OF CRMG SHERWOOD,

DECEASED; GWENDOLYN WARD,

INDWIDUALLY, AND AS SURVIVING

SPOUSE OF CRAIG SHERWOOD,

DECEASED; AND GWENDOLYN

SHERWOOD, AS MOTHER AND

NATURAL GUARDIAN OF ZANE

SHERWOOD, SURVIVING MINOR CHILD

OF CRAIG SHERWOOD, DECEASED,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

SUPREME COURT

Of

NEVADA (CO I947A - sa This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court's denial of petitioners motion for summary judgment in a tort action. Having considered petitioners' argument and the supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted as to petitioners' request for mandamus relief. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (stating that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief and recognizing that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted, unless the district court is obligated to dismiss or summarily adjudicate the action or an important issue of law requires clarification); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (observing that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss or for summary judgment); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d. 849, 851 (1991) (observing that issuance of the writ is subject to this court's discretion).

Petitioners do not address the general rule that the court will not entertain writ petitions challenging district court orders denying summary judgment, and we conclude that the petition presents no reason to deviate from it. See ANSE, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 862, 867, 192 P.3d 738, 742 (2008) (declining to consider such petitions "unless summary judgment is clearly required by a statute or rule, or an important issue of law requires clarification"). Insofar as petitioners seek a writ of prohibition, they provide no cogent argument regarding that relief,

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

0) I 947A agaglo and we need not consider it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Parraguirre ..

J.

Cadish cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas Taylor Anderson LLP

ER Injury Attorneys

Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP/Las Vegas

Brenske Andreevski & Krametbauer

Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP/Los Angeles Eighth District Court Clerk

'We deny petitioners request for a stay as moot.

The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (01 I947A 4401m

I