Phillip Morris Usa Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Rowan)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., A FOREIGN No. 84805

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

V5.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FLED

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ~

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AUG 11 2022

AND THE HONORABLE VERONICA

BARISICH, DISTRICT JUDGE, CLC OF S)PREME COURT

Respondents, BALM and

DOLLY ROWAN, AS AN INDIVIDUAL,

AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR

THE ESTATE OF NOREEN

THOMPSON; NAVONA COLLISON, AS

AN INDIVIDUAL; RUSSELL

THOMPSON, AS AN INDIVIDUAL; R.J.

REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, A

FOREIGN CORPORATION; LIGGETT

GROUP, LLC, A FOREIGN

CORPORATION; QUICK STOP

MARKET, LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED

LIABILITY COMPANY; JOE’S BAR,

INC., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION;

THE POKER PALACE, A DOMESTIC

CORPORATION; SILVER NUGGET

GAMING, LLC, D/B/A SILVER NUGGET

CASINO, A DOMESTIC LIMITED

LIABILITY COMPANY; AND JERRY’S

NUGGET, A DOMESTIC

CORPORATION,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in an action Supreme Court

OF

NEVADA (0) 19474 <tr 3 z -2S| Y brought under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later appeal was available); 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, 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). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of motions to dismiss); see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 55, ___ P.3d ____ (2022) (denying writ relief in a similar challenge to an order denying a motion to dismiss in a Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act action). We therefore

Silver Gibbons

1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

Supreme Court oF

NEVADA > (0) 19474 <RE cc: Hon. Veronica Barisich, District Judge

Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC/Las Vegas Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP/Kansas City

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas

Claggett & Sykes Law Firm

Bailey Kennedy

Kelley Uustal/Fort Lauderdale

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP/Miami

King & Spalding LLP/Atlanta

King & Spalding, LLP/Charlotte

Eighth District Court Clerk

Supreme Court

OF

NEVADA 3 (0) 187A RE