Kim, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Chisiu)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOON YOUNG KIM, M.D., AN No. 85244 INDIVIDUAL; FIELDEN, HANSON,

ISAACS, MIYADA, ROBISON, YEH,

LTD., A NEVADA PROFESSIONAL FILED CORPORATION, D/B/A USAP-

NEVADA; AND DIGNITY HEALTH, SEP 23 2022 D/B/A ST. ROSE DOMINICAN E11ZŠE A. BROWN CLE • F PREME COURT HOSPITAL-SIENA CAMPUS,

Petitioners, DEM !CLERK vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE

CARLI LYNN KIERNY, DISTRICT

JUDGE,

Respondents, and

LIVIU RADU CHISIU, AS SPECIAL

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE

OF ALINA BADOI, DECEASED; AND

LIVIU RADU CHISIU, AS PARENT

AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF

SOPHIA RELINA CHISIU, A MINOR,

AS HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF ALINA

BADOI, DECEASED,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to grant a motion for summary judgment.

The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within the discretion of this court. Smith o. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

Z - etsci relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). A writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a legally required act or to cure an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. u. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). This court will generally not exercise its discretion to consider writ petitions that challenge district court orders denying summary judgment rnotions. State ex rel. Dep't Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 662 P.2d 1338 (1983). However, the rule under Thompson is not absolute. See Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Di,st. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142- 43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006). This court may consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying summary judgment motions "where no disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss an action." Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1345, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). Having considered the petition and the accompanying documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted. Here, petitioners asserted that the district court was required, as a matter of law, to dismiss the underlying matter under NRS 41A.097(2) based on the filing of a complaint after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. However, the district court found that there was "genuine issues of material fact" as to whether real parties in interest had been placed on inquiry notice, and therefore disputed factual SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

(o) 19471 issues exist. Accordingly, this case does not fall under the limited exception to the general rule in Smith. Although the rule under Thompson is not absolute, petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. Interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. For these reasons, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

,C.J. Parraguirre rt i -- - A . r47P Hardesty-

.1444(.1%-.0 Stiglich cc: Hon. Carli Lynn Kierny, District Judge

John H. Cotton & Associates, Ltd.

Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas

Christiansen Trial Lawyers

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

10) 14-17A