Las Vegas Paving v. Dist. Ct. (Turner)
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LAS VEGAS PAVING, No. 85477 Petitioner, vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, :t n IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF „r] FII CLARK; THE HONORABLE ADRIANA
ESCOBAR, DISTRICT JUDGE; AND
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL A. f3RowN JpREw, CHERRY, SENIOR DISTRICT COURT
CLERK JUDGE,
Respondents, and
DE'LOIS Y. TURNER,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to strike a request for a trial de novo and a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner asserts that Real Party in Interest failed to participate in the mandatory court-annexed arbitration program in good faith and therefore the district court should have stricken her request for a trial de novo.
A writ of mandamus is available when the petitioner lacks a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004).
"Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. After reviewing the instant petition, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it lacks an adequate remedy at law by way of an SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
I.M7A - appeal after a final judgment. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (holding that an appeal after a final judgment is an adequate remedy to challenge bad faith participation in the court-annexed arbitration program). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
, C.J. arraguirre
Hardesty
J. Stiglich cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge
Hon. Michael A. Cherry, Senior Justice
Emerson Law Group
Dimopoulos Injury Law
Ryan Alexander, Chtd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OP
NEVADA
PI 1917A
Opinion
Supreme Court wa ts
Nevapa dP
OF
Ant
Tes.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LAS VEGAS PAVING, No. 85477
Petitioner, vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, grey eH ge
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PILED
CLARK; THE HONORABLE ADRIANA
ESCOBAR, DISTRICT JUDGE; AND OCT 24 2022
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL A. __ eLIZAGEp: ». oF. WN
CHERRY, SENIOR DISTRICT COURT ol Cae eee’
JUDGE, EPRYY CLERK
Respondents, and
DE’LOIS Y. TURNER,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to strike a request for a trial de novo and a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner asserts that Real Party in Interest failed to participate in the mandatory court-annexed arbitration program in good faith and therefore the district court should have stricken her request for a trial de novo.
A writ of mandamus is available when the petitioner lacks a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; Pan vu. kighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.8d 840, 841 (2004). “Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. After reviewing the instant petition, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it lacks an adequate remedy at law by way of an 22-22)F0
Supreme Court
Nevaba pea MVE
GF \ sates appeal after a final judgment. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (holding that an appeal after a final judgment is an adequate remedy to challenge bad faith participation in the court-annexed arbitration program). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
Hardesty
AVG 9 od.
Stiglich ee: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge
Hon. Michael A. Cherry, Senior Justice
Emerson Law Group
Dimopoulos Injury Law
Ryan Alexander, Chtd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.