Case ID: p3d_444/html/0457-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Earl J. BARNES, II, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge, Respondents, and Farmers Group, Inc.; and Farmers Insurance Exchange, Real Parties in Interest.
    No. 77069
    Supreme Court of Nevada.
    FILED JULY 11, 2019
    Rempfer Mott Lundy, PLLC
    Greenman Goldberg Raby & Martinez
    The Feldman Law Firm, P.C.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's denial of petitioner's countermotion for summary judgment in a tort action. Having considered petitioner's and real parties in interest's argument and the supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted because an appeal from a final judgment provides an adequate remedy. 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 summarily adjudicate the action or an important issue of law requires clarification); Smith 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 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).
    Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.