IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83590 

FILED 

APR 2 9 2022 

ELIZiDETH A. DROWN 

D

;,ENK • F

.

17REME COURT 

DEPUTY CLERJ 4"4-1.) 

FELICE J. FIORE; AND SPEEDVEGAS, 

LLC, 

Petitioners, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN 

AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND 

THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ALLF, 

DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

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 BENKELY; 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 

2 
Parraguirre 

.. 

Cadish 

J. 

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.' 

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 3 

(01 I947A 4401m 

I