Opinion ID: 2572681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Floyd v. District Court

Text: Swisco and the related subsequent cases borrowed a quote from Floyd to justify writ review of forum non conveniens dismissal orders without analyzing the propriety of writ relief. An examination of Floyd reveals that it does not support review by writ petition in cases dismissed for forum non conveniens. Floyd involved a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order that dismissed an appeal from justice's court. [20] Apparently, the Union Township Justice's Court in Humboldt County entered judgment against petitioners (and defendants below) Elizabeth Floyd and James Guthrie for $405.75. [21] Floyd appealed to the district court and deposited the judgment amount, in lieu of an appeal bond, with the justice of the peace. The plaintiffs from the justice's court case moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and for failure to pay the costs on appeal. The district court dismissed the appeal in a written order. [22] Floyd then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. The Nevada Constitution vests the district courts with final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising in the justices' courts. [23] Prior to Floyd, this court adopted the rule that a district court's dismissal of an appeal from justice's court, even though erroneous, is final and not subject to appellate review. [24] In Floyd, we framed the primary issue as: `Will mandamus lie to review the action of the district court and to compel the district court to proceed in a case in which that court has divested itself of jurisdiction by erroneously dismissing an appeal?' [25] Ultimately, we concluded that if a district court takes jurisdiction of an appeal and acts, its acts are not subject to review through a petition for a writ of mandamus, but if the district court wrongly decides that it lacks jurisdiction, a writ of mandamus is the proper way to compel the court to do what the law requiresassume jurisdiction and proceed with the appeal. [26] In essence, Floyd decided that even though the district courts have final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in the justices' courts, when the district court erroneously divests itself of appellate jurisdiction, the dismissal is reviewable by this court through a petition for a writ of mandamus. Notably, Floyd did not acknowledge that a writ of mandamus is only available if there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. [27] Floyd's lack of an adequate remedy was, however, implicit in our decision. The district court's final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in justice's court precluded Floyd from appealing the district court's dismissal order to this court. Thus, a writ petition was the only available means to challenge the district court's decision. Unlike the situation in Floyd, in Swisco and subsequent cases, the petitioners had the right to appeal from the district court's dismissal for forum non conveniens because the dismissal orders were appealable final judgments. [28] Yet, the Swisco court failed to address the availability of an appeal. Instead, it adopted the quote from Floyd without recognizing that Floyd 's holding does not apply when an appeal is available. Accordingly, Floyd does not justify straying from this court's long-standing rule that the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief. As a result, Swisco, Buckholt, Eaton, and Payne are overruled to the extent that they conclude that a writ petition is the appropriate vehicle for challenging a final judgment entered on forum non conveniens grounds. Nevertheless, because we previously indicated that the proper method of review in this type of case is a petition for a writ of mandamus, we will exercise our original jurisdiction and consider this petition.