U.S. Bank, National Ass'n v. Colorful Rain, LLC

Full text

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND DISMISSING APPEAL This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition, Docket No. 64817, and an appeal, Docket No. 64822, both challenging the same district court order denying a motion to set aside an order clarifying a default judgment in a quiet title action. "This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions, when such proceedings are in excess of the jurisdiction of the district court." Greene v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 115 Nev. 391, 393, 990 P.2d 184, 185 (1999); NRS 34.320. Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy, and it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that this court's intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the parties' arguments, we conclude that our intervention is warranted. 1 Id. Specifically, a final judgment was entered in the underlying action in September 2012, as that judgment resolved all of the underlying action's pending matters. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000); Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994). "[O]nce a final judgment is entered, the district court lacks jurisdiction to reopen [a case], absent a proper and timely motion under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure." SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 608, 612,

'In particular, while we recognize Colorful Rain, LLC's arguments regarding the effect of the recorded lis pendens, we are not persuaded that this argument and the doctrine of harmless error warrant a different resolution of this writ petition.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 19MA e TaIrMSAVierA44/.4189D144640431 .4463/415.."1:1610,-, 22E32:ZEISSI1aF

173 P.3d 715, 717 (2007). Thus, if Colorful Rain, LLC wanted to reopen the finally adjudicated case, such a request needed to be made in conformity with the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Colorful Rain's June 2013 motion for clarification of order failed in this regard, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion. Id.; see NRCP 59(e) (providing that a party must file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within ten days from when written notice of entry of the order is served on that party). Accordingly, our intervention is warranted. SFPP, L.P., 123 Nev. at 612, 173 P.3d at 718; Greene, 115 Nev. at 396, 990 P.2d at 187. We therefore ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION directing the district court to vacate its July 30, 2013, order and precluding the district court from conducting any further proceedings in District Court Case No. A658387. 2

Parra guirre

Douglas

2As the order being challenged is not an appealable order under statute or court rule, and in light of our resolution of this writ petition, Colorful Rain's unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal in Docket No. 64822 is granted.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A 4V0

cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Charles L. Geisendorf, Ltd. Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 947k e

MtStr=