Golightly & Vannah, Pllc v. Dist. Ct. (Renown Reg'l. Med. Ctr.)

In contrast, the action underlying this writ petition is an interpleader action initiated by the attorney. In such an action, it is the attorney, not his client, who is the plaintiff. Thus, as the plaintiff, the attorney is a party to the action and has the right to appeal from any adverse final judgement. See NRAP 3A(a). Moreover, in an interpleader action, a final, appealable judgment is generally held to be one that grants the interpleader request, discharges the plaintiff from further liability, and adjudicates the claimants' competing interests in the funds placed with the court. See, e.g., Abex Corp. v. Ski's Enters., Inc., 748 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir. 1984); Custom One—Hour Photo v. Citizens & S. Bank, 345 S.E.2d 147, 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986); Scruggs, Millette, PA. v. Merkel & Cocke, 763 So. 2d 869, 872 (Miss. 2000); K & S Interests v. Tex. Am. Bank/Dallas, 749 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988); see generally 44B Am. Jur. 2d Interpleader § 81. Thus, in this case, petitioner has a right to appeal from the challenged April 3, 2015, order, which discharged petitioner and adjudicated the remaining non-defaulted claimants' claims to the interpleaded funds. Because the right to appeal is generally a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief, NRS 34.160; NRS 34.330; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008), we decline to consider this writ petition. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Saitta

I CACI Pickering

SURREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A sem

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Golightly & Vannah, PLLC Maupin, Cox & LeGoy Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I 947A 420.