Full text
Palomino Club, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Potasi)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
PALOMINO CLUB, LLC, A DOMESTIC No. 74646 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A PALOMINO CLUB; HACHIMAN, LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY FILED COMPANY; ADAM GENTILE, AN INDIVIDUAL; CRAIG PARKS, AN FEB 1 5 2 018 INDIVIDUAL; AND LACY'S LLC, D/B/A EUZ/43 Em
LACY'S, BY DET,atefli CLait< Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KENNETH C. CORY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ALEXANDER POTASI, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DEREK FESOLAI, AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a tort action as to claims against petitioners Palomino Club, LLC, Hachiman, LLC, Adam Gentile, and Craig Parks. Having considered the petition and its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted, as an adequate remedy exists in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 101, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) (explaining historical SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A cme, -oy3 l q
— 2 —
predicates for issuing writs of mandamus and prohibition, which are limited and do not include controlling a trial court's decision in a discretionary, interlocutory matter that can be reviewed on appeal from the final judgment); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991); see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Din. 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); Moore v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 96 Nev. 415, 417, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980) (determining that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy when resolution of the writ petition would not dispose of the entire controversy, since the avoidance of a needless trial is not possible). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
&WA ill ' ,J. Pickering
Gibbons
ist-AA J. Hardesty
cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge Cook & Kelesis Lucherini Blakesley Courtney, P.C. Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A