Opinion
No. 82357
03-09-2021
Choloe GREEN, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; the Honorable Cristina D. Silva, District Judge; and the Honorable Jasmin D. Lilly-Spells, District Judge, Respondents, and Frank J. Delee, M.D.; Frank J. Delee, P.C. ; Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, LLC ; Ali Kia, M.D.; and Nevada Hospitalist Group, LLP, Real Parties in Interest.
Law Office of Daniel Marks Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Collinson, Daehnke, Inlow & Greco Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas
Law Office of Daniel Marks
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Collinson, Daehnke, Inlow & Greco
Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders granting partial summary judgment and denying leave to amend a complaint in a tort action. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that petitioner has met her burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196-97 (2020) (refusing to substitute this court's judgment for that of the district court absent a manifest abuse of discretion); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) ("Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that "the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court"). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders granting partial summary judgment, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Renown Reg'l. Med. Ctr. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. 824, 828, 335 P.3d 199, 202 (2014). And this court will not grant writ relief to substitute its judgment for that of the district court when the challenged decision does not constitute a manifest abuse of discretion. See Walker, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d at 1196-97 (explaining that, "[w]here a district court is entrusted with discretion on an[ ] issue," this court will issue a writ of mandamus "only where the lower court has manifestly abused [its] discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously"). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.