D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Paradise Court Homeowners Assoc.)

satisfy NRCP 23's class action prerequisites in order to litigate on behalf of its members. Accordingly, it granted the motion for declaratory relief. Petitioner D.R. Horton then filed this writ petition, asking for two forms of relief: (1) that we direct the district court to conduct a thorough NRCP 23 analysis with respect to the claims Paradise Court is seeking to litigate, and (2) that we direct the district court to prohibit Paradise Court from representing its members in the underlying litigation. While D.R. Horton's writ petition was pending, this court issued an opinion in which we reaffirmed and clarified First Light II. Specifically, in Beazer Homes Holding Corp. v. District Court, 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d 128 (2012), we reaffirmed that a district court, upon request, must conduct an NRCP 23 analysis to determine whether litigation by class action is the superior method of adjudicating homeowners' construction defect claims. 128 Nev. at , 291 P.3d at 135. We also clarified, however, that a failure to satisfy NRCP 23's class action prerequisites does not strip a homeowners' association of its ability to litigate on behalf of its members under NRS 116.3102(1)(d). Id. at , 291 P.3d at 134-35. Thus, in light of our opinion in Beazer Homes, we conclude that partial relief is appropriate insofar as D.R. Horton asks this court to order the district court to conduct a thorough NRCP 23 analysis. See International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) ("A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. ."); see NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we grant D.R. Horton's writ petition in part and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to conduct a proper NRCP 23 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A analysis with respect to the claims for alleged defects.' We decline, however, to direct the district court to prohibit Paradise Court from representing its members in the underlying litigation, as this request is inconsistent with our holding in Beazer Homes. 2 See Beazer Homes, 128 Nev. at , 291 P.3d at 134 ("Failure to meet any additional procedural requirements, including NRCP 23's class action requirements, cannot strip a common-interest community association of its standing to proceed on behalf of its members under NRS 116.3102(1)(d)."). It is so ORDERED. 3 Gibbons J. J. Hardesty Saitta 'We deny D.R. Horton's alternative request for a writ of prohibition. 2 In Beazer Homes, we noted that a homeowners' association has an obligation to "reveal the alleged construction defects in sufficient detail" so as to enable the district court to develop a meaningful case management plan. 128 Nev. at n.5, 291 P.3d at 136 n.5. Thus, while Paradise Court may represent its members even if NRCP 23's prerequisites are not satisfied, it must sufficiently inform the district court regarding the nature of the specific defects being alleged so as to enable the district court to conduct the required NRCP 23 analysis. 3 The Honorable Ron Parraguirre, Justice, did not participate in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Allan R. Earl, District Judge Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck, LLP/Las Vegas Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP Feinberg Grant Mayfield Kaneda & Litt, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk 4