this court's First Light II opinion, petitioner did not satisfy its burden
under a rigorous NRCP 23 class-action analysis and that petitioner did not
have standing to represent two or more homeowners in the homeowners'
association for purposes of the litigation. Petitioner then filed the instant
petition for writ of mandamus on October 29, 2012.
While petitioner'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. Eighth Judicial 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.
We therefore conclude that partial relief is appropriate insofar
as petitioner asks this court to order the district court to reconsider its
order finding that petitioner does not have standing to represent two or
more homeowners in this litigation in light of this court's opinion in Beazer
Homes. See Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 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 petitioner's writ petition in part and direct the clerk of this court to
issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to grant rehearing
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
and reconsider its June 14, 2012, order in light of this court's opinion in
Beazer Homes.
It is so ORDERED.'
Douglas
J.
Saitta
cc: . Hon. Allan R. Earl, District Judge
James R. Christensen
Maddox, Isaacson & Cisneros, LLP
Robert C. Maddox & Associates/Reno
Wolfenzon Rolle/Las Vegas
Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck, LLP/Las Vegas
McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas
McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Reno
Eighth District Court Clerk
'We have considered petitioner's other arguments in this .writ
proceeding and conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our
extraordinary intervention is otherwise warranted, and thus, we deny the
petition to the extent that it seeks additional relief.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A