First Light Homeowners v. Dist. Ct. (d.R. Horton)

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