Grand Canal Shops II, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Wilson)

 warranted. NRS 34.160; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222,
228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). As this court has consistently held, judicial
estoppel should be applied "only when a party's inconsistent position
arises from intentional wrongdoing or an attempt to obtain an unfair
advantage." Delgado v. Am. Fam. Ins. Grp., 125 Nev. 564, 570, 217 P.3d
563, 567 (2009) (quotations and alteration omitted); see Marcuse v. Del
Webb Cmtys., Inc., 123 Nev. 278, 287-88, 163 P.3d 462, 469 (2007) (same);
Mai nor v. Nault, 120 Nev. 750, 765, 101 P.3d 308, 318 (2004) (same). The
district court's application of judicial estoppel, combined with its express
finding that Grand Canal had not engaged in intentional wrongdoing or
attempted to obtain an unfair advantage, is thus contrary to this well-
established rule of law. The district court therefore manifestly abused its
discretion in concluding that Grand Canal was judicially estopped from
contesting its liability to Cole Wilson. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) ("A
manifest abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous interpretation of the
law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule." (quotations and
alteration omitted)). Accordingly, our intervention is warranted, and we
ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK
OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the
district court to vacate its November 21, 2014, order regarding Cole
Wilson's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability.

Mnfc't
Parraguirre

, J.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947k e
 DOUGLAS, J., dissenting:
I am not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is
warranted because petitioner has an adequate remedy to challenge the
perceived discrepancies in the district court's judicial estoppel analysis, as
petitioner may raise those challenges in an appeal from a final judgment.
NRS 34.170; Pan U. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88
P.3d 840, 841 (2004) ("[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal
remedy that precludes writ relief."). I therefore dissent.

J.

cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge
Ballard Spahr, LLP
Peel Brimley LLP/Henderson
Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A