IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, No. 69938
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
FILED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MAR 25 2016
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
JERRY A. WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
NORTH LAS VEGAS POLICE
SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION, A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
ORGANIZATION,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition challenging a district court order that, in part, denied
petitioner's motion to dismiss the complaint of real party in interest or,
alternatively, for summary judgment. Specifically, petitioner requests
that this court compel the district court to vacate its order to the extent it
denied petitioner's requests for relief and direct it to grant one of the
motions or prohibit the district court from taking further action until the
real party in interest exhausts certain other procedures. Petitioner has
also filed motions requesting that this court stay all district court
proceedings pending resolution of the petition, vacate a district court
hearing, and quash a subpoena.
The motions and accompanying appendix indicate that after
the petition was filed, the district court granted reconsideration and
vacated the order that is the subject of the petition, and is reserving ruling
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 947 A
on the parties' motions until after a hearing scheduled for March 31.
Thus, the issues the petition asks this court to review, including the
justiciability of real party in interest's complaint, remain open, making
this court's intervention at this time premature. And we are not otherwise
persuaded that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary writ is
warranted at this time. See NRS34.170; NRS 34.330, Pan v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). In so
concluding, we are confident that the district court will first resolve the
questions regarding justiciability of the complaint and only proceed to the
other issues raised if it is indeed justiciable. In light of the foregoing, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
Hardesty
1 Inlight of this denial, petitioner's motion for stay is moot. Further,
this court will not manage the district court's calendar, nor will it
entertain a challenge to a district court order denying a motion to quash a
subpoena by way of a motion filed in this court. Accordingly, all motions
are denied.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A et°
cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge
North Las Vegas City Attorney
Armstrong Teasdale, LLP/Las Vegas
Law Office of Daniel Marks
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e 3