IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
WILLIAM ERRICO, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 70147
AND WILLIAM ERRICO AND
ASSOCIATES, P.C., A NEVADA
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
vs.
FILED
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MAY 1 1 2016
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, MAN
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK;
SY licliREft
f
AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C.
WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
MICHAEL C. VAN, ESQ. AS
SUCCESSOR GUARDIAN OF THE
ESTATE FOR WILFRED RICHARD-
JAMES BOSSERMAN,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a
January 2016 order denying a motion to dismiss in a legal malpractice
action and an August 2015 order denying a motion to stay the proceedings
in that same action.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we
are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is
warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d
840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677,
679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). With respect to the January 2016
order, and assuming without deciding that petitioners' NRS 11.250
arguments have merit, dismissal of the action would still not be warranted
because the record does not "irrefutably demonstrate [I" that Mr.
SUPREME COUFrr
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 944p4,9
- HMS'
Bosserman's claims accrued in December 2010. See Winn v. Sunrise Hosp.
& Med. Ctr., 128 Nev. 246, 253, 277 P.3d 458, 463 (2012) (recognizing that
the date on which a cause of action accrues is normally a question of fact
and that "[d]ismissal on statute of limitations grounds is only appropriate
when uncontroverted evidence irrefutably demonstrates plaintiff
discovered or should have discovered the facts giving rise to the cause of
action" (quotation omitted)). We also note that the district court did not
dismiss the November 2013 complaint.
With respect to the August 2015 order, petitioners have not
explained their delay in seeking writ relief, nor have they provided any
documentation regarding the status of Mr. Errico's criminal proceeding so
that this court could meaningfully determine whether the district court
abused its discretion in denying a stay. NRAP 21(a)(4); Pan, 120 Nev. at
228, 88 P.3d at 844; see Aspen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 57, 289 P.3d 201, 205-06 (2012) (reviewing a
district court's denial of a stay for an abuse of discretion and recognizing
that "[d]etermining whether to grant such a stay is a fact-intensive, case-
by-case determination"). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED. 1
frea.4;
Hardesty
Saitta Pickering
'In light of our disposition of this writ petition, petitioners' April 13,
2016, motion for a stay is denied as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge
Johnson & Gubler, P.C.
Shumway Van & Hansen
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e