IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
KATHRYN REYNOLDS; AND NORMAN No. 70581
GARAND,
Petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING
CORPORATION, AN ARIZONA
FILED
CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO JUL 1 3 2016
BUSINESS IN NEVADA; GREGORY TRACE K. LINDEMAN
WILDE, A NEVADA ATTORNEY; AND CLERK OF UPREME COURT
CINDY LEE STOCK, A NEVADA BY 6-
DEPUTY CLER
ATTORNEY,
Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition seeks, among other things, an order directing the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada to grant petitioners'
motion to remand.
Having considered the petition and the supporting documents,
we are not persuaded that our intervention is appropriate, as this court
lacks the authority, to order the federal district court to take or refrain
from taking the requested actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (2012); Laguna
Viii. Inc. v. Laborers Int'l Union of N. Am., 672 P.2d 882, 885 (Cal. 1983)
(recognizing that "the federal removal statute. . . expressly prohibit[s] any
proceeding in state court after removal and prior to remand"); see also
Mineral Cty. v. State, Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Res., 117 Nev. 235,
242-43, 20 P.3d 800, 805 (2001) (observing that a writ of mandamus is
available only to compel the performance of an act by an "inferior" state
tribunal, corporation, board, or person); Gojack v. Second Judicial Dist.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1 ,147A
1(0 Z1 151
-
Court, 95 Nev. 443, 444, 596 P.2d 237, 238 (1979) (same with respect to a
writ of prohibition); cf. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive
Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970) ("[W]e have had in this country two
essentially separate legal systems. Each system proceeds independently
from the other . . . . [T]his dual system could not function if state and
federal courts were free to fight each other for control of a particular
case."). We therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
Gibbons
cc: Kathryn Reynolds
Norman Garand
Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Reno
Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.
'In light of our disposition of this writ petition, petitioners' July 1,
2016, motion is denied as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e