IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
VINCENT JAMES JOHN ROMEO, No. 83125
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
niLEr
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JAN 1 4 2022
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 1
ELHAM ROOHANI, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
GRANT, MORRIS, DODDS, PLLC;
STEVEN L. MORRIS, LTD.; AND
STEVEN L. MORRIS,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition
challenges the district court's failure to dismiss certain claims in a legal
malpractice and tort action. We are not persuaded that our extraordinary
and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991)
(recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court
has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition).
Specifically, we generally decline to exercise our discretion to grant writ
relief where, as here, factual issues remain.2 See Walker v. Secon,d Judicial
'The Honorable Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez presided over this case in
district court when this petition was filed.
2Having further considered the arguments presented in the October
15, 2020, motion to strike one of petitioner's reply briefs, we agree that
petitioner raised new issues for the first time in his replies and decline to
continued on next page...
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
th I 947A 0041",
Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (setting forth
the requisites for issuance of mandamus relief); Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 369, 373, 399 P.3d 334, 340-41 (2017)
(providing that this court does not exercise its discretion to issue a writ of
mandamus or prohibition when a petition presents factual issues).
Petitioner also urges us to order the district court to dismiss real parties in
interest Steven L. Morris, LTD and Steven L. Morrie claims against him
because they removed petitioner as a party in their amended third-party
complaint. Because petitioner has an adequate remedy at law, writ relief
is not warranted. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. We therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.
, J.
Hardesty Pickering
cc: Hon. Elham Roohani, District Judge
VJJR Attorney at Law
Santoro Whitmire
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, & Stoberski
Grant Morris Dodds PLLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
consider those issues. See Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 570 n.5, 138
P.3d 433, 444 n.5 (2006) (declining to consider an issue raised for the first
time in a reply brief); see also Romeo v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, No.
83125 (Nev. Oct. 28, 2021) (Order Denying Motion) (denying the motion to
strike but noting that this court will not consider improperly raised
arguments).
2