Lund v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF STATE, 255 P.3d 280

Walsh sues Lund for injuries from a Las Vegas charity golf event incident; Lund answers and counterclaims Walsh and other individuals as additional counterdefendants.
Mark, Rochell, Chaves, and Gross move to dismiss Lund's counterclaims against them on the basis that new parties cannot be added through counterclaims.
Lund argues NRCP 13(h) allows adding new parties via counterclaims so long as joinder complies with NRCP 19 or 20.
District court dismisses Lund's counterclaims against Mark, Rochell, Chaves, and Gross; Lund seeks mandamus to compel reconsideration.
This court holds NRCP 13(h) allows adding parties through a counterclaim if joinder provisions are satisfied, but remands for NRCP 19/20 analysis and does not reinstate counterclaims yet.
The writ is granted in part to direct vacatur and reconsideration; Lund’s request to reinstate counterclaims is denied without prejudice to further district court ruling

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NRCP 13(h) permits adding new parties via a counterclaim.	Lund argues NRCP 13(h) authorizes adding new counterdefendants.	Mark, Rochell, Chaves, Gross argue new parties cannot be added under counterclaims.	Yes, but subject to NRCP 19/20 analysis on remand.
Whether mandamus is appropriate to require reconsideration of the counterclaims.	Lund seeks mandamus to vacate dismissal and reconsider.	Respondents contend discretion applies; writ not warranted beyond directing proper analysis.	Writ granted in part to vacate and reconsider NRCP 13(h) analysis; reinstatement denied without prejudice.

Moseley v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 654 (2008) (de novo review of district court’s interpretation of NRCP rules; proper standard of review)
Reid v. Royal Insurance Co., 80 Nev. 137, 390 P.2d 45 (1964) (distinguishes third-party practice and indemnity under NRCP 14)
Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 637 P.2d 534 (1981) (mandamus for manifest abuse of discretion in not exercising discretion)
Willmes v. Reno Mun. Ct., 118 Nev. 831, 59 P.3d 1197 (2002) (mandamus relief for failure to exercise discretion may be warranted)
Ex Parte Simons, 247 U.S. 231 (1918) (mandamus relief to correct legal error in proceedings)
In Re Connaway Rec’r of Moscow Nat. Bank, 178 U.S. 421 (1900) (mandamus relief in context of prospective parties)
Babb v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 3 Cal.3d 841, 92 Cal. Rptr. 179 (1971) (illustrates limits of mandamus in similar joinder contexts)
Ducharm, State v. Dist. Ct., 118 Nev. 609, 55 P.3d 420 (2002) (state-law context clarifying writ relief scope)
AllTech Communications, LLC v. Brothers, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (N.D. Okla. 2008) (persuasive authority on NRCP 13(h) joinder under federal analogue)
Microsoft Corp. v. Ion Technologies Corp., 484 F. Supp. 2d 955 (D. Minn. 2007) (persuasive authority on NRCP 13(h) joinder under federal analogue)
Raytheon Aircraft Cred. Corp. v. Pal Air Intern., 923 F. Supp. 1408 (D. Kan. 1996) (persuasive authority on NRCP 13(h) joinder under federal analogue)