The City Of Las Vegas v. Dist. Ct. (Nev. Crt, Llc)
505 P.3d 853
Nev.2022Background
- The City of Las Vegas petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order in a judicial-review action.
- Real parties in interest (Nevada CRT, LLC and Wellness Connection of Nevada, LLC) had sought judicial review of the Las Vegas City Council's denial of a special-use permit; the district court granted the petition in part.
- The City sought extraordinary writ relief from the Supreme Court instead of waiting for an appeal from a final judgment.
- The Supreme Court concluded it was not persuaded that extraordinary intervention was warranted and noted the City has an adequate remedy by appeal.
- The court also addressed a procedural filing: real parties filed a combined answer and cross-petition for writ relief, which Nevada appellate rules do not permit; the court treated the document only as an answer and directed that any writ filing be docketed separately.
- The clerk was ordered to return the filing fee paid by real parties for the improper cross-petition; the Supreme Court denied the City's petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extraordinary writ relief is appropriate | City: Writ is necessary to prevent ongoing error from the district court order | Real parties: Appeal from final judgment is adequate; writ is unwarranted | Denied—writ not warranted; appeal is an adequate remedy |
| Whether the district court's partial grant of judicial review should be overturned now | City: The district court erred in granting relief and immediate review is needed | Real parties: District court acted within judicial-review standards | Supreme Court declined extraordinary review of that order; not persuaded to intervene |
| Whether a combined answer and cross-petition is a permissible filing | Real parties: Presented a combined document asserting both defenses and affirmative relief | City/Rule: Nevada appellate rules do not authorize a combined answer/cross-petition | Court: Rules don’t allow combined filing; treated the document as an answer only; cross-petition must be filed separately under NRAP 21 |
| Whether procedural relief (filing fee) should be handled due to improper filing | Real parties: Sought relief via their combined filing | City: N/A | Clerk ordered to return the filing fee for the improperly docketed cross-petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 88 P.3d 840 (Nev. 2004) (extraordinary writs are discretionary and generally precluded when an adequate appellate remedy exists)
- Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 818 P.2d 849 (Nev. 1991) (standards for extraordinary writ relief)
- Redrock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe Cty., 254 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2011) (direct appeal reviewed challenge to district-court order in judicial-review action over a use-permit decision)
- Kay v. Nunez, 146 P.3d 801 (Nev. 2006) (petition for judicial review—not mandamus—is proper mechanism to challenge administrative decisions)
- Lee v. GNLV Corp., 996 P.2d 416 (Nev. 2000) (definition of a final judgment for purposes of appeal)