Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court denied David Garvey, M.D.’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying partial summary judgment and two motions to strike in a wrongful death and professional negligence action. The court concluded that the applicability of Nevada’s civil damages cap was fact dependent and that Garvey had not shown a manifest abuse of discretion concerning the motions to strike.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Nevada Supreme Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction to review an interlocutory, non-dispositive order denying partial summary judgment.
- Whether the applicability of the $50,000 civil-damages cap in NRS 41.503 presented a purely legal issue warranting extraordinary writ relief despite disputed underlying facts.
- Whether the district court manifestly abused its discretion by denying as moot motions to strike declarations it deemed irrelevant to its summary-judgment decision.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction because the challenged summary-judgment ruling was non-dispositive and the issues presented depended on disputed facts.
- Garvey did not demonstrate that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by concluding that the declarations were irrelevant to the summary-judgment decision and that the motions to strike were moot.
Key quotations
“This court generally declines to entertain writ petitions seeking interlocutory review of a district court's non-dispositive summary judgment rulings.”
“supervisory writ relief is inappropriate where factual issues remain.”
“We therefore, ORDER the petition DENIED.”
Factual background
The underlying action is a wrongful death and professional negligence case brought by Diane Schwartz, individually and as special administrator of the estate of Douglas R. Schwartz. Garvey sought partial summary judgment on whether the $50,000 civil-damages cap in NRS 41.503 applied to Schwartz's claims. He also moved to strike two declarations submitted by Schwartz, but the district court determined that the declarations were irrelevant to its summary-judgment decision and that the motions were moot.
Procedural history
David Garvey petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for extraordinary writ relief from an interlocutory district court order denying his motion for partial summary judgment and denying motions to strike two opposing declarations. The Supreme Court concluded that the challenged summary-judgment ruling was non-dispositive, that factual issues remained concerning the applicability of the statutory damages cap, and that Garvey failed to show a manifest abuse of discretion regarding the motions to strike. The petition was denied.