2021 NV 54 - NUVEDA, LLC VS. DIST. CT. (TERRY)

137 Nev., Advance Opinion 54 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA NUVEDA, LLC, No. 82649 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE SEP 2 3 2021 ELIZABETH GONZALEZ, DISTRICT ELD f :ITN A. BROWN JUDGE, CLEM' 01 SUPL-tEt C CY Respondents, CtEF DEPUTY CLERK and SHANE TERRY; PHIL IVEY; AND DOTAN Y. MELECH, RECEIVER FOR CWNEVADA, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest. Original petition for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to transfer indirect contempt proceedings to another judge under NRS 22.030(3). Petition denied. Law Office of Mitchell Stipp and Mitchell Stipp, Las Vegas, for Petitioner. Mushkin & Coppedge and Michael R. Mushkin and L. Joe Coppedge, Las Vegas, for Real Parties in Interest. BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, PARRAGUIRRE, STIGLICH, and SILVER, JJ. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA ith 1947A att4D. wo7 OPINION By the Court, STIGLICH, J.: NRS 22.030(3) provides that in cases of indirect contempt, "the judge of the court in whose contempt the person is alleged to be shall not preside at the trial of the contempt over the objection of the person." This statute gives accused contemnors a peremptory challenge, which must be granted if the objection is timely and properly made. Here, petitioner NuVeda, LLC, moved for a change of judge under NRS 22.020(3) 37 days after the court set a date for the contempt trial. The district court denied this motion as untimely, and NuVeda petitioned this court for extraordinary writ relief. We hold that motions for a change of judge under NRS 22.030(3) must be made with reasonable promptness under the circumstances, and here, the district court did not err by determining the motion was untimely. Accordingly, we deny the petition. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This contempt case arises out of a relatively complex business dispute. Petitioner NuVeda, in conjunction with CWNevada, LLC, formed CWNV as a joint venture in 2017 for the purpose of building and operating cannabis establishments. CWNevada was later placed under receivership. NuVeda and its managing member, Dr. Pejman Bady, allegedly dissolved CWNV and later created a new entity with the same name. This act not only created difficulties for the receiver, but it also is alleged to violate a court order, constituting contempt. NuVeda denies that it committed contempt, and many of the facts remain disputed. Most of the details of the supposed contempt and the situation underlying it are immaterial to this writ petition. 2 For our purposes, the critical facts are these. On February 1, 2021, during a hearing on a motion for an order to show cause concerning the alleged contempt, the district court (Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez) found that a show cause order was warranted and scheduled a contempt hearing for March 1. But Dr. Bady had a previously scheduled medical appointment and could not attend on that date. On or around February 22, the district court rescheduled the hearing to April 5. On March 10, NuVeda for the first time invoked NRS 22.030(3) and objected to Judge Gonzalez presiding over the contempt hearing. At a hearing on March 17, the district court stated that while it might have granted the request for a new judge if NuVeda had made such a request sooner, NuVeda had waived any objection when it failed to include one in its prior motion for a continuance. NuVeda denied that it had ever moved for a continuance, pointing out that it had previously stated it was willing to go forward without Dr. Bady. NuVeda renewed its objection under NRS 22.030(3), but the district court overruled the objection. NuVeda now petitions this court for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus. It asks us to disqualify Judge Gonzalez from presiding over the contempt hearing and to order the Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court to randomly reassign that hearing to another judge. We stayed the contempt hearing pending resolution of this writ petition. DISCUSSION We will entertain this writ petition "Because both writs of prohibition and writs of mandamus are extraordinary remedies, we have complete discretion to determine whether to consider them." Cote H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008); see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). This court may exercise its discretion SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 AI) 1947A