89 Nev. 214 510 P.2d 627

ROBERT A. MAHEU, Individually and Doing Business as ROBERT A. MAHEU ASSOCIATES, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, DEPT. NO. 6 and THE HONORABLE HOWARD W. BABCOCK, Judge Thereof, Respondents.

No. 7190

May 30, 1973

510 P.2d 627

*215Galane, Tingey & Shearing, of Las Vegas, for Petitioner.

Davis and Cox, of New York, and Morse, Foley & Wads-worth, of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

By the Court,

Zenoff, J.:

Petitioner Maheu petitions for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent court to hear and rule upon his pending motion for the imposition of conditional sanctions against Hughes Tool Co. in connection with the prospective deposition of Howard Hughes.

In prior proceedings this court has already decided interlocutory problems involved in this lawsuit of Robert Maheu against the Howard Hughes interests for what he claims was his wrongful discharge from employment. Our first decision, Maheu v. District Court, 88 Nev. 12, 493 P.2d 709 (1972), removed an ex parte stay order, which should have paved the way for the taking of Howard Hughes’ deposition, the major consideration before the court at that time. Later, in the same entitled action reported in 88 Nev. 592, 503 P.2d 4 (1972), we voided an invalid provision of a preliminary injunction which had interfered with the expeditious processing of this litigation. Those roadblocks removed, the trial court proceeded to accumulate all of the matters and motions pending and to set them for hearing1 Maheu asserts that he is entitled to a *216priority determination of his motion for sanctions surrounding the taking of Hughes’ deposition because some of the language of our first decision so directed. He is accurate in stating the purport of that decision but we will not interfere with the trial court’s calendaring of the pending motions. The lower court *217has broad discretion in calendaring matters before it. The United States Supreme Court has held:

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).

We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The petition is denied.

Thompson, C. J., and Mowbray, Gunderson, and Batjer, JJ., concur.

Maheu v. Eighth Judicial District Court
89 Nev. 214 510 P.2d 627

Case Details

Name
Maheu v. Eighth Judicial District Court
Decision Date
May 30, 1973
Citations

89 Nev. 214

510 P.2d 627

Jurisdiction
Nevada

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!