Maheu v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For Clark County, Dept. No. 6, 7190

• Decision Date: 30 May 1973
• Docket Number: No. 7190,7190
• Citation: 510 P.2d 627,89 Nev. 214
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Parties: 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, Respondent.

Page 627

510 P.2d 627

89 Nev. 214

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, Respondent.

No. 7190.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

May 30, 1973.

[89 Nev. 215] Galane, Tingey & Shearing, Las Vegas, for petitioner.

Davis & Cox, New York City, Morse, Foley & Wadsworth, Las Vegas, for respondent.

OPINION

ZENOFF, Justice:

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. 8th Judicial District Court, 88 Nev. 26, 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 expenditious 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 hearing. ¹ Maheu asserts that he is entitled to a priority 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 has 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--255, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166, 81 L.Ed. 153 (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.

1
                         PARTY FILING
                DATE        MOTION                 NATURE OF MOTION
                -------  ------------  -----------------------------------------
                1/11/71  Hughes        Motion to vacate notice to take
                                       deposition of Hughes
                1/15/71  Hughes        Motion to vacate notice to take
                                       deposition of Raymond M. Holliday
                1/19/71  Hughes        Motion for stay and for extension of
                                       time
                2/21/71  Maheu         Motion to strike portion of affidavit of
                                       Thomas McKeon
                3/9/71   Maheu         Motion for compulsory physical
                                       examination of Hughes
                3/9/71   Maheu         Motion for reference to special master
                                       to examine files and documents
                3/9/71   Maheu         Motion for production of documents
                3/9/71   Maheu         Motion for access to sealed transcript
                3/9/71   Maheu         Motion to vacate stay of depositions of
                                       Davis and Gay
                3/22/72  Hughes        Motion for order fixing conditions of
                                       supersedeas and appointing special
                                       master
                3/22/72  Hughes        Motion for stay of proceedings pending
                                       appeal

...