OTAK NEVADA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE DOUG SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and PACIFICAP CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC; PACIFICAP PROPERTIES GROUP, LLC; PACIFICAP HOLDINGS XXIX, LLC; CHAD I. RENNAKER; JASON Q. RENNAKER; CHEYENNE APARTMENTS PPG, LP; AND CHRISTOPHER WATKINS, Real Parties in Interest., 129 Nev. 799

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Mandamus was appropriate under Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 34.160, 34.170 because the writ petition raised an issue of law that was a matter of first impression and could be dispositive; [2]-Approving a good-faith settlement under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245(1)(b) was proper because the settling defendant's potential liability was minimal, although the amount was much less than that paid by other defendants and less than the available insurance policy limits; [3]-Third-party claims for express indemnity, contribution, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing could not be maintained because a purported indemnity clause apportioned liability according to fault, thus providing for contribution, which was barred by § 17.245(1)(b) whether equitable or contractual; [4]-A punitive damages claim also had to be dismissed because no causes of action remained.