CHARLES DZACK and STEVEN DZACK, dba DZACK MOTOR SALES, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE GEORGE E. MARSHALL, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Respondent
Dzack v. Marshall
CHARLES DZACK and STEVEN DZACK, dba DZACK MOTOR SALES, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE GEORGE E. MARSHALL, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Respondent.
CHARLES DZACK and STEVEN DZACK, dba DZACK MOTOR SALES, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE GEORGE E. MARSHALL, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Respondent.
No. 4746
June 25, 1964
393 P.2d 610
Singleton and DeLcmoy, and Rex A. Jemison, of Las Vegas, for Petitioners.
Foley Brothers, of Las Vegas, for Respondent.
OPINION
By the Court,
McNamee, J.:
This is an original proceeding for a writ of review or in the alternative a writ of mandamus.
It appears from the petition herein that one Darlene Abbey filed in the respondent court an action for damages. She alleges on information and belief in her amended complaint that on January 31, 1960 she was injured as a result of the negligence of Robert A. Jaris in driving an automobile owned by petitioners Dzack, as their agent and with their permission. The amended complaint was not verified.
Petitioners filed their answer to the amended complaint in which they denied that Jaris was their agent and was driving the automobile with their permission. Thereafter they filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the affidavits of petitioners, and upon the failure of Darlene Abbey to answer petitioners' request for admissions. Darlene Abbey filed no counter affidavit. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment.
It appears from the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment that Robert A. Jaris was not an agent of either of the petitioners, nor did he have their permission to drive the automobile on January 31, 1960.
Darlene Abbey under the demand made to her pursuant to NRCP 36(a) was requested to admit:
"1. That she has no personal knowledge that on January 31, 1960 nor at any time during the month of January, 1960 nor the month of December, 1959, that defendant Robert A. Jaris was an agent or employee of Charles Dzack or Steven Dzack or Charles Dzack and Steven Dzack doing business as Dzack Motor Sales.
"2. That she has no documentary evidence that during the aforesaid period defendant Robert A. Jaris was an agent or employee of Charles Dzack or Steven Dzack or Charles Dzack and Steven Dzack doing business as Dzack Motor Sales.
"3. That she knows of no witness who would testify that during the aforesaid period Robert A. Jaris was an agent or employee of Charles Dzack or Steven Dzack or Charles Dzack and Steven Dzack doing business as Dzack Motor Sales."
By virtue of the failure of Darlene Abbey to respond to the said request for admissions, the matters contained therein are deemed admitted. NRCP 36(a).
It was incumbent upon the respondent court, therefore, to accept such admissions together with the affidavits of petitioners in support of the motion for summary judgment, and to disregard the unverified complaint. Franktown Creek Irrigation Company v. Marlette Lake, 77 Nev. 348, 364 P.2d 1069; NRCP 56(e).
In denying the motion of petitioners for summary judgment, the respondent court forces the petitioners into expensive pre-trial procedures (they have already been served with a notice for the taking of their depositions in Las Vegas, Nevada, which would require them to come from the State of Illinois), as well as additional attorney fees and expenses incidental to a trial, including additional traveling expenses. Respondent's motion pursuant to NRCP 30(b) for a protective order forbidding the taking of depositions until Darlene Abbey tendered petitioners the necessary travel expenses from Illinois to Las Vegas, Nevada, was denied.
No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for summary judgment. Smith v. Hamilton, 70 Nev. 212, 265 P.2d 214.
We are thus faced with the question whether petitioners are entitled to an extraordinary writ of either certiorari or mandamus. Because we have concluded that they are entitled to relief in these proceedings and that mandamus will furnish the necessary relief, we will consider the propriety of issuing this writ only.
NRS 34.170 provides that the writ of mandamus shall be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Under this section respondent first contends that mandamus is not available here, because, if a judgment is rendered against petitioners after a trial, they would have the remedy of an appeal therefrom and the action of the trial court in denying the motion for summary judgment could then be reviewed.
The mere fact that other relief may be available does not necessarily preclude the remedy of mandamus. Armstrong v. State Board of Examiners, 78 Nev. 495, 376 P.2d 492.
In Bowler v. Vannoy, 67 Nev. 80, 215 P.2d 248, although petitioners could have sought relief in a replevin action, this court granted them relief by mandamus, because otherwise "expensive and prolonged litigation would probably have resulted."
This first contention of respondent is therefore rejected.
It is next contended that mandamus will not lie to review discretionary acts of the trial court. It is true that we have repeatedly so held. Wilmurth v. District Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2d 302.
NRS 34.160 however provides that the writ of mandamus may issue to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office.
NRCP 56(e) provides that affidavits supporting and opposing a motion for summary judgment shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. It further provides as follows: "When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him."
We have concluded that where it is shown that the liability of a defendant in a tort action depends entirely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior and the matter of the agency is positively denied under oath and the plaintiff admits having no knowledge of the agency or of any documentary evidence which would tend to show the agency, and no knowledge of any witness who would testify to such agency, under such circumstances NRCP 56(e) makes it the duty of the district court to enter summary judgment in favor of such defendant. Its act therefore in ruling on a motion for summary judgment under these circumstances is not discretionary.
Under NRCP 11 the signature of an attorney to a complaint constitutes a certificate by him that to the best of his knowledge and belief there is good ground to support the allegations therein contained. The action filed by Darlene Abbey was commenced sometime prior to November 26, 1963. The request for admissions by Darlene Abbey was served January 22, 1964. It is apparent that during the long interval between the filing of the original complaint and January 22, 1964 the knowledge which either she or her attorneys had at the time of the commencement of the action relating to the allegation of agency proved to be unfounded, and that neither she nor her attorneys have been able to discover new evidence relating thereto. In view of the positive denial under oath of such agency and the said admissions the nonexistence thereof must be assumed. Petitioners therefore could not be liable for the alleged negligence of Jaris.
It is ordered that a peremptory writ of mandate issue requiring respondent court to dismiss said action against petitioners.
It was represented to the court at the oral argument that the original complaint therein was filed approximately three years before the amended complaint.