The Nevada Supreme Court denied a petition for extraordinary relief filed by Field Effect Security Inc., a foreign corporation doing business in Nevada, in a civil dispute that will now proceed to jury trial. The court issued its ruling on Dec. 4, 2025, in case No. 89495.

Field Effect Security had sought a writ of mandamus challenging the Eighth Judicial District Court's order denying both a motion for summary judgment and a motion to strike a jury demand in the underlying litigation. The real party in interest in the case is Eric Anderson, who is being sued individually.

The petition was filed against the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Clark, and the Honorable Susan Johnson, District Judge. The case centers around what appears to be an employment-related dispute involving Nevada's worker protection statutes.

According to the court's opinion authored by Justice Cadish, the case involves interpretation of NRS 613.010(1), which makes it unlawful for an employer to induce, influence, persuade, or engage a worker "to change from one place to another in this state" under false or deceptive pretenses concerning the terms and conditions of employment.

The court's analysis focused on a critical question of statutory interpretation: whether the language in NRS 613.010(1) encompasses an employee's change of place of employment or applies only when there is a change in the employee's place of residence. This distinction could have significant implications for how Nevada's worker protection laws are applied in employment disputes.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels a lower court or government official to perform a specific act. Courts typically grant mandamus petitions only when the petitioner can demonstrate that the lower court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or committed a clear error that cannot be corrected through normal appellate processes.

Field Effect Security's petition challenged two specific rulings by the district court. First, the company contested the denial of its motion for summary judgment, which would have resolved the case in its favor without a trial if granted. Second, it challenged the court's refusal to strike Anderson's demand for a jury trial, which would have allowed the case to proceed before a judge only.

The denial of both motions means that Anderson will have his case heard before a jury, rather than having it dismissed or decided by the judge alone. This outcome suggests the district court found there were genuine issues of material fact that required resolution by a jury.

Representing Field Effect Security were attorneys from O'Hagan Meyer PLLC, including Whitney Selert, Marcus J. Lee, and Inku Nam, all based in Las Vegas. Anderson was represented by the Law Office of Daniel Marks, with attorneys Daniel Marks and Nicole M. Young, also from Las Vegas.

The case was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of Justices Pickering, Cadish, and Lee. Justice Cadish authored the opinion for the court.

The Supreme Court's decision to deny the mandamus petition indicates that the justices found the district court acted within its discretion in denying Field Effect Security's motions. This means the lower court did not commit the type of clear legal error or exceed its jurisdiction in a way that would warrant extraordinary intervention by the state's highest court.

The underlying dispute appears to involve allegations that Field Effect Security may have violated Nevada's worker protection statutes in its dealings with Anderson. The specific nature of the alleged violations and the circumstances surrounding Anderson's employment relationship with the company will now be decided by a jury in the district court.

NRS 613.010(1) is part of Nevada's broader statutory framework designed to protect workers from deceptive employment practices. The statute reflects the state's interest in preventing employers from misleading workers about job conditions, particularly when those misrepresentations could cause workers to relocate or change their employment circumstances based on false information.

The court's interpretation of whether the statute covers changes in place of employment versus changes in residence could set important precedent for future cases involving similar allegations under Nevada's worker protection laws. The distinction matters because it could affect the scope of conduct that falls under the statute's prohibitions.

With the mandamus petition denied, the case will return to the district court where it will proceed through the normal litigation process. Anderson will have the opportunity to present his case to a jury, while Field Effect Security will defend against the allegations in the same forum.

The timing of the Supreme Court's ruling, issued in early December, suggests the underlying case may proceed to trial in early 2026, depending on the district court's calendar and any additional pre-trial motions that may be filed by either party.

This decision demonstrates the Nevada Supreme Court's reluctance to intervene in district court proceedings through extraordinary writs unless there is a clear abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error that cannot be remedied through normal appellate channels.