NANCY HAACK NRS REALTY GROUP LLC LIFE REALTY v. MAURICE VERSTANDIG ESQ SEAN EVENDEN AND ROGER AYALA (2023)

ORDER DISMISSING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion for a permanent injunction in a business action.

As an initial matter, petitioner Nancy Haack purports to seek extraordinary writ relief both on her own behalf and on behalf of NRS Realty Group, LLC, D/B/A Life Realty. But non-lawyers cannot represent an entity and entities are not permitted to appear in pro se. See Salman v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 1336, 885 P.2d 607, 608 (1994) (observing that no statute or rule permits a non-lawyer to represent an entity and concluding that an entity cannot proceed in proper person); see also NRAP 46A(b)(2) (providing that “[a] corporation or other entity may not appear without counsel”). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition to the extent it was brought on behalf of NRS Realty Group.

Turning to Haack's petition, a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474, 168 P.3d 731, 736 (2007). Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition, we conclude that Haack has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See id.; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. In particular, Haack had a speedy and adequate legal remedy available—an appeal from the district court order denying injunctive relief. See NRAP 3A(b)(3) (providing for appellate jurisdiction to review “[a]n order granting or refusing to grant an injunction”). As a result, mandamus relief is not available to challenge the district court's decision. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (stating that “the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief’). Accordingly, we deny the petition. Id.; NRAP 21(b)(1).

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.