EVA SANCHEZ v. FELINA BANKS GREGORY GARRETT ARMANI RUSHING AND MINOR BY AND THROUGH GUARDIAN AD LITEM FELINA BANKS (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a tort action for failure to timely effect service of process.

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. See 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 at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991).

This court generally declines to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss unless no factual dispute exists and the district court was obligated to dismiss the action pursuant to clear authority or the writ would promote judicial economy by clarifying an important issue of law. Int'l Game Tech., at 197-98, 179 9.3d at 558-59. The existence of a future right to appeal is ordinarily sufficient to deny writ relief. See State of Nev. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court. (Ducharm), 118 Nev. 609, 614, 55 P.3d 420, 423 (2002). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844, 844 (2004).

Petitioner argues that the district court abused its discretion when it found good cause for both the untimely filing of a motion to enlarge the time for service and for granting an enlargement of time. Additionally, petitioner argues that the district court abused its discretion when it found that real parties in interest exercised due diligence before resorting to substitute service through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Based on our review of the documents before us, we conclude petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., 12d Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 228, 88 P.3d at 841, 844. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.