COX v. 3896 LLC (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

Petitioner Ebony Rema Cox filed this original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to challenge a district court decision upholding on appeal a summary eviction order.

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 Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). 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 Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004).

Based on our review of the writ petition and the documents before us, we conclude Cox has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. “The Nevada Constitution vests the district courts with final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising in the justices' courts.” Id. at 227, 88 P.3d at 843; see Nev. Const. art 6, § 6. As a general rule, this court will decline to consider writ petitions that request review of a district court's decision when acting in its appellate capacity, save for a few exceptions. State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Hedland), 116 Nev. 127, 134, 994 P.2d 692, 696-97 (2000). We conclude Cox fails to demonstrate an exception to the general rule here. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.