NANCY HAACK v. MAURICE VERSTANDIG ESQ SEAN EVENDEN AND ROGER AYALA (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Nancy Haack filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to challenge the denial of a motion to disqualify the district court judge and several rulings and the judgment following a new trial in the underlying action.

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 Haack has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted, as she has an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal based on the arguments raised in the petition. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.