ARSHID TORKAMAN G4 DENTAL ENTERPRISES LLC G4 BY GOLPA MIKE GOLPA ANNA SHAGHARYAN AND SCOTT YOUNG v. THE ESTATE OF JOHN CRONIN JOCELYN CRONIN INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF JOHN CRONIN KYLEE CRONIN INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE NATURAL DAUGHTER OF JOHN CRONIN SAM CRONIN INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE NATURAL SON OF JOHN CRONIN (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Arshid Torkaman. D.D.S., CM Dental Enterprises LLC, Mike Golpa, D.D.S., Anna Shagharyan, D.M.D., and Scott Young, D.O. (collectively petitioner's) filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss and granting real parties in interest's motion to amend their pleadings.

“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.” Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (internal citations omitted); NRS 34.160. 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). “Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth. Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Importantly, “the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.” Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Moreover, “even if an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from the final judgment generally precludes writ relief.” Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Based on our review of the writ petition and the documents before us, we conclude that petitioners have not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Indeed, petitioners fail to demonstrate that they are unable to pursue their arguments through an appeal from a final judgment such that writ relief is warranted. See id. at 225. 88 P.3d at 841; see also Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we conclude that petitioners are not entitled to relief, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Chief Judge Bonnie A. Bulla did not participate in the decision in this matter.