JUAN PABLO CEVASCO AS CONSERVATOR FOR MARIA DE LOS ANGELES CEVASCO LOPEZ v. MERCY INC AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE FOREIGN COMPANY (2025)

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY PETITION

This original emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting a continuance of a trial date. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, NRS 34.160, 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). The decision to entertain a mandamus petition is within our sole discretion, and the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that such extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and supporting appendices, and in light of the district court's findings supporting its decision, we cannot conclude that the district court manifestly abused its discretion.¹ See Benson v. Benson, 66 Nev. 94, 99, 204 P.2d 316, 318-19 (1949) (holding that a decision regarding a motion to continue “will not be reversed, except for the most potent reasons” because the district court is in the best position to make such decisions). Accordingly, we

ORDER the emergency petition DENIED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Cf. NRCP 1 (providing that the NRCP “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”).