STEVEN FISHER v. BEATRIZ WING (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original emergency petition for a writ of mandamus that challenges a divorce decree and an order denying a motion for a change of venue. 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 petition for extraordinary writ relief is within our sole discretion, and the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev, 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and the supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary relief is warranted. In particular, writ petitions are not substitutes for an appeal, and petitioner has failed to show that appealing the challenged orders would not provide an adequate legal remedy for his grievances here, thus precluding writ relief. See NRAP 3A(b)(1), (6) (making appealable final judgments and orders denying motions to change venue); see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. 816, 819, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) (recognizing that “[a] writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal”); Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.