LINCICOME v. LLC LLC LLC PROF 2013 M4 (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting nonmonetary status and denying leave to amend the complaint. Having reviewed the filings and supporting documentation, we conclude that petitioners have not met their burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (describing a petitioners burden to demonstrate that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (“[T]he issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court.”). The petitioners point to defects with the district court’s decisions, but have not complied with NRAP 21(a)(4) by providing this court with transcripts detailing what happened at the relevant hearings. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 229, 88 P.3d at 844 (“If essential information is left out of the petition and accompanying documentation, we have no way of properly evaluating the petition.”). The petitioners also fail to demonstrate the absence of an adequate and speedy legal remedy. See Int’l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (“Writ relief is not available ․ when an adequate and speedy legal remedy exists.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.