BHUVANESHWAR SAHAY SAXENA AND PRABHA SAXENA v. TERRI SAXENA (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an emergency pro se petition for a writ of mandamus primarily challenging an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement in a probate matter. 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 petitioners have not demonstrated that extraordinary relief is warranted. In particular, orders “[d]irecting or authorizing the sale or conveyance or confirming the sale of real property” and orders “[d]irecting or allowing the payment of a debt, claim, devise or attorney's fee” are appealable pursuant to NRS 155.190(1)(f) and (j) making writ relief unavailable.¹ See NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing an appeal as an adequate remedy that generally precludes writ relief). “Additionally, writ relief is not available to correct an untimely notice of appeal.” Pan, 120 Nev. at 224-25, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that it appears petitioners’ motion for relief under NRCP 60(b)(3) and (4) remains pending before the district court, which raises many of the same issues as this petition. See NRAP 3A(b)(8) (making appealable “a post-judgment order ․ granting or denying relief under NRCP 60(b)”).