PECK v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to compel the district court to act on petitioner's underlying case following the reversal and remand of an order granting dismissal and summary judgment in favor of real party in interest.

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. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). But writ relief is typically not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Moreover, whether such a petition will be considered rests within our sound discretion. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition, we conclude petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; NRAP 21(b)(1).

It is so ORDERED.