EASTERN WIGWAM LLC v. LLC (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a contract and mechanic's lien action.

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). This court has discretion as to whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief and will not do so when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Moreover, it is well established that Nevada's appellate courts will generally not exercise their discretion to consider petitions for extraordinary writ relief that challenge orders denying motions for summary judgment unless summary judgment is clearly required by a statute or rule, or an important issue of law requires clarification. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). Petitioners bear 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).

We have considered the petition and supporting documents while bearing in mind Nevada's appellate courts’ circumspect approach to requests for extraordinary relief from orders denying motions for summary judgment. See Smith, 113 Nev. at 1344-45, 950 P.2d at 281. And based on our review, we cannot conclude that petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); D.R. Horton, 123 Nev. at 475, 168 P.3d at 737.

It is so ORDERED.