STAHL v. III (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original, emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders deferring ruling on a motion in limine and denying, without prejudice, a motion for partial summary judgment in a medical malpractice and tort action.¹

Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. NRAP 21(b). Subject to very few exceptions, we decline to exercise our discretion to entertain writ petitions that challenge district court orders denying motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). We decline to deviate from that rule here, particularly because the district court has not definitively ruled, the underlying matter is currently midtrial, and the issues presented can be raised on appeal from the final judgment, such that petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020); see also Moore v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 415, 416-17, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980) (declining to issue writ relief when doing so would not resolve the entire underlying controversy). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

FOOTNOTES

1.   In filing their emergency petition, petitioners failed to include an NRAP 27(e)(3) certificate. NRAP 21(a)(6); TRP Fund VI, LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 21, 506 P.3d 1056, 1057-58 (2022).

2.   The Honorable Bonnie Bulla, Judge, did not participate in the decision of this matter.