PAUL MAXWELL AND LAS VEGAS PAVING CORPORATION v. EUGENE ANTHONY ADAMS JR (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition challenges a district court order granting a motion to reopen discovery and continue the trial of the underlying matter.¹

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. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition may be warranted when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Club Vista, Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012). 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; NRS 34.330; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). 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).

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioners have not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See id. 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.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although the challenged Order was signed by Senior District Court Judge Carolyn Ellsworth, the ruling memorialized therein was made by former District Court Judge Michael Villani, who has since retired.