AMY SUGDEN v. DKB LLC (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the denial of a motion for summary judgment in a legal malpractice 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 briefing on the petition and the documents before the court, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary relief is warranted. In particular, we conclude that laches bars our consideration of the issues presented via a writ petition. See Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of N. Nev. v. State ex rel. Pub. Works Bd., 108 Nev. 605, 611, 836 P.2d 633, 637 (1992) (providing that laches can prevent writ relief where the delay in seeking such relief is inexcusable, waiver can be implied from the petitioner's acquiescence to the existing conditions, and/or the real parties in interest are prejudiced by the delay); State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 127, 134-35, 994 P.2d 692, 697 (2000) (concluding that an 11-month delay alone precluded consideration of a writ petition). The denial of summary judgment petitioner sought to challenge was filed August 21, 2025, and the instant petition was not filed until July 20, 2026. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.