JEAN MEAD v. AHERN RENTALS INC (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order refusing to stay civil proceedings pending a parallel criminal investigation. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for stay during our consideration of this writ petition.

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy); NRAP 21(b). In particular, the district court applied the relevant factors to the circumstances before it, and petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion in so doing or that it lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction. Aspen Fin. Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 635, 639, 642-43, 289 P.3d 201, 204, 206 (2012). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Parraguirre, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.