ASSURITY HEALTHCARE INC FOREIGN CORPORATION BANDAR ENTERPRISES LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ERRONEOUSLY NAMED AS ASSURITY LABS INC HEATH WILLS AN INDIVIDUAL PATRICIA WILLS AN INDIVIDUAL HEATH WILLS PC NEVADA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND HUTCHINGS LAW GROUP LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY v. SINGLE HELIX INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY LLC WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY COLLINS CAPITAL LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY SUSAN KAPLAN AN INDIVIDUAL STEPHEN GELLER AN INDIVIDUAL AND MARTIN FABRIKANT (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus, or in the alternative, prohibition challenges a district court order appointing a receiver.¹

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const, art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted for several reasons. To begin, NRAP 3A(b)(4) expressly provides that an appeal may be taken from an order appointing a receiver. Indeed, petitioners have already attempted to appeal the district court's order appointing a receiver in Docket No. 87872. Petitioners therefore have not demonstrated that they lack a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Further, our intervention is not warranted given the substantial amount of time that has elapsed since the district court issued the order being challenged, and petitioners failure to provide a cogent explanation for their delay. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Cause appearing, petitioners’ motion to exceed the page limit on their petition is granted. NRAP 21(d); NRAP 32(a)(7)(D)(i). The petition was filed on January 18, 2024.

2.   Given this order, petitioners’ motion for stay is denied as moot.