WILLIAM CUTLIP AND VALERIE WEIS CO ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF GENE CUTLIP JR v. BRIAN EDMISTON AND DAWN EDMISTON (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a matter involving the settlement of an estate.

Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is 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, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). In this, we are not persuaded that an appeal fails to provide petitioners with an adequate legal remedy. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that an appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief); see also NRS 155.190(1)(j) (recognizing that an order “[d]irecting or allowing the payment of a ․ claim” is an appealable order). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, J.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.