LAURA PURKETT INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SANDRA CAMACHO AND ANTHONY CAMACHO v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC FOREIGN CORPORATION REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY FOREIGN CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE UNITED STATES TOBACCO BUSINESS OF BROWN WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION WHICH IS THE SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIGGETT GROUP LLC FOREIGN CORPORATION AND ASM NATIONWIDE CORPORATION SILVERADO SMOKES CIGARS DOMESTIC CORPORATION (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders granting Real Parties in Interest's motions for summary judgment.

Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted and providing that an appeal is typically an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 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).

Specifically, traditional mandamus is not appropriate here because petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from a final judgment. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). We likewise decline to exercise our discretion to entertain the case under advisory mandamus. See Archon Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. 816, 821, 824, 407 P.3d 702, 707, 709 (2017) (recognizing that “[t]he sound exercise of that discretion requires special care in the advisory mandamus context, to avoid subverting the final judgment rule and inviting, rather than avoiding, undue delay and expense in dispute resolution” and discussing the risks entailed by advisory mandamus). We therefore

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Pickering J.

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.