JOSEPH ZERGA AND CHRISTINE MODY AS CO TRUSTEES OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JOSEPH ZERGA DATED JANUARY 10 2012 AND DESERT WINDS TRUST AS AMENDED AND RESTATED JANUARY 10 2012 NON TESTAMENTARY TRUST v. ROMAN ZERGA AND QUINTON SINGLETON CONTESTING HEIRS (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to direct the district court to vacate a scheduled evidentiary hearing regarding an inter vivos trust.

Real party in interest Roman Zerga petitioned the district court to assume jurisdiction over petitioner Joseph Zerga's trust. Roman alleged that Joseph's wife petitioner Christine Mody took advantage of Joseph's estate due to his Alzheimer's. In response, Christine asserted that Roman lacked standing to challenge the trust. Joseph's nephew Quinton Singleton subsequently joined Roman as co-petitioner and the two filed an amended petition, which Christine similarly opposed. The district court granted Roman and Quinton's petition to assume jurisdiction over the trust and ordered an evidentiary hearing. Christine argues that the district court abused its discretion in scheduling the evidentiary hearing because it had not yet addressed the issue of standing.

“A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to control a manifest abuse of discretion.” Agwara v. State Bar of Nev., 133 Nev. 783, 785, 406 P.3d 488, 491 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); NRS 34.160. Petitioners must show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). “Whether extraordinary writ relief will issue is solely within this court's discretion.” Mountain View Hosp., Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. 180, 184, 273 P.3d 861, 864 (2012). In challenging the district court's exercise of discretion, mandamus relief is only available “where the lower court has manifestly abused [its] discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.” Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020).

“To efficiently and thoughtfully resolve ․ an important issue of law demands a well-developed district court record, including legal positions fully argued by the parties and a merits-based decision by the district court judge.” Archon Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. 816, 823, 407 P.3d 702, 708 (2017). Because the district court has not made a definitive ruling as to standing, we conclude that our involvement at this stage is premature. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, J.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.