CC SERVICES INC COUNTRY FINANCIAL DELAWARE CORPORATION v. STEVE AGUILAR INDIVIDUALLY AND JASON STUHMER INDIVIDUALLY (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to vacate its order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss and to grant the motion to dismiss.

The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within the discretion of this court. 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). A writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a legally required act or to cure an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981).

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. NRS 34.170; 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. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. As an initial matter, while petitioner argues that mandamus relief would be appropriate to avoid potentially significant reoccurring issues of law, it does not make a compelling argument as to why an appeal from a later final judgment would not be an adequate remedy. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. As a general rule, “judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.” State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002); Buckwalter v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting that “[n]ormally this court will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss”). Although the rule is not absolute, see Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not established the district court manifestly abused its discretion. Accordingly, we,

ORDER the petition DENIED.

cc: Hon. Jasmin D. Lilly-Spells, District Judge

O'Hagan Meyer PLLC

Lipson Neilson P.C.

Price Beckstrom, PLLC

Eighth District Court Clerk

Herndon C.J

Parraguirre, J. Stiglich, J.