SCOTT FERGUSON v. TRINA PARKER (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's decision to deny petitioner's motion to dismiss.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available when a party has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Sole discretion over whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief rests with this court. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.

We decline to entertain the writ petition because petitioners have alternative legal remedies available. An appeal from a final judgment is generally considered an adequate and speedy legal remedy. See Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Here, petitioner will have the opportunity to appeal the final judgment that results from proceedings in the district court. We also note our long-established policy of declining to entertain writ petitions challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss because such petitions are “disruptive to the orderly processing of civil cases in the district courts” and consideration of judicial economy counsels this court against entertaining them. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983). Petitioners have not demonstrated any countervailing justification to depart from our general rule, and we find no areas of law in need of clarification that would justify considering the petition under an advisory mandamus framework. Cf. Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 684, 476 P.3d 1194, 1199 (2020) (explaining that addressing important issues of law or policy weighs in favor of writ consideration). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

cc: Hon. Veronica Barisich, District Judge

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas

Kung & Brown

Eighth District Court Clerk

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J. Stiglich J.