LYON MANAGEMENT GROUP INC AND GRAMERCY RESIDENTIAL OWNER LLC v. DOUGLAS ANSELL (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting reconsideration of an order resolving a motion in limine. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Anna C. Albertson, Judge.

A writ of mandamus may be entered to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981); see also NRS 34.160, and a writ of prohibition is available to curb jurisdictional excesses, NRS 34.330. Neither writ will issue, however, when the petitioners have an adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.340; Clay v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. 445, 449, 305 P.3d 898, 901 (2013). An appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004).

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we decline to intervene. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the issuance of a writ is discretionary). Petitioners assert that the challenged order violates the law-of-the-case doctrine, as recognized by this court in Litchfield v. Tucson Ridge Homeowners Assn, 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 57, 555 P.3d 267 (2024), by granting reconsideration of a prior judge's ruling on the motion in limine. However, the challenged order is not the district court's final decision on the subject of the motion—whether the nature of real party in interest's criminal conviction may be mentioned at trial—because it allows for further revision during trial. As the order is not the district court's definitive ruling on the matter, it is not an appropriate subject for writ review at this time. Further, trial is scheduled to begin next week, and if still aggrieved, petitioners may raise these issues on appeal from any judgment in real party in interest's favor. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Pickering, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioners’ emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.