CARL GENBERG v. N8 MEDICAL INC NEVADA CORPORATION N8 BIOSCIENCES INC N8 MEDICAL LLC AN OHIO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY KINNEAR PHARMACEUTICALS LLC AN OHIO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY KINNEAR HOLDINGS LLC AN OHIO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY N8 MEDICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD AN AUSTRALIAN PRIVATE COMPANY AND KINNEAR PHARMA AUS PTY LTD AN AUSTRALIAN PRIVATE COMPANY (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This pro se original petition for writ of mandamus challenges a district court preliminary injunction in a civil matter.

Petitioner Carl Genberg seeks mandamus relief asking this court to vacate a preliminary injunction issued against him. Genberg asserts that such relief is warranted because the district court enjoined his right to free speech under the Nevada Constitution. Genberg contends that the alleged free speech is based on whistleblower statements he made concerning real party in interest N8 Medical, Inc.’s misrepresentations to a federal agency.

“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 an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.” Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (footnotes omitted). The consideration of a writ petition is within this court's sole discretion. State, Dep't of Tax'n v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 366, 368, 466 P.3d 1281, 1283 (2020). Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances. Archon Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. 816, 819, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017).

Genberg elected to file this writ petition instead of an appeal. See NRAP 3A(b)(3) (stating that a district court order granting an injunction is an appealable determination). A writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal but is appropriate only when there is no “plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Archon Corp., 133 Nev. At 819, 407 P.3d at 706 (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, Genberg's appendix omits relevant documents necessary for this court's review. See Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007) (observing that it is a party's responsibility to provide an adequate record for this court's review and that when a portion of the record is missing, “we necessarily presume that the missing portion supports the district court's decision”). Thus, without addressing the merits of the petition, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.