LISA KING BRIAN HART JESSE LAW AND RICHARD LEVYCHIN v. MAMADOU COULIBALY DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF VINCO VENTURES INC (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 denying a motion for summary judgment in a shareholder derivative action.

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. An appeal from any adverse judgment provides petitioners with an adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). And this court generally will not consider extraordinary writ petitions challenging a district court order denying summary judgment, “unless summary judgment is clearly required by a statute or rule, or an important issue of law requires clarification.” Nevada Ass'n Servs., Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. 949, 953-54, 338 P.3d 1250, 1253 (2014). Petitioners have not demonstrated that controlling authority clearly required summary judgment or that an important issue of law requires clarification. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844 (“Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”). We therefore

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We deny petitioners’ stay motion.