ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. STACI MITCHELL (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order compelling petitioner to produce its ECL file for in camera review. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for stay, asserting that it is required to comply with the district court's, order by September 8, 2025.

A writ of prohibition may issue when the district court is exceeding its authority, while a writ of mandamus is available to compel a legally required act or to control a manifest abuse of discretion. Halverson v. Miller, 124 Nev. 484, 487, 186 P.3d 893, 896 (2008); see NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320. Whether a petition for writ relief will be entertained rests within this court's sound discretion. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007), and it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Moreover, when this court is prevented from rendering any effective relief by events that occur during the pendency of a case, the case will typically be dismissed as moot. Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 604, 245 P.3d 572, 574, 575 (2010).

Here, having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, which were filed just yesterday afternoon, we are not convinced that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Further, as the ECL file was due to the district court shortly after the petition was filed, it appears that the petition has become moot. For these reasons, we decline to intervene and

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is likewise denied as moot.