KWANZA GREEN v. BILL BRANDT FORD INC AND CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDMAUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition raises issues concerning the integrity of judicial proceedings, docket manipulation, and compliance with default judgment procedures under NRCP 55 and 60. In particular, petitioner challenges the asserted removal of a default judgment from the docket and the dismissal of the case instead.

We have considered the documents on file with this court, and we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ is not warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). In particular, petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of any written, signed, and filed district court default judgment, see NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition”); Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Hum. Res. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 445, 453-54, 92 P.3d 1239, 1244-45 (2004) (explaining that an order is effective only when written, signed, and filed), and moreover, petitioner may raise these issues in an appeal from the district court's dismissal order, NRAP 3A(b)(1). The ability to appeal precludes writ relief. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that “the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, C.J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.