MJPSG ASIA PACIFIC LLC NEW MEXICO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WGS GROUP INC NEVADA CORPORATION v. CHARLES ALLAWAY AN INDIVIDUAL MARCUS SKEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND MICHAEL MANAHAN AN INDIVIDUAL (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting a motion for leave to amend a complaint in a corporate action.

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. The decision to entertain a mandamus petition is within our sole discretion, and a petitioner has the burden of proving that such extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioners fail to satisfy their burden, as we are not convinced that they lack an adequate legal remedy through an appeal from any adverse final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). And petitioners’ concern of potentially unnecessary litigation expenses does not warrant our interlocutory intervention. Cf. Hansen v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 650, 658, 6 P.3d 982, 986-87 (2000) (recognizing, albeit in the context of a request for a stay, that the prospect of incurring litigation expenses does not rise to the level of warranting this court's intervention). Further, this court typically will not entertain a writ petition challenging matters entrusted to the district court's sound discretion, and petitioners do not persuade us otherwise here. Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020); see MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC v. Peppermill Casinos, Inc., 134 Nev. 235, 239, 416 P.3d 249, 254 (2018) (explaining that the decision on a motion for leave to amend is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court). We therefore

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Pickering, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We deny as moot petitioners’ September 5, 2025, motion to stay the proceedings below.