CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JANE DOE JOHN DOE AND ERIN TIMRAWI (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition, and other extraordinary writs challenges district court orders denying motions to dismiss in a class action.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that ou extraordinary intervention is warranted. As a general rule, “judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.” State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002). Although this rule is not absolute, see Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, see NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, or that the district court's orders otherwise fall within any of the narrow grounds that may warrant writ relief. Further, our intervention is not warranted given the substantial amount of time that has elapsed since the district court issued the orders being challenged and petitioner's failure to provide a persuasive explanation for its delay in seeking writ relief. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Herndon, C.J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner's request to stay the district court proceedings is denied as moot.