NEVADA RURAL PRESERVATION ALLIANCE v. Lone Mountain Nevada Temple & Meeting House, Real Party in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges respondent City of Las Vegas's enactment of a bill that allegedly amended zoning in violation of Nevada statutory law.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted).

Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief sought in this court in the first instance, any application for such relief should first be made to the district court so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact” and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief even though “important public interests are involved”); State v. Cnty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that “this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court” in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). We see no reason why the instant petition should not proceed in district court in the first instance as those courts are also “invested with the power of mandamus.” Nev. Const, art. 6, § 6; NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that petitioners failed to serve the petition on real party in interest Lone Mountain Nevada Temple & Meeting House. This was improper. NRAP 21(a)(1) requires that the petition be served on real party in interest. See also NRAP 25(b) (requiring service of all papers on other parties to the case). This provides an additional basis for denying the instant writ petition.