ETT LLC v. The Estate of Milo Hurst; Tevis Hurst, in her capacity as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Milo Hurst and as Heir of Milo Hurst, deceased; Sarah Callovi, as heir of Milo Hurst, deceased; Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc. d/b/a Real Water; Real Water Inc.; Nikolay Sharapov; Candice Sharapov; Leo Sharapov, a minor child, and Zoey Sharapov, by and through their natural parents; Nikolay Sharapov and Candice Sharapov, husband and wife; Jose Martinez; Monica Vozza; Lorraine A. Kalayanaprapruit; Li Ching Tao; Bruce Parent; Matthew Gonzalez; Agnes Aleksander; and Silviya Atanasova, Real Parties in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges the district court's denial of a motion to deconsolidate cases and continue trial. Petitioners have also filed a motion for stay and a motion to convert the stay motion into an emergency motion under NRAP 27(e).

The motion to treat the stay motion as an emergency due to the upcoming trial date is granted. However, having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. See NRAP 21(b); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). In particular, trial is scheduled to commence next week, and petitioners have not sufficiently demonstrated that they lack an adequate and speedy legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment such that these issues should be decided now, precluding writ relief. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004); see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. 816, 819, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) (recognizing that “[a] writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal,” but rather, the writ should be used sparingly, “for extraordinary causes”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, the motion for stay and motion to consolidate this case with the case in Docket No. 91965 are denied as moot. We note that the parties appear to agree that petitioner Nevada Beverage Co. has reached a settlement agreement and is no longer seeking relief from this court, although no formal notice of such has been filed.