MENDOZA v. Richard K. Salas, Real Party in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition seeks to compel the district court to vacate a December 4, 2025, order in a probate action and to enter a corrected order that conforms with the court's oral ruling.¹

Having considered the petition and supporting documents,² we conclude that petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is 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 identified any differences between the district court's oral ruling and its written order; our review of the appendix reveals no such differences; and contrary to the statement of law asserted by petitioner, the district court's written order controls over any contradictory oral ruling, as only the written order has legal effect. Harrison v. Ramparts, Inc., 137 Nev. 637, 642 n.8, 500 P.3d 603, 608 n.8 (Nev. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that oral pronouncements from the bench are ineffective and only a written judgment has legal effect)). Moreover, petitioner has not demonstrated that he lacks an adequate and speedy legal remedy, which precludes writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although petitioner submitted a certificate of emergency under NRAP 27(e), the certificate does not fully comply with the requirements of that rule, see TRP Fund VI, LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 138 Nev. 170, 171, 506 P.3d 1056, 1058 (2022), and we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that relief is needed within 14 days to avoid irreparable harm. Accordingly, we decline to afford this matter emergency treatment. Further, we note that requests for a stay pending our consideration of a writ petition must be made by separate motion and comply with NRAP 8.

2.   Although petitioner's appendix improperly contains documents that are not file-stamped by the district court, NRAP 30(c)(1), including a nearly illegible JAVS session report, we have considered it.