GOMEZ v. GEICO (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (holding that mandamus relief is appropriate “only where the lower court has manifestly abused [its] discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously”). The decision to entertain a mandamus petition is within our sole discretion, and a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that such extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner fails to satisfy this burden. Moreover, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. See Walker, 136 Nev. at 681-83, 476 P.3d at 1197-98 (explaining that the availability of a later appeal generally precludes writ relief and rejecting the contention that writ relief would be more expeditious than an appeal in the ordinary course of law).

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.