EUGENE FOSTER AND TARYN SLOANE v. LONG TERM CAPITAL PARTNERSHIP VI LLC (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a justice court summary eviction.

Parties aggrieved by a justice court decision have a legal remedy in the form of an appeal to the district court, which has final appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in the justice court. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; Waugh v. Casazza, 85 Nev. 520, 521, 458 P.2d 359, 360 (1969). Consequently, this court generally declines to consider writ petitions requesting review of a justice court decision or the district court's appellate decision. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that an appeal is an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief); State of Nev. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 127, 134, 994 P.2d 692, 696 (2000). To preserve the finality of the district court's appellate decision, this court typically will entertain such a petition only if “the district court has improperly refused to exercise its jurisdiction, has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” State of Nev., 116 Nev. at 134, 994 P.2d at 697. Petitioners bear the 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).

Having considered the petition and supporting documents before us, we conclude that petitioners have not demonstrated that our intervention in this matter is warranted under the standard noted above. Petitioners assert that the justice court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a summary eviction when, among other things, a federal bankruptcy appeal is pending, not all occupants were named, the owner was treated as a tenant, and standing and title defects pertaining to foreclosure remain unresolved. However, petitioners had an adequate and speedy legal remedy in the form of an appeal to the district court. Moreover, NRS 40.255 provides for summary eviction after foreclosure in some instances, and petitioners have not provided copies of parts of the record sufficient to understand and support their assertions, such as copies of the justice court tenant answer and landlord complaint and any relevant federal or state court orders pertaining to the foreclosure. See NRAP 21(a); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioners’ emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.