JOE MILAN TRUST BY JOSEPH KENNEDY ITS TRUSTEE AND RYAN MILAN TRUST BY RYAN TIBERTI ITS TRUSTEE v. PAUL MAFFEY MARY ANDRA TIBERTI MAFFEY DAVID MAFFEY MATTHEW WALTERS TIBERTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC DOMESTIC CORPORATION TIBERTI HOLDINGS LLC AND TIBERTI MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order granting partial summary judgment in a shareholder derivative action.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). First, our review of the appendix does not demonstrate the manifest abuse of discretion or clear legal right to the relief sought that is required for extraordinary writ relief. Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680-81, 475 P.3d 1194, 1196-97 (2020). Second, we generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders granting partial summary judgment, Renown Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. 824, 828, 335 P.3d 199, 202 (2014), and we decline to deviate from that rule here, particularly because the issue presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment. See NRS 34.170 (providing that a writ of mandamus may issue in cases where petitioners lack a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law); cf. Hansen v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 650, 658, 6 P.3d 982, 986-87 (2000) (recognizing, albeit in the context of a request for a stay, that the prospect of incurring litigation expenses does not rise to the level of warranting this court's intervention). Nor are we persuaded that a writ of prohibition is warranted, as petitioners fail to explain how such relief would be proper where the district court simply resolved a motion for partial summary judgment. See Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. 643, 649, 331 P.3d 905, 909 (2014) (recognizing that a writ of prohibition is appropriate when a district court exceeds its jurisdiction). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We deny petitioners’ January 23, 2026, motion to extend stay.