TOBIN v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF CLARK (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (explaining that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and that petitioners bear the burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted). Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that petitioner complains of various rulings and actions taken by the district court in this case, including that it allowed a nonparty to participate in the proceedings, but she failed to name any of the other parties to the district court case, or the purported nonparty, as real parties in interest to this writ proceeding, and her September 13, 2022, proof of service does not indicate that they were served. See NRAP 21(a)(1) & (2).