RUSSELL GOLLARD v. STEPHANIE HIDALGO (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical malpractice action.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and the decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is within our sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. 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. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. To begin, petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Nor has petitioner demonstrated a persuasive basis for deviating from the general rule that this court will not entertain writ petitions challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss. See Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 824-25, 407 P.3d 702, 709-10 (2017). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre, C.J.

Hardesty, J.

Stiglich, J.