RISHER v. APRN (2018)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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

Having considered the parties’ arguments and the record, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.170; Gonzalez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 215, 217, 298 P.3d 448, 449-50 (2013) (explaining when a writ of mandamus may be warranted and that the decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within this court's discretion); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that petitioners bear the burden of showing that mandamus is warranted). In particular, we are not persuaded that an appeal from a final judgment is an inadequate remedy. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841.¹ Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note, however, that the petitioners’ reliance on Goldenberg v. Woodard, Docket Nos. 57232, 58151 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, June 20, 2014), is misplaced as Goldenberg was decided before January 1, 2016, and, therefore, may not be cited for persuasive value. See NRAP 36(c)(3).