JAMES v. Clark County Department of Family Services; and J.S., Real Parties in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 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 Judicial Dist. Court, 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). In particular, the availability of an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; see NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. Petitioner may appeal from the district court's final order in the underlying matter, if aggrieved, and we are not persuaded that such an appeal would be an inadequate remedy here. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.