KATZ v. Rory Griffith, Real Party in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within the discretion of this court. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851. 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). A writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a legally required act or to cure an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). “This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction.” NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 1.07 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 and supporting documents 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). Additionally, petitioner has not shown that the district court has failed to perform a legally required act or has arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion. And petitioner has not shown that the district court as acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.