RICHARDSON v. Oscar Orellana; Elvira Orellana; Jose Rodriguez; Ingrid Amaya-Fulton; Christopher Orellana Rodriguez; Ingris Janeth Orellana; and Jose M. Orellana, Real Parties in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). 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,¹ we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Among other reasons, petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment below would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner has filed a motion for permission to exceed type-volume limitation and page limitation for petition of writ of mandamus. The motion is granted. The petition was filed on September 29, 2022.

2.   Petitioners emergency motion for stay under NRAP 27(e) is denied as moot.