Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MSG LV CONSTRUCTION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND MSG LAS VEGAS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, DEPT. XIII, Respondents, BOMBARD ELECTRIC, LLC; DESERT FIRE PROTECTION, L.P.; LONE MOUNTAIN EXCAVATION & UTILITIES, LLC; PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING, INC.; REXEL USA INC.; TRIMARK USA, LLC; PEC SOLUTIONS, LLC D/B/A ARCHKEY TECHNOLOGIES; HARRIS LAS VEGAS LLC; SOUTHWEST STEEL, LLC; W&WAFCO STEEL LLC; ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC.; AND BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES, LLC, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging a district court order consolidating arbitration proceedings.
Our decision to issue writ relief is discretionary. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). 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, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
Writ relief will not issue when the parties have a “plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.” NRS 134.170; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851 “Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
The instant petition follows a district court order consolidating multiple individual arbitration proceedings. Here, the district court issued a provisional remedy under NRS 38.222 prior to the appointment of an arbitrator. Because the order is only a provisional remedy, which can be re-evaluated by an R-7 arbitrator at the parties’ request, the petitioners have not carried their burden of demonstrating that they do not have an adequate remedy at law. Thus, our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Pickering, J.
Parraguirre, J.
Bell, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 90739
Decided: July 06, 2026
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)