PHC ELKO INC v. George A. Winch, Jr., an Individual; George A. Winch, M.D., a Nevada Professional Corporation, d/b/a Elko Women's Health Center, Real Parties in Interest. (2019)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a contract and tort action.

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). First, we are not persuaded that petitioners have demonstrated that the order denying summary judgment qualifies for extraordinary writ review. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (“A writ of mandamus is available to compel ․ an act [which] the law requires ․ or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.” (footnote omitted) ); 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 burden of showing such relief is warranted). Second, judicial economy weighs against entertaining the petition because granting the requested relief would only immunize petitioners from liability for money damages; the prayer for equitable relief would remain. Moore v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 415, 417, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980) (observing that writ relief may be inappropriate when granting the requested relief will not resolve the entire underlying controversy). Finally, petitioners have an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that the right to appeal is an adequate legal remedy that may preclude writ relief). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.