LORENZANA 19 FCO 13 v. J. Apolinar Ibarra; Don Tortaco Corporation; and Don Tortaco Franchising Inc., 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 granting a motion to evict petitioners from Don Tortaco Mexican Grill units 1, 13, and 19.

The writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, while its counterpart, the writ of prohibition, is available to curb an act outside of or in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Segovia v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 910, 911-12, 407 P.3d 783, 785 (2017). Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents under these standards, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. See NRAP 21(b); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (explaining that it is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioners’ emergency motion for stay pending our consideration of this petition is denied as moot. We also deny real parties in interest's request that we impose sanctions on petitioners for filing this petition and motion.