FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. Sandy Herrera, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

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 partial summary judgment and granting a countermotion for partial summary judgment. Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted at this time. See 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). In particular, we are not persuaded that an appeal from an adverse final judgment would fail to provide petitioner with an adequate legal remedy. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted and that the right to appeal is an adequate legal remedy that may preclude writ relief). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, we deny petitioner’s motion for stay as moot.The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.