VASQUEZ MONTANO v. LLC (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges district court summary judgment orders in a personal injury action.

Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. 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 the burden of showing such relief is warranted and that the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); 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). This court generally declines to exercise its discretion to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders granting or denying summary judgment and petitioners fail to demonstrate any exception to this general rule. In re Irrevocable Tr. Agreement of 1979, 130 Nev. 597, 601, 331 P.3d 881, 884 (2014) (outlining exceptions to this general rule). And petitioners have an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment. See NRAP 3A(b)(1) (allowing for an appeal from “[a] final judgment entered in an action or proceeding commenced in the court in which the judgment is rendered”); NRCP 54(b) (allowing a district court to certify orders as final that “adjudicate[ ] fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties” when the court explicitly finds there is “no just reason for delay”). We therefore

ORDER the petition DENIED.