BONNIE NYBERG QUAINTANCE AN INDIVIDUAL IN HER OWN BEHALF AND AS THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GARY ALDEN QUAINTANCE v. THE PALMER LAW FIRM PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND RICHARD HERMAN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks a stay pending appeal, in light of the district court's failure to hear a stay motion filed below before the morning of an evidentiary hearing.

Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced 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); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Writ relief is available only when there is no plain, adequate, and speedy legal remedy, Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and here, petitioner may move for a stay in her appeal, which was docketed in this court last week. Nelson v. Heer, 121 Nev. 832, 122 P.3d 1252 (2005), as modified (Jan. 25, 2006); NRAP 8. Thus, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Moreover, we are not inclined to intervene before the district court has had an opportunity to consider petitioner's stay motion. See NRAP 8(a); TRP Fund VI, LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 21, 506 P.3d 1056 (2022). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty, J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.