ERRYS DEE DAVIS MINOR THROUGH HER PARENTS TRACI PARKS AND ERRICK DAVIS THOMAS ZIEGLER FREDERICK BICKHAM AND JANE NELSON v. STEPHANIE JONES DANIEL KIRGAN IRA MICHAEL SCHNEIER MUHAMMAD SAEED SABIR AND JAYSON AGATON APRN (2022)

ORDER DENYING PEITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging district court orders dismissing alternative, nonprofessional negligence claims in four separate medical malpractice actions.

A 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.” Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see NRS 34.160.

A writ of prohibition “arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising judicial functions, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person.” NRS 34.320.

We conclude that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. In particular, it appears that petitioners will have an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (recognizing that an appeal is an adequate legal remedy); NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330 (stating that extraordinary relief may only issue if there is no other adequate and speedy legal remedy). Accordingly, we deny the petition.

It is so ORDERED.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J,

HARDESTY, C.J., dissenting:

I respectfully disagree with my colleagues, as I would entertain this writ petition. Although an eventual appeal from the final judgment would allow petitioners to challenge the interlocutory orders of dismissal, petitioners raise an important issue of law—additional causes of action for battery separate from medical professional negligence that are not based on the breach of the professional standard of care. This issue is likely to reoccur. Oxbow Constr., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. 867, 872, 335 P.3d 1234, 1238 (2014) (noting that this court may exercise its discretion to consider a writ petition when “an important issue of law needs clarification and considerations of sound judicial economy and administration militate in favor of granting the petition.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, I would grant the petition.