EL CORTEZ RENO HOLDINGS LLC v. PFPCO NOBLE PIE PARLOR (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari, or, alternatively, a mandamus or prohibition, that challenges a district court order that affirmed a justice court's order that granted summary judgment.

Whether to consider a writ petition is within this court's discretion, Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). “The Nevada Constitution vests the district courts with final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising in the justice[ ] courts.” Pan, 120 Nev. at 227, 88 P.3d at 843; see also Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6. Generally, this court “decline[s] to entertain writs that request review of a decision of the district court acting in its appellate capacity[.]” in recognition that doing so “would undermine the finality of the district court's appellate jurisdiction.” State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Hedland), 116 Nev. 127, 134, 994 P.2d 692, 696 (2000).

Here, we conclude that El Cortez failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the district court “improperly refused to exercise its jurisdiction, has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Andersen v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. 321, 322, 448 P.3d 1120, 1122 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion and manifest abuse of discretion). We thus conclude that El Cortez has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty, J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.