RIO PROPERTIES LLC v. Jeffrey Harris, an Individual, Real Party in Interest. (2021)

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, without prejudice, a motion for summary judgment or to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Generally, this court will not consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions for summary judgment or to dismiss. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). Moreover, we have recognized that petitions for writ relief should not be utilized as a vehicle for piecemeal appellate review. See W. Cab Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 65, 67, 390 P.3d 662, 667 (2017). For this reason, an appeal is generally considered an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004); see NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330.

Here, trial is imminent, and petitioners have an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment. NRAP 3A(b)(1). Thus, we decline to consider this petition for extraordinary writ relief, NRAP 21(b); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 818 P.2d 849 (1991), and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.