AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES INC v. Gabor Viczko, Individually and as Trustee of the Letosketi Trust; Balazs Levy; L/P Insurance Services, Inc.; and Diana Decker, Real Parties in Interest. (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders (1) denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, (2) denying a motion for reconsideration, and (3) granting a motion to enforce a partial settlement.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel a district court to perform an act the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and the decision to entertain a petition requesting such is within this court's discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). A writ petition is a proper avenue for relief “where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” NRS 34.170. However, this court has consistently held that “the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.” Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Petitioners carry the burden to demonstrate to this court that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844.

Having reviewed the petition, answers, reply, and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our intervention by extraordinary relief is warranted in this matter. The petitioners have an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from any final adverse judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.