DATTALA v. LLC WFG (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court partial summary judgment in a property title dispute. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded 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, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Specifically, we generally decline to exercise our discretion to grant writ petitions challenging orders resolving motions for summary judgment, and we are not convinced any of the exceptions apply in this case. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing the exceptions to the general rule). Moreover, the district court stated it would consider certifying the challenged order as final pursuant to NRCP 54(b) if a written motion were filed, which would make the order appealable. See NRAP 3A(b)(1) (providing that final judgments are appealable); Pan, 120 Nev. at 223, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that “an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief”). We therefore,

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   The motion to dismiss filed by real party in interest Precision Assets is denied as moot.The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.