SUE ELLEN DANG v. ANNA DIALLO (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition challenging a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss in a partition action.

“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 may issue to restrain the district court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991).¹ This court has original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary relief, and the issuance of such relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). As a general rule, “judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.” State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002); Buckwalter v. Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting that “[n]ormally this court will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss ․”). Although the rule is not absolute, see Int'l Game Tech., 122 Nev. at 142-43, 127 P.3d at 1096, petitioner has not established the district court manifestly abused its discretion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, C.J.

Cadish, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While the petition states that petitioner is seeking both mandamus and prohibition writ relief, petitioner has not identified any action of the district court that is allegedly in excess of its jurisdiction, and petitioner only discusses the propriety of mandamus relief.