PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE v. RICHARD LITT LAURA LITT AND MICHAEL KAMMERLING (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order staying a declaratory relief action. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 680-81, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196-97 (2020) (refusing to substitute this court's judgment for that of the district court absent a manifest abuse of discretion); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that “the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court”). Furthermore, granting the relief requested would not serve judicial economy and would instead result in piecemeal litigation, which this court generally disfavors. See Dekker/Perich/Sabatini Ltd. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 137 Nev., Adv. Op. 53, 495 P.3d 519, 522 (2021) (explaining that this court may exercise its discretion to consider a writ petition when “considerations of judicial economy support [such] review’); cf. Barbara Ann Holder Tr. v. Shack, 131 Nev. 582, 590-91, 356 P.3d 1085, 1090-91 (2015) (discussing Nevada's policy against piecemeal litigation). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, C.J.

Lee, J.

Bell, J.