ELITE INVESTIGATIONS INC NEVADA CORPORATION JONATHAN GIRARD NEVADA CITIZEN INDIVIDUALLY AND XAVIER SEDILLO NEVADA CITIZEN INDIVIDUALLY v. AIDEN DIAZ TOLER INDIVIDUALLY JENNIFER VILLAFANA INDIVIDUALLY AND TERAFLEX INC UTAH CORPORATION (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A WRIT OF PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss.

“A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station 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) (footnotes omitted). A writ of prohibition is available to restrain a district court from acting outside of or exceeding its jurisdiction. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Either writ may issue “in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330.

The consideration of a writ petition is within this court's sole discretion. State, Dep't of Tax'n v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 366, 368, 466 P.3d 1281, 1283 (2020). This court's general policy is to decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558-59. Petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). When disputed issues of fact are critical in demonstrating the propriety of extraordinary relief, those factual issues should be resolved in the first instance in the district court. See Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981).

Having considered the parties’ briefing, oral arguments, and the record, we conclude that petitioners have not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted at this stage in the proceedings. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 F.3d at 844. Accordingly, we deny the petition,

It is so ORDERED.

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Parraguirre, J.