WILLIAM MCCANN v. PRESTIGE DEFAULT SERVICES LLC AND BANK TRUST (2023)

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

This pro se original petition for writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition challenges a district court order granting a motion to set aside default.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's 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). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition and supporting materials, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Stiglich, C.J.

Cadish, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We further deny all pending motions as moot.