JOE DAICHENDT v. ED UNDERWOOD (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders denying (1) petitioner's second motion to extend time to amend pleadings or add parties and motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and (2) motion to reconsider its order denying leave to amend, or in the alternative for a stay pending resolution of this petition.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, 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. Here, we conclude that petitioner has an adequate remedy at law by way of direct appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition.¹

It is so ORDERED.

Stiglich. C.J.

Cadish, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We further deny petitioner's May 26, 2023, motion for stay of the district court proceedings as moot given our decision here.