SUZUKI v. Christian Durante, et al., Real Parties in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges several district court decisions in the underlying action, including decisions striking a partial summary judgment, denying partial summary judgment, granting motions in limine, and denying a trial continuance. Petitioners have also filed an emergency motion for stay of the upcoming August 3, 2026, trial, and a motion for leave to file a supplement to the stay motion.¹

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (providing that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and recognizing that the petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). 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). Although this rule is not absolute, see Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), we conclude that petitioners have not demonstrated that an appeal from the final judgment below would not afford an adequate legal remedy or that the issues raised otherwise fall within any of the narrow grounds that may warrant writ relief. Trial is scheduled to commence imminently. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioners’ motion for leave to file a supplement is granted. The clerk of this court shall detach and file the proposed supplement (exhibit 1), along with the two exhibits attached thereto (exhibits 2 and 3). The supplement and exhibits have been reviewed in rendering a decision in this matter, in addition to the other filings in this case.

2.   In light of this order, petitioners’ emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.