Dan Bongino, Petitioner, v. John Matze, Real Party in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment on immunity and other grounds.

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is appropriate here. 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 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 have reviewed petitioner's immunity and other arguments in support of writ review, and we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, petitioner has 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.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.