ALBEMARLE CORPORATION VIRGINIA CORPORATION AND ALBEMARLE INC DELAWARE CORPORATION v. ESMERALDA MINERALS LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND ITS PARENT PURE ENERGY MINERALS LTD (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a petition for judicial review in a water law matter.

Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted at this time. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition).

Petitioners appear to contend that the district court erred in applying equitable tolling in its December 26, 2019, order denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss real parties in interests’ petition for judicial review. Petitioners read Gold Standard Ventures (US) v. Thorson, 142 Nev., Adv. Op. 10, 583 P.3d 985 (2026), overbroadly for the proposition that a party without property rights affected by the State Engineer's decision is not entitled to equitable tolling. According to petitioners, because real parties in interest have no property rights at issue in the underlying proceedings, they were not entitled to equitable tolling.

It does not appear that anyone (whether it be the State Engineer or the district court) has determined that real parties in interest are aggrieved by the underlying proceedings, such that Gold Standard might be implicated. Thus, it would be premature for us to direct the district court to vacate its seven-year-old order based on an issue that has not been adjudicated. Our decision to deny this petition should not be construed as precluding petitioners from raising additional arguments in the district court as to why the petition for judicial review should be dismissed. Consistent with the foregoing, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.