JET COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION LLC AN OKLAHOMA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY STEVE RICH AND JAKE SHARP v. NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE AGENCY OF LAWTON LLC MICHAEL TOWE LORIE WALTERS INSURICA OF LAWTON AND DAVID HOOPER (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within this court's discretion. 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). This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. A writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a legally required act or to cure an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). Petitioners bear 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. NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. In particular, the district court identified evidence supporting its determination that real-parties-in-interest made a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction. Trump v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 109 Nev. 687, 693, 857 P.2d 740, 744 (1993) (“In determining whether a prima facie showing has been made, the district court is not acting as a fact finder. It accepts properly supported proffers of evidence by a plaintiff as true.”). Moreover, because the district court denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and applied a prima facie standard without conducting an evidentiary hearing, petitioners remain free to challenge personal jurisdiction in the underlying proceeding, and therefore maintain a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See id. at 693-94, 857 P.2d at 744-45 (discussing the different manners in which a defendant may challenge personal jurisdiction before and at trial); see also Hospital Corp. of America v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 112 Nev. 1159, 1161 n.2, 924 P.2d 725, 726 n.2 (1996) (explaining that “so long as the personal jurisdiction issue is properly presented to the district court prior to trial, a defendant does not waive the right to challenge jurisdiction by making an appearance at trial and arguing the case on the merits”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.