OPTUM INC v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER DENYING WRIT PETITION

This original petition for a writ of prohibition 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. 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 specific allegations by real party in interest that, if substantiated, could support personal jurisdiction over petitioners and therefore warranted jurisdictional discovery. Cf. LNS Enters. LLC v. Cont'l Motors, Inc., 22 F.4th 852, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “a mere hunch that [discovery] might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts” and “bare allegations in the face of specific denials” do not warrant jurisdictional discovery (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, because the district court denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss without prejudice pending the completion of jurisdictional discovery, petitioners may still challenge the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, and therefore maintain a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Trump v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 109 Nev. 687, 693-94, 857 P.2d 740, 744-45 (1993) (discussing the different manners in which a defendant may challenge personal jurisdiction before and at trial); see also Hospital Corp. of Am. 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.