ALLISON BRUNS IN HER CAPACITY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KYLE BICKERSTAFF AND ALLISON BRUNS IN HER CAPACITY AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF KYLE BICKERSTAFF AND ROBERT MCKENZIE IN HIS CAPACITY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KYLE BICKERSTAFF AND ROBERT MCKENZIE IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF KYLE BICKERSTAFF v. CAMERON CULBERTSON NICKOLAS VONALST DEJA JACKSON KYLIE STRITENBERGER MONIKA GONZALEZ JOSHUA TOLDT EMIL DAVID JANSSEN ESTATE OF MILDRED LOUISE JANSSEN JACOB JIYANG SUN ZIHAN LIU AIRBNB INC AND AIRBNB PAYMENTS INC DOES THROUGH AND ROE CORPORATIONS THROUGH (2026)

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent district court to resolve the pending motion to dismiss and countermotion to file a first amended complaint.¹ Petitioners filed a negligence suit against real parties in interest on June 23, 2022. Real parties in interest Airbnb, Inc. and Airbnb Payments, Inc. filed the subject motion to dismiss on August 15, 2023. Petitioners then filed a countermotion for leave to file a first amended complaint on August 25, 2023. The district court held a hearing on the motions on October 16, 2023, and then the court took the matter under advisement. At a hearing held on September 18, 2024, on a different motion, petitioners inquired about the status of the order resolving the motion to dismiss, and the district court stated it would look into the matter. No order was thereafter issued resolving the motion to dismiss or the motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Having waited over two years, on September 3, 2025, petitioners sought writ relief from this court to require the district court to resolve the motions. We directed the district court to file an answer, which the district court did on June 12, 2026.

Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy that is solely within this court's discretion. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). A writ of mandamus “shall be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” NRS 34.170. “This court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office or where discretion has been manifestly abused or exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.” Scarbo v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 125 Nev. 118, 121, 206 P.3d 975, 977 (2009) (citation modified); NRS 34.160 (stating mandamus standard).

The delay in resolving the subject motions is unacceptable. These motions have been pending now for three years. In its answer, the district court did not provide any explanation for the delay. And while the district court's answer indicates the court has reached a decision on the motions, it does not indicate whether an order resolving the motions has been filed and no such order has been provided to this court. Given the unacceptable delay and lack of explanation for the delay, we conclude our intervention is warranted. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to promptly enter a written order resolving the motion to dismiss filed on August 15, 2023, and the countermotion to file a first amended complaint filed on August 25, 2023.

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioners also requested a writ of procedendo as alternative relief. We determine that a writ of mandamus is more appropriate.