LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY AND INTERSTATE FIRE CASUALTY COMPANY v. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a dispute regarding coverage under a commercial insurance policy.

A writ of mandamus is traditionally available to correct clear error or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion when there is no adequate legal remedy. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). It is solely within this court's discretion to entertain a writ petition, Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and the petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate writ relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). This court has discretion to entertain a petition for advisory mandamus, however this requires “special care ․ to avoid subverting the final judgment rule,” which is instrumental in ensuring an efficient justice system. Archon Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. 816, 821, 823-24, 407 P.3d 702, 707, 709 (2017).

Petitioners have not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. We generally decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss. See Archon Corp., 133 Nev. at 823-24, 407 P.3d at 709 (explaining that “[a] request for mandamus following the denial of a motion to dismiss presents many of the inefficiencies that adherence to the final judgment rule seeks to prevent”). While considerations of sound judicial economy and administration may, in limited circumstances, warrant an exception so long as no factual disputes exist and clear authority mandates dismissal, we are not convinced petitioners have met their burden. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997).

Finally, we are not convinced that advisory mandamus is appropriate. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Herndon, C.J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.

Cadish, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Patricia Lee, Justice, recused herself from participating in the decision on this matter.