Opinion
No. 64147
10-22-2013
WILLIAM S. ARRINGTON, AN INDIVIDUAL, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ALLAN R. EARL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and RBM CONSTRUCTION, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION; DAVID ROSENAUR, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DAVID ROSENAUR 1990 LIVING TRUST, A TRUST, Real Parties in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting and denying cross motions for partial summary judgment.
"A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (footnote omitted); see NRS 34.160. A writ of prohibition may be granted when the district court exceeds its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. It is within this court's discretion to determine whether a writ petition will be considered. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is generally available, however, only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. This court has consistently held that an appeal is typically an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841.
We have considered the petition and appendix filed in this matter and conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. First, petitioner has failed to provide this court with any of the parties' pleadings or the parties' motions for summary judgment and the oppositions thereto that are essential for this court's consideration of the writ petition. NRAP 21(a)(4); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228-29, 88 P.3d at 844 (requiring petitioner to submit with his petition copies of any parts of the record before the respondent district court that are essential for this court to understand the issues presented). Second, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we
In light of this order, we deny petitioner's emergency stay motion.
_______________, J.
Hardesty
_______________, J.
Parraguirre
_______________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Allan R. Earl, District Judge
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP
Sklar Williams LLP
Peel Brimley LLP/Henderson
Eighth District Court Clerk