Opinion
85092-COA
08-26-2022
AMANDA MARIE AVILA, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ADRIANA ESCOBAR, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ANNA MARYKE GREY; CHRISTOPHER VIGIL; AND RAISER LLC, D/B/A UBER, A FOREIGN LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
GIBBONS C.J.
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement.
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. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). 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 v. Eighth Judicial Dist Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). This court has discretion as to whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief and will not do so when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; DM. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See id. According, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); D.R. Horton, 123 Nev. at 475, 168 P.3d at 737.
It is so ORDERED.
Tao J., Bulla J.
Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge.