Opinion
No. 83900
01-07-2022
Zara AZIZSOLTANI, 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 Tori Leeann McConnell, Real Party in Interest.
Nevada's Lawyers Heidari Law Group, PC Messner Reeves LLP
Nevada's Lawyers
Heidari Law Group, PC
Messner Reeves LLP
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order in a personal injury action striking petitioner's NRCP 35/ NRS 52.380 exam observer as a witness. Real party in interest has filed an answer, as directed. Petitioner has also filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings.
Having reviewed the petition, answer, and supporting documents, we are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. See NRAP 21(b) ; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist . Court , 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). In particular, trial is scheduled to commence this month, and petitioner has an adequate and speedy legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment, precluding writ relief. NRS 34.170 ; NRS 34.330 ; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) ; see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 101, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) (recognizing that "[a] writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal," but rather, the writ should be used sparingly, "for extraordinary causes"). Accordingly, we
In light of this order, petitioner's motion for stay is denied as moot.
SILVER, J., dissenting:
I dissent. I would stay the matter until the writ was resolved because the remedy at law under these circumstances is inadequate.