Opinion
No. 63252
2013-09-20
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 alternatively, prohibition, challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a legal malpractice action.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires 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). A writ of prohibition may be warranted when the district court exceeds its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. Whether a petition for mandamus or prohibition relief will be considered is purely discretionary with this court. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is typically available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Moreover, this court has held that the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841.
Having considered the petition, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; NRAP 21(b)(1). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
_______________, J.
Gibbons
_______________, J.
Douglas
_______________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Hutchison & Steffen, LLC
Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low
Washoe District Court Clerk