Opinion
No. 60115.
06-14-2012
David HADDOCK ; and Donna Haddock, Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE of Nevada, in and for the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Valorie J. Vega, District Judge, Respondents, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Community Bank of Nevada, A National Banking Association, Real Party in Interest.
Law Offices of John Benedict Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd.
Law Offices of John Benedict
Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court partial summary judgment in a contract 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 ; International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition is available when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320 ; State of Nevada v. Dist. Ct. (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 146–47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). Neither writ is appropriate when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, NRS 34.170 ; NRS 34.330, and we have consistently held that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004).
Having reviewed the petition and its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. In particular, petitioners have an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any final judgment. Id. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.