Opinion
No. 60792.
06-14-2012
Iglody Law The Law Offices of Paras B. Barnett, PLLC Gordon & Silver, Ltd.
Iglody Law
The Law Offices of Paras B. Barnett, PLLC
Gordon & Silver, Ltd.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order applying California law in a deficiency judgment action.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel 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 deny the petition. Id.; NRAP 21(b)(1).
Petitioners' motion for a stay is denied as moot in light of this order.
It is so ORDERED.