Opinion
No. 63588
2013-09-20
NANOVIRICIDES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and YIDAM, LTD., Real Party in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 for summary judgment.
"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." Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (citations omitted); see NRS 34.160. A writ of prohibition may be granted when the district court exceeds its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. It is within this court's discretion to determine whether a writ petition will be considered. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is generally available, however, only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. 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 and appendix filed in this matter, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. Moreover, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we
In light of this order, petitioner's motion for a stay is denied as moot.
____________, J.
Gibbons
____________, J.
Douglas
____________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge
Law Offices of Anthony D. Guenther, Esq.
Maupin, Cox & LeGoy
Eighth District Court Clerk