Opinion
No. 72841
05-31-2017
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to hold a timely early case conference.
Having considered the petition and appendix, we conclude that petitioners have failed to demonstrate that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 849, 841 (2004) (explaining that petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary writ relief is warranted). In particular, whether to dismiss the underlying action was a matter within the district court's discretion and petitioners have not established that the district court manifestly abused, or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised, its discretion. See Dornbach v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. ___, ___324 P.3d 369, 373 (2014) (emphasizing that the district court has discretion in deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to hold a timely early case conference, as well as inherent authority to manage its cases); see also Round Hill Gen. Improvement DisL v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) ("Mandamus will not lie to control discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously." (internal citations omitted)). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (explaining that whether to consider a writ petition is within this court's discretion).
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge
Frias Transportation Management
Bertoldo Baker Carter & Smith
Eighth District Court Clerk