Opinion
No. 74610
01-29-2018
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order partially granting a motion to lift a stay and for leave to conduct limited discovery.
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. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Writ relief is available when the petitioners do not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Thus, a writ of mandamus is the appropriate procedural vehicle for challenging the district court's stay order here, because such an order is not directly appealable. Aspen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 635, 640, 289 P.3d 201, 204 (2012). But while we have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, it is within our discretion to determine whether and to what extent to grant extraordinary relief. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). And petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioners have failed to demonstrate that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge
Sgro & Roger
Chesnoff & Schonfeld
Eighth District Court Clerk