From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Winters v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jun 21, 2018
No. 75507 (Nev. App. Jun. 21, 2018)

Opinion

No. 75507

06-21-2018

AVIS WINTERS; AND DAN WINTERS, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE LINDA MARIE BELL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and GREGORY BRENT DENNIS, Real Party in Interest.


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. See 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. See 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 parties filings and the attached documents, 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.

Having considered real party in interest's requests to strike petitioners' petition and for attorney fees, we deny them. --------

/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


Summaries of

Winters v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jun 21, 2018
No. 75507 (Nev. App. Jun. 21, 2018)
Case details for

Winters v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

Case Details

Full title:AVIS WINTERS; AND DAN WINTERS, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Jun 21, 2018

Citations

No. 75507 (Nev. App. Jun. 21, 2018)