Opinion
No. 82619
03-23-2021
Robert D. BARNHART; and Jill A. Barnhart, Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Eric Johnson, District Judge, Respondents, and Ventana Beaumont, Inc., Real Party in Interest.
Black & Wadhams Takos Law Group, Ltd.
Black & Wadhams
Takos Law Group, Ltd.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioners’ motion to disqualify real party in interest's counsel.
Whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is entirely discretionary with this court. Leibowitz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 119 Nev. 523, 529, 78 P.3d 515, 519 (2003). A writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a legally required act or to cure a manifest abuse of, or an arbitrary and capricious exercise of, discretion. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman , 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). It is petitioners’ burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition and its accompanying documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is merited. The district court has "broad discretion in determining whether disqualification is required in a particular case," Leibowitz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 119 Nev. 523, 529, 78 P.3d 515, 519 (2003), and petitioners have not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily and capriciously exercised that discretion when it denied their motion to disqualify counsel. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.