Opinion
No. 72004
01-05-2017
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to strike an expert witness.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioners have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See NRS 34.160 (providing that 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); NRS 34.170 (explaining that writ relief is generally not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) ("Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."). In this case, petitioners have an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment in the underlying matter. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (holding that an appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (providing that whether to consider a writ petition is discretionary).
In light of this order, we deny as moot petitioners' request, contained in the writ petition, for a stay of the underlying proceedings. --------
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Kozak Lusiani Law
Pollara Law Group
Mandelbaum, Ellerton & Associates
Washoe District Court Clerk