Opinion
No. 82134
02-16-2021
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment in a tort and contract matter.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that petitioner made the required strong showing to invoke mandamus relief. Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196-99 (2020) (explaining (1) conditions requisite to traditional mandamus, including that petitioner has a legal right to the act the petition seeks to compel, respondent has a plain duty to perform such act, and the absence of an alternate legal remedy; and (2) the rare and limited circumstances that qualify for advisory mandamus, which takes into account the final judgment rule); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition); see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (pointing out that this court will generally not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/s/_________, J.
Cadish
/s/_________, J.
Pickering
/s/_________, J.
Herndon cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge
Darren J. Welsh, Chtd.
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, & Stoberski
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas
Kang & Associates PLLC
Springel & Fink, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk