Opinion
No. 72223
03-13-2017
VU LUU, M.D., Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE RICHARD SCOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LINDA LAIRD, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY LAIRD; LINDA LAIRD; KEVIN LAIRD; LORA SNYDER; ALINA MCDEVITT; AND MARJOLIN LUNA, Real Parties in Interest.
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 for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.
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 typically not available, however, when the petitioner has 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. Generally, an appeal is an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004), Moreover, whether to entertain a writ petition is within this court's discretion, and "[w]e generally will not exercise our discretion to consider petitions for extraordinary writ relief that challenge district court orders denying motions for summary judgment, unless summary judgment is clearly required by a statute or rule, or an important issue of law requires clarification." Anse, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 862, 867, 192 P.3d 738, 742 (2008) (citing Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 950 P.2d 280 (1997)). And petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See id. In particular, petitioner will have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. See id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Anse, 124 Nev. at 867, 192 P.3d at 742.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Callister & Associates
Eighth District Court Clerk