Opinion
No. 70753
08-12-2016
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order granting in part motions in limine to exclude certain evidence from trial in a torts action.
Having considered the petition, 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); Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524-25, 262 P.3d 360, 364-65 (2011) (explaining that the opportunity to appeal generally precludes writ relief to challenge pretrial evidentiary decisions, but recognizing that there are narrow exceptions to that rule); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (holding that an appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief and that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted). 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).
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge
Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders
Brown, Bonn & Friedman, LLP
Atkin Winner & Sherrod
Eighth District Court Clerk