Opinion
No. 77942-COA
06-11-2019
SHEPHERD EYE CENTER, LTD., A NEVADA DOMESTIC PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; AND DAN L. EISENBERG, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE LINDA MARIE BELL, Respondents, and FRANCIS G. WATSON, INDIVIDUALLY, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for mandamus relief challenges the district court's resolution of motions to dismiss.
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). This court has discretion as to whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief and will not do so when the petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition and supporting documents filed in this matter, we are not persuaded that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. Id. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); D.R. Horton, 123 Nev. at 475, 168 P.3d at 737.
The Honorable Jerome Tao, Judge, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. --------
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge
Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 11
Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP
The Jimmerson Law Firm, P.C
Eighth District Court Clerk