Opinion
84795-COA
09-22-2022
ADAM MICHAEL SOLINGER, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and CHALESE MARIE SOLINGER, Real Party in Interest.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
GIBBONS, C.J.
This original, emergency petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order refusing to stay enforcement of attorney fees and costs awards in a divorce decree pending appeal. On June 2, 2022, we entered an order directing petitioner to supplement the petition to address whether the ability to move for a stay in an appeal precludes writ relief and temporarily staying enforcement of the attorney fees and costs portion of the decree pending our receipt and consideration of that supplement and any response thereto. Both parties timely filed responses, and additionally, petitioner filed an appeal and obtained a stay of the same portion of the decree in that appeal. See Solinger v. Solinger, Docket No. 84832-COA (Order Granting Stay and Reinstating Briefing, September 1, 2022).
Writ relief is available only when there is no plain, adequate, and speedy legal remedy, Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004); NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and after reviewing the parties' responses here, we conclude that the ability to appeal from the district court's order and to move for a stay in the appeal precludes the requested writ relief. Moreover, petitioner has already done so and obtained the relief he sought, rendering the petition moot. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (holding that a case that initially presents a live controversy may be rendered moot by subsequent events). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition and vacate the temporary stay entered herein; the stay entered in the appeal remains active.
It is so ORDERED.
Tao, J., Bulla J.
Hon. Mary D. Perry, District Judge, Family Division