Opinion
No. 81033
05-05-2020
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. The SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF WASHOE; and the Honorable Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge, Respondents, and Deloris Bird, Real Party in Interest.
Messner Reeves LLP Galloway & Jensen
Messner Reeves LLP
Galloway & Jensen
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus, or writ of prohibition, seeks a writ directing the district court to vacate its January 15, 2020, order confirming the Discovery Commissioner’s recommendations and to enter an order granting petitioner’s motion to strike and request for a protective order.
A writ of mandamus "is available to compel performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an ‘office, trust or station’ or to control a manifest abuse of, or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of, discretion." See Cheung v. Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 868-69, 124 P.3d 550, 552 (2005) quoting NRS 34.160. The counterpart to a writ of mandate, a writ of prohibition, is available when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. See State of Nev. v. Dist. Court (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 146-47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). This court has original jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court’s discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4 ; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). It is petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Here, petitioner has not met that burden.
We therefore conclude that interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.