Opinion
No. 64675
02-13-2014
STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY/TAXICAB AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE RONALD J. ISRAEL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and SCOTT LEWIS, Real Party in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a public employment matter.
This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). 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; NRS 34.330; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Whether to consider a writ petition is within this court's discretion. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). This court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss, unless no factual dispute exists and the district court was obligated to dismiss the action pursuant to clear authority, or an important issue of law needs clarification. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 558-59.
Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse judgment, see NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and moreover, petitioner has not identified clear authority obligating the district court to dismiss this action. See Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 558-59; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.
_________________, J.
Pickering
_________________, J.
Parraguirre
_________________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Attorney General/Carson City
Law Office of Daniel Marks
Eighth District Court Clerk