Opinion
No. 76065-COA
12-07-2018
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the denial of a motion for partial summary judgment in a personal injury action.
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; 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 appendix 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 clerk of the court shall file the response to petitioners' motion for stay and the reply thereto, which have been provisionally received in this court. And in light of this order, we deny the stay motion and all other requested relief as moot. --------
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP/Las Vegas
Eglet Prince
Re snick & Louis, P.C.
Cisneros & Marias
Eighth District Court Clerk