Opinion
No. 83423
09-23-2021
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, d/b/a Spring Valley Hospital, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Veronica Barisich, District Judge, Respondents, and Kurtiss Hinton; Michael Schneier, M.D., an Individual; and Michael Schneier Neurosurgical Consulting. P.C., a Nevada Corporation, Real Parties in Interest.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Injury Lawyers of Nevada McBride Hall Bighorn Law/Las Vegas
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Injury Lawyers of Nevada
McBride Hall
Bighorn Law/Las Vegas
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting in part a motion for reconsideration and reinstating a previously dismissed claim in a professional negligence matter.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, 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). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.
Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal following a final judgment would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Cf. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court , 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (recognizing the court's general policy to "decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss" except in limited circumstances). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.