Opinion
No. 75598
07-27-2018
WYKOFF NEWBERG CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION; AND INTERNATIONAL SMELTING COMPANY, A NEVADA CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE GLORIA STURMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and IMAGINE NATION ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION; AND MOSAIC LAND, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks an order directing the district court to cancel and expunge a lis pendens.
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 petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Moreover, whether to consider a writ petition is within this court's discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). And 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, we conclude that petitioners have failed to demonstrate that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See id. In particular, although the supreme court has recognized that there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy from the district court's improper denial of a motion to cancel and expunge a lis pendens and that a writ petition is thus the proper vehicle for challenging such a determination, see Levinson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 109 Nev. 747, 752, 857 P.2d 18, 21 (1993), because the district court had not yet ruled on petitioners' underlying motion, this petition was premature at the time of filing. Indeed, this is the second premature petition for extraordinary writ relief filed in this matter. See Wykoff Newberg Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Imagine Nation), Docket No. 74998 (Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus, March 6, 2018). But based on the Eighth Judicial District Court's online docket, it appears that petitioners' motion to cancel and expunge the lis pendens has since been granted. Under these circumstances, we conclude our extraordinary intervention is not warranted and we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
While the online docket reflects that motion was orally granted on July 10, 2018, a written, file-stamped order resolving the motion is not yet reflected on the district court's docket.
In light of this order, we deny as moot all other requests for relief pending in this matter. --------
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge
Fennemore Craig, P.C./Las Vegas
Ellsworth & Bennion Chtd.
Eighth District Court Clerk