Opinion
No. 81349
07-13-2020
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(4).
As a general rule, "judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment." State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002); Buckwalter v. Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting that "[n]ormally this court will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss"). Although the rule is not absolute, see Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. Interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Pickering /s/_________, J.
Hardesty /s/_________, J.
Stiglich cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
Messner Reeves LLP
Richard Harris Law Firm
Holley Driggs/Las Vegas
Murchison & Cumming, LLC/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk