Opinion
No. 87547
12-08-2023
THE HEIGHTS OF SUMMERLIN, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Corporation; Summit Care, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Corporation; Genesis Healthcare, Inc., a Domestic Corporation; Newgen Operations Management, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Corporation; Latoya Davis, Individually and as Administrator ; and Andrew Reese, Individually and as Administrator, Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Bita Yeager, District Judge, Respondents, and Jacqueline L. Ostrander, Individually, and as Special Administrator, Personal Representative and Statutory Heir To the Estate of Sally Lou Scanlon; and Denise Pauley, Individually, and as Statutory Heir to the Estate of Sally Lou Scanlon, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment.
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. 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. Dept 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). Although this 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), petitioners have not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment below would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, see NRS 34.170, or that the district court's order otherwise falls within any of the narrow grounds that may warrant writ relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.