Stahl, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Fetch)

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition may be warranted when the district court exceeds its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. Either writ is an extraordinary remedy, and whether such a writ will be considered is within our sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Writ relief is not available when an adequate and speedy legal remedy exists, and the right to appeal is generally considered to be such a remedy. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Moreover, it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Having considered the petition and appendix, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Specifically, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

veotAtN , J. Hardesty

, J. , J. Parraguirre Cherry

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A .s

E. • 1." cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge

Mandelbaum, Ellerton & McBride

Watson Rounds

Schuering Zimmerman & Doyle LLP

Law Office of Jacob L. Hafter & Associates Fox Rothschild, LLP, PA

Fox Rothschild, LLP, Las Vegas

Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A <

-