IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CITY OF HENDERSON, No. 79017 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE RICHARD SCOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE, NO 0 1 2019 Respondents, EHZET 1,_!7:IOWN CLER1OF S RE-AE couRr and BY DEPUTY CL:•:RK JESUS RAMIREZ MUNOZ, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order vacating a verdict pursuant to a bench trial and remanding the case to Henderson Municipal Court. Having considered the petition and appendix filed in this matter, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and cliscretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Halverson v. Miller, 124 Nev. 484, 487, 186 P.3d 893, 896 (2008) (recognizing that the decision to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition "is solely within this court's discretion" and that petitioner bears the burden to establish that such extraordinary relief is appropriate).1

1We do not reach the arguments raised in the cross-petition for a writ of prohibition, as those arguments either are resolved by this order or were not raised below. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (we need not consider arguments that were not raised below).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA / 4/47177 (0) 1917A Further, petitioner has an adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170 (providing that writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, adequate, and speedy legal remedy). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.

, J.

Hardesty

,A4L$C4,J1 J.

Stiglich

J.

Silver

cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge Attorney General/Carson City Henderson City Attorney Mueller & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk