IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS PAVING, No. 85477 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, :t n IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF „r] FII CLARK; THE HONORABLE ADRIANA ESCOBAR, DISTRICT JUDGE; AND THE HONORABLE MICHAEL A. f3RowN JpREw, CHERRY, SENIOR DISTRICT COURT CLERK JUDGE, Respondents, and DE'LOIS Y. TURNER, Real Party in Interest. ORDER DENYING PETITION This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to strike a request for a trial de novo and a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner asserts that Real Party in Interest failed to participate in the mandatory court-annexed arbitration program in good faith and therefore the district court should have stricken her request for a trial de novo. A writ of mandamus is available when the petitioner lacks a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). "Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. After reviewing the instant petition, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it lacks an adequate remedy at law by way of an SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA I.M7A - appeal after a final judgment. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (holding that an appeal after a final judgment is an adequate remedy to challenge bad faith participation in the court-annexed arbitration program). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. , C.J. arraguirre Hardesty J. Stiglich cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Hon. Michael A. Cherry, Senior Justice Emerson Law Group Dimopoulos Injury Law Ryan Alexander, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OP NEVADA 2 PI 1917A

Supreme Court wa ts Nevapa dP OF Ant Tes. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS PAVING, No. 85477 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, grey eH ge IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PILED CLARK; THE HONORABLE ADRIANA ESCOBAR, DISTRICT JUDGE; AND OCT 24 2022 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL A. __ eLIZAGEp: ». oF. WN CHERRY, SENIOR DISTRICT COURT ol Cae eee’ JUDGE, EPRYY CLERK Respondents, and DE’LOIS Y. TURNER, Real Party in Interest. ORDER DENYING PETITION This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to strike a request for a trial de novo and a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner asserts that Real Party in Interest failed to participate in the mandatory court-annexed arbitration program in good faith and therefore the district court should have stricken her request for a trial de novo. A writ of mandamus is available when the petitioner lacks a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; Pan vu. kighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.8d 840, 841 (2004). “Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. After reviewing the instant petition, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it lacks an adequate remedy at law by way of an 22-22)F0 Supreme Court Nevaba pea MVE GF \ sates appeal after a final judgment. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (holding that an appeal after a final judgment is an adequate remedy to challenge bad faith participation in the court-annexed arbitration program). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. Hardesty AVG 9 od. Stiglich ee: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Hon. Michael A. Cherry, Senior Justice Emerson Law Group Dimopoulos Injury Law Ryan Alexander, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk