Martin v. Dist. Ct. (Martin) ( 2015 )

 Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is
warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d
840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is typically not available when the petitioner
has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; NRS
34.330; Intl Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558.
Having considered the petition and the appendix, we conclude
that petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal
from any adverse judgment. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841
(explaining that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy
precluding writ relief); see also NRAP 3A(b)(8) (allowing an appeal from a
special order entered after a final judgment); Holiday Inn Downtown v.
Barnett, 103 Nev. 60, 63, 732 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987) (allowing an appeal
from an order denying an NRCP 60(b) motion); Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev.
698, 700-01, 669 P.2d 703, 705 (1983) (providing that an order denying a
motion to amend a divorce decree is appealable if the motion is based on
changed factual or legal circumstances). Accordingly, as petitioner has a
speedy and adequate remedy available in the form of an appeal, we deny
the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 224-25, 88 P.3d at 841;
Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851-52.
It is so ORDERED.
D aslic
Parraguirre
, J.
a r
ThLAL-el
Douglas
J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e•
cc: Hon. Jennifer Elliott, District Judge, Family Court Division
Hardeep Su11
Kainen Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A •40(79