Cabada Vs. Dist. Ct. (Richardson) ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TH E STATE OF NEVADA
OSCAR CABADA, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 83230
AND JOSE ALBERTO CABADA-
OROZCO, AN INDIVIDUAL,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TARA
D. CLARK NEWBERRY, DISTRICT AUG 1 1 2021
JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
S
Respondents, BY
DEPUTYC>C1CtiVI
RK
and
PETER RICHARDSON, AN
INDIVIDUAL,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION .FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a
district court order partially granting a motion to strike a rebuttal expert.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole
discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4: D.R. Horton, inc. v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 4-68, 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 84.0, 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
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
I947A .4610
nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal frorn
a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.
Further, 'Wins court has held that the decision to adrnit or exclude expert
opinion testimony is discretionary and is not typically subject to review on
a petition for a writ of mandamus." Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court.
127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011). Having considered the petition,
we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted
because petitioners have not demonstrated that an appeal from a final
judgment below would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Hardesty
"C:24.13"142.31.1rflim7J.
Parraguirre Cadish
cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge
Bauman Loewe Witt & Maxwell. :131414C/Las Vegas
Drummond Law Firm
Law Office of Lee J. Grant II
Eighth District Court Clerk
2
•