Abbey, Jr. v. Dist. Ct. (Goldfield 20) ( 2013 )

 deficiency action. Specifically, petitioners contend that the district court
has indicated its intention to grant real party in interest's application for a
deficiency judgment. Petitioners further contend that the district court
has indicated its intention to deny petitioners' motion to continue an NRS
40.457 valuation hearing. In this writ petition, petitioners ask that this
court order the district court to vacate these two anticipated orders.
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? 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 petitions 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 petitioners' burden to demonstrate that
our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844.
Having considered petitioners' writ petition and appendix, we
conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted at this
time. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Preliminarily, the absence
of written orders makes it impossible to determine the extent to which the
district court may have abused its discretion, Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch.
Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 688-89, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (recognizing that
an oral ruling is ineffective for any purpose), and we are unable to
otherwise infer from the documents in petitioners' appendix what the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
district court's reasoning may have been. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring a
petitioner's appendix to include all documents "that may be essential to
understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Moreover, with respect
to the issues raised in the writ petition, petitioner has not demonstrated
that an appeal would be an inadequate legal remedy. Pan, 120 Nev. at
224, 228, 88 P.3d at 841, 844. Accordingly, we deny the writ petition.
It is so ORDERED. 1
J.
(: s52_21e„ ,J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
Connaghan Newberry Law Firm
Mazur & Brooks, A PLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
'In light of our order, petitioners' emergency motion for stay is
denied as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF 3
NEVADA
(0) I947A