Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep'T v. Dist. Ct. (Due Diligence Grp., Llc) ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN .POLICE . 85129
DEPARTMENT,
Petitioner,
VS.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILE
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
ADRIANA ESCOBAR, DISTRICT AUG 1 1 2022
JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN
Respondents, CLER,K,,OF UPREME COURT
By :7).rt...4 4ol
and DEF UTY CLERK
DUE DILIGENCE GROUP, LLC,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus
challenges a district judge's voluntary recusal.
A writ of prohibition may issue to curb jurisdictional excesses,
while mandamus is available to control a manifest abuse of discretion. NRS
34.330; NRS 34.160; Agwara v. State Bar of Nev., 133 Nev. 783, 785, 406
P.3d 488, 491 (2017). Whether to issue such extraordinary relief is solely
within our discretion, however, id., and it is petitioner's burden to
demonstrate that such relief is warranted under those standards. Pan v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Additionally, petitioners must show that emergency matters were filed at
the earliest possible time, NRAP 27(e)(1), and petitions for writ relief are
subject to the doctrine of laches. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of N. Nev.
v. State ex rel. Pub. Works Bd., 108 Nev. 605, 611, 836 P.2d 633, 637 (1992).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
((i) 1q47A .461,p
02.2-
V-.."LAVE
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we
conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that the district judge, who
disclosed her reasons for recusal under NCJC Rule 2.11 on the record,
manifestly abused her discretion or exceeded her jurisdiction such that our
extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Staley. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong),
127 Nev. 927, 932, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (describing a manifest abuse of
discretion as a clearly erroneous interpretation or application of the law,
rendered without due consideration). Further, despite the statutory
priority given the matter below under NRS 239.011(2) and a district court
order expediting the matter, petitioner waited over three weeks before filing
this petition and a motion to stay proceedings on an emergency basis,
without objecting to the recusal below. Given the above, we determine that
our intervention in the matter is not justified and
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
Hardesty
Cadish
Pkka,t. J.
Pickering
'In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied
as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A
cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge
Marquis Aurbach Coifing
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP/Las Vegas
Elias Law Group LLP/Wash DC
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
•