Reddy v. Dist. Ct. (Davis) ( 2014 )

 before the trial was set to begin that petitioners moved to vacate the trial
date. Thus, applying the standards for mandamus relief to the instant
matter, we conclude that our intervention is not warranted. See NRS
34.160 (providing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the
performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an
office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of
discretion); Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev.
193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120
Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that it is the petitioner's
burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted);
Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 853
(1991) (explaining that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy
and whether such a writ will be considered is within our sole discretion).
Although petitioners argue that the district court's decision to deny the
motion was not based on reason, but rather on a preference for
maintaining the trial date, the documents provided to this court do not
support this argument or demonstrate that the district court otherwise
acted arbitrarily or capriciously under the circumstances. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Ade.
Pickering
Parraguirre
,J
Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Hafter Law
Harrison Davis Steakley Morrison, P.C.
Wetherall Group, LTD.
Eighth District Court Clerk
3