Allstate Ins. Co. v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of the State

Full title: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION; ALLSTATE INDEMNITY…

Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada

Date published: Jul 5, 2024

No. 87520-COA (Nev. App. Jul. 5, 2024)

Opinion

87520-COA

07-05-2024

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION; ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION; AND KIMBERLEY BOWLER, INDIVIDUALLY, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and NICO FENSKE, INDIVIDUALLY, Real Party in Interest.

GIBBONS C.J.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

GIBBONS C.J.

This is an original petition for writ of mandamus, or alternatively, a writ of prohibition, challenging the district court's alleged failure to enter an order disqualifying real party in interest Nico Fenske's expert witness, disqualifying Fenske's counsel, or issuing case-terminating sanctions.

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. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). The decision as to whether a petition for extraordinary writ relief will be entertained rests within this court's sound discretion. See DM. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition, we conclude petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See id.; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bulla, J., Westbrook, J.

Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge