Lagunas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.

• Decision Date: 26 February 2020
• Docket Number: No. 80663,80663
• Citation: 457 P.3d 973 (Table)
• Parties: Eduardo LAGUNAS, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Mark R. Denton, District Judge, Respondents, and J. Apolinar Ibarra; Don Tortaco Corporation; and Don Tortaco Franchising Inc., Real Parties in Interest.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

457 P.3d 973 (Table)

Eduardo LAGUNAS, Petitioner,

v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Mark R. Denton, District Judge, Respondents,andJ. Apolinar Ibarra; Don Tortaco Corporation; and Don Tortaco Franchising Inc., Real Parties in Interest.

No. 80663

Supreme Court of Nevada.

FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2020

Sgro & Roger

Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC

Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani/New Jersey

Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani/Philadelphia

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a January 30, 2020, district court order granting a motion to evict petitioner from Don Tortaco Mexican Grill unit 5.

The 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 ; Segovia v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 133 Nev. 910, 911-12, 407 P.3d 783, 785 (2017). Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents under these standards, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. See NRAP 21(b) ; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (11991) (explaining that it is within this court’s sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

1 In light of this order, petitioner’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s order pending our consideration of this petition is denied as moot. We also deny real parties in interest’s request that we impose sanctions on petitioner for filing this petition and motion.