Iglesias v. Dist. Ct. (N5Hyg, Llc), 83157

Petitioners Manuel Iglesias and Edward Moffly sought a writ (prohibition or mandamus) challenging the Eighth Judicial District Court’s order denying their motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.
The challenged district-court order was entered in Clark County before Judge Nancy L. Allf.
The Nevada Supreme Court considered the petition for extraordinary writ relief but denied it.
The Court emphasized that exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and that petitioners bear the burden to show writ relief is warranted.
The Court found petitioners failed to show an appeal from a final judgment would be an inadequate legal remedy and therefore declined to intervene.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Supreme Court should grant a writ to review the denial of partial judgment on the pleadings	Writ relief is necessary because immediate review is required and appeal would be inadequate	Appeal from a final judgment is an adequate remedy; writ is discretionary and not warranted	Denied — writ relief not warranted; appeal is adequate remedy
Whether petitioners met the burden to show extraordinary circumstances justifying writ relief	Extraordinary circumstances exist that justify bypassing ordinary appellate process	No extraordinary circumstances shown; petitioners failed their burden	Denied — petitioners did not meet burden showing extraordinary intervention was required

Direct Grading & Paving, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 491 P.3d 13 (Nev. 2021) (writ relief is discretionary)
Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 407 P.3d 702 (Nev. 2017) (petitioners bear burden to show writ relief warranted)
Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 88 P.3d 840 (Nev. 2004) (the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief)
Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 476 P.3d 1194 (Nev. 2020) (ordinary appellate process is typically adequate even if slower than mandamus)