Little v. Dist. Ct. (State)

849, 851 (1991). 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? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and the attached documents, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See NRAP 21(b)(1); see also Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (providing that it is within this court's discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered). In particular, petitioner may appeal from the district court's order granting an injunction, NRAP 3A(b)(3), and thus, he has a speedy and adequate remedy. See NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief). And to the extent that petitioner seeks an order directing the district court to resolve his motion to dismiss, we are confident that the district court will do so as quickly as its docket permits. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. /c--L Hardesty tohrot J. Parraguirre SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Michael Little Pecos Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A