should not be admitted at her disciplinary hearing. The hearing panel
chair denied petitioner's motion in limine, but stated that all evidence
must still be "relevant and . . . pass any other evidentiary objections which
may be raised at the time of the hearing."
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 Judicial Dist. Court, 124
Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition is
appropriate when "the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or
person exercising judicial functions are without or in excess of the
jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person." NRS 34.320.
It is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will
be considered. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677,
818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating
that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
We are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is
warranted. SCR 105(3) provides for our automatic review of hearing panel
decisions recommending certain types of discipline, and makes an appeal
available for all other types. Accordingly, if the hearing leads to discipline
being imposed against her, petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate
legal remedy in the form of such automatic review of or appeal from that
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I 94Th 434).
discipline. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at
841. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
, C.J.
Hardesty
a 1 51 6t—S2Rcl-
-1 -
Parraguirre
D
Douglas
Ok A C 1 kJ&
- - - J.
Gibbons
J.
cc: Lynn R. Shoen
State Bar of Nevada/Las Vegas
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ea