Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep'T v. Dist. Ct. (Due Diligence Grp., Llc)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: August 11, 2022
• Docket: 85129
• Status: Published

Opinion

SupREME Court OF NevaDA

(0) 19978 ERB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE |

DEPARTMENT, Petitioner, vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ADRIANA ESCOBAR, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents,

and DUE DILIGENCE GROUP, LLC, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

No. 85129

FILED

AUG 11 2022

ELIZABETH A. BROWN

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY : DEPUTY CLERK

FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus

challenges a district judge’s voluntary recusal.

A writ of prohibition may issue to curb jurisdictional excesses,

while mandamus is available to control a manifest abuse of discretion. NRS 34.330; NRS 34.160; Agwara v. State Bar of Nev., 133 Nev. 783, 785, 406 P.3d 488, 491 (2017). Whether to issue such extraordinary relief is solely

within our discretion, however, id., and it is petitioner’s burden to

demonstrate that such relief is warranted under those standards. Pan v. E:ghth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Additionally, petitioners must show that emergency matters were filed at

the earliest possible time, NRAP 27(e)(1), and petitions for writ relief are

subject to the doctrine of laches. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of N. Nev. v. State ex rel. Pub. Works Bd., 108 Nev. 605, 611, 836 P.2d 633, 637 (1992).

I

__ AA -ASI\NO

Supreme Court OF Nevapa

(O) DATA aS

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that the district judge, who disclosed her reasons for recusal under NCJC Rule 2.11 on the record, manifestly abused her discretion or exceeded her jurisdiction such that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See State v. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 932, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (describing a manifest abuse of discretion as a clearly erroneous interpretation or application of the law, rendered without due consideration). Further, despite the statutory priority given the matter below under NRS 239.011(2) and a district court order expediting the matter, petitioner waited over three weeks before filing this petition and a motion to stay proceedings on an emergency basis, without objecting to the recusal below. Given the above, we determine that

our intervention in the matter is not justified and

ORDER the petition DENIED.!

pAg. ect. Ji Hardesty ‘

(bi.

Prebor ine od.

Cadish

Pickering

In light of this order, petitioner’s emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.

et

ec: Hon. Adriana Escobar. District Judge Marquis Aurbach Coffing Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro. Schulman & Rabkin, LLP/Las Vegas Elias Law Group LLP/Wash DC Eighth District Court Clerk

(0) 197A oR