Tate, Jr., M.D. (James) v. Dist. Ct. (State Bd. of Medical Exam'r.)

judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849,851 (1991). It is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. 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). An appeal is typically an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition, answer, and reply, 2 we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted because petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse judgment. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. An order denying a motion for an injunction is appealable. 3 See NRAP 3A(b)(3) (allowing an appeal from an order denying an injunction); Ellis v. McDaniel, 95 Nev. 455, 457, 596 P.2d 222, 223 (1979). Accordingly, as petitioner has a speedy and adequate

remedy available in the form of an appeal, we deny the petition. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224-25, 88 P.3d at 841; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. It is so ORDERED.

PICKERING, J., concurring:

I concur in the result only.

Pickering

cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Hafter Law Bradley 0. Van Ry Eighth District Court Clerk

Footnotes

[2] 0nApril 18, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a limited reply to real party in interest's answer to the petition. Having considered the motion, we grant it and direct the clerk of this court to detach and file the reply, which was attached to the April 18 motion.

[3] Petitioneracknowledges in his petition that a district court's denial of injunctive relief is reviewed on direct appeal. Petitioner asserts that the time constraints in this matter warrant expedited consideration. In cases in which parties file a direct appeal and seek emergency relief, this court reviews any properly made requests under the established procedures provided by the appellate rules. See NRAP 8. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A /A6--txt-g-tn ibr ev4-"pts-ram7 Parraguirre J. Cherry J. Saitta SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A