Martin v. Dist. Ct. (Martin)

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). Writ relief is typically not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Intl Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Having considered the petition and the appendix, we conclude that petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse judgment. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); see also NRAP 3A(b)(8) (allowing an appeal from a special order entered after a final judgment); Holiday Inn Downtown v. Barnett, 103 Nev. 60, 63, 732 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987) (allowing an appeal from an order denying an NRCP 60(b) motion); Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 700-01, 669 P.2d 703, 705 (1983) (providing that an order denying a motion to amend a divorce decree is appealable if the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances). Accordingly, as petitioner has a speedy and adequate remedy available in the form of an appeal, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 224-25, 88 P.3d at 841; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851-52. It is so ORDERED.

D aslic Parraguirre , J.

a r ThLAL-el Douglas J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e•

cc: Hon. Jennifer Elliott, District Judge, Family Court Division Hardeep Su11 Kainen Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A •40(79