Yampolsky v. Dist. Ct. (Vahey)

address the factual question of whether, and to what extent, the claims in the instant matter relate to the facts and circumstances of the first suit. We decline to make such an inquiry now. See Liu v. Christopher Homes, LLC, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 17, 321 P.3d 875, 881 (2014) (stating that a determination involving factual inquiries should not be resolved by this court if the district court did not reach the issue). "As we have repeatedly noted, an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact," and the "discretion of this court to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus . . . will not be exercised unless legal, rather than factual, issues are presented." Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). Furthermore, we conclude petitioners have an adequate remedy at law, as they will be able to assert claim preclusion absent this court's intervention. See Jeep Corp. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 440, 443, 652 P.2d 1183, 1185 (1982) ("[N]either mandamus or prohibition is appropriate in the face of effective alternative remedies.") Although petitioners must wait until the rights and liabilities of all the parties in the other action are adjudicated before they may assert claim preclusion in this action, this fact does not affect our disposition where petitioners had the opportunity to certify the district court's order in the other action as final under NRCP 54(b) yet declined to do so. ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A GS

cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Las Vegas Black & LoBello Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 10) 1947A