ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges aspects of the peremptory challenge process in the underlying case. A writ of mandamus may be available to compel a legally required act or to correct a manifest abuse of discretion. NRS 34.160; Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020). Whether to issue extraordinary writ relief is solely within this courts discretion, however, Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and it is petitioners burden to demonstrate that such relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having reviewed the petition, errata, and appendices in this matter, we decline to intervene. At this point, the underlying cases have been transferred to another judge based on petitioners peremptory challenge; thus, the main contention raised in the original petition, that the district court did not transfer the cases within 2 days under SCR 48.1, is moot. Further, while petitioners errata seeks clarification as to whether the motion to consolidate was filed early under EDCR 2.50(a)(1), whether she filed her peremptory challenge early, whether each party to the third case had the right to file a peremptory challenge, and whether counsels withdrawal was a contested matter, these questions concern matters within the district courts case management purview, as well as those that the district court has not yet ruled on but are likely to come up in later proceedings on the motions the parties have filed, and are not appropriate for writ review. See Walker, 136 Nev. at 681, 476 P.3d at 1197 (explaining that writ relief is available only when the district court has acted and manifestly abused its discretion, not to “ ‘correct’ any and every lower court decision”). Therefore, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Cadish, C.J.
Stiglich, J.
Herndon, J.