MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER ADOPTIVE PARENT AND GUARDIAN GARNETTE MCCRACKEN AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM KRISTEN WOODS MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER NATURAL PARENT AND GUARDIAN DAKOTA ROUTH MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER NATURAL PARENT AND GUARDIAN CHAD JENSEN MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER NATURAL PARENT AND GUARDIAN VICTORIA COOPER MADISON THOMPSON MACKENZIE THOMPSON AND KYLIE THOMPSON v. JEFFREY SCHULTZ INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY WENDY PHELPS INDIVIDUALLY AND INHER OFFICIAL CAPACITY BRIANNA ROBINSON INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district courts decision to grant partial summary judgment on petitioners’ Title IX claims.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Whether a petition for extraordinary writ relief will be entertained rests within this courts sound discretion. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007).

We decline to entertain the writ petition because petitioners have a sufficient alternative to remedy any alleged error in the summary judgment order. “Generally, the availability of appeal after final judgment is considered an adequate and speedy remedy that precludes mandamus relief from orders granting partial summary judgment.” Renown Regl Med. Ctr. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. 824, 828, 335 P.3d 199, 202 (2014). Petitioners have not demonstrated a countervailing justification to depart from our general rule. We do not find any important areas of law needing clarification, nor do considerations of judicial economy weigh in favor of considering the petition. Cf. id. (stating that such factors, when applicable, weigh in favor of writ consideration).

1

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Bell, J.

FOOTNOTES

1

.   Despite our refusal to consider the merits of the petition, we take this opportunity to clarify petitioners’ burden in citing to the record. Petitioners failed to pin cite their assertions of fact, instead citing to entire documents. For example, many of their assertions cite to the entire operative complaint. Such citation violates Nevadas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which state that “every assertion in briefs regarding matters in the record shall be supported by a reference to the page and volume number, if any, of the appendix where the matter relied upon is to be found.” NRAP 28(e) (emphasis added). Proper legal citation aids the court and the parties in identifying the sources of propositions alleged in the briefing.