IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

SIGAL CHATTAH, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CARSON CITY; AND THE 

HONORABLE JAMES E. WILSON, 

DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

BARBARA K. CEGAVSKE, IN HER 

CAPACITY AS NEVADA SECRETARY 

OF STATE; AND JOHN T. KENNEDY, 

AN INDIVIDUAL, 

Real Parties in Interest. 

No. 85298 

IL 

SEP 1 2022 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition 

challenges a district court order denying an application for a temporary 

restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction in an action 

challenging a candidate's qualifications for the Office of Attorney General. 

Petitioner requests relief by September 15, 2022. 

The writs that petitioner seeks generally are not available when 

the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170 

(mandamus); NRS 34.330 (prohibition); Walker Li. Second Judicial Dist. 

Court, 136 Nev. 678, 679-80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (discussing 

adequate remedies that preclude writ relief in the context of resolving a 

petition for a writ of mandamus). Here, petitioner has another remedy at 

2-1-zsg14 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

1947A
law. The order she challenges was immediately appealable under NRAP 

3A(b)(3) because it "refus[es} to grant an injunction." Thus, the 

circumstances here are unlike other cases where this court has entertained 

a writ petition even though another remedy was available. See, e.g., D.R. 

Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 

731, 736 (2007) (explaining that "[w]hether a future appeal is sufficiently 

adequate and speedy necessarily turns on the underlying proceedings' 

status, the types of issues raised in the writ petition, and whether a future 

appeal will permit this court to meaningfully review the issues presented" 

and concluding that "an eventual appeal" many years later would be 

"neither a speedy nor adequate remedy" when the issue involved prelitigation notice of construction defects meant to prevent litigation 

altogether and the case had already been pending in district court for more 

than two years); Falcke v. Douglas County, 116 Nev. 583, 586-87, 3 P.3d 

661, 662-63 (2000) (recognizing that petitioner could have sought relief 

through declaratory relief action but concluding that the case presented 

urgent and important issues of law that should be addressed via a writ 

petition to avoid further delay). And petitioner has filed a notice of appeal 

from the district court's order, which has been docketed in this court as 

Chattah v. Cegauske, No. 85302. She can request an expedited briefing 

schedule in that appeal to the extent one is warranted. See NRAP 2 ("On 

the court's own or a party's motion, the court may—to expedite its decision 

or for other good cause—suspend any provision of these Rules in a 

particular case and order proceedings as the court directs . . . ."). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

l()) 1947A

2 
arraguirre 

Because petitioner has a speedy and adequate remedy at law, 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

12

01.

J. .4/14CA--Q

Stiglich 

Pideu J. 

J. 

Hardesty 

Cadish 

Silver 

Pickering 

Herndon 

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge 

Joey Gilbert Law 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Gallian Welker & Beckstrom, LC/Las Vegas 

Carson City Clerk 

we 

C.J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 1947A '41W, 

3 

J. 

J. 

NIMryv