IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ELIZETTE CADET, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

EN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

JOSEPH HARDY, JR., DISTRICT 

JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

SWENSON PROPERTIES, LLC, 

Real Party in Interest. 

No. 84226 

FILED 

MAR 2 2 2022 

EUZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK,UPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition 

challenges a February 10, 2022, district court order defaulting petitioner, 

the defendant/counterclaimant in the underlying commercial property 

unlawful detainer case, as a sanction for her counsel's failure to appear at 

the continued pretrial conference. Petitioner also filed an emergency 

motion for stay pending our consideration of this petition, explaining that 

on February 2, 2022, the district court orally granted a default judgment, 

dismissed her counterclaims, and required that she vacate the premises by 

March 1, 2022. We granted the unopposed stay motion on February 22 but 

also directed petitioner to show ca use why this writ petition should not be 

denied because it appeared that she had an adequate legal remedy in the 
form of an appeal from the final judgment. Petitioner timely filed her 

response, and real party in interest timely filed a reply. 

As explained in our order to show cause, an appeal is generally 

considered an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan v. Eighth 

Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004); see NRS 

34.170; NRS 34.330. An appeal will be available in this case once the 

district court enters a written order reflecting its oral ruling finally 

resolving the case. NRAP 3A(b)(1). 

Petitioner argues that a future appeal is inadequate to protect 

her interests, as the district court's oral ruling required her to vacate the 

premises by March 1 and, without this court's immediate intervention, she 

will be evicted before an appeal could be perfected, causing irreparable 

harm. We disagree with this assessment, however, as the district court's 

oral ruling is not effective or enforceable until it is reduced to writing, 

signed, and filed. Div. of Child & Family Servs., Dep't of Human Res. v. 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) 

("[Dlispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal 

with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy, must 

be written, signed, and filed before they become effective."); id. at 451, 92 

P.3d at 1243 (stating that "a court's oral pronouncement from the bench, 

the clerk's minute order, and even an unfiled written order are ineffective 

for any purpose" (quoting Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 

747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (alteration omitted))). Accordingly, petitioner 

has not demonstrated that this matter falls within an exception to the 

general rule, and we decline to exercise our discretion to entertain this 

petition because petitioner has an adequate legal remedy by way of an 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

OA 1947A 2 
J. 

appeal from the final judgment, once that judgment is entered. Pan, 120 

Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; see also Smith u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 

107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that consideration 

of a writ petition is discretionary). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.2 

Hardesty 

A-14C-L-0 

Stiglich 

J. 

Herndon 

cc: Hon. Joseph Hardy, Jr., District Judge 

Paul C. Ray, Chtd. 

Edward D. Kania 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

iWe note that, upon entry of a written order, petitioner should be 

allowed an opportunity to seek a stay pending appeal in the district court 

before the order is enforced. NRCP 62; NRAP 8(a)(1). 

2 In light of this order, our February 22 stay is lifted. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

cfl i947,4 ADP, 3