Opinion ID: 2777252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: standard of review

Text: A writ of prohibition is available to arrest or remedy district court actions taken without or in excess of jurisdiction. Viega GmbH v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. „ 328 P.3d 1152, 1156 (2014). Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy, and this court typically exercises its discretion to consider a writ petition only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Id. While an appeal is generally considered to be an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief, Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004), the right to appeal is inadequate to correct an invalid exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Viega, 130 Nev. at SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A (4e4 328 P.3d at 1156. Because petitioners challenge the district court's ruling regarding personal jurisdiction, we elect to exercise our discretion and consider this writ petition. Id. This court reviews de novo a district court's determination of personal jurisdiction. Id. Jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 109 Nev. 687, 692, 857 P.2d 740, 743-44 (1993). In so doing, the plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Nevada's long-arm statute and show that jurisdiction does not offend principles of due process. Id. at 698, 857 P.2d at 747; NRS 14.065. Under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, a nonresident defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state so that subjecting the defendant to the state's jurisdiction will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 509, 512, 134 P.3d 710, 712 (2006) (internal quotations omitted). Due process requirements are satisfied if the nonresident defendants[s] contacts are sufficient to obtain either (1) general jurisdiction, or (2) specific personal jurisdiction and it is reasonable to subject the nonresident defendant[] to suit [in the forum state]. Viega, 130 Nev. at , 328 P.3d at 1156. Because Nevada's long-arm statute, NEW 14.065, permits personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant unless the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process, our inquiry in this writ petition is confined to whether the exercise of jurisdiction over Fulbright & Jaworski and Macon comports with due process. Id. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 7 (0) 1947A e Thus, in order to overcome petitioners' motion to dismiss, Verano needed to make a prima facie showing of either general or specific personal jurisdiction by produc[ing] some evidence in support of all facts necessary for a finding of personal jurisdiction. Trump, 109 Nev. at 692, 857 P.2d at 744. Because the district court determined that Verano had made a prima facie showing of general and specific personal jurisdiction as to both Fulbright & Jaworski and Macon, we consider the two bases for jurisdiction in turn. Verano has not made a prima facie showing of general personal