MEDINA CULVER v. THE ESTATE OF JEREMY PARKER BY AND THROUGH ITS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR JELENA HATFIELD JELENA HATFIELD INDIVIDUALLY MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JELENA HATFIELD MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JELENA HATFIELD AND MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JELENA HATFIELD (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6. § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that ourextraordinary intervention is warranted. As a general rule, 'judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.” State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002). Although this rule is not absolute, see Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-48, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment below would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, see NRS 34.170, or that the district court's order otherwise falls within any ground that may warrant writ relief. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, C.J.

Cadish, J.

Herndon, J.