ARREDONDO v. Tomas Quiroz-Lopez, Real Party in Interest. (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and dismiss claims. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170 (addressing mandamus standard); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted). Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy, and whether to consider a petition seeking such relief is within this court's sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Diet. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that, ultimately, the order may be challenged on appeal from a final adverse judgment generally precludes writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Moreover, we generally decline to exercise our discretion as to petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and we are not convinced that any of the exceptions for doing so apply in this case. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing exceptions to the general rule). We therefore

ORDER the petition DENIED.