WESLEY PAUL AN INDIVIDUAL AND PAUL LAW GROUP LLP NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY v. ALLAN HOMES AN INDIVIDUAL BRAKKEN RESOURCES INC NEVADA CORPORATION DAN ANDERSON AN INDIVIDUAL KAREN MIDTLYNG AN INDIVIDUAL HERMAN LANDEIS AN INDIVIDUAL BILL BABER AN INDIVIDUAL SOLANGE CHARAS AN INDIVIDUAL DOUGLAS WILLIAMS AN INDIVIDUAL LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP NEW JERSEY LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ALIXPARTNERS LLP DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP SERVICES LLC DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FELTMAN EWING WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION AND BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ that would halt professional negligence claims against petitioners or direct the district court to dismiss the claims.¹

Having reviewed the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170 (mandamus); NRS 34.330 (prohibition): Pan v. Eighth Ind. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222. 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (providing that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief 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 v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 1 18 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002). Although this rule is not absolute, see Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Ind. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088. 1096 (2006), petitioners have not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment below would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, or that the district court's order otherwise falls within any of the narrow grounds that may warrant writ relief. See generally Round. Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact’). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The petition title indicates that it seeks a writ of mandamus, however, when identifying the relief sought, the petition discusses a writ of prohibition as well as “[a]lternative or supplemental writ relief.” Regardless, any ambiguity in identifying the specific type of writ relief requested does not affect our disposition here.

2.   Cause appearing, petitioners' unopposed motion requesting to file portions of their appendix under seal is granted. SRCR 3(4)(b), (e), (h). The clerk of this court shall file the portions of petitioners’ appendix received on January 31, 2024, under seal.