SATICOY BAY LLC SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 3125 PINEHURST AND SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 3125 PINEHURST v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE CWALT INC ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005 44 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005 44 (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a real property and tort action.

Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 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); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). In this, we are not persuaded that judicial economy would be furthered by considering the writ petition's merits because our resolution of the petition might not resolve the entire district court matter.¹ See Moore v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 96 Nev. 415, 416-17, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980) (determining that writ relief is not an appropriate remedy when resolution of the writ petition would not dispose of the entire controversy). Additionally, we are not persuaded that an appeal from a final judgment fails to provide petitioners with an adequate legal remedy. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that an appeal from a final judgment is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, J.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It is unclear the extent to which real parties in interests’ nine claims are interrelated. It is also unclear whether petitioners’ operative pleading asserts a counterclaim.