NELSON 30 2001 v. 30 2001 (2018)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss several tort claims based on the statute of limitations. The decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is purely discretionary. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). We decline to exercise that discretion in this case for two reasons. First, we are not convinced that this matter fits an exception to the general rule that this court will not exercise its discretion to consider a writ petition that challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss, particularly given that the district court's decision was without prejudice. See generally Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344–45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (acknowledging exceptions to general rule (1) where “considerations of sound judicial economy and administration militate [  ] in favor of granting [the] petition[ ]” such as to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice, (2) “where no disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss an action,” or (3) where “an important issue of law requires clarification”). Second, the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment, so petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.