KYUNG CHANG INDUSTRY USA INC KCI USA NEVADA CORPORATION v. DION GREEN AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DERRICK FUDGE DECEASED DION GREEN INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVI VING CHILD OF DERRICK FUDGE DECEASED LASANDRA JAMES AS GUARDIAN OF HANNAH OGLESBY SURVIVING MINOR CHILD OF LOIS OGLESBY DECEASED LASANDRA JAMES AS GUARDIAN OF REIGN LEE SURVIVING MINOR CHILD OF LOIS OGLESBY DECEASED DANITA TURNER AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LOGAN TURNER DECEASED DANITA TURNER AS SURVIVING PARENT OF LOGAN TURNER DECEASED MICHAEL TURNER AS SURVIVING PARENT OF LOGAN TURNER DECEASED NADINE WARREN AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BEATRICE NICOLE WARREN CURTIS DECEASED AND NADINE WARREN AS SURVIVING PARENT OF BEATRICE NICOLE WARREN CURTIS DECEASED (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.

“A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.” Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (footnotes omitted). The consideration of a writ petition is within this court's sole discretion. State, Dep't of Tax'n v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 366, 368, 466 P.3d 1281, 1283 (2020). This court's genera] policy is to decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). When disputed issues of fact are critical in demonstrating the propriety of extraordinary relief, those factual issues should be resolved in the first instance in the district court. See Round, Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981).

Having considered the parties’ briefing and the record, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted at this stage in the proceedings. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See Dep't of Tax'n, 136 Nev. at 368, 466 P.3d at 1283.

It is so ORDERED.

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Parraguirre, J.