CORRECTED ORDER DENYING PETITION 1
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting summary judgment on the issue of whether the work performed on appellants property was a “qualified service” for the purposes of NRS 624.622(4)(a).
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this courts sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief: “[m]andamus is also not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and the opportunity to appeal a final judgment typically provides an adequate legal remedy.” Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Having considered the petition, real party in interests answer, and petitioners reply in support of petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioners have not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment below would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.