ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss. Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and record, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 559 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, interlocutory writ relief is generally not available because the district courts order may be challenged on appeal from final judgment, providing an adequate legal remedy. See Intl Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 559. And we conclude that petitioners have not shown that we should consider the petition on the grounds that either (1) theres no factual dispute and the district court was clearly obligated to dismiss pursuant to a statute or rule or (2) an important legal issue requires clarification and judicial economy favors entertaining the petition. See id. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 559. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
1
Parraguirre, C.J.
Hardesty, J.
Stiglich, J.
Cadish, J.
Pickering, J.
Herndon, J.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Abbi Silver having retired, this matter was decided by a six-justice court.