ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges district court orders denying motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 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 Judicial Dist. Court, 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). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment or motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rules applies here. Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of motions to dismiss); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of summary judgment); see also Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 684, 476 P.3d 1194, 1199 (2020) (declining to provide writ relief when the underlying issue involved factual disputes). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
1
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.