ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a tort action.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this courts 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. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.
Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted for several reasons. To begin, petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. This court typically will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss, especially where, as here, issuance of the requested writ relief would not dispose of the entire action. See Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 824-25, 407 P.3d 702, 709-10 (2017). Further, our extraordinary intervention is not warranted given the substantial amount of time that has elapsed since the district court issued the order being challenged, petitioners failure to provide an explanation for its delay in seeking writ relief, and petitioners failure to include records in its appendix that are essential to this courts understanding of the matters set forth in the petition, including records pertaining to the procedural posture of the proceedings below. See NRAP 21(a)(4). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.