ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss and a motion for reconsideration in a professional negligence matter.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, 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 because petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal following a final judgment would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Cf. Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (recognizing the courts general policy to “decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss” except in limited circumstances). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.