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 and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later appeal was available); 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 motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule 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). We therefore
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.