ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition or, alternatively, mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion for judgment based on preclusion grounds.
We have reviewed the petition and its supporting documentation and are not persuaded that our discretionary and extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Direct Grading & Paving, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 137 Nev., Adv. Op. 31, 491 P.3d 13, 17 (2021) (stating that the decision to entertain a writ petition is solely within our discretion); see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 821, 407 P.3d 702, 707 2017) (stating that the “petitioner ․ bears the burden of [showing] that writ relief is warranted”). First, the petition appears premature in that it does not appear that the district court has denied petitioner NuVeda, LLCs (NuVeda) motion to dismiss or grant summary judgment on real party in interest Shane Terrys claims. Rather, it appears that the district court denied NuVedas subsequent motion wherein it asked the district court to rule on its previous motion to dismiss or grant summary judgment. It is inappropriate for this court to address an issue “by the extraordinary writ of mandamus before the district court has dealt with [the issue].” See Archon, 133 Nev. at 825, 407 P.3d at 710 (quoting Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 560 F.3d 976, 984 (9th Cir. 2009)). Second, NuVeda has not shown that it lacks an adequate legal remedy. See Bd. of Parole Commrs. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Thompson), 135 Nev. 398, 400-01, 451 P.3d 73, 76 (2019) (stating that mandamus “is not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law” and that an appeal is generally an adequate remedy). For these reasons, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.