ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a contracts and declaratory relief action. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, the answer, and the reply, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34,170 (addressing mandamus standard); NRS 34.330 (addressing prohibition standard); 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). Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and whether to consider a petition seeking such relief is within this courts sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). We generally decline to exercise that discretion as to petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and we are not convinced that any of the exceptions for doing so apply in this case. Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing exceptions to the general rule). We therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Stiglich, C.J.
Lee, J.
Parraguirre, J.