ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a construction defect action.
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 Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears 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 Jud. Dist. Ct., 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. As a general rule, “judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.” State ex rel. Dept of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by Stale v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002). Although this rule is not absolute, see Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, see NRS 34.170, or that the district courts order otherwise falls within any of the narrow grounds that may warrant writ relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
1
Cadish, C.J.
Stiglich, J.
Herndon, J.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Given this order, petitioners motion to stay is denied as moot.