ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting judgment on the pleadings.
1
Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 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 Jud. Dist. Ct., 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). Specifically, petitioner fails to demonstrate that she lacks an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment. See Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (holding that extraordinary relief was not warranted where the party had an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
2
Herndon, J.
Lee, J.
Bell, J.
FOOTNOTES
1
. To the extent petitioner also challenges the denial of her motion for leave to amend, petitioner has not included a signed order denying leave to amend in the supporting documents. Thus, we cannot review that order at this time. See Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (holding that “an unfiled written order [is] ineffective for any purpose”).
2
. The petition names the wrong district court judge as a respondent. We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this courts docket to conform with the caption on this order.