ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to grant a motion to dismiss in a professional negligence action.
Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted and providing that an appeal is typically an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); 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, traditional mandamus is not appropriate here because petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from a final judgment. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). We likewise decline to exercise our discretion to entertain the case under advisory mandamus. See Archon Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. 816, 821, 824, 407 P.3d 702, 707, 709 (2017) (recognizing that “[t]he sound exercise of that discretion requires special care in the advisory mandamus context, to avoid subverting the final judgment rule and inviting, rather than avoiding, undue delay and expense in dispute resolution” and discussing the risks entailed by advisory mandamus). We therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Herndon, J.
Lee, J.
Bell, J.