ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
This pro se original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges district court orders denying motions to dismiss.
Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief 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, 302, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State 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 below would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, or that the challenged orders otherwise fall within any of the narrow grounds that may warrant writ relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Cadish, C.J.
Stiglich, J.
Herndon, J.