ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying summary judgment in a trust matter. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 681, 476 P.3d 1194, 1197 (2020) (recognizing that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that writ relief “is purely discretionary with this court”). Petitioners have an adequate legal remedy in an appeal from the final judgment. See Walker, 136 Nev. at 681, 683, 476 P.3d at 1197-98 (explaining that the availability of a later appeal generally precludes writ relief and rejecting contention that writ relief would be more expeditious than an appeal in the ordinary course). Moreover, we generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions for summary judgment, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). We therefore, ORDER the petition DENIED.
1
Stiglich, J.
Pickering, J.
Parraguirre, J.
FOOTNOTES
1
. In light of this order, we deny petitioners motion to stay the district court proceedings as moot.