the Siegel Group Nev. v. Dist. Ct. (Connelly) ( 2013 )

 intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev.
222, 228, 88 13 ,3d 840, 844 (2004).
Writ relief is generally available only when there is no plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170;
NRS 34.330; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. This court typically
declines to exercise its discretion to consider writ petitions challenging
district court orders denying summary judgment motions, unless "no
disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority under a
statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss an action." Smith
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1345, 950 P.2d 280, 281
(1997). Moreover, this court has held that the right to appeal is generally
an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88
P.3d at 841.
Having considered the petition, we conclude that our
intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Smith, 107
Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; NRAP 21(b)(1). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
, J.
baaot
Parraguirre
C ,J.
Cherry
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge
Hansen Rasmussen, LLC
Bernstein & Poisson
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
tiU