Halcrow v. Dist. Ct. (Mgm Mirage Design Group)

 Having reviewed the petition and documents submitted, we
are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. The district court's denial
of the motion is based, at least in part, on material questions of fact
involving whether there is a contract between the parties, performance by
the parties, and whether estoppel applies to preclude application of the
statute of frauds. This court typically declines to exercise its discretion to
consider a writ petition challenging a district court order denying a motion
to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, 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). As there are
disputed issues of material fact in the present case, and petitioner has an
adequate remedy in the form of an appeal, we decline to exercise our
discretion to consider this writ petition. Id.; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d
at 841; NRAP 21(b)(1). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
14-(8
Douglas
01
s1s•s•s=0
Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
REM T'Mif,XiTdkC-P.JftAdM FEMME
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Lloyd, Gray, Whitehead & Monroe, P.C.
Backus, Carranza & Burden
Robertson & Associates, LLP
Greenberg Traurig, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A