Rjs Steed LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Portraits USA, LLC)

 presented. Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055, 194 P.3d
709, 713 (2008).
Here, the instant complaint is based on the written contract
and is not based on the same facts that caused the dismissal of the second
comp1aint. 1 Accordingly, we deny the petition. See Int'l Game Tech., Inc.
v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-203, 179 P.3d 556, 559-
62 (2008) (denial of writ petition is proper when district court properly
denied motion to dismiss).
It is so ORDERED.
blet ■t et-t-42\ C.J.
Hardesty
arraguirre
Saitta
J.
1 Portraits USA argues that there is jurisdiction over petitioners
based on the arbitration and choice-of-law clauses, which would be a
matter of first impression for this court. However, petitioners only sought
dismissal based on issue preclusion and did not seek dismissal of the
present complaint based on personal jurisdiction. We therefore do not
consider those issues in this writ proceeding. See Round Hill Gen.
Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981)
(explaining that this court is ill-suited to resolve factual issues).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ce,
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge
Rogers, Mastrangelo, Carvalho & Mitchell, Ltd.
Bowen Law Offices
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e