Okada v. Dist. C T. (Wynn Resorts, Ltd.)

 P.3d 246, 249 (2012); Int? Game Tech., Inc. 1.). Second Judicial Dist. Court,
124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Consequently, we conclude
that our extraordinary intervention is unwarranted, and we deny
petitioner's request for writ relief.
As this matter warranted our expedited consideration and
decision, this order is being entered for the purposes of providing the
parties immediate resolution. Accordingly, we vacate the stay imposed by
our July 1, 2015, order. But because this writ petition raises important
legal issues in need of clarification, an opinion in this matter will be
forthcoming.
It is so ORDERED. 2
, CA.
Hardesty
Ar``S J.
, D.J.
Dobrescu
2 Theclerk of this court is directed to stay issuance of the notice in
lieu of remittitur pending our disposition of this matter by published
opinion. NRAP 41(a).
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
BuckleySandler LLP
Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Pisanelli Bice, PLLC
Campbell & Williams
Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro, LLC/
Los Angeles
Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Little
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e