extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120
Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). This court generally will not
consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to
dismiss, unless no factual dispute exists and the district court was
obligated to dismiss the action pursuant to clear authority or if an
important issue of law needs clarification. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at
197-98, 179 P.3d at 558-59.
Having considered the petition and appendix, we conclude
that petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that the district
court was required to dismiss the pending action. See id.; Pan, 120 Nev.
at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. In particular, the district court specifically found
that both parties contributed to the delay in this action. While petitioner
asserts that this finding was improper, she failed to meet her burden of
providing this court with all of the documentary evidence necessary for
this court's review of that decision, such as real party in interest's
opposition to the motion to show cause why the case should not be
dismissed and any reply thereto. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring a
petitioner seeking writ relief to provide this court with any "parts of the
record before the respondent judge . . . that may be essential to
understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Accordingly, we deny
the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.
I
Hardesty
—
' J.
P arraguirre Cherry
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
rAMMIlla ROMAN=
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Law Offices of Roderic A. Carucci
Law Offices of Mark Wray
Washoe Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
iro:AEM ISMINEEMMINIIMENEMENI