at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. It is within our discretion to determine if a writ
petition will be considered. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev.
674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that 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 an important issue of law needs clarification. Int'l Game
Tech., 124 Nev. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 558-59.
Here, petitioners argue that the district court should have
dismissed the action based on its inherent powers because a previous case
had been filed relating to the same underlying incident. According to
petitioners, however, the previous action was dismissed for procedural
reasons. Moreover, petitioners have not identified either clear authority
obligating the district court to dismiss this action or an important issue of
law that needs clarification. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP
21(b)(1); Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 558-59.
It is so ORDERED.
Parraguirre
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
MASEiZE MEE
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP
Jones Wilson
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A