remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev.
at 197, 179 P.3d at 558.
With regard to the order denying petitioner's motion to
dismiss, this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging
such orders because an appeal from the final judgment is usually a speedy
and adequate legal remedy, precluding writ relief. Int'l Game Tech., 124
Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. In some instances, this court will consider
such petitions if 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. Id. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 559.
Having considered the writ petition and appendix in this case, we conclude
that petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court was required
by clear authority to dismiss the underlying action.
First, petitioners contend that, instead of initiating the
underlying action, real parties in interest should have filed a motion to
enforce the parties' settlement agreement in a previous case filed by
petitioner Benjamin Williams against real party in interest Julie
Minuskin. But real parties in interest could not have filed such a motion
in the previous case as the district court in that case lost jurisdiction once
the case was dismissed. SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 123
Nev. 608, 612, 173 P.3d 715, 718 (2007) (concluding that once an order for
dismissal is entered, the district court lacks jurisdiction to "conduct any
further proceedings with respect to the matters resolved in the judgment
unless [the judgment is] first properly set aside or vacated"). Thus,
contrary to petitioners' assertion, filing a new action was appropriate.
Second, petitioners contend that the underlying action is
barred by principles of claim or issue preclusion because real parties in
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19474 eo
interest's claims were resolved in the previous case. In that case, Williams
alleged that Minuskin had violated an earlier settlement agreement
executed by the parties when their business relationship ended. But in
the underlying action, Minuskin and real party in interest Retire Happy,
LLC allege that Williams violated the settlement agreement that ended
the previous case, and that Williams and petitioner Solitude Planning
Group, LLC committed additional tortious acts after the previous case was
dismissed. Therefore, the claims at issue here are distinct from those in
the previous case and could not have been brought in that matter,
rendering petitioners' preclusion-based argument without merit. See Five
Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1054-55, 194 P.3d 709, 713
(2008) (setting forth the tests for claim preclusion and issue preclusion).
Third, petitioners assert that Solitude must be dismissed from
the underlying action because it was not a party to the settlement
agreement at issue in the complaint. Only the breach of contract claim
was specifically based on the settlement agreement, however, and Solitude
has not demonstrated that it was an improper party with regard to the
remaining claims. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that
petitioners have not demonstrated that the district court was required to
dismiss the complaint in accordance with clear authority. See Int? Game
Tech., 124 Nev. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 558-59.
Finally, to the extent that petitioners challenge the district
court's grant of a preliminary injunction, that order was independently
appealable and is not properly addressed through a petition for
extraordinary writ relief. See Int? Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d
at 558; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224-25, 88 P.3d
840, 841 (2004) (explaining that an appeal is generally an adequate legal
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
remedy precluding writ relief and that "writ relief is not available to
correct an untimely notice of appeal"). Accordingly, we deny the petition.
See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.
Pickering
PiekAuA' r ' J.
j.
Pfinrcguirfe
' J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Harris Law Office
Palazzo Law Firm
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A 00Sin