Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Writ relief is typically
not available, however, when petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Int? Game Tec., 124 Nev. at
197, 179 P.3d at 558. Whether to consider a writ petition is within this
court's discretion. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. 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).
Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner
has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse
judgment, and it may challenge the district court's interlocutory order
denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings in the context of that
appeal. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at
841 (explaining that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy
precluding writ relief); Consol. Generator-Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine
Co., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (explaining that
interlocutory orders may be challenged in the context of an appeal from
the final judgment). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP
21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.
Piek&tw,
' , J.
Pickering
Parraguirre aitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A eo
cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
Attorney General/Reno
Maupin, Cox & LeGoy
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A