224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Moreover, it is petitioner's burden to
demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Id. at 228,
88 P.3d at 844.
Having considered the parties' arguments in light of the
underlying case's progression since the first challenged order was
entered,' we are not persuaded that our intervention is warranted. Int?
Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88
P.3d at 844. Among other reasons, petitioner has an adequate legal
remedy in the form of an appeal from a final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at
224, 88 P.3d at 841. Consequently, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Pi& (Li J.
Pickering
J.
(Tr
1
(
J.
Saitta
'The motion filed by real parties in interest on May 20, 2014, to
supplement the record is granted, as is petitioner's June 9, 2014, motion
for leave to supplement its writ petition. Accordingly, in resolving this
matter, we have considered the district court's May 2, 2014, order that
was attached to the May 20 motion, as well as the supplemental writ
petition and appendix that were attached to the June 9 motion.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 19474 AMII0
cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge
• Ballard Spahr, LLP
Peel Brimley LLP/Henderson
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) E947A 7s geto