authority or if an important issue of law needs clarification. Id. at 197-98,
179 P.3d at 559.
Having considered the parties' arguments and supporting
documentation, we conclude that there are underlying factual disputes
and that petitioner had not demonstrated that the district court was
required by clear legal authority to dismiss the underlying action.
Although we are concerned that the district court did not explain its good
cause analysis when granting real party in interest's untimely
countermotion to extend the time to effect service, see Saavedra Sandoval
-
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. , 245 P.3d 1198, 1201 (2010)
(requiring the district court to first evaluate whether good cause exists for
a party's failure to file a timely motion seeking enlargement of time, before
considering whether goodS cause exists for failing to effect service within
the 120-day service period), a good cause determination is within the
district court's discretion and we acknowledge that the factual disputes
regarding petitioner's identity and real party in interest's knowledge
thereof may affect such analysis. Because petitioner has a speedy and
adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment, see
Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841
(2004) (explaining that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy
precluding writ relief), we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is
not warranted at this time. Accordingly, we deny the petition. Smith, 107
Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.
, J.
Parraguirre
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ea,
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Upson Smith/Las Vegas
Law Office of Daniel Marks
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) [947A en