on its petition for writ relief. In the stay motion, which this court subsequently denied, petitioner presented issues and a summary of arguments pertaining to its request for writ relief. Thus, although petitioner's only filing in this court was the July 25 emergency stay motion, it appears that the motion was intended as a combined stay motion/writ petition. In seeking writ relief, petitioner asserts that because the district court had not entered a written order denying its request for a preliminary injunction, there was no order on which to base an appeal.

Petitioner thus appears to argue that given the lack of a written, appealable order, a petition for writ relief is the appropriate method to seek this court's review of the district court's oral ruling denying the preliminary injunction. Petitioner's reasoning is flawed, see NRAP 3A(b)(3) (providing that an order refusing to grant an injunction is substantively appealable); Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist.

Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (explaining that writ relief is typically not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a district court's oral ruling is ineffective for any purpose), and as petitioner has an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from any final, appealable written order, we deny the petition for writ relief.

It is so ORDERED.

Pickering

SUPREME COURT t taitSinon.„ J.

Parraguirre Saitta OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Brandon L. Phillips, Attorney At Law, PLLC Malcolm Cisneros/Irvine CA Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 94e147