challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss . . . ."). While we have, on occasion, departed from this rule, see Int'l Game Tech., Inc. c. Second Judicial Din. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), we are not persuaded it is appropriate to do so here, in the context of an order denying dismissal of a complaint presenting mixed common-law, corporate, and statutory receivership claims, the framing and resolution of which will benefit from further legal and factual development in the district court. We also note that an extraordinary writ of mandamus may only issue "where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." NRS 34.170. Petitioner has not established that an eventual direct appeal, whether from the final judgment or an order appointing a receiver if one is entered, see NRAP 3A(b)(4), does not afford an adequate legal remedy.

For these reasons, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

A ess-- Hardesty c , CA.

PPOL Parraguiri DOUglas_

Saitta

Pickering

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) (947A cc: Second Judicial District Court Department 6 Kolesar & Leatham, Chtd.

Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Flutchings, P.C.

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, P.C.

Maupin, Cox & LeGoy Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A (Leo