presented. Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008).

Here, the instant complaint is based on the written contract and is not based on the same facts that caused the dismissal of the second comp1aint. 1 Accordingly, we deny the petition. See Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-203, 179 P.3d 556, 559- (2008) (denial of writ petition is proper when district court properly denied motion to dismiss).

It is so ORDERED.

blet ■t et-t-42\ C.J.

Hardesty

arraguirre

Saitta

J.

1 Portraits USA argues that there is jurisdiction over petitioners based on the arbitration and choice-of-law clauses, which would be a matter of first impression for this court. However, petitioners only sought dismissal based on issue preclusion and did not seek dismissal of the present complaint based on personal jurisdiction. We therefore do not consider those issues in this writ proceeding. See Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (explaining that this court is ill-suited to resolve factual issues).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce, cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge Rogers, Mastrangelo, Carvalho & Mitchell, Ltd. Bowen Law Offices Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e