IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

WESTERN CAB COMPANY, No. 68796 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; FILED AND THE HONORABLE LINDA MARIE - NOV 2 2 2016 BELL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LAKSIRI PERERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss the real parties' claims under the Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) to the Nevada Constitution that were filed more than two years after the cause of action accrued. Generally, this court will not consider a writ petition that challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280; 281 (1997). The important legal question that petitioner contends supports an exception to this general rule was recently decided by this court in Perry v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 75, P.3d (2016). We held in Perry that the two-year statute of limitations set forth in NRS 608.260 applies to claims brought under the MWA. The district court did not have the benefit of that decision when it resolved petitioner's motion and determined that the catch-all limitation period in NRS 11.220 applied.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A Because mandamus generally does not lie unless the district court has disregarded "a clear, present legal duty to act" or manifestly abused or arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion, Round Hill Gen. Imp.

Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981), and the district court should be given an opportunity to reconsider and, if appropriate, revise its decision in light of Perry, we deny the petition without prejudice.' It is so ORDERED.

Parraguirre

kLJç __, J.

P, deb, J.

Hardesty Pickering

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge Hejmanowski & McCrea LLC Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation Eighth District Court Clerk

1-We note that prohibition is not appropriate as petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A