IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

EUREKA COUNTY; ETCHEVERRY No. 75814 FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP; AND DIAMOND CATTLE COMPANY, LLC Petitioners, vs. JASON KING, P.E., NEVADA STATE ENGINEER, DIVISION OF WATER FL D RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF AUG 30 2018 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL ELIZABETH A. FROWN RESOURCES, CLERKF 'UPREME COURT Respondent, BY DEPUTY CLERK and KOBEH VALLEY RANCH, LLC; AND DIAMOND NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or - advisory mandamus challenging a State Engineer order denying a motion to dismiss applications seeking to appropriate water.

Having reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. .NRS 34.020(2); NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; MDC Rests., LEG u.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

II- 3'4(713 Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev., Adv. Op. 41, 419 P.3d 148, 151 (2018); Dan,gberg Holdings Nev., LW v. Douglas fly.. 115 Nev. 129, 137, 978 P.2d 311, 316 (1999); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991).

Petitioners seek an order directing the State Engineer to dismiss applications to appropriate water because they are allegedly similar to, and precluded by, applications that were previously denied. NRS 533.450(1), however, allows petitioners to seek judicial review of the State Engineer's denial of their motion to dismiss by filing a petition for judicial review in the appropriate district court. The availability of judicial review precludes writ relief. See Howell v. Ricci, 124 Nev. 1222, 1229, 197 P.3d 1044, 1049 (2008) (concluding that an extraordinary writ was not a proper method to challenge a State Engineer's decision because judicial review was available under NRS 533.450(1)). Advisory mandamus is also unwarranted as the decision to deny the motion to dismiss appears fact-bound and tied to an as-yet incomplete record. See Archon Corp. u. Eighth Judicial Dist.

Court, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 101, 407 P.3d 702, 708 (2017) (holding that advisory mandamus should only issue to address "the rare question" that is fully developed and likely to recur without interlocutory review); see also Buckwalter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 1 3 .3d 920, (2010) (providing that this court generally does not entertain writ petitions challenging denial of motions to dismiss that are fact-bound).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0 ) i m7A MEM &Ana Accordingly, and without opining on the merits of the arguments presented,

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

ec.A J.

Hardesty

cc: Allison MacKenzie, Ltd. Eureka County District Attorney Schroeder Law Offices, P.C.

Taggart & Taggart, Ltd. McDonald Carano LLP/Reno Attorney General/Carson City Parsons Behle & Latimer/Reno Eureka County Clerk

'In light of our decision herein, we deny petitioners' May 25. 2018, request for a stay of the proceedings before the State Engineer as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA