IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS PAVING CORPORATION, No. 83227 A NEVADA CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, DISTRICT JUDGE, FILED Respondents, NOV 0 2 2021 and A. BROWN ALL NET DEVELOPMENT, INC., A UPREME COURT NEVADA COMPANY; ALL NET, LLC, A CLERK NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; DRIBBLE DUNK, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SAHARA LAS VEGAS CORP., A NEVADA CORPORATION; ALL NET LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SUBGALLAGHER INVESTMENT TRUST, A/K/A SUB GALLAGHER INVESTMENT TRUST AND SUB-GALLAGHER INVESTMENT TRUST; P. MOORE, AS TRUSTEE; AND JOSEPH R. BERLIN, AS INDIVIDUAL SURETY, Real Parties in Interest. ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying summary judgment in a SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA i0.47A -31q mechanics lien matter. Real parties in interest have timely filed an answer to the petition, as directed, and petitioner has filed a reply. Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Walker v. Second Judicial Dist, Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1197 (2020) (recognizing that, for purposes of traditional mandamus, petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought and the absence of an alternate legal remedy). Subject to very few exceptions, we have declined to exercise our discretion to entertain writ petitions that challenge district court orders denying summary judgment. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). We decline to deviate from that rule here, particularly because the underlying matter is set for trial next rnonth and because the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment, such that petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Walker, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d at 1198, 1199 (noting that an appeal is usually an adequate and speedy legal remedy precluding writ relief and explaining that advisory mandamus is generally not available to resolve factual disputes or ones in which the petitioner does not demonstrate that our interlocutory consideration would promote judicial economy); see also Moore v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 415, 416-17, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980) (declining to issue writ relief SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (Or 19,17A OS* 2 when doing so would not resolve the entire underlying controversy). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.' J. arraguirre A44G4-.0 J. Stiglich J. Silver cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Marquis Aurbach Coffing Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP/Las Vegas Joseph R. Berlin Hanratty Law Group P. Moore Eighth District Court Clerk 'In light of this order, petitioner's motion to expedite, and real parties in intereses motions for oral argument and to stay the district court proceedings, are denied as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA Iv47A adiSt3c, 3