Opinion
No. 58486.
07-18-2011
Matthew EDELBLUTE, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE of Nevada, in and for the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Cynthia N. Giuliani, District Judge, Respondents, and Kelly McCollum, Real Party in Interest.
Robert W. Lueck, Esq. Rhonda K. Forsberg
Robert W. Lueck, Esq.
Rhonda K. Forsberg
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's oral decision to deny a motion to set an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's motion to modify custody.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160 ; International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Writ relief is only available when there is no a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170. It is within this court's discretion whether to consider a writ petition. Smith v. District Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the writ petition and its supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228–29, 88 P.3d at 844. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to consider the petition and, we order the petition denied. NRAP 21(b)(1) ; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.