Opinion
No. 67430
02-25-2015
KEN NGUYEN, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BILL HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ROBERT BOYNES, Real Party in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order that scheduled an evidentiary hearing on a petition to establish paternity and child custody and set forth a temporary custodial schedule to be exercised pending the hearing. Having considered the petition and appendix, we conclude that our intervention is not warranted for two reasons. First, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from an order finally resolving paternity and custody. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004); see also NRAP 3A(b)(1), (7). Second, the order scheduling the March 10, 2015, hearing that petitioner asks us to interdict was entered on October 27, 2014, yet petitioner waited until February 19, 2015, to request extraordinary writ relief from this court. Less than a month's time is not sufficient for this court to order an answer and deliberate on and resolve the petition. With no cause shown for petitioner's delay, we decline to substitute our hurried judgment for the deliberative efforts underway in the district court. Thus, petitioner has not demonstrated that this court's intervention by extraordinary writ relief is warranted, and we deny the petition. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; NRAP 21(b)(1).
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, J.
Saitta
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division
McFarling Law Group
James M. Davis Law Office
Eighth District Court Clerk