Opinion
No. 64972
02-20-2014
JAMIE PERKINS, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE VINCENT OCHOA, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and KEVIN SORENSON, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 seeking an order directing the district court to dismiss a custody matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). It is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition and the appendix, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; see also NRAP 21(b)(1). While the district court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, the court stated it has yet to determine whether the Nevada court is an inconvenient forum and whether a court of another state would be a more appropriate forum to decide the custody issue under NRS 125A.365. Under these circumstances, we conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted at this time. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
__________, J.
Pickering
__________, J.
Parraguirre
__________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge
Barnes Law Group
Walsh & Friedman, Ltd.
Eighth District Court Clerk