Opinion
No. 71291
10-17-2016
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court ruling disqualifying petitioner's attorney from representing her in a child custody action.
Having considered the petition and the record before this court, we conclude that petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (explaining that it is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered); NRAP 21(b)(1). Petitioner has failed to provide this court with a written district court order, and therefore, we are unable to adequately evaluate the reason for the district court's decision. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring petitioner to submit any district court order essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (recognizing that an oral pronouncement of a judgment is ineffective for any purpose). Accordingly, we
In light of this order, we deny petitioner's October 5, 2016, stay motion.
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Jennifer Elliott, District Judge, Family Court Division
Robert W. Lueck, Esq.
Louis C. Schneider, LLC
Eighth District Court Clerk