Opinion
No. 82974
12-17-2021
Kathleen June JONES, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Linda Marquis, District Judge, Respondents, and Robyn Friedman ; Donna Simmons; and Kimberly Jones, Real Parties in Interest.
Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. Marquis Aurbach Coffing Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd. Michaelson & Associates, Ltd.
Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc.
Marquis Aurbach Coffing
Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd.
Michaelson & Associates, Ltd.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging a district court's proceedings involving a petition for communication and visitation with a protected person in a guardianship matter.
Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted at this time. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). While petitioner brought this writ petition in an attempt to halt the underlying proceedings regarding the petition for communication and visitation, the district court has since held an evidentiary hearing on that petition. Nevertheless, petitioner has not provided this court with a written district court order resolving the petition for communication and visitation. See Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. , 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). Furthermore, since the district court already held the evidentiary hearing and considered the parties' arguments and briefing on the visitation and communication petition, which presented conflicting factual allegations, it would be premature for us to consider this writ petition before the district court enters findings and an order resolving the visitation and communication request. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition without prejudice.
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.