Opinion
86180-COA
03-07-2023
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE SOONHEE BAILEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and D.D.; AND D.C., Real Parties in Interest.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
GIBBONS C.J.
This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks an order directing the juvenile court to stay proceedings and issue written orders regarding the restitution amount owed by two juveniles who were adjudicated on charges of malicious destruction of property.
Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted at this time. See NRAP 21(b); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner is seeking to compel the juvenile court to enter written orders and to stay the proceedings in the interim so that it may appeal from or otherwise challenge those orders before the court closes the cases, explaining that it has alternatively asked the juvenile court to reconsider its decision as to the restitution amount, but the court has not yet ruled on its motion. Petitioner has not demonstrated that it lacks an adequate remedy once written orders are entered, however, see NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004); see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 819, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) (recognizing that "[a] writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal," but rather, writ should be used sparingly, "for extraordinary causes"), and we are confident that the juvenile court will resolve all pending matters and ensure that written orders are entered as appropriate before closing the cases. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Bulla J., Westbrook J.
Hon. Soonhee Bailey, District Judge.