Bustamante v. Dist. Ct. (Hernandez)

Nevada Supreme Court

Bustamante v. Dist. Ct. (Hernandez)

DecidedMay 28, 2019

Docket78798

StatusUnpublished

This text of Bustamante v. Dist. Ct. (Hernandez) (Bustamante v. Dist. Ct. (Hernandez)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bustamante v. Dist. Ct. (Hernandez), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JUANA GUZMAN BUSTAMANTE, No. 78798 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; ANI) THE HONORABLE DENISE L. GENTILE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and JEFFREY E. HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a February 11, 2019, district court "minute order" denying a motion to designate child witnesses. Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our ordinary intervention is not warranted at this time. 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 not provided a written, file-stamped district court order, which precludes our review. See Diu. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 451, 92 P.3d 1239, 1243 (2004); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (providing that a minute order is not effective for any purpose). Further, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

- et 91a (0) 194 petitioner provides no explanation as to why she waited until May 21, 2019, to challenge a February 2019 ruling. See, e.g., 13uckholt u. Dist. Court, 94 Nev. 631, 633, 584 P.2d 672, 673 (1978) (recognizing that the lathes doctinre applies to petitions for a writ of mandamus). Accordingly, we deny this writ petition without prejudice to petitioner's ability to file a new petition challenging a written, file-stamped order, if deemed appropriate. It is so ORDERED.

CA.

gek0A U/14, J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Denise L. Gentile, District Judge Robert W. Lueck, Ltd. The Grigsby Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A .C40 2 In

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JUANA GUZMAN BUSTAMANTE, No. 78798 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; ANI) THE HONORABLE DENISE L. GENTILE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and JEFFREY E. HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a February 11, 2019, district court "minute order" denying a motion to designate child witnesses. Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our ordinary intervention is not warranted at this time. 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 not provided a written, file-stamped district court order, which precludes our review. See Diu. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 451, 92 P.3d 1239, 1243 (2004); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (providing that a minute order is not effective for any purpose). Further, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

- et 91a (0) 194 petitioner provides no explanation as to why she waited until May 21, 2019, to challenge a February 2019 ruling. See, e.g., 13uckholt u. Dist. Court, 94 Nev. 631, 633, 584 P.2d 672, 673 (1978) (recognizing that the lathes doctinre applies to petitions for a writ of mandamus). Accordingly, we deny this writ petition without prejudice to petitioner's ability to file a new petition challenging a written, file-stamped order, if deemed appropriate. It is so ORDERED.

CA.

gek0A U/14, J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Denise L. Gentile, District Judge Robert W. Lueck, Ltd. The Grigsby Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A .C40 2 In

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bustamante v. Dist. Ct. (Hernandez), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bustamante-v-dist-ct-hernandez-nev-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack