Jones Vs. Dist. Ct. (Friedman)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: December 17, 2021
• Docket: 82974
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KATHLEEN JUNE JONES, No. 82974 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FL CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE LINDA MARQUIS, DISTRICT JUDGE, DEC 1 7 2021 Respondents, ELIZABETh Æ BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT and - ROBYN FRIEDMAN; DONNA BY.4EPUTY CLERX SIMMONS; AND KIMBERLY JONES, Real Parties in Interest.

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

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0i 1447A 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. It is so ORDERED.'

/ ç .P C•tT. Hardesty

Herndon Gibbons

cc: Hon. Linda Marquis, District Judge, Family Court Division Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. Marquis Aurbach Coffing Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd. Michaelson & Associates, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

"The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 I947A