In his petition, petitioner asserts that he was not provided
proper notice of the initial hearing regarding the protective custody of his
two children. Petitioner was, however, present at a subsequent hearing
regarding the protective custody of his children, during which he argued
that the district court could not proceed because real party in interest had
failed to provide him with proper notice of the initial hearing. This
subsequent hearing was then continued to April 1, 2013. As a result, the
district court has not yet issued a ruling regarding petitioner's notice
argument and this petition is therefore premature.
We trust that respondent will address petitioner's arguments
regarding the improper notice of the initial hearing at the April 1 hearing.
Under these circumstances, we decline to intervene at this time, and
therefore, deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); see also NRS 34.330;
Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.
cc: Jerry L.O.
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A •