130 P.3d at 190. It is within our discretion to determine if a writ petition
will be considered. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674,
677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Here, the district court reversed the justice court action
because petitioner failed to file a timely answering brief or motion for
extension of time. This course of action was within the district court's
discretion. See JCRCP 76(b) (providing that if a respondent fails to file a
timely answering brief, "such failure may be treated by the district court
as a confession of error and sufficient grounds for reversal of the judgment
or order appealed from"). Because the district court acted within its
jurisdiction, and petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court
was required to permit petitioner to file a late answering brief when
petitioner failed to timely request an extension, we deny the petition. See
NRAP 21(b)(1) and (c); Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558;
Las Vegas Police Prot. Ass'n, 122 Nev. at 241, 130 P.3d at 190; Pan, 120
Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844.
It is so ORDERED.
Hardesty
po
Parraguirre
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
IMEEEEXIME ERVIMENE
cc: Hon. William Rogers, District Judge
Martin G. Crowley
Law Offices of David M. Jones/Reno
Lyon County Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
BIKTI EEILIEFEEENENDEN I RDIEDEMERMEEM EfiliVIIIWZMEN1