State v. Dist. Ct. (Maddox)

NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). "An arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion is one 'founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason,' (defining 'arbitrary), or "contrary to the evidence or established rules of law" (defining 'capricious). State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, Nev. „ 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 119, 239 (9th ed. 2009)). And, "WTI the context of a writ petition, this court gives deference to the district court's findings of fact." Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, Nev. „ 262 P.3d 360, 365 (2011). It is within this court's sole 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). Having considered the petition and the supplement to the petition, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; Pan, 120 Nev. at 229, 88 P.3d at 844; see also NRAP 21(b). The district court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law reflect the exercise of discretion, not its abuse. While we are sensitive to the time pressures under which the parties have proceeded, we note that petitioner failed to provide this court with an appendix supporting the factual assertions made in its writ petition, NRAP 21(a)(4), and petitioner failed to cite to any evidence that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Because petitioner has ...continued prohibition is available to arrest proceedings of a district court when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that extraordinary writ relief is warranted here, we ORDER the petition DENIED. 2 J. Pafraguirre Saitta cc: Hon. Frank P. Sullivan, District Judge, Family Court Division Clark County District Attorney Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division William L. Wolfbrandt, Jr. Lisa M. Kent Eighth District Court Clerk 2 In light of this order, we deny petitioner's motion to file a supplement to its stay motion, or in the alternative, to file a response to the real parties in interest's oppositions to the stay. This court entered a temporary stay of the child's release to real party in interest Carnell Duhon, which expires by its own terms at noon on Monday, July 28, 2014. Accordingly, no further action is necessary by this court. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A