Morgan (Bayzle) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA BAYZLE MORGAN, No. 70655 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUN 2 7 2016 RICHARD SCOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE, TFMCIE K. LINDEMAN Respondents, SLE BY and DEPUrf-CLIRK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest. ORDER DENYING PETITION This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, prohibition challenging a district court order denying a motion to continue the trial in the underlying proceedings, which is scheduled to begin on Monday, June 27, 2016. Petitioner has also filed a motion for stay, 1 and real party in interest has filed an opposition. Having considered the documents and arguments presented in this matter, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. Pan v. 1 -Wenote that petitioner's motion was denominated an "emergency," but counsel 'failed to comply with the requirements set foiith in NRAP 27(e), which governs such motions. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. 2 Douglas 0-kutrave- Cherry Giflb on s cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge The Law Office of Daniel M. Bunin Dayvid J. Figler Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk 2 The motion for stay is denied as moot. 2