JEFFERSON TYLER v. LARA AREVALO TYLER (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders denying a motion to recuse and holding a hearing in abeyance in a family law matter. Having considered the petition and supporting appendix, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991).

Petitioner has not shown that recusal is warranted. See Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009) (providing that appellate courts give “substantial weight” to a judge's decision not to recuse and will only overturn that decision for a “clear abuse of discretion”), overruled, in part on other grounds by Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 7, 501 P.3d 980, 985 (2022). And, to the extent petitioner seeks an order directing the district court to hold a hearing on his school choice motion, we note that the district court held that hearing in abeyance due to petitioner's pending motion for reconsideration of the order from the presiding judge denying recusal. As we cannot tell from the documents provided to this court if that reconsideration motion has been resolved, we decline to exercise our discretion to grant the requested relief. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, we deny as moot petitioner's motions to expedite and to transmit recordings.