Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Myron ADDISON, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK, and The Honorable Heidi Almase, District Judge, Respondents, and Sarah Lopez, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an emergency pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the scheduling of a hearing on a jurisdictional challenge in a child custody matter.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is within our sole discretion, and the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and the supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary relief is warranted. While courts must follow NRS 125A.245’s edict that jurisdictional challenges in custody cases involving application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act “be given priority ․ and handled expeditiously,” cf. SCR 251 (requiring courts to resolve child custody matters within six months unless unforeseeable circumstances are presented), we are not convinced that the district court's scheduling of the hearing to resolve the jurisdictional issue in this matter constituted a manifest abuse of its discretion.1 Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1. We note that, while it may be preferable for courts to communicate where multiple courts may have jurisdiction over a child custody matter, it is not mandatory. See NRS 125A.275(1) (stating that courts “may communicate with a court in another state concerning a[n NRS Chapter 125A] proceeding”). In comparison, NRS 125A.245 states that a court “must” resolve jurisdictional issues expeditiously. See Washoe County v. Otto, 128 Nev. 424, 432, 282 P.3d 719, 725 (2012) (“The word ‘must’ generally imposes a mandatory requirement.”).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 91638-COA
Decided: December 30, 2025
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)