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.
Ali SHAHROKHI, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Mathew Harter, District Judge, Respondents, Kizzy Burrow, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a number of district court actions and inactions in a child custody dispute.1 In particular, petitioner alleges that the district court failed to comply with this court's November 6, 2019, writ of mandamus in Docket No. 79336-COA; a portion of the district court's March 26, 2020, order is invalid; the district court failed to rule on several of his motions; and the district court has delayed holding an evidentiary hearing and issuing a final custody and relocation determination in this matter. Petitioner again seeks reassignment of the underlying case to a different judicial department.
Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents,2 as well as the many motions filed in this matter—several on an alleged emergency basis, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). In addition to the continuance requested by and granted to petitioner in February, we recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused delays court-wide. We are confident that the district court is undertaking appropriate efforts to address the delay in this case. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.3
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Michael P. Gibbons, Chief Judge, has voluntarily recused himself from participation in this matter.
2. Petitioner's motion for leave to file the appendix under seal because it contains documents that the district court sealed below is granted. SRCR 3. The clerk of this court shall file, under seal, the proposed appendix provisionally received in the supreme court on May 21, 2020, and transferred to this court on July 13, 2020.
3. In light of this order, petitioner's motions, with the exception of the motion to seal, as denied as moot.
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. 81218-COA
Decided: July 28, 2020
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)