STONE v. Steven Paul Stone, Real Party in Interest. (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order refusing to continue an evidentiary hearing.

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, 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 the appellate court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Whether to continue a hearing is within the district court's discretion, Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 570, 138 P.3d 433, 444 (2006), and although petitioner has demonstrated challenging circumstances that might justify a short continuance of the proceedings, petitioner has not demonstrated a manifest abuse of the district court's discretion, see Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court., 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (explaining that mandamus is appropriate to remedy only a manifest abuse of discretion). Nor has petitioner demonstrated that the district court is acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or that a subsequent appeal is an inadequate remedy, such that prohibition is warranted. See NRS 34.320. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.