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.
Laura Rae INIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. The TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CHURCHILL; the Honorable Thomas L. Stuckard, District Judge; the Eleventh Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Pershing; and the Honorable Jim C. Shirley, District Judge, Respondents, Jimmie Winston Lacy; and Kimberly Marie Lacy, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges various rulings entered in a grandparent visitation matter.
Having considered the petition and appendices, in light of the limited supporting documents petitioner has provided, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider this request for extraordinary writ relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring the petition to be accompanied by an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth in the petition”); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (noting that it is petitioner's burden to demonstrates that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (providing that whether a petition for extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within the discretion of the appellate courts). Our decision in this regard is further supported by petitioner's failure to respond to this court's prior orders regarding the status of settlement negotiations between the parties following her May 5, 2021, request to suspend the proceedings in this matter based on these negotiations.1
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we deny the petition. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; see also NRAP 21(b)(1).
It is so ORDERED.
FOOTNOTES
1. While petitioner failed to update this court as to the status of the pending settlement negotiations, a copy of an order entered by Senior Judge Janet Berry was filed in this court on June 17, 2021, suggesting that the circumstances of the underlying case had changed, and that at least a preliminary settlement agreement may have been reached. Thereafter, petitioner was directed, for a second time, to update the court as to the status of negotiations or seek the dismissal of this petition, but she again failed to respond to this directive.
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. 82682-COA
Decided: November 29, 2021
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)