WENDY DANIELSON v. MARK DANIELSON (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's alleged failure to enforce a custody order.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Whether a petition for extraordinary writ relief will be entertained rests within this court's sound discretion. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). The district court has not held an evidentiary hearing and made a final decision regarding custody and the enforcement of custody orders. Therefore, based on our review of the petition, we conclude that petitioner has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition. NRAP 21(b)(1); D.R. Horton, 123 Nev. at 475, 168 P.3d at 737.

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Bell, J.