EVA BELTEJAR AND MICHAEL MCAULIFFE v. MARY JANE STRICKLAND (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court show cause order in an adult guardianship matter.

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioners have not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (explaining that it is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered); NRAP 21(b)(1).

Petitioners challenge the district court's jurisdiction to issue a show cause order and hold them, nonparties, in contempt when they have not been given sufficient notice of the guardianship proceedings and served with citations to appear. However, the district court has authority to order a nonparty to appear to address the unlawful disposal of a protected person's property under NRS 159.305, and the show cause order, referring to this authority, directs petitioners to appear to address an alleged overpayment to the care facility they apparently represent. Petitioners do not indicate that they have brought any issues concerning noncompliance with the guardianship statutes’ due process protections or personal jurisdiction to the district court's attention. Moreover, although the show cause order directs petitioners to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, the district court has not at this time held them contempt. Thus, insofar as this petition challenges the district court's authority to hold them in contempt, the petition is premature. Accordingly, we decline to consider this matter at this time, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.