JENSEN v. Terry Robert Jensen, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's continuance of a divorce trial. Having considered the petition, the answer, and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our discretionary, extraordinary intervention is warranted. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (providing that this court has sole discretion in determining if a writ petition will be considered); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted). Specifically, district courts have an inherent authority to control their calendars, Hunter v. Gang, 132 Nev. 249, 257, 377 P.3d 448, 454 (Ct. App. 2016), and we are confident the district court will resolve the matter pending below as expeditiously as its calendar will permit. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.