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.
Ali SHAHROKHI, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Dawn Throne, District Judge, Respondents, Kizzy Burrow, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges (1) an October 22, 2021, order denying petitioner's NRS 41.660 anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss real party in interest's countermotion to declare petitioner a vexatious litigant and (2) an October 21, 2021, order directing petitioner to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. Petitioner asserts, among other things, that the district court incorrectly concluded that motions seeking to declare a party a vexatious litigant are not subject to NRS 41.660 anti-SLAPP motions and that the show cause order is not affidavit-based and lacks protections necessary in criminal contempt proceedings. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion to stay the district court proceedings pending our consideration of this writ petition, pointing to the upcoming hearing on the show cause order.
Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is 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, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the clear language of NRS 41.660 applies to motions to declare a party a vexatious litigant, and petitioner mischaracterizes the nature of the October 21 order, which merely requires him to appear and show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant, not why he should not be held in contempt. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.1
FOOTNOTES
1. In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.
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. 83682
Decided: November 16, 2021
Court: Supreme Court 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)