Millan v. Dist. Ct. (Millan) ( 2014 )

 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). It is petitioner's burden to
demonstrate that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted.
Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844
(2004).
Having considered petitioner's arguments, we are not
persuaded that our intervention is warranted. Id. In particular, because
some of the factors set forth in Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 126 Nev. „ 245 P.3d 1198, 1201 (2010), and Scrimer v. Eighth
Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000),
support the district court's decision to grant the untimely motion to
enlarge and to deny the motion to dismiss, the district court neither
exceeded its jurisdiction nor arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its
discretion. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; Int'l Game Tech., 124
Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; see Saavedra-Sandoval, 126 Nev. at 245
P.3d at 1200 (explaining that the good-cause determinations under NRCP
4(i) are within the district court's discretion). 2 Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Gibbons
Saitta
2Moreover, even if Rodriguez-Cortez lacked good cause for filing the
untimely enlargement motion and for failing to timely serve process,
dismissal of his third-party complaint would have been without prejudice.
See NRCP 4(i). And given the applicable time limitations for the claims
asserted in his complaint, see Pack v. LaTourette, 128 Nev. „ 277
P.3d 1246, 1249 (2012); Saylor v. Arcotta, 126 Nev. „ 225 P.3d
1276, 1278 (2010), Rodriguez-Cortez could have timely refiled his
complaint.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A (4((fDp
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Barron & Pruitt, LLP
Kevin A. Sprenz
H3Law - Hansen Hale & Hansen
Law Offices of R.S. & Associates
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A deo