Schnog v. Dist. Ct. (Schnog) ( 2013 )

 considered is solely within this court's discretion. Smith v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991).
Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that our
extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). NRAP 21(b)(4) requires
the petitioner to submit with the petition an appendix that contains copies
of any orders or other parts of the record that may be essential to
understanding the matters contained in the petition.
Here, petitioner did not file an appendix with the petition or
provide this court with any orders or parts of the record to assist this court
in evaluating his petition. Additionally, petitioner indicates that the
district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for December 19, 2013, to
consider its authority to order the release of funds from a corporate
account to satisfy the attorney fees award. Under these circumstances, we
conclude that our intervention is not warranted. See NRAP 21(b); Pan,
120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851(stating that the issuance of an extraordinary writ is purely discretionary
with this court). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
J.
Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF 2
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Gayle Nathan, District Judge
McFarling Law Group
Kelleher & Kelleher, LLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A