Turnage v. Dist. Ct. (State of Nevada) ( 2013 )

 demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v.
Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and supporting
documents, we conclude that, under these circumstances, the district court
properly denied petitioner's motion to dismiss. See In re Parental Rights
as to S.M.M.D., 128 Nev. , 272 P.3d 126, 133-34 (2012) (rejecting
an argument that district court termination proceedings were invalid
based on lack of proper notice under 25 U.S.C. § 1912 when the parties
and the tribe had actual notice of the proceedings). Moreover, real party
in interest has since provided formal notice to the tribe in accordance with
25 U.S.C. § 1912, and the termination of parental rights proceedings were
stayed pending our resolution of this writ petition. Accordingly, our
intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted, and we deny
the petition. See Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.'
J.
Hardesty
Parraguirre
1132.4t
Cherry
Lerry
"In light of this order, we vacate the stay imposed by our June 1,
2012, order.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court, Dept. C
Special Public Defender
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
1