Phillips v. Korpak ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
TODD MATTHEW PHILLIPS; AND ALI No. 84411
SHAHROKHI,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE REBECCA
BURTON, DISTRICT JUDGE; THE
HONORABLE CHARLES J. HOSKIN,
DISTRICT JUDGE; THE HONORABLE
DAWN THRONE, DISTRICT JUDGE;
FILED
THE HONORABLE VINCENT OCHOA, APR 0 6 2022
DISTRICT JUDGE; THE HONORABLE ELIZABCTH A. BROWN
MATHEW HARTER, DISTRICT JUDGE; CLE_Rit tUPREME COURT
BY
JON NORHEIM, HEARING MASTER; DEPUTY CLERK
AARON D. FORD, NEVADA
A1TORNEY GENERAL; AND STEVEN
B. WOLFSON, CLARK COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
Respondents,
and
AMBER KORPAK; AND KIZZY
BURROW,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, PROHIBITION
This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition seeks to prohibit respondents from enforcing family court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(01 1947A
custodial orders that petitioners assert are void because they result from
the family court's determination that petitioners committed domestic
violence. Petitioners argue that the family court lacks jurisdiction to make
such a determination because petitioners have never been indicted or tried
for such crimes by the State of Nevada.
In advancing these arguments, petitioners have failed to
demonstrate that they lack an adequate legal remedy by way of appeal and
that extraordinary relief is warranted, and we therefore decline to exercise
our discretion to entertain this petition. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Cote H.
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008)
C[N]either a writ of prohibition nor a writ of mandamus is appropriate if
the petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pan v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) ('Petitioners carry
the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.");
Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851
(1991) (providing that writ relief is purely discretionary).
It is well established that an appeal is generally an adequate
remedy precluding writ relief. Pan at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Moreover, even
when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order
is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be
challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief:
"{m]andamus is also not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and the opportunity to
appeal a final judgment typically provides an adequate legal remedy."
Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360,
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
2
4(1) 19.17A cealalr,
364 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly,
we
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
•
Parragturre
Stiglich
•
J.
Cadish
cc: Hon. Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, Family Court Division
Hon. Dawn Throne, District Judge, Family Court Division
Hon. Mathew Harter, District Judge
Hon. Rebecca Burton, District Judge, Family Court Division
Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge
Ali Shahrokhi
Todd Matthew Phillips
Hutchison & Steffen, LLC/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Petitioners emergency motion for stay under NRAP 27(e), filed on
March 28, 2022, and opposed by real party in interest Amber Phillips, nka
Amber Korpak, on April 4, 2022, is therefore denied as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
ith 1947,i 46;Pf.