State Dep't of Transp. v. Dist. Ct. (Richard)

 warranted. Id. In particular, it appears that the district court gave
credence to real party in interest's arguments that she reasonably believed
that service of process had been timely accomplished on both petitioners.'
Given the factual assertions that were made to the district court, the
district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion in
granting real party in interest an enlargement of time in which to serve
process on petitioners. 2 Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at
558; see Saavedra-Sandova/ v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. ,
245 P.3d 1198, 1200 (2010) (explaining that the good-cause determinations
under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's discretion). Accordingly,
we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre
'The challenged order has not been reduced to writing and entered
on the district court's docket, which would constitute an independent basis
for denying this writ petition. See Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev.
686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (recognizing that a "district court's
oral pronouncement from the bench" is "ineffective for any purpose").
2 Petitionerscontend that, based on the information provided in the
accident report, real party in interest was unreasonable in believing that
petitioner Spendlove had been properly served. This contention was not
made in the district court and therefore has no bearing on whether the
district court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion for
an enlargement of time.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
Attorney General/Transportation Division/Carson City
Atkin Winner & Sherrod
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ofSP9