Brizeno v. Dist. Ct. (Tomkowiak)

 and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Int? Game
Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. It is petitioner's burden to
demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Our review of the petition and supporting documents indicates
that petitioner has filed a motion to amend in the district court, in which
she raises some of the issues addressed in this writ petition, and the
district court has set a hearing on that motion for June 10, 2014. Under
these circumstances, we conclude that our intervention by way of
extraordinary relief is not warranted at this time. See NRAP 21(b)(1);
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. 1
Hardesty
0507 ,
J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Mathew Harter, District Judge
Law Office of Mario Fenu, Ltd.
Bush & Levy, LLC
Hofland & Tomsheck
Eighth District Court Clerk
lIn light of this order, petitioner's May 20, 2014, motion to expedite
is denied as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A