SHETLER VS. DIST. CT. (SHETLER) (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reiterated the established framework for original writ practice. Mandamus is available "to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion," citing NRS 34.160 and Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). The court reaffirmed that "a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle to seek disqualification of a judge," quoting Towbin Dodge, LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 121 Nev. 251, 254-55, 112 P.3d 1063, 1066 (2005). The court emphasized, however, that entertaining extraordinary writ relief lies within its sound discretion, citing D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007), and that the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted, citing Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). Having reviewed the petition and accompanying documents, the court was not persuaded that its extraordinary and discretionary intervention was warranted, and denied the petition without further discussion of the merits.

In plain language

This is a family law matter in which one party, Travis Shetler, asked the district court to remove the assigned judge from his case. The district court denied that request. Travis then went to the Nevada Supreme Court and asked it to issue a writ of mandamus - a court order directing a lower court to do something the law requires - that would force the disqualification of the judge. The Nevada Supreme Court explained that while a writ of mandamus is the proper procedural tool for seeking to disqualify a judge, the court has discretion over whether to take up such a petition at all. After reviewing the petition and supporting documents, the court declined to intervene and denied the petition. The order does not discuss the underlying reasons Travis advanced for disqualification, and it does not decide whether the judge should or should not have been disqualified on the merits.