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