Bone v. Dist. Ct. (Upton)

130 P.3d at 190. It is within our discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Here, the district court reversed the justice court action because petitioner failed to file a timely answering brief or motion for extension of time. This course of action was within the district court's discretion. See JCRCP 76(b) (providing that if a respondent fails to file a timely answering brief, "such failure may be treated by the district court as a confession of error and sufficient grounds for reversal of the judgment or order appealed from"). Because the district court acted within its jurisdiction, and petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court was required to permit petitioner to file a late answering brief when petitioner failed to timely request an extension, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1) and (c); Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; Las Vegas Police Prot. Ass'n, 122 Nev. at 241, 130 P.3d at 190; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. It is so ORDERED.

Hardesty po

Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A

IMEEEEXIME ERVIMENE cc: Hon. William Rogers, District Judge

Martin G. Crowley

Law Offices of David M. Jones/Reno

Lyon County Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A

BIKTI EEILIEFEEENENDEN I RDIEDEMERMEEM EfiliVIIIWZMEN1