Nevada Supreme Court, 2013

Dds, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Affordable Concepts)

Dds, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Affordable Concepts)
Nevada Supreme Court · Decided August 7, 2013

Dds, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Affordable Concepts)

Opinion

(2004). A part of this burden is providing this court with "the facts necessary to understand the issues presented by the petition," "the reasons why the writ should issue," and an appendix containing the relevant orders and any other part of the record "that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition." NRAP 21(a)(3)(C)-(D); NRAP 21(a)(4).

Having reviewed the petition and all materials filed with the petition, we conclude that petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is appropriate. NRAP 21(b)(1).

The petition does not identify which property is to be sold, the documents attached to the petition do not include any orders from the district court, and the petition does not provide the essential information necessary for this court's understanding and review of the petition. NRAP 21(a)(3)-(4). 1 Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

' J.

Hardesty

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge Randolph Law Firm, P.C.

Pintar Albiston LLP Eighth District Court Clerk 'In light of this court's denial of the writ petition, petitioners' emergency motion for a stay is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.