Swindells v. Dist. Ct. (Swindells)

demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted at this time. See Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. While a contempt order may be challenged through a writ petition, see Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 571 (2000), the district court has merely ordered petitioner to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and has yet to enter an order holding petitioner in contempt. Thus, petitioner's challenge to the contempt proceedings is premature. Accordingly, we deny the petition without prejudice to petitioner's right to file a new writ petition if a contempt order is entered. See Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; see also NRAP 21(b)(1).

It is so ORDERED.

, J. Pickering Ps"'•\

Parraguirre cc: Hon. Egan K Walker, District Judge, Family Division O'Mara Law Firm, P.C.

Diana A. Zuccarini

Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 19474 e]