(2011). The August 19 order further provided that petitioner's case was closed and remained that way, given that the case had been removed to federal court over five years earlier, and thus, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See id. Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted, and we therefore deny the petition. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); NRAP 21(b)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (providing that once an action is removed to federal court, the state court loses jurisdiction over the matter unless and until the federal court remands the action). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Ackua

Parriatarrr

J.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge Terence K. Dickinson Roger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A Q464 . }