We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that SCR 48.1 prohibited Berquist's peremptory challenge. SCR 48.1(5) states that "[a] notice of peremptory challenge may not be filed against any judge who has made any ruling on a contested matter . . in the action." We conclude that Judge Hoskin made rulings on contested matters in this case when •he signed several orders approving the Guardianship Commissioner's recommendations. Berquist filed her peremptory challenge after Judge Hoskin signed these orders, and thus, her challenge was prohibited.' SCR 48.1(5). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty J. as/ea' Parraguirre Douglas,

Saitta

J. gekutiA, ' J.

Gibbons Pickering

'Based on our review of the record, we are unpersuaded by Berquist's argument that these orders only involved uncontested matters.

We have considered the parties remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division Cary Colt Payne Goldsmith & Guymon, P.C.

Lee A. Drizin, Chtd.

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A (91e0