returned to the custody of real party in interest in Kansas pending an evidentiary hearing on the issue of custody modification.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court's order was in excess of the court's jurisdiction or rose to the level of an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.320; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; see also Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007) (recognizing the district court's broad discretionary powers in matters of child custody). Accordingly, we deny this writ petition, and we vacate the temporary stay imposed by our August 6, 2015, order. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that a petition for extraordinary writ relief is purely discretionary with this court).

It is so ORDERED.

Saitta

J.

cc: Hon. Sandra L. Pomrenze, District Judge, Family Court Division David L. Mann Smith Legal Group Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A