Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in, No. 91869 (Jan. 13, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Nevada (NV)
Court
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided
Jan. 13, 2026
Disposition
Motion Granted
Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark, Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 99773Unpublished DispositionOnly the Westlaw citation is currently available.This is an unpublished disposition. See Nevada Rulesof Appellate Procedure, Rule 36(c) before citing.Supreme Court of Nevada.Angelo A. SMITH, Petitioner,v.The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTof the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR theCOUNTY OF CLARK; and the HonorableKerri J. Maxey, District Judge, Respondents,andJoy Quirimit, Real Party in Interest.No. 91869|Filed January 13, 2026Attorneys and Law FirmsAngelo SmithMichael R. BalabonORDER DENYING PETITIONFOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS*1 This original petition for a writ of mandamus challengesa variety of alleged procedural irregularities1 and a vexatiouslitigant order issued in a child custody matter. Petitioner hasmoved for emergency treatment of this matter under NRAP27(e), citing an upcoming trial.Petitioner's motion is granted to the extent it seeks expeditedreview of this matter. Further, having thus consideredthe petition and supporting documents, we conclude thatpetitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate that writrelief is warranted. See D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud.Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37(2007) (explaining that writ relief rests within this court's solediscretion); Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that it is petitioner's burdento demonstrate that this court's extraordinary intervention iswarranted). In particular, writ relief is typically unavailableto control the district court's case management, see Dornbachv. Tenth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. 305, 312, 324 P.3d 369,373-74 (2014) (recognizing that “allowing district courtsto manage the cases before them” “promotes the efficientprosecution of cases”); Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist.v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536(1981) (“Mandamus will not lie to control discretionaryaction, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercisedarbitrarily of capriciously.” (internal citations omitted)), andto the extent petitioner is ultimately aggrieved by any of thealleged procedural irregularities, those issues may be raisedon appeal once an appealable order is entered, precluding writrelief, Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right toappeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludeswrit relief.”).Moreover, with respect to petitioner's request that theNovember 17, 2025, vexatious litigant order be vacateddue to lack of notice, we conclude that petitioner hasnot demonstrated that notice was not properly provided.Petitioner did not provide this court with copies of alldocuments needed to review his argument, such as the movingpapers, the district court docket entries, and any pertinenthearing notices. See id. at 229, 88 P.3d at 844 (“Our review ina writ proceeding is limited to the argument and documentsprovided by the parties. If essential information is left out ofthe petition and accompanying documentation, we have noway of properly evaluating the petition.”). Instead, he citesto Exhibit D, which he states is an August 6, 2025, noticeof hearing listing only a motion for continuance. But theExhibit D provided to this court is dated September 9, 2025,not August 6, and references an October 23, 2025, hearingon a motion for continuance, not any October 9 hearing,which is the date on which the vexatious litigant motionwas heard. Thus, this document, alone, does not supportpetitioner's assertion. Further, we do not read the vexatiouslitigant order as barring petitioner's ability to file a noticeof appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that our extraordinaryintervention is not warranted and*2 ORDER the petition DENIED.2All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 99773 (Table)
Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark, Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Footnotes1Petitioner challenges opposing counsel's failure to file a notice of appearance; the “bulk filing” of “overdueorders” on November 17, 2025; an oral reprimand for appearing via Zoom, rather than in person; the oralcontinuation of trial and the scheduling of a hearing on a motion to settle the record after the trial date;an unnoticed judicial reassignment; and a January 27, 2025, order entered (on February 18, 2025) withoutfindings, calculations, and enforcement terms. In a supplemental notice of post-petition events, he challengesa written order reflecting decisions made at a November 19 hearing and the January 16, 2026, trial date andthe rescheduling of his motion to settle the record on the same day as trial.2Several of the legal authorities petitioner cited in support of his arguments either do not say what petitionerasserts they say or do not appear to exist at all. For example, on page 6 of the petition, petitioner claims that“Alexander v. Lolavar, 127 Nev. 255 (2011),” supports the proposition that “oral pronouncements have nolegal effect until reduced to writing and filed,” but 127 Nev. 255 is a page in the opinion Ruiz v. City of NorthLas Vegas, 127 Nev. 254, 255 P.3d 216 (2011), which does not concern oral pronouncements, and we havefound no case by that name under a different citation. Petitioner is cautioned that citations to decisional lawand other authorities in any future papers filed in this court should be reviewed for accuracy before filing.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access