1. Tyler v. The Second Judicial District Court, and Arevalo Tyler, Real Party in Interest, No. 90986-COA, Order Denying Petition (Unpublished Disposition, July 23, 2025)
Tyler filed a motion to recuse the district court judge, which was denied. He also sought a writ compelling the district court to hold a hearing on his school choice motion. The district court held the hearing in abeyance pending resolution of Tyler’s motion for reconsideration of the recusal denial. Tyler filed an emergency writ petition seeking mandamus or prohibition relief.
The Court of Appeals found that in Nevada, extraordinary writ relief is discretionary and unavailable when a petitioner has an adequate legal remedy, such as a pending appeal. (See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222 (2004); Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410 (2009)).
The Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that Tyler had an adequate legal remedy via appeal and that the district court did not act in excess of jurisdiction.
2. Jeffery v. Beckwith, No. 89155-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, July 24, 2025)
Jeffery and Beckwith were never married, but share three minor children. Jeffery filed for custody in Nevada seeking sole legal and primary physical custody; Beckwith requested sole legal and physical custody and back child support.
The district court (Michele Mercer) granted Beckwith temporary primary physical custody, and ordered communication via Our Family Wizard (OFW). Jeffery failed to pay for a court-ordered drug test for Beckwith, resulting in its destruction. Jeffery withheld the children after spring break, causing them to miss 21 days of school. At the evidentiary hearing, both parties presented testimony and exhibits. The court excluded Jeffery’s wife and brother as witnesses, and allowed Beckwith’s undisclosed witness to testify. The district court awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Beckwith, and ordered Jeffery to pay child support, arrears, and to provide health insurance.
Jeffery appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Beckwith primary physical custody; that the exclusion of Jeffery’s witnesses and admission of Beckwith’s undisclosed witness was improper; that the district court improperly calculated child support and arrears; that the health insurance order was not supported by substantial evidence; and that the district court exhibited bias against him.
In Nevada, custody decisions must be based on the child’s best interest (NRS 125C.0035). Child support must consider transportation costs (Martinez v. Martinez). Procedural due process requires notice and the opportunity to be heard. Judicial bias must be based on extrajudicial sources or extreme conduct (Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.).
The Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, Vacated in Part, and Remanded, holding that the custody determination was supported by substantial evidence, that the exclusion and admission decisions were within the court’s discretion, that the child support order must be reconsidered in light of transportation costs (Martinez v. Martinez), that the health insurance order lacked evidentiary support, and that Jeffery failed to demonstrate judicial bias.
3. Venetian Casino Resort v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Delaney) and Joyce Seraka, Real Party in Interest, No. 79689-COA (Unpublished Disposition, May 14, 2020)
Real party in interest Joyce Sekera allegedly slipped and fell on marble flooring at the Venetian Casino. During discovery, Sekera requested incident reports of similar slip-and-fall incidents over the prior three years. The Venetian produced 64 redacted reports, omitting personal information of third parties. Sekera sought unredacted reports to prove notice and foreseeability and to contact potential witnesses. The Venetian moved for a protective order, which the discovery commissioner partially granted. The district court rejected the commissioner’s recommendation, denied the protective order, and allowed disclosure of unredacted reports to third parties. The Venetian petitioned for writ relief.
The Venetian filed a writ petition challenging a district court order requiring production of unredacted incident reports and denying a protective order, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider proportionality under NRCP 26(b)(1), and that the district court erred by not conducting a good-cause analysis under NRCP 26(c)(1) before denying the protective order.
Discovery must be both relevant and proportional under NRCP 26(b)(1). Courts must conduct a good-cause analysis under NRCP 26(c)(1) before denying a protective order. Failure to apply these standards constitutes an abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order, and to conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including proportionality and good-cause analyses.
4. Shellmire v. Hall, No. 88918-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing and Remanding in Part, and Dismissing in Part (Unpublished Disposition, July 31, 2025)
Joseph Shellmire and Kyonda Hall, who were never married, share two minor children. Shellmire filed for joint custody in 2022, alleging Hall had prevented him from seeing the children since 2020. Hall denied interference and sought sole custody. Both parties testified with conflicting accounts of Shellmire’s involvement and Hall’s alleged obstruction. Shellmire admitted to seeing the children during a continued sexual relationship with Hall until 2022. He claimed Hall restricted access afterward. Hall testified Shellmire was inconsistent and uninterested in parenting responsibilities. The district court (Stacy Michelle Rocheleau) found Hall more credible and awarded her primary physical custody.
Shellmire appealed the district court’s custody and child support determinations, including the award of $43,000 in constructive arrearages and limited parenting time with J.S.
In Nevada, custody determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion and must be based on the child’s best interests (NRS 125C.0035). Sole physical custody requires specific findings when parenting time is severely restricted (Roe v. Roe, 139 Nev. 163). Constructive child support arrearages may be awarded under NRS 125B.030 when one parent has provided care without support from the other.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody award and arrearages, reversed the parenting time restriction with J.S., and remanded for further findings or adjustment consistent with primary custody.
- Mendenhall v. Mendenhall, No. 88620-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, August 12, 2025)
Adam and Natalie Mendenhall divorced in 2017 and share two children. Natalie was awarded sole legal and primary physical custody due to Adam’s substance abuse issues involving alcohol and cocaine. Adam was granted supervised parenting time, contingent on drug testing. Natalie later sought to relocate with the children to Virginia. Adam opposed the relocation and filed a countermotion seeking unsupervised parenting time and changes to the drug testing protocol. During deposition, Adam admitted he did not actually oppose the relocation but used it as leverage to modify custody terms. The parties eventually reached an agreement allowing Natalie to relocate and maintaining the drug testing protocol.
After the parties settled most issues, Natalie filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, arguing Adam’s opposition was unreasonable and intended to harass. The district court (Dedree Butler) found Adam’s conduct increased litigation costs and lacked reasonable grounds. It awarded Natalie $16,576 in attorney fees and costs. Adam appealed, arguing he opposed the relocation in good faith and that the district court committed procedural errors.
In Nevada, NRS 18.010(2)(b) allows attorney fees to a prevailing party if the opposing party’s claim was brought without reasonable ground or to harass. EDCR 5.219 permits sanctions in family law matters for frivolous or vexatious litigation conduct. Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat’l Bank, 85 Nev. 345 (1969) courts must consider attorney skill, difficulty of work, nature of services performed, and results obtained when awarding fees.
The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs. Adam’s opposition to the relocation was not made in good faith, increased litigation costs, and was intended to renegotiate unrelated custody terms. The award was supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards.
Affirmed.
- New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Rendon, Peralta, Sabo, Goldstein, and Lopez, Jr. - January 9, 2026
- Vol. 81 – Tactical Disqualifications And What To Do About Such Attempts - December 31, 2025
- New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Sotelo, Antwann B., Jensen, Groves, and Elder - December 22, 2025