Appellate Courts
Appellate Case Management System
C-Track, the browser based CMS for Appellate Courts
Disclaimer: The information and documents available here should not be relied upon as an official record of action.
Only filed documents can be viewed. Some documents received in a case may not be available for viewing.
Some documents originating from a lower court, including records and appendices, may not be available for viewing.
For official records, please contact the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Nevada at (775) 684-1600.

Case Information: 79336-COA
Short Caption:SHAHROKHI VS. DIST. CT. (BURROW)Court:Court of Appeals
Related Case(s):78771, 78771-COA, 79336, 79992, 79992-COA, 80277, 80277-COA, 80447, 80447-COA, 81218, 81218-COA, 81791, 81791-COA, 81978, 81978-COA, 82245, 82803, 83164, 83558
Lower Court Case(s):Clark Co. - Eighth Judicial District - D581208Classification:Original Proceeding - Civil - Mandamus
Disqualifications:Case Status:Case Closed
Replacement:Panel Assigned: Panel
To SP/Judge:SP Status:
Oral Argument:Oral Argument Location:
Submission Date:How Submitted:

+ Party Information

Docket Entries
08/06/2019Case Status UpdateTransferred from Supreme Court. (COA)
08/06/2019Petition/WritFiled Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (COA)19-34153
08/06/2019AppendixFiled Appendix to Petition - Volume 1. (COA)19-34154
08/06/2019AppendixFiled Appendix to Petition - Volume 2. (COA)19-34157
08/06/2019AppendixFiled Appendix to Petition - Volume 3. (COA)19-34159
08/06/2019AppendixFiled Appendix to Petition - Volume 4. (COA)19-34160
08/06/2019AppendixFiled Appendix to Petition - Volume 5. (COA)19-34161
08/06/2019AppendixFiled Appendix to Petition - Volume 6. (COA)19-34164
08/07/2019MotionFiled Petitioner's Motion for Order Granting Expansion of Pages for Emergency Motion for Stay. (COA)19-33218
08/07/2019AppendixFiled Petitioner's Supplemental Appendix. (COA)19-33221
08/07/2019MotionFiled Petitioner's Motion for Order Granting Expansion of Pages for Emergency Motion for Stay (REJECTED-DUPLICATE). (COA)
08/07/2019MotionFiled Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Stay. (COA)19-33225
08/07/2019Order/ProceduralFiled Order Granting Motion for Excess Pages. Petitioner's motion for leave to file an emergency motion for stay in excess of the NRAP 27(d)(2) page limit is granted. The stay motion was filed on August 7, 2019. (SC).19-33314
08/08/2019Petition/WritFiled Petitioner's Supplement to Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (COA)19-33368
08/08/2019Order/ProceduralFiled Order Directing Expedited Response to Stay Motion and Answer to Petition. Real party in interest shall have until 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 13, 2019, to file and serve a response to the stay motion. No extensions of time will be granted. Real party in interest, on behalf of respondents, shall have 14 days from the date of this order to file and serve an answer, including points and authorities, against issuance of the requested writ. Petitioner shall have 7 days from service of the answer to file and serve any reply. Tao, J., dissenting. fn1 [We suspend the provisions of NRAP 25(a)(2)(B)(ii), (iii), and (iv), which provide that a document is timely filed if, on or before its due date, it is mailed to this court, dispatched for delivery by a third party commercial carrier, or deposited in the Supreme Court drop box. See NRAP 2. Accordingly, all documents shall be filed personally or by facsimile or electronic transmission with the clerk of this court in Carson City.] (COA).19-33389
08/12/2019MotionFiled Response to Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Stay. (SC)19-33855
08/12/2019AppendixFiled Real Party in Interest's Appendix for Response to Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Stay.19-33857
08/14/2019Order/ProceduralFiled Order Granting Stay in Part. Accordingly, we grant the stay in part as to the July 11, 2019, no-contact order, so that Shahrokhi and the child may immediately commence limited contact, such as phone calls or supervised visitation, at least once per week. As the district court is in the best position to determine exactly what form that contact will take, the parties are directed to apply to the district court for direction if they are unable to agree on the limited contact. The remaining provisions contained in the July 11, 2019, and August 6, 2019, district court orders, as well as this partial stay, will remain in place until either the district court holds an evidentiary hearing on this matter and, based on its entered findings, orders a different custody arrangement, or this court issues a further order on the stay, whichever is earlier. Tao, J., dissenting. Court of Appeals-MG/BB (COA).19-34285
08/15/2019Notice/IncomingFiled Certificate of Service (Order Granting Stay). (COA).19-34323
08/22/2019Petition/WritFiled Real Party in Interest's Answer to Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (COA)19-35310
08/29/2019AppendixFiled Petitioner's Second Supplemental Appendix. (COA)19-36312
08/29/2019Petition/WritFiled Petitioner's Reply to Answer to Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (COA)19-36349
10/18/2019MotionFiled Appellant's Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys of Record. (SC).19-43287
11/06/2019Order/DispositionalFiled Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Part and Denying Petition in Part. "ORDER the petition GRANTED IN PART AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to (1) vacate its July 16 no-contact order as to the child, only, and enter a new order setting forth the limited contact provided pursuant to our August 14 order; (2) immediately set an adversarial hearing on the temporary custody and relocation issues; (3) strike the portion of its August 6 order requiring a psychological evaluation, subject to any new order that complies with NRCP 35, or alternatively NRCP 16.22; (4) strike the portion of the August 6 order making domestic violence findings?any future domestic violence findings should be made only after an evidentiary hearing affording an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations; and (5) schedule a full evidentiary hearing to finally determine custody and relocation." Tao, J., dissenting. fn3 [Ali's counsel has moved to withdraw and attached Ali's declaration to the motion, in which Ali indicates that he asked counsel to immediately withdraw from representing him in this proceeding and in which he provided his address for service. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the clerk of this court shall serve this order on Ali at the address provided in the declaration. NRAP 46(e)(3); SCR 46(1). We note that granting this motion does not suspend the time for filing for rehearing under NRAP 40.] Court of Appeals- MG/JT/BB.19-45651
11/06/2019WritIssued Writ of Mandamus. Served on Hon. Matthew Harter, District Judge, by mail from this office on this day. (COA)
11/06/2019WritFiled Original Writ. Served on Judge Harter on November 6, 2019. (COA)19-45705
11/21/2019MotionFiled Proper Person Petitioner's "Emergency" Motion to Clarify Order. (COA)19-47782
11/21/2019Post-Judgment PetitionFiled Proper Person Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing as Per NRAP 40. (COA)19-47786
11/21/2019Filing FeeProper Person Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing Fee Paid. $150.00 from Ali Shahrokhi. (COA)
12/26/2019TranscriptFiled Notice from Court Reporter Maria Bulfa stating that the requested transcripts were delivered. Dates of transcripts: 12/12/19. (COA)19-52172
01/06/2020Post-Judgment OrderFiled Order Denying Rehearing. "Rehearing Denied." NRAP 40(c). fn1[Petitioner's motion to clarify order is denied. To the extent petitioner has concerns with the limited contact provided, those concerns are more appropriately addressed to the district court.] (COA)20-00587
01/31/2020Case Status UpdateTransferred to Supreme Court. (COA)
01/31/2020Case Status UpdateCase Closed. (COA)