ORDER GRANTING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition, Docket No. 

64817, and an appeal, Docket No. 64822, both challenging the same 

district court order denying a motion to set aside an order clarifying a 

default judgment in a quiet title action. 

"This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the 

proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions, when such 

proceedings are in excess of the jurisdiction of the district court." Greene 

v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 115 Nev. 391, 393, 990 P.2d 184, 185 

(1999); NRS 34.320. Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy, and it is 

petitioner's burden to demonstrate that this court's intervention is 

warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 

840, 844 (2004). 

Having considered the parties' arguments, we conclude that 

our intervention is warranted. 1 Id. Specifically, a final judgment was 

entered in the underlying action in September 2012, as that judgment 

resolved all of the underlying action's pending matters. Lee v. GNLV 

Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000); Valley Bank of Nev. v. 

Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994). "[O]nce a final 

judgment is entered, the district court lacks jurisdiction to reopen [a case], 

absent a proper and timely motion under the Nevada Rules of Civil 

Procedure." SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 608, 612, 

'In particular, while we recognize Colorful Rain, LLC's arguments 

regarding the effect of the recorded lis pendens, we are not persuaded that 

this argument and the doctrine of harmless error warrant a different 

resolution of this writ petition. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 19MA e 

TaIrMSAVierA44/.4189D144640431 .4463/415.."1:1610,-, 22E32:ZEISSI1aF 
J. 

173 P.3d 715, 717 (2007). Thus, if Colorful Rain, LLC wanted to reopen 

the finally adjudicated case, such a request needed to be made in 

conformity with the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Colorful 

Rain's June 2013 motion for clarification of order failed in this regard, the 

district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion. Id.; see NRCP 59(e) 

(providing that a party must file a motion to alter or amend a judgment 

within ten days from when written notice of entry of the order is served on 

that party). Accordingly, our intervention is warranted. SFPP, L.P., 123 

Nev. at 612, 173 P.3d at 718; Greene, 115 Nev. at 396, 990 P.2d at 187. 

We therefore 

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK 

OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION directing the 

district court to vacate its July 30, 2013, order and precluding the district 

court from conducting any further proceedings in District Court Case No. 

A658387. 2 

Parra guirre 

Douglas 

2As the order being challenged is not an appealable order under 

statute or court rule, and in light of our resolution of this writ petition, 

Colorful Rain's unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal in Docket No. 

64822 is granted. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 4V0 

3 
cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge 

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas 

Charles L. Geisendorf, Ltd. 

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 947k e 

MtStr=