ORDER 

Docket No. 68394 is a petition for a writ of mandamus, 

certiorari, or prohibition challenging a district court order allowing the 

recall election of a municipal court judge to proceed. As it appeared that 

writ relief was unavailable because the district court's order was 

substantively appealable, see NRAP 3A(b)(1), (3) (permitting an appeal 

from final judgment and from an order refusing to grant an injunction, 

respectively); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 222, 224, 88 

P.3d 840, 841 (2004), we issued an order directing petitioner Ramsey to 

show cause why the petition should not be summarily denied. Our order 

also stayed operation of the district court's order. Since then, in addition 

to filing a response to our order to show cause, Ramsey has filed an appeal 

from the same district court order she is challenging in the writ 

proceeding, Docket No. 68450. Real parties in interest have replied to 

Ramsey's response. Having reviewed the documents on file in both 

matters, we conclude that the order is properly challenged by way of an 

appeal, and writ relief is thus unavailable. See Pan, 122 Nev. at 224, 88 

P.3d at 841. Accordingly, the petition in Docket No. 68394 is denied. 

In her response to the order to show cause, Ramsey requested 

that, if her petition was denied, the stay remain in effect, the appeal be 

expedited, and we treat the writ petition as the opening brief in her 

appeal. Cause appearing, we grant those requests to the following extent. 

The stay shall remain in effect until further order of this court. We direct 

the clerk to transfer the documents in Docket No. 68394 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A cep 
to Docket No. 68450. We will treat Ramsey's petition as the opening brief 

in the appeal} Ramsey shall have 15 days from the date of this order to 

supplement the record. 2Respondents shall have 30 days from the date of 

this order to file an answering brief. Ramsey shall have 10 days from 

service of the answering brief to file a reply brief. Further, as we have 

determined that oral argument would be of assistance in resolving the 

issues presented by this appeal, oral argument is hereby scheduled before 

1 In Docket No. 68394, real parties in interest filed a motion to 

"strike false and misleading factual allegations" in the writ petition, which 

we are now treating as the opening brief in Docket No. 68450. Ramsey 

filed an opposition to the motion to strike, combined with a countermotion 

to strike portions of real parties' motion to strike. As our resolution of the 

motion and countermotion is intertwined with our review of the merits in - 

this matter, we deny them at this time. However, we remind the parties 

that in resolving this matter, we will disregard documents and assertions 

not properly appearing in or supported by the record. See Carson Ready 

Mix v. First Nat'l Bank, 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981). 

2VVhen the appeal in Docket No. 68450 was docketed, the clerk 

issued notices to Ramsey to pay the filing fee and file a case appeal • statement by August 4, 2015. We modify those..notices to the extent that 

the filing fee and case appeal Statement are due by July 31, 2015. 

Additionally, Ramsey shall file a transcript request form, see NRAP 9, and 

a docketing statement, see NRAP 14, by July 31, 2015. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 94b19 
the en bane court on October 5, 2015, at the hour of 10 a.m., in Las Vegas. 

The argument shall be limited to 30 minutes. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Hardesty 

Cherry 

(Jag. 

Saitta 

rt 

rricE71. Parraguirre 

Gibborrs Pickering 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

cc: Hon. Louis Eric Johnson, District Judge 

Mueller Hinds & Associates 

Gentile, Cristalli, Miller, Armeni & Savarese PLLC 

Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

4 

(0) 1947A