MARSDEN VS. DIST. CT. (BERNAL) (FAMILY)

Key holdings

• -A petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel a district court to resolve pending motions becomes moot once the district court resolves those motions and proceeds on the related enforcement matters.
• -A district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders and to make short-term, temporary, emergency adjustments to custody arrangements while an appeal is pending.
• -Requests to compel a district court to make particular findings or to address motions sooner implicate the district court's discretion to manage the cases before it, and "Mandamus will not lie to control discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously."

Practitioner summary

This is an emergency pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's purported refusal to resolve motions concerning enforcement of a child custody order on appeal in Docket Nos. 92325-COA and 92546-COA, and seeking emergency temporary modification of custody. The petitioner filed two supplements and supplemental appendices; her motions for leave to file the second supplement and appendices late were granted, while her requests to direct transmission of JAVS recordings and preparation of transcripts were denied as moot.

By prior order dated October 26, 2026, the court directed the petitioner to obtain a written order from the district court reflecting its decision from the October 14 hearing, explaining that the district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders and to make short-term, temporary, emergency adjustments to custody arrangements while an appeal is pending. The court also directed the district court to answer and allowed the real party in interest to answer.

On November 8, the district court entered its Order After October 14, 2026, Hearing, in which it declined to certify an intent to grant either party's motion to modify custody (effectively denying the motions), directed the parties to follow the February 5, 2026, custody decree as clarified, deferred ruling on the petitioner's request for compensatory time, and granted her motion for an order to show cause as to the real party in interest's contempt. An order to show cause issued, and follow-up hearings were scheduled, including an evidentiary hearing in December.

Applying mootness principles, the court concluded that because the district court had resolved the motions to modify custody and was proceeding on the enforcement motions, the relief the petitioner requested was moot. See Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Govt, 120 Nev. 712, 720, 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (recognizing that "cases presenting live controversies at the time of their inception may become moot by the occurrence of subsequent events"). To the extent the petitioner sought to compel the district court to make findings on abduction and other matters and to address the enforcement/contempt motions sooner, the court denied those requests, citing the district court's authority to manage its docket and the limits on mandamus relief. See Dornbach v. Tenth Jud. Dist. Ct., 180 Nev. 305, 312, 324 P.3d 369, 373-74 (2014) (recognizing that "allowing district courts to manage the cases before them" "promotes the efficient prosecution 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 discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously." (internal citations omitted)). The court directed the parties to adhere to the district court's custody decree, as informed by the November 3 order, and vacated its October 26 order to the extent it directed answers, so that no answers were due.

In plain language

This case involves a dispute between two parents, Sarah Marsden and John Bernal, over a child custody order. An earlier custody ruling was already being appealed in two separate cases. In this separate proceeding, Ms. Marsden filed what is called a petition for a writ of mandamus - a request asking a higher court to order a lower court to do something it is required to do. She argued that the district court was refusing to resolve certain motions connected to enforcing the custody order, and she asked for emergency, temporary changes to custody. She represented herself (pro se) and filed two supplements and additional supporting documents.

On October 26, 2026, the Court of Appeals told Ms. Marsden to obtain a written order from the district court reflecting what the district court had decided at an October 14 hearing. The court explained that even while an appeal is going on, a district court still has authority to enforce its own orders and to make short-term, temporary, emergency changes to custody. The Court of Appeals also directed the district court to file an answer to the petition and allowed John Bernal to file one too.

The district court then entered an order (described in the opinion as the "Order After October 14, 2026, Hearing"). In that order, the district court declined to certify an intent to grant either parent's motion to modify custody - which effectively denied those motions - and directed the parties to follow the February 5, 2026, custody decree as clarified. The district court postponed ruling on Ms. Marsden's request for compensatory time and granted her request for an order to show cause regarding whether John Bernal was in contempt. An order to show cause was issued, and follow-up hearings were scheduled, including an evidentiary hearing in December.

Because the district court had now acted on the motions and was moving forward on the enforcement issues, the Court of Appeals concluded that the relief Ms. Marsden had asked for was moot - meaning there was no longer a live issue for the appellate court to resolve. To the extent she asked the court to require the district court to make specific findings (such as on abduction) or to address the enforcement and contempt motions sooner, the court denied those requests, noting that managing the pace and sequence of cases is within the district court's discretion. The court denied the petition and directed the parties to follow the district court's custody decree.

Counsel of record

Counsel is shown when the opinion or the court's docket names it.