The Willick Law Grp. v. Dist. Ct. (D'acosta)

Nevada Supreme Court

The Willick Law Grp. v. Dist. Ct. (D'acosta)

DecidedJanuary 18, 2019

Docket77497

StatusUnpublished

This text of The Willick Law Grp. v. Dist. Ct. (D'acosta) (The Willick Law Grp. v. Dist. Ct. (D'acosta)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Willick Law Grp. v. Dist. Ct. (D'acosta), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

THE WILLICK LAW GROUP, No. 77497 Petitioner, VS. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT TEUTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, JAN 1 8 2019 Respondents, EISZASETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT and BY_Sa ala da DEPUTY CLERK YOLY D'ACOSTA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order denying petitioner law firm's motion to enforce a contingent fee agreement in the context of a divorce action in which petitioner formerly represented real party in interest Yoly D'Acosta. Having considered petitioner's argument and the supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted as to petitioner's request for mandamus relief See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.M 840, 841, 844 (2004); Smith u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d. 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, we note that petitioner's requested relief is unavailable where petitioner did not seek to resolve the attorney fee dispute by either adjudicating an enforceable charging lien or initiating a separate proceeding. See NRS 18.015(3); Golightly & Vannah, PLLC v. TJ Allen, LLC, 132 Nev. 416, 419,373 P.3d 103, 105 (2016); Argentena Consol. Mining SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 125 Nev. 527, 539-40, 216 P.3d 779, 787 (2009), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Fredianelli v. Fine Carman Price, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 74, 402 P.3d 1254 (2017); see also Albert D. Massi, Ltd. v. Bellmyre, 111 Nev. 1520, 1521, 908 P.2d 705, 706 (1995). Insofar as petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition, petitioner provides no cogent argument regarding that relief, and we need not consider it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Hardesty

J. Stiglich

J. Silver

cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division Willick Law Group Law Offices of Garcia-Mendoza & Snavely, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

THE WILLICK LAW GROUP, No. 77497 Petitioner, VS. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT TEUTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, JAN 1 8 2019 Respondents, EISZASETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT and BY_Sa ala da DEPUTY CLERK YOLY D'ACOSTA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order denying petitioner law firm's motion to enforce a contingent fee agreement in the context of a divorce action in which petitioner formerly represented real party in interest Yoly D'Acosta. Having considered petitioner's argument and the supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted as to petitioner's request for mandamus relief See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.M 840, 841, 844 (2004); Smith u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d. 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, we note that petitioner's requested relief is unavailable where petitioner did not seek to resolve the attorney fee dispute by either adjudicating an enforceable charging lien or initiating a separate proceeding. See NRS 18.015(3); Golightly & Vannah, PLLC v. TJ Allen, LLC, 132 Nev. 416, 419,373 P.3d 103, 105 (2016); Argentena Consol. Mining SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 125 Nev. 527, 539-40, 216 P.3d 779, 787 (2009), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Fredianelli v. Fine Carman Price, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 74, 402 P.3d 1254 (2017); see also Albert D. Massi, Ltd. v. Bellmyre, 111 Nev. 1520, 1521, 908 P.2d 705, 706 (1995). Insofar as petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition, petitioner provides no cogent argument regarding that relief, and we need not consider it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Hardesty

J. Stiglich

J. Silver

cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division Willick Law Group Law Offices of Garcia-Mendoza & Snavely, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The Willick Law Grp. v. Dist. Ct. (D'acosta), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-willick-law-grp-v-dist-ct-dacosta-nev-2019.

Opinion

J. Hardesty

J. Stiglich

J. Silver

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack