Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Sharp)

Nevada Supreme Court

Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Sharp)

DecidedMarch 18, 2016

Docket69191

StatusUnpublished

This text of Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Sharp) (Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Sharp)) 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

Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Sharp), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DAY R. WILLIAMS, No. 69191 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE FILED LIDIA STIGLICH, DISTRICT JUDGE, MAR 1 8 2016 Respondents, TRACE K LINDEMAN and CLERK2F SUPREME COURT By F. DEARMOND SHARP, ESQ., AN DEPUITTh7115 o (. INDIVIDUAL; ROBISON BELAUSTEGUI SHARP & LOW, A NEVADA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; AND CHRIS D. NICHOLS, ESQ., AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order imposing NRCP 11 sanctions on petitioner. Having considered the parties' arguments, we agree with real parties in interest that petitioner waived his right to challenge the NRCP 11 sanctions order. Hudson v. Horseshoe Club Operating Co., 112 Nev. 446, 457, 916 P.2d 786, 792 (1996) ("Waiver occurs where a party knows of an existing right and . . exhibits conduct so inconsistent with an intent to enforce the right as to induce a reasonable belief that the right has been relinquished."). In particular, petitioner paid his $10,000 sanction, procured a satisfaction of judgment, and then waited over two years to file this writ petition. Wheeler Springs Plaza, LLC v. Beemon, 119 Nev. 260, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A Ciby -oweAlc, 265, 71 P.3d 1258, 1261 (2003) (recognizing that payment of a judgment may be sufficient to waive the right to challenge the judgment "when the payment is intended to compromise or settle •the matter"). These circumstances, combined with petitioner's decision not to join the writ petition filed by his co-counsel that this court considered during that same two-year period, "clearly and unmistakably show" an "unconditional, voluntary, and absolute acquiescence" on petitioner's part as to the validity of the NRCP 11 sanctions order. Basic Refractories v. Bright, 71 Nev. 248, 253, 286 P.2d 747, 749 (1955) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

/.14,frest, Hardesty

USt_ ,J. Saitta

J.

cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge Day R. Williams, Attorney at Law Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) MTA

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

DAY R. WILLIAMS, No. 69191 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE FILED LIDIA STIGLICH, DISTRICT JUDGE, MAR 1 8 2016 Respondents, TRACE K LINDEMAN and CLERK2F SUPREME COURT By F. DEARMOND SHARP, ESQ., AN DEPUITTh7115 o (. INDIVIDUAL; ROBISON BELAUSTEGUI SHARP & LOW, A NEVADA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; AND CHRIS D. NICHOLS, ESQ., AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order imposing NRCP 11 sanctions on petitioner. Having considered the parties' arguments, we agree with real parties in interest that petitioner waived his right to challenge the NRCP 11 sanctions order. Hudson v. Horseshoe Club Operating Co., 112 Nev. 446, 457, 916 P.2d 786, 792 (1996) ("Waiver occurs where a party knows of an existing right and . . exhibits conduct so inconsistent with an intent to enforce the right as to induce a reasonable belief that the right has been relinquished."). In particular, petitioner paid his $10,000 sanction, procured a satisfaction of judgment, and then waited over two years to file this writ petition. Wheeler Springs Plaza, LLC v. Beemon, 119 Nev. 260, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A Ciby -oweAlc, 265, 71 P.3d 1258, 1261 (2003) (recognizing that payment of a judgment may be sufficient to waive the right to challenge the judgment "when the payment is intended to compromise or settle •the matter"). These circumstances, combined with petitioner's decision not to join the writ petition filed by his co-counsel that this court considered during that same two-year period, "clearly and unmistakably show" an "unconditional, voluntary, and absolute acquiescence" on petitioner's part as to the validity of the NRCP 11 sanctions order. Basic Refractories v. Bright, 71 Nev. 248, 253, 286 P.2d 747, 749 (1955) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

/.14,frest, Hardesty

USt_ ,J. Saitta

J.

cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge Day R. Williams, Attorney at Law Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) MTA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Sharp), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-dist-ct-sharp-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack