Opinion
No. 74857
06-13-2018
CHARLES R. KOZAK, ESQ., Petitioner, v. THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CHURCHILL; AND THE HONORABLE THOMAS L. STOCKARD, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and SHAUGHNAN L. HUGHES; AND JUSTIN M. TOWNSEND, ESQ., Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order sanctioning petitioner.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the documents before us, we conclude that the district court had the authority to sanction petitioner and that the court properly determined that the imposition of the sanctions at issue here were warranted. See NRCP 16.1 and 37; 10JDCR 25; Emerson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 672, 680, 263 P.3d 224, 229 (2011). Additionally, as the sanction was limited to fees incurred in relation to the sanctioned conduct, the sanction was reasonably proportionate to the misconduct. See Emerson, 127 Nev. at 681-82, 263 P.3d at 230 (discussing the requirement that sanctions be reasonably proportionate to the misconduct and holding an award of fees and costs as a sanction was proportionate where it was limited to fees and costs incurred because of the misconduct). We therefore conclude that the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in sanctioning petitioner and thus, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See Merits Incentives, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 689, 694, 262 P.3d 720, 723 (2011); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge
Kozak & Associates, LLC
Allison MacKenzie, Ltd.
Churchill County Clerk