Opinion
No. 69191
03-18-2016
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, 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.
/s/_________, J.
Hardesty
/s/_________, J.
Saitta
/s/_________, J.
Pickering cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge
Day R. Williams, Attorney at Law
Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low
Washoe District Court Clerk