Santa Margarita Ranch v. Dist. Ct. (Tulelake Horseradish)

 Santa Margarita parties' acceptance and filing of the joint unapportioned
offer of judgment with the district court.
The Santa Margarita parties filed a notice of acceptance with
the district court, wherein they purported to accept the joint
unapportioned offer of judgment and requested a dismissal of Tulelake's
complaint pursuant to NRS 17.115(2) and NRCP 68(d). Tulelake opposed
the request for dismissal, contending that the Santa Margarita parties
accepted Tulelake's joint unapportioned offer for a $20,000 judgment in its
favor. In addition, Tulelake filed a motion for an award of attorney fees.
The district court issued an order, concluding that the Santa
Margarita parties did not accept Tulelake's joint unapportioned offer of
judgment because the "purported acceptance did not agree to preserve the
Plaintiffs rights to recover attorney's fees." Accordingly, the district court
did not decide on the Santa Margarita parties' request for a dismissal or
Tulelake's motion for attorney fees.
The Santa Margarita parties filed the instant petition for writ
relief, requesting that this court direct the district court to: (1) declare that
they accepted Tulelake's joint unapportioned offer of judgment; (2) dismiss
Tulelake's complaint pursuant to NRS 17.115(2) and NRCP 68(d); (3) deny
Tulelake's motion for attorney fees; and (4) not proceed toward trial on
Tulelake's complaint. For the reasons explained below, we grant in part
the Santa Margarita parties' petition by issuing a writ of mandamus that
requires the district court to (1) vacate its order in which it concluded that
the offer of judgment was not accepted, and (2) hold further proceedings
that are consistent with the agreed upon fact that the offer of judgment
was accepted.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
The petition is properly before us
Mandamus relief is available to compel an act that is required
by law or to control an abuse of discretion. NRS 34.160; see also Int'l
Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179
P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition is available to arrest the
proceedings of a district court that are outside of its jurisdiction. NRS
34.320. Because a writ petition seeks an "extraordinary remedy, we will
exercise our discretion to consider such a petition only when there is no
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law or there
are either urgent circumstances or important legal issues that need
clarification in order to promote judicial economy and administration."
Cheung v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 869, 124 P.3d 550,
552 (2005) (internal quotation omitted). "[W]hether an appeal is an
adequate and speedy remedy 'necessarily turns on the underlying
proceedings' status, the types of issues raised in the writ petition, and
whether a future appeal will permit this court to meaningfully review the
issues presented." Rolf Jensen & Assocs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
128 Nev. „ 282 P.3d 743, 745-46 (2012) (quoting D.R. Horton, Inc.
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736
(2007)).
Here, the petition does not challenge the district court's
jurisdiction, as is done in a petition for a writ of prohibition. See NRS
34.320. Instead, it seeks to have the district court vacate its order and
conclude that the offer of judgment was accepted, dismiss Tulelake's
complaint, deny Tulelake's request for attorney fees, and prevent
Tulelake's action from proceeding to trial. Thus, it is a request for
mandamus relief. See NRS 34.160. Of the multiple requests in the
petition, one warrants the extraordinary remedy of writ relief as it will
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
prevent unnecessary litigation: the request to have the district court's
order vacated on the basis that the Santa Margarita parties accepted
Tulelake's joint unapportioned offer of judgment.
The parties agreed at oral argument that the offer of judgment was
accepted
In its order, the district court determined that Tulelake's offer
of judgment was not accepted by the Santa Margarita parties. As a result,
it did not consider Tulelake's motion for attorney fees. Although the
parties' briefs were unclear about their positions on whether the Santa
Margarita parties accepted Tulelake's offer of judgment, they both
conceded at the oral argument before this court that the offer of judgment
was accepted. Moreover, they agreed that the district court abused its
discretion in determining otherwise and in not considering Tulelake's
motion for attorney fees.
Therefore, to prevent unnecessary litigation, we grant in part
the petition for writ relief, to the extent that it asks for the district court to
vacate its order concluding that the Santa Margarita parties did not
accept Tulelake's joint unapportioned offer of judgment. In so doing, we do
not reach or grant the following requests within the petition: the request
to have the complaint dismissed, the request to have the district court
deny Tulelake's motion for attorney fees, and the request to prevent this
matter from proceeding to trial. The issues that these requests entail are
best resolved by the district court during proceedings that are consistent
with this order and which operate on the agreed upon fact that the Santa
Margarita parties accepted the offer of judgment.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A ca141099
instructing the district court to (1) vacate its order concluding that the
Santa Margarita parties did not accept Tulelake's joint unapportioned
offer of judgment, and (2) hold further proceedings that are consistent
with our order and the parties' stipulation to the fact that the joint
unapportioned offer of judgment was accepted.
J.
Pickering
j.
d_A-51 m
Parr a-guirre
Saitta
cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge
Law Offices of Roderic A. Carucci
Law Office of James Shields Beasley
Third District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A