MARKER CRAIG LLC AND MARKER LLC v. BM BANK JSC BM BANK PJSC AND BANK OF MOSCOW (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

Marker Craig, LLC, and Marker, LLC, petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, challenging a district court order denying their motion for sanctions and contempt.

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, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of a tribunal that is acting in excess of, or without, jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Club Vista Fin. Servs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012). The decision whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is within our sole discretion, Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and petitioners have the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition, answer, reply, appendix, and other supporting documentation, we conclude that petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Id. The question of whether to hold a party in contempt and/or impose sanctions against the party is left to the district court's discretion, Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Bldg., Inc., 106 Nev. 88, 92, 787 P.2d 777, 779 (1990); Detwiler v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 137 Nev. 202, 206, 486 P.3d 710, 715 (2021), and we perceive no manifest abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motion for sanctions and contempt that warrants a writ of mandamus, see Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (holding that, when evaluating a writ petition challenging a decision subject to the district court's discretion, “we can issue traditional mandamus only where the lower court has manifestly abused that discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously”). Moreover, the district court did not act in excess of, or without, jurisdiction to warrant a writ of prohibition. See NRS 34.320; Club Vista Fin. Servs., 128 Nev. at 228, 276 P.3d at 249. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.