WILLICK LAW GROUP v. Yoly D'Acosta, Real Party in Interest. (2019)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order denying petitioner law firm's motion to enforce a contingent fee agreement in the context of a divorce action in which petitioner formerly represented real party in interest Yoly D'Acosta. Having considered petitioner's argument and the supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted as to petitioner's request for mandamus relief. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d. 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, we note that petitioner's requested relief is unavailable where petitioner did not seek to resolve the attorney fee dispute by either adjudicating an enforceable charging lien or initiating a separate proceeding. See NRS 18.015(3); Golightly & Vannah, PLLC v. TJ Allen, LLC, 132 Nev. 416, 419, 373 P.3d 103, 105 (2016); Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 125 Nev. 527, 539-40, 216 P.3d 779, 787 (2009), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Fredianelli v. Fine Carman Price, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 74, 402 P.3d 1254 (2017); see also Albert D. Massi, Ltd. v. Bellmyre, 111 Nev. 1520, 1521, 908 P.2d 705, 706 (1995). Insofar as petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition, petitioner provides no cogent argument regarding that relief, and we need not consider it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.