NUVEDA LLC TIMOTHY SMITS VAN OYEN THC NEVADA LLC RAYMOND BRAUDIS ACE LEGAL CORP AND AMY SUGDEN v. DOTAN MELECH RECEIVER FOR CWNEVADA LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TRC EVOLUTION NV LLC DESERT EVOLUTION LLC HIGHLAND PARTNERS NV LLC MI CW HOLDINGS NV FUND LLC AND MI CW HOLDINGS LLC (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus challenging district court orders approving a settlement agreement in a receivership action and granting payment of receiver and professional fees and costs.

Both mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies; the first compels an act the law requires or corrects a manifest abuse of discretion, while the second arrests unauthorized proceedings. Halverson v. Miller, 124 Nev. 484. 487, 186 P.3d 893, 896 (2008). Whether to consider a petition is within our sole discretion and we will grant a petition only where “the petitioner has a clear right to the relief requested and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” id. Writ relief is improper if the petitioner fails to demonstrate a beneficial interest in the requested relief. Heller v. Leg., 120 Nev. 456, 460-61, 93 P.3d 746, 749 (2004). Where the district court has been entrusted with discretion on an issue, petitioner must show the lower court has manifestly abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously to warrant our consideration. See Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678. 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196-97 (2020).

The district court had discretion to decide whether to implement the settlement agreement and to determine the compensation due to the receiver. Grisham v. Grisham, 128 Nev. 679, 686. 289 P.3d 230, 235 (2012) (explaining that a district court's decision to implement a settlement is entitled to “deferential review”); Mortimer v. Pac. States Sav. & Loan Co., 62 Nev. 142, 158, 145 P.2d 733, 738 (1944) (receiver compensation); see also C.J.S. Receivers § 467 (acknowledging that the court may approve partial compensation before the case's completion). Having considered the parties’ briefs and appendices filed in this matter, we conclude petitioner fails to meet its burden in view of the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish, J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.