Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingtrustwrit of mandamus
trustwrit of mandamus

Related Cases

Joint Equity Committee v. Genovese, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2014 WL 4162318
View Case »
United States v. Will, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 8529078
View Case »
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Henry, 664 S.W.2d 62
View Case »
In re Rose Lee Ann L., 307 Ill.App.3d 907, 718 N.E.2d 623, 241 Ill.Dec. 52
View Case »
Oetting v. Norton, 795 F.3d 886
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Popowitz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark, Slip Copy, 130 Nev. 1231, 2014 WL 549482 (Table)

Facts

The law office of Marquis Aurbach Coffing (MAC) represented Ethel and Marilyn Popowitz in a civil suit against Raymond Shapiro and others, alleging various claims including an alter ego claim. After the real parties in interest sent a letter warning of potential sanctions if the Popowitzes did not dismiss their claim, the district court dismissed the claim with prejudice during a hearing. However, the Popowitzes informed the real parties in interest of their intent to withdraw the claim shortly after the hearing, and they filed a voluntary dismissal. Despite this, the real parties in interest moved for sanctions, which the district court granted.

The Popowitzes notified real parties in interest of their intent to withdraw the alter ego claims prior to the 21–day safe harbor period expiring and before the district court entered its written order dismissing the claims.

Issue

Did the district court err in imposing sanctions against MAC and the Popowitzes under NRCP 11 after the Popowitzes voluntarily dismissed their alter ego claim?

Did the district court err in awarding the sanctions because the Popowitzes withdrew the alter ego claim within NRCP 11's 21–day safe harbor period?

Rule

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 or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. A petition for extraordinary writ relief is properly used to challenge an order imposing sanctions on counsel.

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 or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

Analysis

The court found that the district court erred in awarding sanctions because the Popowitzes had withdrawn their alter ego claim within the 21-day safe harbor period provided by NRCP 11. The court noted that the district court's oral order dismissing the claim was ineffective until it was written and filed, and since the Popowitzes notified the real parties in interest of their intent to withdraw the claim before the expiration of the safe harbor period, the district court had no basis to impose sanctions.

The district court erred in awarding the sanctions because the Popowitzes withdrew the alter ego claim within NRCP 11's 21–day safe harbor period.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part, instructing the district court to vacate its order imposing sanctions on MAC.

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 instructing the district court to vacate its order imposing sanctions on MAC.

Who won?

MAC prevailed in the case because the court found that the district court had no basis to impose sanctions after the Popowitzes withdrew their claim within the safe harbor period.

Writ relief is available for MAC, but not the Popowitzes.

You must be