- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
HVEGHOLM v. DIST. CT. (POSTMA) (CIVIL)
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion addresses an original petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition challenging a district court order that found petitioner Maureen Hvegholm in contempt of court. The contempt finding stemmed from the petitioner’s alleged failure to comply with an earlier order requiring her to amend her complaint to name the City of Sparks as a defendant. The district court issued an omnibus order holding petitioner in contempt but has not yet imposed any penalty, instead holding the issue in abeyance and contemplating further proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should grant extraordinary writ relief to overturn the district court’s contempt finding against the petitioner.
- Whether a writ of mandamus or prohibition is appropriate to challenge a contempt order before a penalty or sanction has been imposed.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 132, 127 P.3d 1088 (2006) | Availability of writ of mandamus to compel performance of a legal duty or control arbitrary discretion. | Established the standard for mandamus relief, confirming its discretionary nature. |
| Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 818 P.2d 849 (1991) | Availability of writ of prohibition to arrest proceedings beyond jurisdiction; discretion in granting writ relief. | Guided the court’s discretion in denying writ relief as premature. |
| Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 88 P.3d 840 (2004) | Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate extraordinary relief is warranted. | Reinforced the petitioner’s burden of proof for writ relief. |
| Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 5 P.3d 569 (2000) | Contempt orders may be challenged through writ petitions. | Confirmed that contempt findings can be challenged but did not mandate intervention absent penalty. |
| Amo Freight LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., No. 89839, 2024 WL 5252287 (Nev. Dec. 30, 2024) | Prematurity of writ petition when contempt penalty not yet imposed. | Supported the denial of the petition as premature because no penalty had been imposed. |
| 4 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 201 (May 2025 update) | A contempt adjudication is not final until a sanction or penalty is imposed. | Provided authoritative support for the prematurity of challenging a contempt order without penalty. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court recognized that writ relief, whether mandamus or prohibition, is discretionary and that the petitioner bears the burden of showing extraordinary circumstances warranting such relief. Although the district court found the petitioner in contempt for failing to amend her complaint as ordered, it has not yet imposed any penalty or sanction, instead holding the issue in abeyance and indicating possible further proceedings. Because a contempt order is not final until a penalty is imposed, the court deemed the writ petition premature. The court relied on established precedent and authoritative legal commentary to conclude that intervention at this stage was unwarranted. Therefore, the court declined to reach the merits of the contempt finding itself and denied the petition without prejudice, allowing the petitioner to file a new writ petition if and when a penalty is imposed.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court of Nevada DENIED the petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition without prejudice.
This decision means that the petitioner’s challenge to the contempt finding is not resolved on the merits but deferred until a penalty or sanction is imposed. The court’s ruling preserves the petitioner’s right to seek writ relief in the future once the contempt order becomes final. No new legal precedent was established, and the direct effect is to uphold the procedural principle that contempt findings without imposed sanctions are not ripe for appellate intervention.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
No. 90024
I FILED
:A
AUG. 0 4 2025 •
CLERK
MAUREEN HVEGHOLM, AN
INDIVIDUAL,
Petitioner, vs.
THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT •
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
WASHOE AND THE HONORABLE
BARRY L. BRESLOW,,DISTRICT
JUDGE, •
Respondents,
and
SPARKS POLICE OFFICER
KRISTOPHER POSTMA; SPARKS POLICE OFFICER BRANDON SMITH;
THE CITY OF SPARKS, A POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF
NEVADA; AND TIMOTHY EGAN, AN
INDIVIDUAL,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition challenging a district court order finding petitioner in contempt of court.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of a legal duty or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tecti., Inc. u. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 132, 142, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006). A writ of prohibition is available to arrest the proceedings of a district court acting without or in excess of the court's jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677,
818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Writ relief is discretionary. Smith, 107 Nev. at
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
U» 1947A e 25. 3)1("LS
1
677, 818 P.2d at 851. The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
We ordered an answer in this case. But having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted at this time. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. The district court issued an omnibus order holding the petitioner in contempt of court for assertedly failing to comply with an earlier order that instructed the petitioner to amend her complaint to name the City of Sparks as a defendant. While a contempt order may be challenged through a writ petition, see Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 571 (2000), the district court has made a contempt finding but not yet imposed any form of penalty, see NRS 22.100, opting instead to hold the issue in abeyance. The district court contemplates further proceedings on a possible penalty and may even revisit its initial contempt finding. As such, the omnibus order does not finally resolve the contempt issue, which renders the petition premature. See 4 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 201 (May 2025 update) (stating that, because "a mere adjudication of contempt of court is not a final order until a sanction or penalty is also imposed," challenging a contempt order is premature if the district court has not yet imposed a penalty or sanction for that contempt); see, e.g., Amo Freight LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., No. 89839, 2024 WL 5252287 (Nev. Dec. 30, 2024) (Order Denying Petition) (denying a petition as premature where the district court found the petitioners in contempt but the penalty had not yet been fully determined). Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of the petition and instead deny the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
101 1917A e
2
petition without prejudice to petitioner's right to file a new writ petition if a contempt penalty is imposed.
It is so ORDERED. 6407/4, J.
Cadish
Lee
cc: Hon. Barry L. Breslow, District Judge Luke A. Busby
Sparks City Attorney
Thorndal Armstrong/Reno
Wade & Taylor Law Firm, PLLC
Washoe District Court Clerk
3
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
1947A e
3
Alert