Kb Home Nev. v. Dist. Ct. (Buckingham at Huntington Hoa)

851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Under DCR 16, a settlement agreement may be enforced against a party if the essential terms are reduced to writing and signed by the party or his attorney or entered into the district court's minutes in the form of an order. Grisham v. Grisham, 128 Nev. , , 289 P.3d 230, 233 (2012); see May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (2005). In the present case, petitioner acknowledged that the purported settlement agreement was not signed. Likewise, while real parties in interests' counsel represented to the district court that a settlement agreement had been reached, the terms of the settlement were not agreed to in open court or put in the minutes in the form of an order. Additionally, the e-mails from real parties in interests' counsel that petitioner provided do not contain an express assent to the material terms of the settlement agreement. Based on these facts, the district court did not act arbitrarily or capriciously or exceed its jurisdiction in denying petitioner's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. May, 121 Nev. at 672-73, 119 P.3d at 1257; see NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320. Accordingly, having considered the petition and appendix, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted, NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851, and we ORDER the petitiQn_RE IED.

Gibbons ri .17)

J. , J. SUPREME COURT Saitta OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

cc: Hon. Allan R. Earl, District Judge Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP Angius & Terry LLP/Las Vegas Cantey Hanger, LLP Morris Polich & Purdy, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A