8

9
10

Code 1180

OR\G\NAL
F
1 L
E
D
"?
JJ'
J
|o
J
aJ
. :, ',I
' .
', " .:.:, :ifGS
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DIStRICT CO:'T; : ,' _ F NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Appellant, Case No.CRI2-1262f
11
vs.
12
13
14
15
CITY OF RENO,
Respondent,

Dept. No.lO
16
ADDENDUM TO CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET FROM RENO MUNICIPAL COURT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CODE: 41 85 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE SECOND JUDICIA DISTRICT COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, COUNTY OF WASHOE
9 - -
0
0
0
- -
10 ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13 TH CITY OF RENO,
14 Defendant.
15
Case No: CR12-1262
Dept. No: 1 0
I
BENCH TRIAL - TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Transcription: Pam ongoni
(775) 530-5251
Proceedings recorded by a digital sound recording, transcript produced by a
certified transcription service.
Page -1-

1 CASE NO: 1 1 CR 26405
2 DEPT. NO: II
3
4
5

6 I T RENO JUSTICE COURT
7
8
9
I AND FOR WASHOE COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA
BEFORE TH HONORABLE WILLIAM GARDNER
10 T CITY OF RENO,
II Plaintiff,
12 v.
13 ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
14 Defendant.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/
TRIAL
JNE 18. 2012
Transcript of Proceeding
ORIGINAL
1
2
3
4
5

APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq.
Deputy City Attorey
Reno City Attorey
One E. First Street, 3,
d
Floor
Reno, NY 89505
6 FOR THE DEFENDANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zachary Coughlin
In Proper Persona
7
8
9 TRANSCRIPTION 4 + A + q q q q q 4 4 q 4 q q 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pam Longoni
10
1 1 Proceedings recorded by digital sound recording, transcript produced by
certifed transcriptionist.
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

WIlESSES:
Richard Hill
Casey Baker
EXHIBITS:
Plaintifs Exhibits
Exhibit I Eviction and
Decision Order
Exhibit 2 Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law
Exhibit 3 Notice of Entry
of Order
INDEX
Direct
1 8
52
Marked
60
63
115

Cross Redirect Recross
24 90, 1 1 5 99, 1 17
72
Aditted
62
66
117
Page
-
3
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

EXAMINATION
CARSON CITY, NEVADA, AUGUST 30, 2010
000
(Cour in session at 2:31:20 p.m.)
THE COUT: Good aferoon, ladies and gentlemen.
8
M= HAZLETT -STEVENS: Good moring, Your Honor.
9
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, good moring.
10
M. COUGHLIN: Good moring, Your Honor.
1 1 THE COURT: Have a seat, gentlemen.
12
MB HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, for the record, I'll
13
just go ahead and announce this is City versus Zachary Coughlin,
14 1 1 R2640
5
.
15
Mr. Coughlin is present. As seen, he's representing himself on
16 this case, pursuant to our last hearing on this.
17
The Cit is ready to proceed to trial. He's charged with
18 trespass, Judge.
19 THE COURT: Okay, let's see here. There' s one item of
20
business we need to attend to prior to starting the trial, and that was on June
21 5th
, 201 2, Mr. Coughlin fled a motion. He fled, actually for the record, a
22
Notice of Appearance as Counsel, a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion to
23
Suppress, a Motion for a Continuance of Trial, and a Transfer of the Case to
24 Mental Health Court.
25
Were you served a copy of that, M. Hazlett-Stevens?
Page -4-


1 M. HAZLET-STEVENS: I was not, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, did you serve a copy of that on
3
the City?
4 M. COUGHLIN: Uh, Your Honor -
5
THE COURT: You can have a seat. You don't need to stand.
6 That's alright, thanks.
7 MR. COUGHLIN: I placed one in - I went to the City Attorey's
8
Ofice there and there's like a metal drop box. It might have only been for
fnes though. 9
1 0 THE COURT: Okay, well, let me do this. I' m going to - I
1 1 reviewed this in detail and spent some time last week going over it.
1 2
Let me address the - because we're making a record, I want to
1 3 finish up this item of unfnished business.
1 4 The Motion to Continue, Mr. Coughlin, is that a motion you're
1 5 still desirous of pursuing this moring?
1 6 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
1 7 THE COURT: Alright.
1 8 MR. COUGHLIN: I wouldn't mind.
1 9 THE COURT: Alright, I understand that. Let me make a little
20 bit of the record here, in terms of the background of this case, is why I' m
21 making a record.
22
On November 1 3
t
h, 201 1 , Mr. Coughlin was arrested by the
23
Reno Police Departent and charged with one count of trespassing.
24
On November 1 4'
h
, 201 1 , M. Coughlin was arraigned and
25 pled not guilty. Trial was then set for December 1 3
t
h, 201 1 .
Page -5-

1 On November 23'
d
, 201 1 , a Motion to Continue was filed by
2 the Cit Attorey, a Hill motion is what I'll call it, based on an absent
3 witness. I believe i was M. Hill, not related to the Hill motion.
4 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: That's the original motion, yes.
5 THE COURT: That was not opposed by Defendant's counsel at
6 the time. And on November 28th
, I entered an order continuing the trial the
7 first time.
8 The trial was then reset for January 30t
h
, 2012. On Januar 3,
d
,
9
2012, a Motion to Continue was filed by M. Puentes, your attorey at the
10 time. The City Attorey did not object.
1 1
On January 1 8t
h
, I -well, prior to that, before the ruling on that
12
motion, on January 18t
h
, M. Puentes filed a Motion to Withdraw as your
1 3 attorey.
1 4
On February 2n
d
, 201 2, I scheduled a (inaudible) hearing on
15 the Motion to Withdraw. The motion was granted, and M. Loomis was
1 6 appointed.
17
On February 13t
h
, 2012, you filed, M. Coughlin, a Motion to
1 8 Vacate, a Motion for Reconsideration for Recusal.
19
On February 22n
d
, 2012, an Opposition to the Motion was filed
20 by the City Attorey.
21
Trial, then at that point, was ultimately reset for April 10
th
,
22 2012. On March 5t
h
, 201 2, Mr. Coughlin, you filed a motion actually
23
captioned in the District Court, but it made itself -it did make itself
24 appropriate to our file.
25
On March 21 `,you fled another Motion -the City fled a
Page -6-

1 Motion to stike your motion based on no service on the City Attorey.
2 On January 20t
h
, 201 2, I entered an order, number one,
3
denying your motion that was filed on February 1 3t
h
, 2012. On March 21
s
t,
4
2012, I entered a second order denying your Motion to Dismiss that was
5 fled on March 5th
, 2012.
6 And then on April lOt
h
, 201 2, I suspended the proceedings
7 based on a competency issue that had been raised in the District Court. And
8 then at that time, at your request, M. Loomis was relieved as your attorey.
9 On April 26t
h
, 201 2, in District Court, Judge Elliott found you
10 competent to stand trial.
1 1 On May 19t
h
, 201 2, Judge Elliott signed an Order fnding you
1 2
competent and remanded whatever case was pending in the Justice Court
1 3 back to the Justice Court, and then I reset trial for June 1 8t
h
, 201 2, today' s
1 4 date.
15 On May 7
th
, 201 2, Judge Sferrazza assigned that case in the
1 6 Justice Court to the Mental Health Court. On May 24t
h
, Judge Breen, the
1 7
District Court Judge, and the Judge responsible for the administration - him
18
and Judge Blake, one of the two Judges, sent the case back to the Reno
1 9 Justice Court.
20 Then on June 5
th
, you filed the motion we're talking about
21 now, including the Motion to Continue.
22
So this case has been now continued twice. The proceedings
23
have been suspended once, all in the normal course and scope of business.
24 Motions filed by the City, motions fled by the Defendant.
25
Page -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
1 2
13
1 4
IS
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
24
25

When I conducted te hearing last time on May 8t
h
, we were
very clear that absent getting this matter resolved, we were going to conduct
the trial today - today, on June 18'\ at 9:00 a.m. I set some limitations on
motions filed by the parties. Those motions were respected and fled timely.
Tere is a service issue that we don't need to address today
because -
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: I'm happy to respond to whatever
motion, but I was not served with it.
THE COURT: For the record, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, what is the
City'S position on the Motion to Continue?
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, the City opposes the Motion
to Continue. This case is getting pretty old now. We're getting - 1 1 113 is
the offense date, and I think it's proper to actually proceed to trial today.
We've reset this thing many, many times. You're right, in the
normal course of things, there were appropriate reasons to reset this thing.
The Cit has its witnesses present, ready for trial this moring.
I think we should move on, and close this case up whatever way it goes.
THE COURT: Okay, and M. Coughlin, briefly, would you like
to respond to the City's opposition to your Motion to Continue? And I do
mean bref
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I've read all your briefs. I've read everthing,
and I've reviewed the fle at great length, so I just need to know what you'd
like to say about the Motion to Continue.
Page -8-

1
MP COUGHLIN: I don't know if! can (inaudible) te Sixth
2 Amendment right to a speedy. Yeah, it would be nice to have a little more
3 time to prepare, but if! can do that.
4 THE COURT: Okay, well, we've been given a lot oftime to
5 prepare. These cases need to be heard in a timely fashion. Again, the time
6 delay has been in the normal business of this case. The Motion to Continue
7 is denied. We are going to have the trial today.
8
That leaves us with the second issue raised, your Motion to
9 Dismiss, Mr. Coughlin.
10
Essentially, as I read the Motion, the allegation primarily is
11 that the Complaint failed to establish probable cause, that there was a
12 waring given and that based on that right that you feel the case should be
13 dismissed.
14 Is that substance correct?
15 M COUGHLIN: Your Honor, you said there was no waring
16 given?
17 THE COURT: No, I'm reading your language from your legal
18 argument that says, A) that page two of your Motion to Dismiss, that the
1 9 Complaint fails to establish probable cause because it fails to allege that
20 there was sufcient waring not to remain on the property afer being told
21 not to do so, and/or that Coughlin did not have a right to be there. That's the
22 basis for the Motion to Dismiss?
23 M. COUGHLIN: Yes.
24 THE COURT: M. Hazlett-Stevens?
25
Page -9-


1 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I did not receive a copy of
2 that. Nonetheless, I will argue today. The City opposes the Motion to
3 Dismiss, as you might imagine, and for this reason, on March 21
s
t, 2012, this
4
Court entered an Order in regard to a prior Motion to Dismiss the Criminal
5 Complaint previously.
6 This issue has already been heard and decided on by Your
7
Honor. You actually hit the issue head on on the March 1 2
th
, 2012 March
8 21 , 2012, Order.
9 You will recall that the Cit wasn't served properly with that
10 one either, and there was an issue. I oppose - I move to strike the Motion to
1 1 Dismiss in that case.
1 2 You said notwithstanding the service issue, you would reach
1 3
the issue on its merits, deny te Motion to Dismiss on the lack of the
1 4 sufciency of the Criminal Complaint.
15 We've already heard this issue. It's already been decided on,
1 6 and I don't think it's right to have two bites at the same apple, Judge.
1 7 THE COUT: Alright, M. Coughlin, your response to that? I
IS
mean, I've given you a couple of breaks because notwithstanding allegations
1 9 that the City Attorey wasn't properly served, I still addressed the merits of
20 the Motion, giving you a break in that regard, and I'm doing the same thing
21 today given the allegation the Cit wasn't served with this Motion. What is
22 your response to Mr. Hazlett-Stevens' argument that the case should not be
23
dismissed? Again, we can make this brief because I've reviewed in detail all
24
the pleadings you've filed in this Court, both this moring and last Friday, so
25 go ahead.
Page - 1 0-


1
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. Mr. Hazlett-Stevens is
2
recounting of your Order in response to my earlier Motion to Dismiss differs
3 somewhat fom my recollection, althoug admittedly, I wished I' d reviewed
4 that Order a little more clearly.
5
But it seems to me that you perhaps did not get to the merits,
6
or that it was not - so it almost seems as though you said M. Loomis was
7
my attorey and it's inappropriate for me to unilaterally decide. I' m going
8
to appoint myself as co-counsel, and then present a Motion to Dismiss.
9
So, I don't know if that is law of the case, or something in that
10 regard.
1 1 I do recall reading your Order, and respectfully, I ' ll say this,
1 2
SI. Just a little bit - I had put some time into that Motion to Dismiss, and
1 3 your Order seemed to find it somewhat frivolous.
1 4 THE COURT: So whenever I enter an Order, all the lawyers
15
know. Whenever I enter something, half the parties involved are in
1 6 disagreement, or are unhappy or discontented with my Order.
1 7 So, moving that aside - moving that aside, I've entered the
1 8
Orders. The basis of the Motion - of my order denying the Motion was that
1 9 i lacked legal merit. That's a decision made by the Court which is
20 obviously - I live with the fact that half the parties are in disagreement every
21
time I make a ruling. That's te cross to bear you have as a Judge. I've
22 gotten used to that.
23 The Motion to Dismiss in this case is going to be denied
24 because this is an allegation that ultimately goes to the ultimate issue of fact
25
in this case, and will rise and fall on the proof of the City, or the lack of the
Page 1 1

1
proof on te City. Whether or not tere was sufcient waing in this case,
2 which is an element of the trespass case, we'll deal with at trial.
3 So, the Motion to Dismiss again is denied. The Motion to
4 Suppress, what is it, M. Coughlin, that you're desiring to suppress? I read
5 tat, and I couldn't really fgure that out. I didn't see any evidence that was
6
seized illegally. In reviewing all your motions, would you like to address the
7 Motion to Suppress briefy?
8 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I believe, depending upon
9 how one looks at it, this might have been a Fourth Amendment violation, or
10 seizure of person maybe, in that either anything in the police report, or
1 1 anything -I know M. Hill wouldn't necessarily be a state actor invoking
12 one of these constitutional concers, but to the extent he's somewhat acting
1 3 in concert with the police, or he's the one signing the Criminal Complaint.
14 If a tenat still has a legal rigt to be somewhere, the landlord
15 does not have a legal right to walk in, and kick down a door, and invite their
1 6 some police ofcers.
17 THE COURT: Okay, what is it that we're seeking to suppress?
18 Is it items of evidence that you're arguing that was illegally obtained, or was
1 9 it statements by you that were obtained in violation of your Fifh
20 Amendment privilege, your Mirada issues? Because I'm not seeing any
21 evidence in this case that we're looking to suppress.
22 M. COUGHLIN: The entire police report. Any knowledge
23 of my being there. Any testimony that Mr. Hill or any other percipient
24 witnesses might wish to proffer.
2S THE COURT: Okay, that motion is going to be -
Page -12-


1 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Judge, I would like to put on the
2 record -
THE COUT: Go ahead. 3
4 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: -- my objection because I' d like to
5 make an ofer of proof for the objection i case of appeal.
6 I'll draw Your Honor's attention to the State a/Nevada v. Bill
7
Nchols. It's a 1990 case. It's 106 Nev. 651, where the Court said, "A
8
person who is evicted from a property no longer has an expectation of
9
privacy." There is no Fourth Amendment right anymore when someone re-
10 enters a property after eviction.
1 1 It says, "The State contends that the search respondent no
1 2
longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence address."
1 3
The State maintains that respondent's subsequent re-entry was a trespass.
14
It's very similar to this case, Your Honor, and did nothing to restore the
15 reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court said we agree.
1 6 There is no expectation of privacy. I hardly even think he has
17 standing to bring the issue. Certainly, there is no Fourth Amendment
18 violation here, Your Honor.
1 9 THE COUT: I' m not seeing any evidence, and indeed, under
20
United States v. Cru, there is no real suppression of a criminal
'
defendant in
21 a criminal case.
22 So, the Motion to Suppress is denied.
23
The transfer to Mental Health Court, M. Coughlin, do you
24
want to address that? I think we've already gone down the road - you've
25
already been down the road with the Mental Health Court and the Justice
Page -13-

1
Court. Is that something that we should discuss today because you've raised
2 it i your pretrial motion?
3
M. COUGHIN: Perhaps, Your Honor. I've attempted to access
4
justice in that regard with respect to what happened in Mental Health Court.
5
Essentially, you know, you have two paties, and you have an offer and
6 acceptance, and they come to an ageement on terms, and they enter a
7
contact, and then one of them later decides to unilaterally change the
8
contact, usually, that's a due process problem of some sort of contract law.
9 THE COUT: Okay, how does that relate to the Mental Health
10 Court? Here' s where I'm going with this.
1 1 We, all along at the last hearing, we discussed the issue of
12 tansfer to Mental Health Court, which notwithstanding the City Attorey' s
1 3 position at that time, I'm not clear what it was, ultimately we decided that
14 was a decision that could be made by the Court, and I was willing to
1 5 entertain looking into that.
1 6 I have the discretion to transfer cases to Mental Health Court,
1 7 transfer original jurisdiction with the permission of the Distict Court Judge.
1 8
Hearing nothing up until today, and moreover, fnding that in the District
1 9
Court case number M12-0032, Judge Breen, on May 24t transfered the
20
Justice Court case involving Judge Sferraa and yourself back to the Justice
21
Court, it would not appear to be in the interest of anybody at this point in
22
time to delay the proceedings fher by transfering the case to the Mental
23 Health Court.
24
You've had that opportunity to get over there once. I would
25 have been very inclined to transfer this case to the Mental Health Court if
Page -14-

1
you would have been accepted in doing well over there, but that didn't
2
happen. So, the Motion to Transfer to Mental Health Court is a matter of
3 discretion for this Court, and it's going to be denied.
4 Finally, although the -
5 M4 COUGHLIN: Your Honor, quickly.
6 TH COURT: Go ahead.
7 M4 COUGHLIN: If! could just interject. It is my understanding,
8
for the record, that I was accepted into that progam, and then tey changed
9' the tenus of it and decided -
1 0 TH COURT: Yeah, I don't know exactly what happened, Mr.
1 1
Coughlin. I appreciate that. I'm reading from Judge Breen' s Order that
1 2
"The Defendant be removed fom the Mental Health Progam, and that you
1 3
be retured to the Reno Justice Court for all fture proceedings."
14 So, whatever happened over there, which I' m not privy to, and
1 5
which I don't think really is related or relevant to this case, we're going to
1 6 not delay these proceedings by sending the case over there.
1 7 Finally, that leaves the issue of recusal. You have, while not
1 8
raised in the caption of the pleading, it is identified in the pleadings you
19
raised, on page two, we've addressed this issue before i n detail.
20 I've denied that Motion to Recuse. There's nothing raised that
21
even (inaudible) prevents me from hearing this case and being a fair,
22 detached observer to the facts oflaw, so that will be denied.
23
M4 COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if! could quickly enter an objection
24 for the record on that.
25 TH COURT: Go ahead.
Page - 1 5-

1
M. COUGHLIN: And just to preface that by saying everybody
2
I've talked to has indicated you're an outstanding Judge, Your Honor, and
3 completely fair, so that's defnitely given me a lot of confidence in the Court
4 in that regard.
5 But I do believe there might be - I don't know ifit's ajudicial
6 (inaudible) or something that says where a Judge has litigants before him
7 who have a case involving a family member of the Judge, in some other
8
sphere. I don't know if that's a mandatory recusal, but I did fle a mandatory
9 habeas action against your sister, the Honorable Judge Linda Gardner, in
1 0 Family Court in 2009. I was fired from my job as a domestic violence
1 1 attorey fom Washoe Legal Services, and I was told I was fred because of
1 2
her - because of the conduct by me that resulted in her order only. It's the
1 3 only reason I was fred, according to Washoe Legal Services.
14 I did file a Mandamus Petition. It was pretty much a three
1 5 judge panel, and the Supreme Court felt i wasn't worthy of, I guess, more
1 6 review or requiring a response.
1 7 And then now there is a gievance with the State Bar. I call it
1 8 - not to be flip, but I call i kind of the immolate conception grievance
1 9 because nobody can tell me who filed it, or how it became a grievance.
20
But that order from 2009 sanctioned me requiring me to pay
21 $\,000 attorey' s fees, NRS (inaudible) .085. In the context of my being a
22 domestic violence legal aid attorey advocating on behalf of my client, a
23 battered woman, tring to get her alimony incident to a 20-year marriage
24 with two kids, wherein I was ordered to pay $\,000 out of my pocket, that's
25 now a gievance.
Pae -16-

1 It's upon infonnation and belief it became a gievance with the
2 State Bar because your sister, Judge Linda Gardner, gave the order to you,
3 whereupon I believe you indicated you gave it to Judge Nash Holmes,
4
whereupon Judge Nash Holmes gave it to bar counsel, along with a number
5
of other materials that I have not been privy to, either in my attempts to
6 secure them from the filing ofice here at the Muni Court, or from bar
7 counsel, M. Patick Kinney.
8
I've made numerous attempts to get these recordings and these
9
different materials. So, just to enter tat for the record, Your Honor.
1 0 THE COURT: Alright, thank you, M. Coughlin. And let me
1 1 just tell you this. That case goes back to the Family Court, I have no real
1 2
knowledge, except I have read the Order. It's unrelated and irrelevant to this
1 3
case. I have not really discussed the merits of this case with my sister who is
14 a Judge i n the Family Court.
1 5
There would be no reason to discuss that case, and even ifthat
1 6 would have happened, we have not -there' s really no nexus between her
1 7
being a Judge and having heard a case where you're an attorey on, and my
1 8
being a Judge some three years later on a case where you are a Defendant in.
1 9
So, the Motion to Recuse is denied. And I think that identifies
20
the issues raised in your Motion filed June 5
th, 201 2. It looks like now we're
21 ready to go to trial, is that correct, counsel?
22 M. HAZLETT -STEVENS: The City is ready, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Alright, let's go ahead and call your first
24 witness, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
25
Page -17-

1
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: The City calls Richard Hill to the
2 stand.
3
M. COUGHLIN: And, Your Honor, I don't know if I'm supposed
4
to intelect this now, or not, but I believe I did subpoena some witnesses
5 who appear (inaudible).
6 THE COURT: Right, and we'll address that at the appropriate
7
time. Ultimately, M. Coughlin is a lawyer. You know we take these M.
8 Hill, good moring.
9 M. HILL: Good moring, sir.
1 0 THE COURT: We take these matters step by step by step.
1 1
There's no other way to do it, so we'll address all legal issues as they show
1 2
up in the due course, and pursuant to protocol at trial.
1 3 So, let's swear in M. Hill.
1 4 (Witness duly swor).
1 5 THE COURT: Have a seat, M. Hill. Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, go
1 6 ahead.
1 7 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Your Honor.
1 8
RICHAR HILL
1 9
called as a witness, having been duly swor,
20
testifed as follows:
21 DIRECT EXAMINA nON
22 BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
23
Q
Good moring, can you pleae state your name, and
24 spell your last for the record?
25
Page - 1 8-

I THE COURT: You know, M. Hazlett-Stevens, and Mr. - let
2 me make one last comment for the record.
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: Please. 3
4 THE COURT: I know that Mr. Coughlin is an attorey.
5 Nonetheless, he's representing himself
6
M. Coughlin, let me tell you what I know about this case to
7
date. I am looking at a Criminal Complaint that alleges that on November
8 1 3
t
, 201 1, in the Cit of Reno, at 1 21 River Rock Street, the Defendant was
9
found on the property afer being evicted on November 1 st, 201 1 .
1 0 The only other information I know about the case is that the -
II
whatever was raised in the pleadings fled, both by you and M. Hazlett-
1 2 Stevens.
1 3
So, with that in mind, go aead, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
1 4 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
IS BY M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Thank you.
1 6
Q
Thank you. Can you please state your name, and spell
1 7 your last for the record?
1 8 A Richard Hill, H-I-L-L.
19
Q
Good, M. Hill, I'm going to ask you -
20
MR. COUGHLIN: I' m sorr, I don't mean to interrupt you, Mr.
21
Hazlett-Stevens. If! could just quickly interject, Your Honor, given what
22
you just said, to any extent, I' m required to broach the topic of any
23
discussions you've had with Judge Nash Holmes with respect to these
24 matters or -
25
Page -19-

1 THE COURT: I can tell you that Judge Nash Holmes and I have
2
not discussed this case with anybody, we have not. There has been no
3
discussions between me and the Judge about your case, the trespassing, set
4 for today.
5
M. COUGHLIN: Or any other matters related to Richard Hill?
6
T COURT: Or any other matters. We've never discussed
7 any matters related to Richard Hill at all.
8
M. COUGHLIN: Okay, and when you said you and your sister had
9 never discussed anything about me?
1 0 THE COURT: Not related to this case.
1 1
M. COUGHLIN: I believe earlier you just said you never
12 discussed anything about me at all.
1 3 M. HALETT-STEVENS: Judge, you've already ruled on
14 this. I' m going to ask that you -
1 5
THE COURT: We have ruled. Let me tell you - let me tell you
1 6
what I've discussed. We have discussed - I have not discussed with Judge
1 7 Nash Holmes and I a advised that based on some steps she's taken, there' s
1 8
been a matter referred to the State Bar which is under, i f not - I'm aware
19
that you have been suspended by the State Bar, and that that's subject to
20 frther review.
2 1
To the extent that Judge Holmes has had a case in her
22
department, as has Judge Howard, and has myself, we have had discussions,
23 general discussions related to the State Bar matter.
24
As related to my conversations with either my sister, which
25 have been very limited related to you, and certainly none related to your
Page 20


1
case, except you had a case over here, I've had no discussions with Judge
2
Howard, Judge Holmes, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, or my sister
3
regarding this trespassing case. And that's by desig that was careflly
4 thought out so there' s been no discussions.
5
M+ COUGHLIN: And with the State Bar, I know earlier -
6 THE COUT: I have had no conversations with the State Bar.
7 M COUGHLIN: Okay, at our last hearing though you made a
8 statement, I believe, the disciplinary or the Bar will be meeting next week to
9 mae a -
1 0 THE COURT: I was advised by Judge Holmes that the process
1 1
involving you and the State Bar was in the process where they were going to
1 2
make a decision, which ultimately apparently they did. Those were the
1 3
substances of those conversations, but none were related to this case, and I
14
can tell you that none have had any conversations regarding the witnesses in
1 5
this case that have never come up between any of the counsel. I' m not sure
1 6 they even know who the witnesses were quite fankly.
1 7 M. COUGHLIN: Okay.
1 8 TH COURT: Okay, thank you.
19 M+ COUGHLIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Okay, let's go ahead and proceed.
21 BY M. HALETT-STEVENS:
22
Q
Thank you. M. Hill, I'm going to ask you to make sure
23
you speak up and not trail off your answers at the end. This is being
24
recorded, so for appellate purposes, or any other purose, I' d like to get a
25 good recording of this.
Page -21 -


M. Hill, what's your occupation or profession?
A I am an attorey practicing in Reno, Nevada.
I
2
3
Q
Okay, and what's your area of focus as an attorey here
4 in Reno?
5 A Real estate, constuction, business litigation,
6 landlord/tenant, elder law.
7
Q
Okay, as an attorey, how long have been licensed, by
8 the way, to practice law here in Nevada?
9 A 33 years.
1 0
Q
As an attorey, did you have any relation to the address
II of 1 21 River Rock Street, that's in Reno, Nevada, 89503?
1 2
A Yes, sir.
How did you get associated with that place?
1 3
1 4
Q
A In August of last year, -I was contacted by Dr. Matthew
1 5 Merliss. I believe he is a resident of Chico, Califoria.
1 6 He explained to me that he had a tenant with whom he was
1 7
having some difculties, and he'd had enough, and he wanted us to evict
1 8 him.
19
Q
20 efectuate that?
2 1
22
A
Q
And did you enter into an agreement in order to
Yes, sir, we did.
And did part of that agreement entail you initiating
23
eviction proceedings against the occupier of 1 21 River Rock Street?
24
25
A
Q
Yes, sir, it did.
Is 1 21 River Rock in the City of Reno?
Page -22-

A Yes, sir, it is.

1
2
Q
And do we know who was living at 1 2 1 River Rock at
the time you started the eviction proceedings? 3
4
A Well, Dr. Merliss identified the individual as M.
5
6
Coughlin, and informed me that he was a lawyer.
Q
Okay.
7 A And that there had been quite a bit of backing and forth
- going back and forth between them, and he'd had enough.
8
9
Q
And was part of the basis for that eviction failure to pay
10
rent?
11 A I was informed that M. Coughlin had not paid rent, at
12 that point, for some 4 or 5 months.
13
Q
Okay.
14 A And that there were problems at the house. There had
15
been some damage observed and that M. Coughlin was a hoarder, and as
16
we later confirmed, huge piles of car pas, tires, dead stereo equipment,
17 dead TV's, outside.
18 And then that's what we (inaudible).
19
Q
Now, so you entered into an attorey/client relationship
20
with Mr. Merliss on or about August of20 1 1 , is that correct?
21 A Yes, sir.
22
Q
And did you actually initiate the eviction proceedings,
23 or did you have someone else in your ofice do that?
24
A I assiged that to my associate, M. Baker.
25
Page -23-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14


Q
Okay, and would he have the authority then to initiate
eviction proceedings against the occupier of 1 21 River Rock?
A Absolutely.
M. HAZLETI-STEVENS: Judge, that's the only questions I
have for Mr. Hill at this time, subject to recall, of course.
THE COURT: Alright, Mr. Coughlin, cross-examination?
M. COUGHIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. COUGHLIN:
Q
Good moring, Mr. Hill. So, your client, how many
fees - how much in fees -what amount of fees does he actually incur?
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Objection, that exceeds the scope
of cross, or direct, and it's irrelevant.
THE COURT: What relevance would M. Hill's fee
15
arrangement with his client have to M. Hill's direct testimony today, M.
16 Coughlin? What is the nexus here that makes it relevant?
17 M. COUGHLIN: I believe it may go to a motive analysis wherein
18
if an exorbitant amount of fees has been r up or incurred, or needs to be
19 presented as -
20 THE COURT: Tat motion is -Mr. Hazlett-Stevens' objection
21
is sustained. I don't fmd any relevance to M. Hills' fnancial arrangement
22
with his client to this tespassing case. I can't imagine how that could be
23
24
25
relevant.
So, let's move on. I'm going to sustain the objection.
Page -24-


I
M. COUGHLIN: Okay, sir, I believe on direct, attorey' s fees
2 were brought up and an arrangement was -
3 THE COURT: I - you can ask if there was a relationship that
4
involved Mr. Hill getting paid, but I'm not going to allow I don't tink it's
5
relevant for Mr. Hill to go into any details about specifc dollar amounts, and
6 I' m not going to allow that type of questioning.
7 Go ahead with a new question.
8 M. COUGHLIN : Yes, sir, Your Honor.
9 BY MR. COUGHIN:
10
Q Mr. Hill, you just testifed that this client, Dr. Merliss,
I I contacted you in August?
12 A That's what I testified, sir.
13
Q 0f2011. Okay, and you testifed that at that time, it
14
was your understanding that the tenant had failed to pay rent for some 4 or 5
15 months?
A That is what I testifed to. I'm not exactly positive as I 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
sit here today how long a period oftime rent had not been paid, but it was
substantial.
Q So, if you're not exactly positive, why did you give that
figure of 4 or 5 months in your earlier testimony?
A
Q
My best recollection today, sir.
Okay, so if it was - if in August, you say rent hadn't
23
been paid for, let's say 5 months, that would be August, July, June, May,
24
April. Would that be your understanding of what five months less August
25 would be?
Page -25-
1
2
3
4

A
Q
A
Q

I think your math is correct, sir.
Okay, and what are you basing that on?
Math? Of what you --
No, I mean, did your client call you up and say, "Well,
5 he hasn't paid rent in fve months," or "He hasn't paid rent since April," or
6 does that just sound like something that would make me sound like a bad
7 person (inaudible).
8 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Objection, argumentative.
9 Objection, argumentative.
10 THE COURT: I think the question that can be asked, and I think
11 you - frame i is, you ask M. Hill, and then you begin to go on with a
12
compound question whether -what information did he base his testimony
13 today that rent wasn't paid, what was the source of that information. And I
14 think that question, if you want to ask it, is allowable, but we get into a
15 compound question and argumentative question, which I'm not going to
16 allow.
17 So, I'll allow you to ask that question and direct Mr. Hill to
18
answer that question to the extent you want to ask that question, so go ahead.
19 M= COUGHIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
20 BY M. COUGHIN:
21 Q M. Hill, if you would please do that, I guess, to
22 simplif the compound question.
23 What statements or information lead you to believe that rent
24 hadn't been paid for five months as of August?
25
Page -26-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

A First of all, my conversations with my client were
privileged. I will tell you that there were discussions to the efect that rent
had not been paid, and we were provided with many, many email strings
between you and Dr. Merliss that clearly demonstrated that rent had not been
paid, and that you were manufacturing reasons to justif not paying rent.
Q
So, I didn't hear where did 4 or 5 months come from,
that figure? Why not one or two months?
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, he's already testifed that
that's protected by the attorey/client privilege.
M4 COUGHLIN: And I believe it was waived to the extent he
utilized and leveraged it earlier.
THE COURT: Well, why don't you refrain your question and
reask the question, Mr. Coughlin? Go ahead.
MR. COUGHLIN: I'm not sure I understand the gist of-
T COURT: Well, I'm going to sustain the objection, so why
don't you rephrase the question and ask i again, and we'll address the
answer and the response (inaudible), so go aead.
BY M COUGHLIN:
Q
Okay, why did you say 4 or 5 months earlier?
A As I told you, sir, that's my best recollection today?
Q
A
Q
Based on what?
Based on my best recollection, M. Coughlin.
And would that - specifically, what does that
24 recollection include? Is i something you heard on the phone? Was it in
25 writing? Something-
Page -27-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14


A It's consistent with the stor that you've told
subsequently about a young lady taking off with -supposedly taking off
with rent money.
Q Okay, but earlier you weren't talking about what I told
you. You were talking about what your client told you, and how it was
privileged, except for te extent to which you (inaudible) and leveraged it by
saying 4 or months.
So, now you're basing your recollection upon something?
You're saying I told her - is it what you said earlier, about how it was about
what your client told you?
A Mr. Coughlin, all I can do is give you my best
recollection. That recollection has been reinforced by things that you have
said and done subsequently.
Q Okay, but earlier, you testified your recollection
15
stemmed fom what your client had told you. Can you tell me what your
16 client told you?
17 A I think you --
What you remember about that? 18
19
20
Q
A
Q
I'm sorry, sir. I think your statement is incorrect.
Well, it's my understanding that earlier you testified
21
that based upon your recollections, rent had not been paid for 4 or 5 months,
22 and that those recollections were based upon your conversations with your
23 client.
24 THE COUT: I believe that 's what M. Hill has testified to, and
25 I think we can accept that as a fact, so let's move on.
Page -28-

1 BYM. COUGHLIN:

2
Q
Okay, so now I' m asking you specifically, was this
3 somethig your client wrote you? Did he give a 4 or 5 month figure? Did
4 he talk to you about this? Did he mention April?
5
Why say 4 or 5 months? Why wasn't it 1 or 2 months? How
did you come up with that figure? 6,
7 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, he's already testified that ' s
8
his best recollection as to what he discussed with his client. That's the issue.
9 That' s already been submitted as fact, Judge.
10 THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection. M. Hill, to
11 the extent possible, why don't you answer the question. What was the basis
12
that the 4 to 5 months came into play without compromising your
13 attorey/client relationships? Just give me your best answer to that.
14 M. HILL: My best recollection is between what the client
15
told me, and the email strings that he forwarded to me, that it had been April
16 or May was the last time that any rent had been paid.
17
And sice that time, there was lots of obtuse scathing as to
18 why the rent shouldn't be paid.
19 THE COURT: Okay, thank you, M. Hill. Okay, M. Couglin.
20 BY M COUGHLIN:
21
Q
So earlier your testimony was that it had been 4 or 5
22 months since any rent had been paid?
I believe that ' s what I said, sir.
23
'
24
A
Q
Okay, but if - now you just said it was either April or
25 May was the last time.
Page -29-


That time fame. 1
2
A
Q Any rent had been paid. So, if a partial rent had been
3
paid in May, but your earlier statement was that since "any", then that would
4 take it down to more like two months, wouldn't it?
5 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to object to this.
6 This is retrying a case that's already been tried.
7
This is a simple matter of a trespass. All he testifed to was his
8 best recollection as to how much, or the basis for the eviction. He had
9 authority at that point. That's all that was for. It's not the truth of the matter
10
asserted, the trespass, and I'd like to move on, off that questioning, Judge.
11 THE COURT: M. Coughlin?
12 Me COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I'm not offering it for the truth of
13
the matter asserted. It goes to his credibility and M. Hill - what I believe the
14
established practice of spinning things, like perhaps a good attorey should,
15 but spinning them nonetheless.
16 THE COURT: I' m going to sustain the objection. The Court
17
has received information, relevant information, that M. Hill has
18
guesstimated and given his best estimate that rent had not been paid for 4 or
19 5 months, and it had come from information provided by his client from you,
20 and we can move on to the next question. Go ahead.
21 BY M COUGHLIN:
22 Q Okay, and you said that any rent had been paid before?
23 M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, objection. He's already
24 testified to this, and this is the same line of questioning.
25
Page -30-


1 THE COURT: I'm not sure it's really relevant. If you want to
2
ask a question to follow up on that, M. Coughlin, go ahead. Make your
3
question specifc and direct. M. Hill, do your best to answer that question.
4 Go ahead, M. Coughlin.
5 BY M+ COUGHIN:
6
Q
Mr. Hill, do you have any recollection of whether, say,
7 a partial rent had been paid for May?
8 A Mr. Coughlin, it really didn't matter. Rent was more
9 tan a dollar, and more than a day late.
10 Mo COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: You've asked the question. You've asked the
12 question, and you are now going to be stuck with the answer. Go ahead, Mr.
13 Hill.
14 THE WITNESS: M. Couglin, it didn't matter. The rent was
15
more than a dollar, and more than a day late. That is sufcient under
16 Nevada law to move to terminate the tenancy.
17
In addition, you were a month-to-month tenant at that point in
18 time.
19
M. COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor. He's offering a legal
20
opinion, which I don't believe he's qualifed to make, nor have I asked him
21 to make it.
22 TH COURT: You asked the question. I hear the question. I'm
23
not sure whether or not you were a month-to-month tenant. There's really, if
24 any, legal merit to the trespassing case.
25
Page -31-

1
I want to stay focused, Mr. Coughlin, with some questions that
2 you're questioning on cross-examination obviously can be directly related
3 to the information, and I give witnesses and the lawyers and the litigants a
4 geat deal ofleeway on cross-examination.
5
Let's keep it relevat and focused on what we're talking about
6 here, so go ahead.
7
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay, yes, sir, Your Honor.
8 BY Mq COUGHLIN:
9 Q You said in your testimony on direct, Mr. Hill, that the
10 client had told you that the tenant was a hoarder in August when he hired
11 you?
I believe that topic was discussed. 12
13
A
Q Can you provide some more background on that?
14
When that might have been discussed and some specifics detailing why that
15 diagnosis was proffered?
16 A Mr. Coughlin, I've already told you. I' ve already
17 answered the question.
18 Mq COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor. Non-responsive.
19 THE COURT: M. Hill, M. Coughlin has asked you a question.
20
I'm going to direct you -he's asked the question. It's a fair question on
21
cross-exam on what information you've received to the conclusion that he
22 was a hoarder (inaudible) answer that question.
23 THE WITNESS: The information provided to me at that time was
24 that Mr. Coughlin was a hoarder.
25
Page -32-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

I subsequently confirmed that with visual observation afer he
was evicted. The backyard, the size of the area that your staff and I are
occupying (inaudible - both talking).
M COUGHLIN: Your Honor, objection. Non-responsive. I
asked you what his client told him at that time, not what he found out later
on.
THE COUT: He's now -M. Coughlin, he's now -you've
asked the question. I've asked M. Hill to answer it, now he's answered it.
So, go ahead, M. Hill.
THE WITNESS: It was a six foot fence.
M COUGHIN: He's not answering it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, I've asked hi to answer the
question. Let him finish. You asked the question.
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
TH COURT: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Hill.
THE WITNESS: There is a six foot fence around the backyard,
the size that I've already indicated to the Court .
I was full to the top of the fence with tires, car parts, dead
stereo equipment, dead speakers, dead big screen TV's.
M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, I asked about August .
THE WITNESS: Trash.
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, you've asked the question, he's
answering it. That ' s the exact question you asked is what information he
had to come to the conclusion that you were a hoarder, which I' m not sure
Page -33-


1
how relevant it is to this case to start with, but go ahead and fnish - that
2 sums it up.
3 TH WIlESS: That completes my answer.
4 THE COURT: Okay, there's an answer to the question.
5
M COUGHLIN: I agee, Your Honor. I don't think it's all that
6 relevant, but that's what Richard Hill does. He throws up a bunch of
innuendo - 7
8 . M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, objection. If it's not
9 relevant, let's move off that line of questioning.
10 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, let's stay focused. You asked a
11 question. He's answered it. Let's move on t o our next question.
1 2 M COUGHIN: He talks about finding crack pipes and -
13 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Objection, objection.
14 (Inaudible - all talking at once).
15 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, let's stay focused. Ask him the
16 next question. Go ahead and ask the next question.
17 BY M COUGHLIN:
18 Q So, because -what did - in August, Mr. Hill, now try,
19 try to keep your answer tailored to what I'm asking you, M. Hill. Please
20 don't try to go off on one of your tangents.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, let me tell you something right
22 now. I'm giving you a great deal of leeway. I don't want you engaging with
23 the witnesses in any type of conversation any more than I'm allowing M.
24 Hazlett-Stevens.
25
Page -34-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0


You have a right to ask questions on cross-examination. Go
aead and ask those questions. To the extent they are relevant, I'll make
rulings, but let's ask him a question now. I don't want you engaging with
any witness in any type of questioning, any type of argumentative diatribe.
So, go ahead.
M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
BY MR. COUGHLIN:
Q Mr. Hill, if someone had 1 1 Porsches, would they be a
Porsche hoarder?
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, objection. There is no basis
1 1
for that question. It's irrelevant to this proceeding, and it's speculative.
1 2 T COURT: That objection is sustained. It's irrelevant.
13
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't - the subject of hoarding got introduced
14 somehow on direct.
15 T COURT: It's irrelevant. Mr. Hill was asked a question.
16
You've properly answered, but his basis was to come to that conclusion, and
17
now I think a question regarding someone's automobiles and hoarding is
1 8
irrelevant to what we're talking about today, so go ahead and move on.
1 9 M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
20 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
21
Q So, specifcally though, just as of August, as you
22
testifed earlier, what had your client or anyone told you that lead you to
23
believe, as you testifed under oath earlier, that as of August you had
24 discussions about a possible hoarding diagnosis.
25
Page -35-


1 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m still going to object.
2 It's irrelevant at this point.
3 THE COURT: Go ahead, I'm going to overrule that objection.
4
M. Hill can answer that limited question. As of August, what information
5
did you have, Mr. Hill? I think you can answer that. Maybe you can.
6 THE WITNESS: I' ll try, sir.
7 TH COURT: Okay.
8 T WITNESS: That was generally part of the assignment that
9 was part of the background information that the client had given me to try to
10 inform me as to what he had been dealing with.
1 1 BY M. COUGHLIN:
12
Q
And what - so your client, he attested to having some
13 percipient recollection of the information that lead him to that diagnosis?
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Judge, now we're getting into
hearsay, speculation, and all sorts of objection material.
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin?
M. COUGHLIN: I offer it for the truth of the matter asserted.
THE COURT: How is i relevant?
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, it goes to Mr. Hill's -
THE COURT: Let me just - we're getting off on an issue
regarding hoarding. It has come up on direct. It has been explored on cross,
and the Court, quite fankly, fmds any frther references to hoarding
marginally, if not totally irrelevant, to this case.
M. COUGHLIN: I agee, Your Honor. But yet on direct -
THE COURT: Let's move on.
Page -36-

1 M COUGHLIN: We had 4 or 5 months. We had hoarding. We
2 had all this prejudicial information, and now that I seek to rebut it and show
3 M. Hill's practice, and what he does, it's irrelevant.
4 TCOURT: Okay, next question, Mr. Coughlin.
5 BY M COUGHLIN:
6
Q
M. Hill, are you billing your client for being here
7 today?
8
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, objection. It's irrelevant.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, how is that relevant? How is it
10 relevant to the trespassing case, which is the nexus?
11 M COUGHIN: It seems intimately intertwined.
12 TH COURT: Okay, go ahead and answer the question, M.
13
Hill.
THE WI1NESS:
THE COURT:
No.
Thank you, there' s the answer.
14
'
15
16
17
18
THE WI1NESS: I a not charging Dr. Merliss for my time here
today.
THE COURT: Thank you, okay.
19 M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
20 BY M COUGHLIN:
21
Q
Did you ever have any conversation with your client
22 about whether this was a commercial tenant that he was seeking to evict?
23
24
25
A I don't recall that conversation.
Page -37-


1
Q
Are you aware of whether or not there is an express
2
prohibition against using (inaudible) eviction proceedings against
3
commercial tenants where the non-payment of rent is not alleged or noticed?
4 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object as that
5 calls for a legal conclusion for this witness.
6 THE COURT: Well, I don't know how it's relevant is what I' m
7 - I understand what you're saying, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
8
How is the issue of whether someone is a commercial client,
9
or a commercial tenant rather, relevant to this case, M. Coughlin?
10 MR. COUGHLIN: Well, Your Honor, I think it's possible that even
11
i f the City were able t o establish that the eviction order was appropriately
12
served, which I do not believe they will be able to do, that nonetheless, that
13 Order will be void and that Judge Sferrazza did not have a jurisdictional
14
basis for rendering it and that tere is an express prohibition against using
15
(inaudible) eviction proceedings to evict commercial tenants.
16 Where, as here, in the non-payment of rent, was not alleged.
17
Despite what M. Hill might be saying here, when it came t ime to put it on
18 paper and face Rule 1 1, and put it to the Court, Mr. Hill and M. Baker
19 didn' t want t o do that. They just said no -
20 THE COURT: Okay, you are losing me when you begin to
21 ramble on, M. Coughlin.
22 Specifically, my question was how is the question as to
23
whether or not you are a commercial tenant relevant? And the more you
24
wa on, the more I get - I' m not an expert in landlord and tenant, and I
25 . begin to get detached fom the issue here.
Page -38-

1 M. COUGHLIN: I understand, Your Honor. That's what's so
2 interesting about this case, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I just want you to tell me how it's relevant. 3
4
5
M. COUGHLIN: I am, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
6 relevant.
Mr. Coughlin, I just want you to tell me how it's
7 M. COUGHLIN: I will. This is a civil eviction that meets criminal
8 tespass nexus here. It's relevant in that if the civil eviction order lacks a
9 basis, a jurisdictional basis, for it to be ordered, it is what, under 60(b), void.
10
Therefore, to the extent the City is trying to say a waring did exist in that a
11 notice was posted or it was personally served. If it's void, that's a legal
12 impossibility.
13 THE COURT: Okay, I' m going to allow you to ask a couple of
14
questions about your status as a commercial tenant or a residential tenant
15 (inaudible) fom M. Hill, and Mr. Hill, do your best to answer those
16
questions.
17
I' m trying to give M. Coughlin a great deal of leeway here on
18 cross-examination, in the spirit of getting all the evidence for the Court.
19 So, go ahead, Mr. Coughlin.
20
BY M. COUGHLIN:
21
Q
You said you spoke with your client in August and were
22 aware that the tenant was an attorey?
Yes.
23
24
.

A
Q
Did you have any discussion as to whether or not the
25 lease allowed for the tenant to be practicing law at that location?
Page -39-

I A The residential lease did not prohibit it. We did come
2
to understand that you didn't have a business license, so we didn't feel that
3 you were lawfully conducting a business in premises.
4
Having reviewed virtually eveing that you have filed in
5 that case, M. Coughlin, it's my understanding -
6
M COUGHLIN: I' m going to ask you not to go on here.
7 THE WITNESS: That you did not raise -
8 l. COUGHLIN: Just answer my question, sir.
9 M HALETT-STEVENS: I would like him to answer - I
1 0
would like him to - Judge. I would like the attorey not to interrupt the
answer to the question. 11
1 2 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, you ask these questions of a
1 3
witness where they are opened ended questions. They are not -
14
M. COUGHLIN: It's not a blank check.
15
THE COURT: Listen, listen. When you ae asking open ended
16
questions, and you are not utilizing leading questions on cross-examination,
17 the witness is entitled to answer those questions, and you're going to be
18 stuck with the answer, and I think you understand that.
19
So, Mr. Hill, go ahead and briefy fnish up what you were
20 saying.
21
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
22
Mr. Coughlin, you raised -you did not assert that argument in
23
the Justice Court. You have appealed the case to the District Court, and te
24 appeal has been decided adversely to you.
25 That case is over, you're bound. It's done.
Page -40-


1 THE COURT: Okay, thank you, M. Hill. M. Coughlin, next
2
question.
3
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I appreciate the point of
4
expertise on asking leading questions on cross. That was something I was
5 not intending to do.
6 BY M COUGHLIN:
7
Q
M. Hill, you just testifed that in August, your client
8
and you had a discussion as to whether or not the lease allowed for a
9 commercial use, is that correct?
10 A Mr. Coughlin, I recall examining the document almost
11 immediately. Whether I had a discussion or not with my client or not, I
12 don't recall.
13
Q
I thought you just testifed that you did, and you two
14
just talked about how I didn't have a business license. Was that not true?
15
A No, sir. No, sir. What I said was that he informed me
16
that you were an attorey. At a subsequent time, we contacted the City and
17 ascertained that you did not have a business license.
18
Q
Okay, when you entered the property in November -
19
M+ HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, that question exceeds the
20
scope of my direct examination. There is no evidence that he entered any
21
property in November. That was just not part of my direct at this point.
22
T COURT: Alright, Mr. Coughlin, M. Hill, in some
23
substance, has testified that he was contacted by a client to commence
24
eviction proceedings where you were a resident based on an issue that
25
primarily concered lack of rent, and he began to further up on that
Page -41-


1
attorey/client relationship by instituting eviction proceedings, and he
2 assigned the matter to M. Baker in his ofice.
3
That's the extent of his cross-examination, of his direct
4
examination, rather, and your cross-examination should be limited to the
5
information raised on direct. So, I' m going to sustain M. Hazlett-Stevens'
6 objection.
7
Try to keep you inquiry limited to, quite frankly, the very
8 amount of limited information provided by M. Hill this moring.
9 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I'll try to wrap this up
10 given tat dictate tat I keep it to what was brought up on direct.
11 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
12
Q M. Hill, you said you commenced an eviction
13 proceeding, or you had your associate, Mr. Baker, do so. What type of
14 eviction was pursued?
15 A Initially, you were served with a 5-day failure to pay
16 rent eviction notice. And I believe you were also simultaneously served
17 with a 30-day notice to quit.
Was that subsequently what was pursued?
I don't understand your question.
18
19
20
Q
A
Q Well, you testified that a su ary eviction order was
21 subsequently procured by your ofice.
22 A Yes.
MR. HALETT-STEVENS: I don't - go ahead. 23
24 THE COURT: My understand is the question is asked what
25 proceedings did he commence, and he commenced a 5-day failure to pay,
Page -42-


1
and I believe M. Hill (inaudible) contemporaneously a 30-day notice to
2 quit, is that correct?
3 THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.
4 BY M. COUGHLI:
5 Q Did your ofice eventually convert that to a no cause
6 notice?
7
8
A
Q
Yes, that decision was made.
Why?
9 A Because of your antics. We determined that we were
10 going to probably do better and circumvent a lot of your fabricated
11 arguments by going down the no cause eviction path rather than haggling
12 with you over all the little petty issues you were raising and fabricating.
13 Q When you say pett issues, are you referring to having
14 the debility issues - notices, notice to cure, and l 4-day notices, and
15 (inaudible) statutes?
16 A What you call having debility issues, sir, which Justice
17 Sferrazza ultimately determined did not exist, and you did not prove.
18 Q
19 eviction notice?
So your ofce converted it to a no cause sum ary
20 A More precisely, sir, the decision was made to forego the
21 rent eviction and simply do a 30-day no cause.
22 Q Okay, and if subsequently the tenant was considered a
23 commercial tenant, would that not be tantamount to sort of a wrong side
24 legal surger?
25
Page -43-

1 A Well, I don't quite understand your metaphor, sir. But
2 the fact ofthe matter is it was a residence. The fact that you were illegally
3 conducting a business there, a side issue, number one.
4 Number two, you didn't raise it in the Justice Court.
5
Q
6 residential use?
You say it was a residence. Is it zoned for just
I don't have any idea, sir. 7
8
A
Q
Well, why did you say it was a residence if you don't
9 have something to base that upon?
10 A That's what the lease said, and there was no lawfl
11 business being conducted.
1 2
The lease said - did the lease say a commercial use was
Q
acceptable?
A I don't know, Mr. Coughlin.
13
14
15
1 6
Q
Well, how can you testif to what the lease said if you
don't recall?
A
1 7
I'm giving you my best recollection, Mr. Coughlin.
1 8
Okay, now whether or not the lease -you said the frst
Q
19 thing you did was you read that lease.
That's not what I said. 20
21
A
Q
Well, did you say something substantially similar to that
22 earlier when you were testifing?
23 A I said I almost certainly looked at the document almost
24 immediately.
25
Page -44-


1
Q
Okay, so you -afer your ofce has billed 60 grand,
2
you aren't sure whether or not the lease said something about it being
3 commercial use acceptable?
4 Mw HALETT-STEVENS:
Judge, he's asked and answered
5
that question already. There's no evidence as to the 60 grand (inaudible).
6 THE COURT: Yeah, that's assuming a fact not in evidence.
7 I'm going to sustain the objection.
8 BY Mw COUGHLIN:
9
Q
Did your ofice bill approximately $60,000 to
1 0 (inaudible)?
M= HALETT-STEVENS: Objection, relevance. 11
12 T COURT: Sustained. It's irrelevant, M. Coughlin. I've
13
addressed that issue. M. Hill's financial arrangement with his client is
14 irrelevant to this trespassing case.
15 I' m really not legally interested in the amount of money he
16 billed nor received. I think it's irrelevant.
17
M COUGHLIN: I'm not offering to prove the truth of the matter
18 asserted in what he billed. I'm offering it -
19 THE COURT: I'm telling you it's irrelevant. That's a
20
hearsay issue whether it's been ofered to prove the truth, and quite frankly,
21
I'm making a judicial determination that his relationship with his client
22
related to finances is irrelevant to this trespassing case.
23 So, I' m going to not allow any questions related to that line of
24 inquiry. So, let's move on to our next question.
25 M COUGHIN: Yes, sir.
Page -45-

I BY M. COUGHIN:

2
Q
Was the issue of whether or not the lease allowed for a
3
commercial use a very important issue in that summary eviction proceeding
4 fom which this criminal trespass (inaudible)?
5 A Are you asking was that an important consideration in
6
my being able to undertake the assignment? The answer is no.
7
As to what exactly you did or said - (inaudible -both talking).
8
Q
No, I'm asking you if it was important as to whether or
9
not it was permissible to pursue a su ary eviction proceeding if it's a
10
commercial tenant where you are only alleging non-payment of rent.
1 1 THE COURT: If you can answer that, M. Hill, go ahead.
12
THE WITNESS: I didn't hear it, and I'm not sure that I can
13 understand it. But if you'd like to tr again, 1'11 -
14 THE COURT: Go ahead and rephrase the question, Mr.
15
Coughlin. Speak loudly and clearly and M. Hill will do his best to answer
16 that question.
17 BY M. COUGHLIN:
18
Q
Was it an important consideration to your ofice in the
19
course of representing Dr. Merliss whether or not the lease agreement
20 allowed for use of the premises for a commercial use?
21
22
23
24
25
A No.
Q
You are testifing that your ofice's representation of
Dr. Merliss did not include a carefl consideration of whether or not the
lease allowed for a commercial use of the premises?
Page -46-

1 M. HALETT-STEVENS: Asked and answered, Judge. He
2 . said no.
3 THE WITNESS: That wasn't the question. The question was
4 whether -
5 THE COURT: I got three things going on here, and we're
6
making an oral record so let's try to keep it civil to the extent we're able to.
7
M. Hazlett-Stevens has raised an objection to the question.
8 M. Coughlin, do you want to respond to that?
9
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir. M. Hazlett-Stevens said it was asked
and answered, I believe? 10
11 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Yes, there was an objection asked
12
and answered afer he said no to the previous question, asked slightly
13 differently.
14 THE COURT: What's your response to Mr. Hazlett-Stevens?
15
M. COUGHIN: It was seeking clarifcation because I was
16 surprised to hear no to such an important issue.
17 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Surprise doesn't overcome.
18 THE COURT: Okay, as a matter of clarification, so the record
19
is clarified, ask the question again, and Mr. Hill, let's see if we can answer
20
that question to the best of your ability. Go ahead, M. Coughlin.
21 BY M. COUGHLIN:
22
Q
Mr. Hill, did you just testif that you did not feel it was
23
an important consideration in representing your client to determine whether
24 or not the lease in question would permit commercial use?
25 A No, it's not important. We were hired to evict you, and
Page -47-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

that was the assignment.
Q
Okay, so if the law has an express dictate prohibiting
the use of su ary eviction proceedings against commercial tenants where
the non-payment of rent is not alleged o served as an eviction notice, would
that present a situation where it would be an important consideration?
A Mr. Coughlin, I'm having a real tough time following
your question.
Q
Okay.
THE COURT:
Coughlin.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Go ahead and rephrase the question, M.
You've made it in small pieces.
Hang on, Mr. Hill. Rephrase the question. Let
13 me tell you, I'm giving you a geat deal ofleeway on cross-examination in
14 fairess to you, and we're getting into issues tat really, really exceed te
15 scope of the direct examination.
16 And I' m willing to give you a great deal of leeway, but at
17 some point, the leeway limitation comes to an end.
18
So, go ahead and ask one more question related to this. Try to
19
make it specifc, ad then M. Hill will do his best to answer tat question.
20 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. Just quickly, I' m a little
21 green on this, but he opened the door quite a bit, too.
22 THE COURT: Go ahead and ask a question, M. Coughlin.
23 BY M. COUGHLIN:
24
Q
You just testifed that you did not feel it was an
25
important consideration whether or not the lease allowed for commercial
Page -48-
1 use, correct?


2 A Yeah, it was not that important.
3 Q Okay, would it become important if your entire case, or
4 the order which you prepaed for your client was void because there is no
5 jurisdictional basis for entering such an order?
6 A If your presumptions were correct, which they're not,
7 then it would become important. But since you're wrong, it was not
8 important.
9 Besides that, you didn't raise it.
10
Q Was the fact that the propert was being used for a
11 commercial purose set forth in the tenant's affidavit?
12 A I don't know.
13
Q You don't know?
14 A I do not recall.
15
Q You just testifed that it wasn't raised, so how could
16 you do that with a straight face, and then answer you don't recall now?
17 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, he's answered the question that he
18 doesn't recall . Your comments become argumentative so let's -
19
We're getting into an area where I'm not going to litigate in
20 this Court the merits of the landlord/tenant relationship, nor the - ultimately
21 the basis for te eviction.
22
Mr. Hill has testified to a limited degree what he's done, and if
23 you have anything relevant to what he said, go ahead and ask it. If not, I
24 think it would be a good time to terminate your cross-examination unless
25 you have any other relevant questions.
Page -49-

I MB COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, and I appreciate your frustration with
2 the extent to which civil eviction laws is taking up criminal court resources,
3 and that's underscored in State v. Johnson.
4 . T COURT: No, let me tell you, M. Coughlin. You are not
5 going to misquote what I'm saying. I'm not fustrated by that process at all.
6
I'm just saying that it becomes irrelevant in my Court when you hear this
7
criminal matter, the details which happened in the Justice Court, on a
8 landlord/tenant matter, and I'm not frustrated one bit.
9 M= COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
10 THE COURT: To the extent matters are relevant in the criminal
II case, I'm going to hear them, but as they get to be marginally irrelevant, we
12
begin to take up time that's not best served in the Court.
13 So, if you have any other direct relevant questions, go ahead,
14 and don't ty to put words in my mouth about what I' m thinking. Thank
15
you.
16 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I apologize.
17 BY M= COUGHLIN:
18
Q
M. Hill, are you aware of a case called State v.
19
Johnson, tat' s 2010 Westlaw 4514666 where in some of the problems
20 associated with co-opting a police force -
21
MB HALETT -STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object already
22 as to relevance.
23 THE COURT: Let him finish the question. Go ahead, Mr.
24 Coughlin. Go ahead and fnish your question. Mr. Hazlet-Stevens, you ca
25 object at the appropriate time.
Page -50-


1 M COUGHLIN: Wherein some ofthe problems associated with
2
landlord co-opting a police force to do civil landlord/tenant -to a certain -
3 an effect on civil landlordltenant disputes is discussed at length?
4 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I am going to object a to
5 relevance, and there's no foundation for the question in this case at all based
6 on direct examination.
7 THE COURT: That objection is sustained, M. Coughlin. I
8 don't think that's relevant.
9 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I'm trying to wrap it up
10 here with a question or two, Your Honor.
11 I think that's all I have.
12 THE COURT: Thank you, M. Coughlin. M. Hazlett-Stevens,
13 any redirect?
14 M# HALETT-STEVENS: Nothing. No redirect, Your Honor.
1 5 THE COURT: M. Hill, thank you very much. You may have a
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seat. Thank you, sir. Alright.
MR. HALETT-STEVENS: The City calls Casey Baker.
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, ifI can, am I too late to invoke the
rule of exclusion?
THE COURT: I'm going to -
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: It's too late, Your Honor.
TH COURT: No, I'm going to go ahead - is that a fact? Or
does the Court have its discretion?
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: It is. It has to be invoked at the
beginning of the trial. You can't hamstring one witness and prejudice one
Pae -51 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
\ 1 2
13
14
J5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25

side by invoking it midway through !e trial. It has to be invoked at the
beginning oftrial, Your Honor.
T COURT: M. Coughlin?
M COUGHLIN: Mr. Hazlett-Stevens is a very experienced
litigator in this regad, so I don't have anyling to rebut that. I don't know
whether that's !he case or not.
TH COURT:
be denied.
Okay, thank you. Go ahead. That request will
M. Baker, let's get you swor in.
(Witness duly swor).
THE COURT: Thank you, M. Baker. Have a seat. Alright,
M. Hazlet-Stevens, go ahead.
MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Your Honor.
CASEY BAKER
called as a witess, having been duly swor,
testifed as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Q Good moring. Could you please state your name, and
spell your last for the record?
A Casey Baker, B-A-K-E-R.
Q Are you employed, sir?
A Yes.
Q What's your profession or occupation?
A I'm an associate attorey in Richard Hill's ofice.
Page -52-


How long have you been an attorey, sir?
Since October of 2005.
1
2
3
Q
A
Q
Okay, and how long have you been working with M.
4
Hill?
5 A I started with M. Hill when I finished law school in
6
June, 2005. I was there for three years. I lef for about 11 months, came
7 back, and been there ever since.
8
Q
And what's your - what are your duties as an associate
9 attorey at the Law Ofices of Richard Hill?
1 0 A When M. Hill assigs me cases, I handle those cases to
1 1
the best of my abilit. I hadle some of the intake for new cases, if the client
1 2 contacts our ofice or contacts me directly, and M. Hill is not available.
1 3
I assist M. HilI with some of the cases he's handling.
1 4
Q
Okay, thank you. And do part of your duties entail
1 5 landlord/tenant law?
Yes. 1 6
1 7
A
Q
What portion of your case law - or your case load deals
1 8 with landlord/tenant issues, do you know?
1 9 A It varies. Generally speaking, when landlord/tenant
20 cases come into our ofice, they find their way to me.
Okay.
21
22
Q
A Dr. MerIiss's case occupied a substantial amount of my
23 time for the past several months.
24
Q
Okay, when about did you get -were you assiged a
25 case associated with Dr. MerIiss?
Page -53-


Yes. 1
2
A
Q
And is that case associated with the address of 1 21
3 River Rock Steet?
A
Q
A
Yes.
Is that in Reno?
Yes.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q
A
Q
When about were you assigned to handle that case?
I believe it was the end of August, 201 1 .
Okay, and what was your asignment? Did M. Hill
1 0 come to you and assign that case to you?
1 1 A Evict M. Coughlin.
1 2
Q
Okay, okay. Did you initiate proceedings to evict Mr.
1 3 Coughlin fom that residence?
14 A I did.
1 5
Q
How did you go about doing that?
16 A It was my understanding that there was rent due, past
1 7 due, fom M. Coughlin.
1 8
Q
Okay.
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Afer reviewing the lease, I also determined that M.
Coughlin wa a month-to-mont tenant because his lease had expired.
Q
Okay.
A I believe in February of20 1 1 . Under those
circumstances and in this case, general practice is to begin both proceedings,
a
5
-day pay or get out proceeding, and a 30-day no cause. That's what I did.
Page -54-

Q
A

So you did both of those simultaneously?
Correct.
I
2
3
Q
Okay, did you fle these papers - did you serve these
4 papers on the rsidence at 1 21 River Rock?
5
6
A
Q
The way it works -the answer to the question is yes.
How does it work? Do you also file something i
7 Court? Is tat when you do that simultaneously?
8
9
A
Q
The way i works is you have the notices served first.
Okay.
1 0
A For instance, with the 4-day pay or vacate notice, the
I I
tenant then has fve days to come down and commence the proceeding in the
1 2 Justice Court by filing an Afidavit.
1 3
Q
Okay.
That's sort of what M. Coughlin did. 14
IS
A
Q
Okay, and eventually this case wound up in Justice
1 6 Court, correct?
1 7
A That's correct. M. Coughlin contested - I believe he
1 8 contested both matters.
Okay. 1 9
20
Q
A We had a short hearing with Judge Sferaza on the 5-
21 day non-payment issue.
22
Q
Okay, when was that hearing? Do you recall? If you
23 recall.
24
25
A
Q
That was early October.
Okay, go ahead.
Page -55-

A We backed off of that.
Okay.

1
2
3
Q
A Because M. Coughlin was, as Mr. Hill stated, he was
4
fabricating all these issues. We didn't want to deal with that.
Okay. 5
6
Q
A We decided the path ofleast resistance, I believe is the
7
term we actually used in one of our pleading papers, was to siply set that
8 aside and continue with the 30-day no cause.
Q
A
Okay.
And that's what we did.
9
1 0
1 1
Q
Okay, eventually that 30-day no cause eviction wound
12 up before a judge in the Justice Court, correct?
1 3 A Judge Sferrazza. Our hearing on that, our first hearing
25
Q
Okay.
Page 56

1
2
3
A
Q
A
When Mr. Coughlin attempted to raise those issues
Yes?
Judge Sferrazza got into the statutes and the statute
4 requires that if a tenant is going to assert a defense based on habitabilit,
5 then the tenant is required to deposit rent into a Court maintained escrow
6 account in order for him to proceed with those defenses.
7
That was the order that came out of that hearing.
8 Q Okay, so October 1 3
t
Judge Sferrazza says, "If you
9 want to address the habitability issues, you need to deposit -you need to
1 0 escrow a certain amount of money in order to even have the ability to
1 1 address those issues."
1 2 Is that basically what happened?
\ 3
A That is correct. And Judge Sferrazza further ordered if
14 Mr. Coughlin were not to deposit that money, the eviction would be granted.
1 5
Q
A
Okay, did Mr. Coughlin deposit that money?
No, he didn't.
1 6
1 7
1 8 Q Okay, was there another hearing pursuant to your no-
19 cause eviction?
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes. A
Q
A
When did that occur?
That occurred on October
25th
THE COUT:
THE WITNESS:
TH COUT:
I' m sorry?
October 25
t

Thank you.
Page -57-

1 BY M HAZLETT-STEVENS:

2
Q
And can you just briefy give the Court an overview of
3 what actually happened at the October 25th hearing?
4 A Yes, the purpose of the October 25t
h
hearing was to
5
allow M. Coughlin to substantiate defenses he had raised in the October
6
7
8
9
Regarding habitability?
Correct.
Go ahead.
1 0
Q
A
Q
A So, the ruling was that if M. Coughlin puts the money
1 1 into the escrow account, then we're going to be back on October 25th and he
12 can attempt to substantiate the defense at that time by physical evidence.
Okay. 1 3
1 4
Q
A We had a hearing on October 25th that took all day. At
1 5
the end of the hearing, Judge Sferazza took a short break, then he came
16 back into the Courtoom where he announced his Findings and Facts,
1 7 Conclusion of Law, and granted the eviction.
1 8
Q
Okay, was Mr. Coughlin present during that entire
1 9 proceeding?
20 A Yes, he was.
21
M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy.
22 M HAZLETI-STEVENS: Judge, it goes to notice.
23 THE COURT: It does go to notice, M. Coughlin.
24
M COUGHLIN: Notice in criminal law sense or civil law sense?
25 This is an eviction.
Page -58-


1 THE COURT: Well, I' m going to tell you right now, it goes to
2
notice in the criminal law sense as to whether or not you had notice of the
3 eviction order being entered.
4 That's very relevant, and I' m going to allow that question to
5 be asked and answered.
6 -
M. COUGHLIN: But notice in a criminal law sense entails an
7
analysis of whether the civil notice and service rules were set forth sufcient
8 to issue a legitimate waing.
9
THE COURT: In this case, the issue - one of the issues in this
1 0
case is whether or not you had notice of the eviction that was ultimately - it
1 1
sounds.like was ordered by Judge Sferrazza, and so it's a direct important
1 2
issue in the case, and so I ' m going to allow that question to be asked and
1 3 answered.
14 BY MR. HALETT-STEVENS:
1 5
Q Mr. Baker, was Mr. Coughlin present durng the portion
16 of the hearing afer Judge Sferrazza retured to the Courtroom and granted
1 7 the eviction?
1 8 A Yes, he was. He was sitting at the same table he's
1 9 sitting at now on that side of the Courtoom.
20
M. COUGHLIN: I' m sorry, Your Honor, if I could just quickly
21
interject. You're not making a ruling - it's just ifI can clarif, on the issue
22
of - it seemed to me, sir, that you said it's relevant, but it didn't seem
23
necessarily you made a law of the case or a ruling to say, a waring is not
24 based upon a civil standard of service of an eviction notice. That is still a
25
matter that's up for argument.
Page -59-


T COURT: My ruling was is that M. Hazlett-Stevens asked
2
a question that was relevant, and got a relevant answer, and I' m not making
3
any rulings on anything except the fact that the answer was you were present
4 in the Justice Court when Judge Sferrazza made a ruling.
5
Me COUGHLIN: Okay, thank you, Your Honor.
6 TH COUT: That's where we are right now.
7 BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
8
Q
Can you please describe what M. Coughlin was
9
actually doing in the Courtroom while M. excuse me, Judge Sferrazza
1 0 was issuing his ruling?
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
A
Q
A
He was sitting at the same table he's sitting at now.
Okay.
Q
And sitting back in his chair and listening.
Was he engaged in listening to the Judge?
A He was listening. He was not taking notes. I know that
because I glanced over. He wasn't taking notes.
Q
Okay.
(Inaudible conversation).
Me HAZLETT-STEVENS:
20 Honor?
21 THE COURT: You may.
22 BY Me HAZLETT-STEVENS:
May I approach the witness, Your
23
Q
M. Baker, can you take a look at that document? It's
24 been marked as Cit's 1 .
25 A Okay.
Page -60-

Q
A
Q

Do you recogize that document?
Yes.
Please tell the Court what that document is.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
A This is the Eviction and Decision Order signed and
issued by Judge Sferrazza on October 25th at 5: 1 8 p.m.
Q
And is there any indication in that Order that the
eviction was granted?
Yes.
Okay.
1 0
A
Q
A And it's in CAPS. The first line, the first two words of
II the second sentence are the decision.
1 2
1 3 efective?
Q
And when does it announce that the eviction is
1 4 A Effective October 31 , 201 1 , at 5: 00 p.m.
1 5 THE COURT: You said, I' m sory, October ?
1 6 THE WIlESS: October 31 , 201 1, at 5:00 p.m.
1 7 THE COURT: Thank you.
1 8 BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 9
Q
Now, did M. Coughlin ever, during that long all day
20 proceeding, move for a stay afer Judge Sferrazza announced tat the
21 eviction was granted?
22 A I believe the (inaudible).
23
24
2S
Q
A
Immediately?
Yes.
Page -61 -


1
Q
And does the Order that you're holding announce any
2 decision on whether the stay is either ganted or denied?
3 A Yes, the last line of the decision says, "Tenant's verbal
4 motion to stay, denied."
5 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you. Your Honor, th
e
City
6 moves to admit what's been marked as City's 1 , and I move that into
7
evidence under 50(b). 1 25. That's a certified public document, a self-
8 authenticated document, Judge.
9 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, any objection?
1 0 M4 COUGHLIN: Relevancy.
1 1 THE COURT: Okay, I think it's very relevant, and the objection
1 2 is overruled, and City's Exhibit No. 1 will be admitted into evidence.
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 3
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
Q
Now, did Judge Sferrazza order anything else in that
proceeding afer he granted the motion - or the eviction?
Yes.
What did he order?
A
Q
A At that point, when the Judge announced his Findings
20 of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I ofered, "Judge would you like me to
21
prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and Order for
22 Eviction?"
23 I offered that because that is customary, and I believe there is a
24 rule in District Court, 1 think it's Rule 9, that the prevailing part prepares it.
25
Page -62-


1 M. Coughlin objected, and said he wanted to prepare his own.
2
At that point, Judge Sferrazza said, "Fine, you guys each prepare one. Get
3
them to me by noon on Thursday, the 27t\ and I will sign one at that time."
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q
Okay, and did you go about preparing your Findings of
Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Su ary Eviction?
A Yes, I did.
Q
So, Judge Sferrazza, we didn't really get into this,
actually entered Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the record as
he was announcing his decision?
A Yes, he did. 1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, may I have this
marked a City's 2?
THE COURT: Yes.
14 (Inaudible discussion).
1 5 THE COURT: Why don't we do this. Just go ahead and make -
16
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: You know, Your Honor, I' m happy
1 7 to provide copies. I actually have extras.
1 8 THE COURT: Perfect, thank you, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens.
1 9 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Certainly.
20
THE COURT: These were previously provided in discovery?
21 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: They were previously provided in
22 discover.
23 THE COURT: Well, we'll give him another copy today so we
24 have a copy. Great, thank you very much, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
25 THE COURT: Certainly, Judge.
Page -63-


1 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, may I approach
2
again?
3 THE COUT: Yes.
4 BY M HAZLETT-STEVENS:
5
Q
Mr. Baker, can you take a look at what's been marked
6
.
as City's 2?
7
8
9
A
Q
A
Okay.
Do you recognize that document?
Yes.
1 0
Q
Can you please tell the Court what that document is?
1 1 A These are the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
12 Order for Su ary Eviction that I prepared following the October 27
th
,
1 3 201 1 , hearing.
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
Q
A
Do you recall when about you prepared that document?
I believe it was on the 26
th

Okay.
Because Judge Sferrazza wanted it on the 2
7
th

Okay, did you prepare that on your computer?
Yes.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Did you send a copy to anyone? It could either be of
21 email. mail. or any other form of this mailing?
22
A I sent an original down, or a copy, down to the
23 Courthouse to Judge Sferrazza.
24
Q
Okay.
25
Page -64-
1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
sits today?
Sferrazza."
document.
page five?


A I believe I sent a member of our staff to take it down.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
I'm going to direct your attention to page five of that
A Okay.
Q
And can you please describe what's at the bottom of
A 1 8 That, on approximately line 21 , that's where it begins
19 the order for summar eviction.
20
Q
Okay, ad on te next page, I'm going to draw your
21 attention to page six, is there a date that's given for the eviction, the final
22 eviction?
23 A Yes, what I tped was that Mr. Coughlin - this is on
24
line 4, M. Coughlin was to be -or the Sheriff was to remove anyone found
25 there by no later than October 3 1 , 201 1. Judge Sferrazza made some
Page -65-


I
(inaudible) where he crossed out "later" and wrote "earlier." And he also
2
added "at 5:00 p.m." And Judge Sferrazza initialed his changes there.
3 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: The City moves to admit what's
4 been marked as City's 2, again under 52. 125, into evidence.
5 T COURT: M. Coughlin, any objection?
6 M COUGHLIN: No, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Okay, thank you sir. City'S No. 2 will be
8 admited into evidence. Thank you.
9 BY M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 0
Q
So, that document actually gave a date ofthe eviction
II afer which -i s tat correct?
1 2
1 3
A
Q
That's correct.
Afer which Mr. Coughlin was no longer allowed to be
14 there, is tat correct?
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
A That's correct.
Q
So, the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and
Order of Eviction found in your favor, M. Merliss's favor, rather, and the
date of eviction was as of October 3 1" at 5:00 p.m., correct?
A That's correct. That's what we announced in Court and
put on tat Findings of Fact.
Q
And that Order said that anyone there afer that date
22 could be removed, is that correct?
23
24
25
A
Q
A
That was te command given to the Sherif.
"Shall be removed. "
Yes.
Page -66-


I
Q
Did you serve that document on M. Couglin in any
2
fashion? A Notice of Entry of Order or anything like that? Or wa that
3 served by the Court on him?
4 A The way it works is the Court - afer the Court enters
5 the Order, the Court forwards it to the Sheriff
Okay. 6
7
Q
A And the Sheriff goes out and enforces the order.
8
Q
Okay, now I' m going to draw your attention to the date
9 of November 1 3th, 201 1 .
1 0 THE COURT: What was that date again?
I I M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: November 1 3, 201 1, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Okay, give me just a second, counsel.
1 3 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Certainly, Judge.
1 4 THE COURT: I' m making some notes here regarding some
1 5 dates.
1 6 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: And I' m going to withdraw that
1 7 question, Your Honor, so if you don't want to jot that note down, you don't
1 8 have to at this point.
1 9
THE COURT: Okay, I' m looking at something else, okay. Go
20 ahead. Thank you, counsel.
21 BY M. HAZLETT-STVENS:
22
Q
I'm going to draw your attention to the date of
23 November 1 st, 201 1 . Do you recall what you were doing that day?
24 A Yes, I was actually off of work that day. I was at home.
25
Page -67-


Okay. 1
2
Q
A But I was basically on stand-by because I knew that the
3 eviction was going to happen.
4
Q
Okay, and did you actually eventually respond or have
5 to come to the area of 1 2 1 River Rock?
Yes.
Why?
6
7
8
9
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
The way it works, again, I'm sorry to keep doing this.
Please, please, please, you are educating us all.
1 0
1 1
You have to wait for the Sheriff to contact you.
Okay.
1 2 A The Sheriffs Deputies are sent out with several of these
1 3
things on the days that they do them, however, they do them every day. You
1 4
can try to shoot for a specific time, but you are at the mercy of the Sheriffs
1 5
Deputy's schedule. Some lockouts take longer than others. They try to give
1 6 you lead time.
1 7
I had spoken with the Sheriffs Deputy already, I believe, on
1 8 Friday the 28t
1 9
Q
Okay.
20
A I believe. It was either that, or I contacted him on his
21 cell phone. But I came back in (inaudible) do the lockouts.
22 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
23
THE WITNESS: I came back in so we could do the lockout, to
24
meet the Sheriffs Deputies at the property afer the Sheriff calls.
25
Q
Okay, and so you actually did go to 1 2 1 River Rock?
Page -68-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A

Yes.
And were there Sheriffs Deputies there?
I got there frst.
Okay.
Along with a member of our staff.
Okay.
And then two Sherifs Deputies arrived.
Okay.
And ten we had to wait for the locksmith.
1 0
Q
Okay, when the Sherifs Deputies arrived, did they
1 1 have any documents in their hand?
1 2
A I believe they had - yes, they had their copies of the
1 3 Findings of Fact, and Order for Summary Eviction.
1 4
Q
Okay, and do you recall what the deputies, or one or
1 5
both of those deputies did with the Findings of Facts ad Order of Eviction?
1 6 A Yes.
1 7
Q
Please tell.
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
A
Q
A
Once -the short answer is they take you to the door.
Okay.
I can tell you the process, if you want.
Please, tell us what happened.
Q
A When the locksmith fnally arrived, the Sheriffs bang
23 on the door, announce their presence, "Open up, police, sherif."
24
There was no response. At that point, everybody stands back.
25 They get the locksmith to go ahead and open the door. He opens the door.
Page -69-


1
The Sheriffs go in. They clear the property, make sure nobody is there.
2 Then they came back out and they tape it to the door.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q
A
Okay, and you said the locksmith was there, too?
Correct.
What did the locksmith do?
Q
A
Q
A
The locksmith, his frst task was to open the front door.
Okay.
Afer he did that, and afer the Sheriff clears the
9 property, then he changes the locks, re-keys the locks.
1 0
Q
Okay.
1 1
12
A
Q
On the front door and the back door.
Okay, and what did the -were there new keys
1 3 associated wit re-keying the locks?
Yes.
What did the locksmith do with the new keys?
Gave them to me.
Okay.
14
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
A
Q
A
Q
A It was either me, or Sherry Hill, who was also with me
1 9 from my ofice. I think he gave to me.
Q
A
I'm sorr?
I think he gave them to me.
20
21
22
Q
Okay, and so thus, the old keys that were formerly
23
associated with that lock would no longer work, is that correct?
24
25
A That' s my understanding.
Page -70-
3
4
5
door?
propert?


Q
A Corect.
Q
Were there any other doors, entry doors, into the
A
6
There were no other outside entr doors.
Q
7 Now, did you -do you recall wheter the Sherif
8
executed any other documents while he was there? An Afidavit of Service
9 or anything like that, do you recall?
A I don't know. 1 0
1 1
Q
So, it's your testimony that the Sheritr s Deputy posted,
1 2
taped on the font door, this 6-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
1 3 Law that's already been admitted into evidence, the City' s 2?
That's correct. 1 4
1 5
A
Q
Okay, did he post it on the front door and the back
1 6 door? Or just the font door? Do you recall?
A Just the font door.
Q
Okay.
1 7
1 8
1 9 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: No frther questions for this
20 witness, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Alright, thank you.
22 M. Coughlin, any questions on cross-examination?
23 M* COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
24 III
25 III
Page -71-


1
CROSS-EXAMIATION
2 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
3 Q Good aferoon, M. Baker. You just testified that the
4
Order says that the tenant shall be removed at some point, is that correct?
5 A I don't think that was my testimony. I think my
6 testimony was that the Order commands the Sheriff to remove whoever he
7
8
finds there.
Q And by Order, you mean this one that you prepared and
9 Judge Sferrazza signed?
1 0 THE COURT: Let's refer to the documents that we have in
1 1 evidence. I believe, Mr. Coughlin, you are referring to City's Exhibit 2. If
1 2 that's not correct, let me know. Ifit's on the record, it's clear. That makes
13 specifc reference to documents that are i n evidence.
14 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
1 5 THE COURT: Go ahead and ask that question.
16 BY M. COUGHLIN:
1 7 Q So, that would be Exhibit 2, Findings of Fact,
1 8 Conclusion of Law and Order for Summary Eviction.
1 9
Did you earlier testif to te effect that in that document there
20 is essentially a command to the Sheriff that they shall - the tenant shall be
21 removed?
A I believe that was approximately how I paraphrased
Exhibit 2 when I handed it back to Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, yes.
22
23
24
25
Q Okay, and just for point of reference, do you -where on
page six, line 2, one, it says, "It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed as
Page -72-

I follows, that the Sheriff Constable of Reno Township or one of their duly
2
authorized agents be and hereby is directed to remove each person and every
3
person found upon or within the rental unit located at River Rock."
4
A No, I do not see that. I do not have the document in
5 front of me.
6
Q Okay, well is that -
7 THE COURT: Let me ask you this. Would it help, Mr. Baker,
8 if! gave you -let me do this so we're very clear.
9 M. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I have another copy.
1 0 THE COURT: No, that's fne. Go ahead, and the original,
II
City's Exhibit 2, let's give to Mr. Baker so he has reference to that
1 2 document. Thank you, sir.
1 3
Now, does that help to answer the question, M. Baker?
1 4
THE WITNESS: What was the question? Can I (inaudible) the
frst paragaph? 15
1 6 THE COURT: He essentially read verbatim the first paragraph
17
to you, and asked if that's what the document said. Is that correct, M.
1 8 Coughlin?
1 9 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
20 T COURT: Okay, thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: I don't have your question in mind, but to the
22 extent the Judge says you've read the frst paragaph on page six -
23 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
24
Q Okay, and was that what you were referring to when
25
you testifed earlier about language involving "shall be removed?"
Page 73


4
5
Does it say anything in that paragaph about wanting to
6
Or within the entire Order, or witin any relevant
7
documentation involved in this proceeding for the eviction order?
8 A You mean a waing in addition to what Judge
9 Sferrazza told us at the hearing?
1 0
Q
Well, I'm not referring to the hearing just now. I' m
1 1
referring to the notice that you say was posted - I mean, this document -
12 Exhibit 2 that you say was posted.
1 3 And I gather you believe that effectuated service ofit. I'm
1 4
asking you, is there anything within this that speaks to a waing to leave
1 5
similar to what is found in RMC 8. 1 0.040, the trespass section of the Reno
1 6 Muni Code?
1 7 A I don't know the Reno Muni Court -the Muni Code. I
1 8 think the best I can do to answer your question is to say tat in the
1 9
introductory paragraph on page one, recites that on page 21 , that you were
20
present and proceeded in proper person at the two hearings referenced on
21 that page, October 35th and - excuse me, October 1 3th and October 25th
22
I don't see big flashing letters that say "waring" on there, if
23 that' s your question.
24
25
Q
Okay, so you're saying there' s nothing in there that
Page -74-


1
speaks to a waring to leave, or puts one on notice that they'll be subject to a
2 criminal trespass prosecution?
3 A That's not what I said.
4
Q Well, is there anything to that effect in that Order?
5 A I don't practice criminal law. I don't know what you
6
think is sufcient to wa you, besides a Judge telling you from the bench
7 that you're going to be evicted.
8
I don't know what you think is suficient to wa you that
9 you're going to be evicted.
1 0
Q Right, and you're saying evict, and not prosecuted for
1 1 criminal trespass, right?
1 2 A Like I said, I don't practice criminal law.
13
Q Okay, but I asked you about whether there' s a waing
14
relative to a criminal trespass prosecution, and your answer related to a civil
1 5 eviction.
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Okay, maybe the best answer is that you're asking me
for a legal conclusion in respect to a criminal law question, and I don't have
an answer to that.
Q Is it your belief that waing was appropriately issued
to leave to the tenant such that a criminal prosecution was justified?
M. HZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object. That's
a matter of a legal conclusion in this case, and it's the ultimate conclusion of
this case. I don't think this witness can answer that question.
Page -75-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20


THE COURT: This witness cannot answer a question that goes
to the ultimate legal conclusion. I'll make that determination, so that
objection is sustained.
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
BY M. COUGHLIN:
Q You said you didn't serve any Notice of Entry of Order
of Exhibit 2, the Findings of Fact, that you prepared and Judge Sferrazza
signed?
A We probably did aferwards. But I didn't for the
lockout, I don't think. Maybe.
Q Okay, before the lockout, did you ever mail, or anyone
wit your organization, mail or otherwise perform constructive service under
NRCP 6, of this Order?
A Well, in these proceedings (inaudible) by Justice Court
rules, not the rules of the (inaudible). That's number one.
Number two, I don't kow when my ofice received a siged
copy. So, I don't - I can't tell you as I sit here today whether we sent a
Notice of Entr. Although, I can tell you, that's my practice, especially in
your case, to immediately send a Notice of Entry.
Q Okay, and you said "these proceedings" this summary
2 1 eviction proceeding, which Judge Sferrazza also characterized as a trial, that
22 would be reconvened on October 25t, but you said those proceedings/trial
23 are not govered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, NRCP?
24
A First, I didn't say "tose proceedings/tial." I did not
25
say that word. You said it. And yes, these proceedings, Exhibit 2, were in
Page -76-


1
the Justice Court. They are govered by the Justice Court Rules of Civil
2
Procedure, and in fact, there is a very small portion of those rules, I think
3 they (inaudible).
4 I don't know. I think Rule 8(1 ) or so that have to do with
5
su ary proceedings, which is what this was. That's my answer. That's the
6 rules that gover those proceedings. Case RB 201 1 001708.
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
Q Okay, are you aware that NRS 40.2080 specifically
indicates that the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure do apply to summary
landlord/tenant proceedings to the extent that the matters not spoken to by
the statutes found in 1 1 8(a) or the relevant portions of 40, are silent in those
regards?
A You're asking me to tell you what that statute says? I
have no idea what that statute says (inaudible).
Q Are you aware that NRS 40.2080 specifcally does
make NRCP applicable to these proceedings?
A I'm aware that you just told me that, but I don't know
that to be the case without reading the statute.
Q Okay, but earlier, you said that was not the case, just
1 9 now, correct?
20 A What I said was that the rules that we were operating
21
under in the summary eviction proceeding are the Nevada Justice Court
22 Rules of Civil Procedure.
23 I understand there is some interplay in between the rules to the
24
extent one set does not cover something, you can look to the other set.
25
Page -77-


1 But, are we talking about substitute service still? I don't really
2 know what your questions were other than do I know that statute verbatim?
3 No, I don't.
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
Okay, so you're unaware of whether or not, yes, the
rules relative to substantive -constructive service -
THE COUT: Mr. Coughlin.
M. HALETT-STEVENS: I'm going to object.
THE COUT: Let me tell you something. We are getting way
out in an area that, quite frankly, from te legal perspective, I' m not really
interested or relevant where this is going.
I think you were making some ground, headway, asking some
of the relevant questions about the issue in this case, some notice, what was
contained in the language.
Those were ripe questions for cross-examination, and you
were doing a good job asking those questions.
But really, I have no interest legally, and I think it's 1 00%
irrelevant, which rules apply in the Justice Court.
I think you are getting far, far - you are straying far fom the
relevant issues which you were exploring earlier, and I'm going to sustain
the objections, and direct you to ask some questions that directly relate to the
content of either the Findings of Fact, the Order of Eviction, or what
happened when you were present in Court.
But I'mjust not going to allow the questions because they're
not going to affect my ruling at all. I fnd them just irrelevant.
Page 78


1 M COUGHLIN: Okay, Your Honor. And in order to ascertain
2
whether or not service was appropriately done, we need to know what rules
3 apply, don't we?
4 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, we don't need to know what rules
5
are done (sic). Service, you can ask. I'll decide what service was done from
6 ascertaining what facts are developed here in
Court, and listen to those.
7 I've heard some things were lef on the door by the Sherif. I
8
have a couple documents in evidence, and I know you were present at a
9
hearing. And those are the questions that I think, quite frankly, you should
1 0 be zeroing in on in terms of any questions, and then there's only so many
1 1 questions ultimately that can be asked that really are relevant before we start
1 2 to wear out the welcome on cross-examination in terms of redundant, repeat,
1 3 and asked and answered questions.
1 4
So, let's stay focused on that issue, and go ahead and ask
1 5 another question.
1 6 M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. It just is - I don't know if
1 7 you can call it an offer of proof, but.
1 8 THE COURT: Go ahead and make an offer of proof. I'll allow
1 9 that.
20
M4 COUGHLIN: I don't even think I know what that is, sir.
21 My point is not to take up the Court's time. My point is -
22 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, let me tell you right now. You
23 can take all the Court time we need as long as we're focusing on the relevant
24 areas that we have not explored.
25
Page -79-


1 To the extent we begin to rehash and go over items that we've
2 heard before, that's a waste of everybody's time. I don't think anybody
3
needs to worry about me having my time wasted. I've dedicated the entire
4
day to have this trial conducted and heard. I will do that to the extent we're
5 asking questions that are new, fesh, and relevant.
6 So, go ahead.
7
M. COUGHLIN: And, Your Honor, my only point is, this is
8.
probably one of the most important issues in the whole trial, if you ask me.
9 THE COURT: Well, then that's -
1 0 M. COUGHLIN: And that's why I'm -
1 1
T COURT: And that's why I think you should probably zero
1 2
in on those issues, and you're starting to stray into areas that I don't believe
1 3
are relevant to that issue, and I'm giving you my ruling from the bench.
14
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I' m just asking for some
15
clarification. If! can just, for a minute, set forth why I believe this is
1 6
relevant.
17 THE COURT: Go ahead, M. Coughlin.
1 8
M. COUGHLIN: It seems to - it seems this case is premised upon
1 9
the idea that an eviction notice i s tantamount to a waing under A. 1 0.040,
20
the trespass statute, failure to leave the premises afer being waed to do so.
21 Trespass, Reno Muni Code.
22
So, it seems as though the City is saying, "Your waring to
23 leave the premises was this." And I'm saying, "This isn't this until it's
24
served under the law, and the law says that you have to serve it by personally
25 serving it, because NRCP is incororated under 40.280."
Page 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25


So, you have to either personally hand it to the party, which I
will establish later was not done, and I believe his testimony was to the
effect that no one was there.
So, if you don't get that, the law says, NRCP 6 - 4,
5
, and 6, it
says you have to substitute service. I think some people call it constructive
service, three days for mailing.
THE COURT: To the extent this witness is able to answer, why
don't you ask the witness those tpe of questions. I think you can -
M4 HALETT-STEVENS: And, Judge, I'm going to interpose
THE COURT: Go ahead.
M HAZLETT -STEVENS: -- my objection for lack of a better
word here. I'm not tring to prove that an eviction - that an eviction
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law was properly served on
Defendant. That's not my obligation as a criminal prosecutor in this case.
My obligation is to show notice that he was evicted, and ifhe
was back on the property. I don't think they're relevant what kind of service
actually happened, whether it's pursuant to Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure, the LandlordlTenant Law, or rules applicable to the Justice
Courts.
So, for the record, that's my objection.
THE COURT: Thank you. Why don't you focus your inquir
on some of the areas you raised which you should be able to have answered
in two or three questions of this witness to the extent he's able to answer
Page -81 -


1 those about what service was accomplished, and I'll deal with those legal
2 issues at the back end?
3 M. COUGHLIN : Yes, sir, Your Honor.
4 BY M. COUGHLIN:
5
Q
So, your testimony is that you don't know that you ever
6 effected substitute or constructive service of this that your ofce did prior to
the lockout?
A I don't know when we did the Notice of Entry.
7
8
9
Q
You don't know when you did the Notice of Entry of
1 0 Order?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
19 THE COUT: I think you're asking this witess for legal
20 conclusions, M. Coughlin. You can ask him what he did, or what he has
21
personal knowledge of as what was done. I'll make any legal rulings later
22 on on what service, if any, was appropriate relating to the Municipal Code.
23 I think those are the kind of questions that can be asked, and
24
that this witness can o cannot answer.
25 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. .
Page -82-


1 BY M. COUGHLIN:
2
Q
Sorry i fI've asked this before. It seems as though
3 earlier you said you don't believe a Notice of Entry was mailed to the tenant
4 prior to the lockout occurring, is that corect?
5 A I don't know. I don't know when we got the fle-
6
stamped copy, so I don't know when we did the Notice of Ent.
7 I can tell you that normal procedure is that the Sheriff goes and
8 enforces the Order by taping it to the door, clearing the propert, and then
9 the locks are changed. That's what the Sheriff does.
1 0
Q
Okay, thank you. And earlier, you made some mention
1 1 ofthe way it works. By that, did you mean the law isn't particularly clear
1 2
with regard to how service and notice are done in these regards, and it ofen
13 falls to just the Sherif kind oftelling people what the logic is, or what they
1 4 believe it to be? When you said the way it works.
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
A
Q
A
Q
A
20 was referencing?
That's not what I was referencing, no.
What were you referencing, the way it works?
Which question was I answering?
What's that?
Which question was I answering and I'll tell you what I
21
Q
I believe M. Hazlett-Stevens was asking you about on
22 November 1 st, you went to River Rock. Did you meet them? Did they call
23
you or something like that, and you said, "Well, the way it works."
24 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, why don't you ask a question, a
25 specific direct question? Give the witness the opportunity to answer that
Page -83-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20


question, if possible.
M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: We're getting way out here on this diatribe.
M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I'll withdraw that
question.
THE COUT: Let me tell you, it's not helping the Court.
M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
BY M COUGHLIN:
Q
What did you do for the 1 1 months during which you
lef the employ of M. Hill?
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object.
THE COURT: That's irrelevant. Sustained. (Inaudible).
That's irrelevant.
M4 COUGHIN: It was testified to on direct.
THE COURT: He testifed he wasn't there, but in terms of
where he went, this is not going to assist the Court one bit where he went.
M COUGHLIN: Okay, yes, sir.
THE COURT: It's irrelevant to these proceedings.
BY M4 COUGHLIN:
Q
And M. Baker, you testifed that your assignment was
21 to evict M. Coughlin, is that correct?
22 A Yep.
23
Q
Did that include exploring settlement or was that just to
24 evict no matter what?
25
Page -84-


1
2
M HALETT-STEVENS:
to no relevant issue in this case.
Judge, I'm going to object. It goes
3 M COUGHLIN: That's correct. I withdraw, Your Honor. I
4 apologize. I'll continue to focus in here more.
5 But the thing is, Your Honor, we have all these things that
6 aren't relevant, but they are so prejudicial, they keep getting brought up.
7 I want to ask him about fabricating issues. M. Coughlin was
8 fabricating issues. No, it's not really relevant to the eviction, but they keep
9 '
bringing all this stuff up. The hoarder that didn't pay for 4 or 5 months, the
1 0 fabricating issues.
1 1 You know-
1 2 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, if you have a question, go ahead
1 3
and ask the question, and we' II deterine the relevance of each question as
14 they're asked, so go ahead.
1 5 M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
1 6 BY M COUGHLIN:
1 7
Q
What did you mean by fabricating issues when you
1 8 were testifing earlier?
1 9 A Did I say that? Or was that M. Hill you are thinking
of? 20
21 THE COURT: My recollection is both you and Mr. Hill testified
22 to that. So to the extent that you testifed to that, that presents an
23
opportunity for a couple of questions fom M. Coughlin if you can answer
24 those in brevit.
25
Page -85-

1 HE WITNESS: I believe I was referring to the "habitability"
2
issues that you were ting to set up as your defense to the eviction.
3
There was never any proof, and Judge Sferazza found that
4
there were no issues, and that's all laid out in the Findings of Fact.
5
M COUGHLIN: Okay, when you stated there was no proof is
6 that accounting for the emails wherein mold issues were set forth?
7 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, we're getting -
8 MR. HALETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to object.
9
THE COURT: We're getting into areas that are irrelevant in
1 0
terms of what precipitated in specifics, the basis for the seeking and
1 1 obtaining of an Order of Eviction.
1 2
I think the relevant and ripe area in this case is the notice issue.
1 3 M= COUGHLIN: Alright.
1 4 THE COURT: And I think you were exploring that, but it
1 5
doesn't need to be explored for an hour. I f you want to ask some questions
1 6
related to that, the Court is interested i n hearing your questions, and
1 7 responses of this witess.
1 8
MR. COUGHIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
1 9 THE COURT:
20 BY M. COUGHLIN:
I mean M. Baker.
Q
Was the tenant waed to leave the property?
21
22 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object as to
23
vagueness. When was the tenant waed? What date are we talking about?
24 THE COURT: We're talking the tenant. Who are we talking
25
about? And was the tenant waed by who to leave the property?
Page -86-

1 Let's be specific in the question. I believe you're referring to
2
yourself that -to ask that question by whom and when - someone identifed
3
as the tenant may have been asked to leave the propert and waed to leave
4 the property.
5 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
6 BY MB COUGHLIN:
7
Q By whom and when was either I, or anyone else, legally
8 deemed to be the tenant, wared to leave the premises?
9 THE COURT: And then to the extent you can answer that, Mr.
1 0 Baker, answer it. If you can't, don't.
1 1 TH WTSS: I can answer it, sir.
12 THE COURT: Okay, thank you.
1 3 THE WTSS: The frst two notices were served on you on
1 4
August 22nd, 201 1 . One of those was a 5-day notice that wared you that if
1 5 you did not pay your rent within five days you would be evicted.
1 6
M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy. When one
1 7 has a legal right to be somewhere -
1 8 THE COURT: You asked the question. He's giving the answer.
1 9
I f you are going answer (sic) open ended questions on cross-examination,
20 you're stuck with the answer.
21
You can answer that question, M. Baker. Go ahead.
22 THE WTSS: Tank you, sir.
23
The second ofthose notices was a 30-day no cause that gave
24
you 30 days. And what that notice did was that it told you that your tenancy,
25 your month-to-month tenancy, was being terminated as of that time.
Page -87-

1
So, you had through sometime in the middle to the end of
2 September to vacate under that notice.
3
The way it works is afer the 30 days has run, then we serve
4 you, and we served you with another 5-day Notice of Unlawfl Detainer.
5 That was your third waring.
6 Then we had our hearings on October 1 3'h and October 2'h.
7 At the end ofthat hearing, at approximately 5:00 on October 25th, Judge
8 Sferrazza told you, and told me and everyone else in te Court, that the
9 eviction had been granted, and that you had through October 3 1 at 5:00 p.m.
1 0 That was your fourth waing.
1 1 Afer that, well - that was your fourth waing.
12 BY M. COUGHLIN:
1 3
Q
So, when you're saying "waing," are you saying upon
14 the original waring in August that failing to leave at that time would have
1 5 justifed a criminal trespass prosecution at that time?
1 6 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, it calls for a legal
1 7 conclusion. Objection.
1 8 THE COURT: Sustained. This witness cannot answer that
1 9 question. That does call for a legal conclusion.
20 THE WITNESS: You were also waed on October 27'h when I
21 emailed you the proposed Order.
22 BY M. COUGHLIN:
23
Q
And when you say "waed," wared to do what and by
24 when?
25
Page -88-

1 A Your question was were you ever wared that you were
2 going to be evicted, so I think that's why.
3
Q
No, it wasn't. It was, "were you ever waed to leave
4 the premises?" I keep refering to a criminal trespass statute, and you keep
5 referring to civil eviction statutes.
6 THE COURT: Listen, I don't want to have an engagement
7 between the witess and the Defendant.
8 I want you to answer questions. I can figure this stuf out up
9 here. I wasn't -I' ve been doing this for fve years.
1 0 You've asked some important questions, M. Coughlin. I
1 1
don't know if you're going to really help yourself anymore by asking any
12
more questions from tis witness. I think Mr. Baker has testifed to the best
13 of his ability about what he knows, and I think that' s all he can testif to.
14 M. COUGHLIN: Alright, thank you, Your Honor.
1 5 THE COURT: You made some headway, and it's probably a
1 6 good time to stop unless you have some other direct, relevant questions
1 7 related to his direct examination.
1 8 M. COUGHLIN: No, sir, Your Honor. Thank you.
1 9 THE COURT: Okay, M. Hazlett-Stevens?
20
M. HAZLETT -STEVENS: No redirect, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Alright.
22
MR. HAZLET-STEVENS: Your Honor, the City recalls M.
23 Richard Hill to the stand.
24 THE COURT:
25 under oath? Thank you.
Alright, M. Hill. May I remind you you're
Page -89-

I THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
2 THE COURT: Alright, go ahead, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
3 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Judge.
4
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. HILL
5 BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
6
Q
Mr. Hill, I'm going to now draw your attention to the
7 date of November 1 3t
h
, 201 1 . Do you recall that day?
8 A Yes, sir.
9
1 0
Q
A
What were you doing that day? Were you working?
Well, the client is from Califoria, and he had contacted
II
me and said he had wanted to come up and inspect the house and see what
12 kind of damage had been done to it.
1 3
Q
Okay.
14 A And we'd made arrangements for him to come up. I
1 5 had reported to him that somebody had been breaking into the house.
Okay, how do you know that? 1 6
1 7
Q
A Well, M. Baker was of, as he already testified, on
1 8 leave during the time that the eviction actually came down.
1 9 He came back long enoug to do the eviction.
Okay. 20
21
Q
A And he and my wife came back. They lef the keys at
22
the ofce, and I determined that under the circumstances, the prudent thing
23 to do was to go over and videotape the property.
24
25
Q
Okay.
Page -90-

I A So the next day, I took a young kid, a high school kid
2 that was working for us, and he and I went over to the house, videotaped.
3 Went up to the font door, and the notice was still taped to the front door.
4 Unlocked the font door, went in, and most of the windows
5
were unlocked, and the back door was unlocked. So, we secured everything
6 and I went back to the ofce, and I read my staf the riot act. I said, "Did
7 you secure this place?" And I was infonned that proper procedure was
8 followed, that all the doors were locked, all the windows were locked, and
9 that caused me a little bit of concer.
1 0
So, a day or so later, r went back. And my recollection is tat
1 1 at that point i time, the Eviction Notice was still up. Went i and some of
12
the windows that I had locked personally were unlocked. Some of the things
1 3
in the house had been moved around, and the back door was unlocked again.
1 4 So, that caused me some concer as to perhaps somebody was
1 5
getting in. And I related that to the client. And at that point, I was emailing
16 Mr. Coughlin telling him that M. Baker was off on vacation, and he was
1 7 going to have to deal with me i tenns of getting his stuf out. We wanted to
1 8 get his stuff out. And I never got any response from him.
1 9
Turing now to that Sunday, the client made arrangements to
20 meet me at my ofice. We then went over to the property. By that time, the
21 ' notice had been taken down off the front door.
22
We went in, and once again, the one particular window on the
23 north side was open.
24
25
Q
Okay.
Page -91 -


1 A Or unlocked, not open. And once again, the back door
2
was open, and I noticed there was a food wrapper on the counter that had not
3 been there the last time I was in.
4 And the client was rather distressed at the condition of the
5
propert. The caret had been ripped up and put on the lawn. The doors
6 were taken of.
7
M# COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy.
8 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that objection. I think we're
9 getting out to an area again, irelevant.
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
1 6 .
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: That's fine.
THE COURT: I appreciate it, but I'm going to sustain that, M.
Coughlin. Let's move on, M. Hill, to what we think are the relevant issues
regarding notice and what happened when you got there on the
1 3th
,
THE WITNESS: Okay.
T COURT: Thank you.
BY M+ HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Q
And what did happen when you got there on the
1 3
t
h
afer you inspected the property?
A At that point in time, the client said, "Well, I want to
check the basement." I said, "Basement?"
And the basement entrance was outside the locked back door
on the porch. And we went around out the back door to go down the
staircase, and there were tool boxes of - like small suitcases, boxes, stacked
in the stairwell that we had to pick up and move to get out of the way so we
could get down the stairs to go to see what was in the basement.
Page -92-


1
We finally got all that stuff out of the way, having to walk
2 through all of the stuf that was on the porch.
3 Anyway, the client gets down to the bottom ofthe stairs. I was
4
3 or 4 feet behind him, and he pushed on the door, and I could see that the
5
door was moving, but it was barricaded. And he tured to me and said, "It's
6
barricaded fom the inside." I said, "Okay, that's it. Let's go upstairs."
7
We went upstairs. We called the police. They arrived about
8
1 0 minutes later. Told them what the problem was. They went down. It
9
was a lady sergeant. I believe her name was Lopez, and an ofcer. I don't
1 0 recall his rank. I believe it was Carter.
1 1
They went down, and banged on the door with their
12
nightsticks. We were pretty sure who was inside. Didn't know for sure.
1 3
And I said, "Come on out, Zach." Nothing. "Come on out, Zach." Nothing.
1 4
And that went on for 2 or 3 minutes. And they specifically
1 5
identified themselves as the police. They said, "Well, that's it, we're going
1 6
to leave." And both Dr. Merliss and I said, "What do you mean? This guy
1 7
is in here. Somebody is in here criminally trespassing. We need to know
1 8
who it is and get him out of here. " And they said, "Well, we're not going to
19 break down the door."
20
So, Dr. Merliss went down the stairs, and he's the one that
21
kicked the door open. Broke the door in the process. He then came up. One
22
of the police ofcers went down with his gun drawn, flashlight tured down,
23
and the frst thing I heard was, "Show me your hands! Show me your hands!
24 Come towards me."
25
Page -93-


1
And I don't recall at that time whether M. Coughlin identified
2
himself or not. We then proceeded upstairs, and M. Coughlin then came
3 upstairs on his own. He was wearing a pair of pajamas, and a t-shirt, and I
4 think a pair of slippers.
5
Q
Okay, so your testimony, let's break this down just a
6
little bit.
7 A Okay.
8
Q
Ta you for testifing as to that. Now, on November
1 6
Okay, and you've seen previous times the Notice of
1 7
Trespass, or excuse me, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law taped
1 8 on the door in previous times at 1 21 River Rock?
1 9 A And I will also tell you that afer I started to see that
20
somebody was inside, I lef an additional copy on the coffee table or
21 whatever it was in the living room.
22
Q
Okay, and then you finally go back on November 1 3
t
h
23 with your client, M. Merliss?
24
25
A Dh-huh.
Page -94-


Q
Go into the property, go down to the basement, and did
2 you see M. Coughlin there?
3 A In the basement, no, no. The police told us to clear out
4
when they went through the broken through door. I' d never met or seen M.
5 Coughlin up until that time.
6
Q
Okay.
7
8
9
A
Q
A
He came up out ofthe basement into the living room.
Thank you.
Where he was placed under arrest.
1 0
Q
Okay, and did you actually see M. Coughlin in the
1 1 living room at that house?
1 2
A I saw him come up out of the stairs, walk through the
1 3 stairway on the porch, through the kitchen, and into the living room.
14
Q
And is that person you just described the person sitting
1 5 in this Courtroom here today?
1 6 A It was Zach Coughlin, absolutely.
1 7
Q
And you know him now?
1 8 A Oh, yes.
1 9
Q
And he looks substantially similar today as he did on
20 November 1 3t
h
, 201 1 ?
21 A Yeah.
22
Q
Roughly? Absent the pajamas you testified to?
23 A Right.
24 M. HLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, I would like the
25 record to note the identification of the Defendant.
Page -95-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21


THE COURT: I will note the identification of M. Coughlin.
Thank you.
M HALETT-STEVENS: Thank you.
BY M HAZLETT-STEVENS:
River Rock?
Q
So, from your testimony, M. Couglin was in 1 2 1
A Oh, unquestionably. He was living in the basement.
Q
Okay, now I'm going to draw-
M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor. I don't believe that - it
misstates prior testimony.
THE COURT: I' m going to sustain that objection to the extent
that he said he's living, but the fact he was in the property, and identifed by
M. Hill as part of the record.
M4 COUGHLIN: And further, Your Honor, it's not just to the
extent to which he said he's living. M. Hill has not testified that he saw M.
Coughlin in the basement.
THE COURT: M. Hill testifed that he saw you come up the
stairs into the kitchen, into the living room. That's what's been testified to.
MR. COUGHLIN: Right, he didn't see M. Coughlin in the
basement.
TH COURT: That's fine. I think Mr. Hill testified to that, and
22 the Court knows that. Thank you.
23 M. Hazlett-Stevens?
24 BY M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
25
Q
Mr. Hill, did you actually examine the basement?
Page -96-


1 A Oh, afer M. Coughlin was taken by the police we did,
2 yes.
3
Q
Yes, okay, what did you fnd in the basement?
4
M4 COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy?
5
THE COURT: Okay, I'm going to sustain that objection. I
6
don't think the Court really needs to know what's in the basement at this
7
point. I think it provides ver little value to the Court what's in that
8 basement, unless you want to make an offer of proof.
9
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I would like to make an
1 0
ofer of proof on this issue. It's actually important because it establishes - it
1 1 establishes that he was living in that basement, and that goes to both notice,
1 2
oterwise he would be occupying the entire property, not just the basement
1 3
ofthe property, so it goes to notice as to whether or not he kew he was
14 evicted fom tat property, or else he would be occupying te entire house,
1 5 not just the basement.
16
So, I think it's relevant what was in that basement and the
17 condition. I'm talking about what kind of living material was in that
1 8
basement. Not boxes and that kind of stuff as to hoarding or anything like
1 9 that.
20 But I think it's relevant and it's to the issue of notice.
21 THE COURT:
22 _ objection is sustained.
Okay, I appreciate that. M. Coughlin's
23 BY M HAZLETT -STEVENS:
24
25
Q
A
So, you saw M. Coughlin in his pajamas?
Yes.
Page -97-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25

Q
A
And slippers?
Yes.

M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevance.
T COURT: Irrelevant to what?
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't know what slippers or pajamas have to
do with -
THE COURT: That objection will go to the weight of the
evidence, not the admissibility. I'm not sure what difference it has. It's
been testifed to. It's in evidence, and I'll give it whatever weight I decide
to give it - give to it, which won't be much, at least not what you were
wearing.
Go ahead, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens.
MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: I have no frther questions, Your
Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Alright, M. Coughlin, any cross-examination
related to what Mr. Hill has testifed to?
M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor, and I'll tr to keep it brief
THE COURT: That would help the Court.
MR. COUGHLIN: Edit it down.
THE COURT: Keep it brief, and we keep it specific. I think
that's in your best interest.
III
III
III
III
Page -98-

1 RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
3
Q
Just quickly, Mr. Hill, you said Dr. Merliss, had he
4 previously inspected the property at any time between November I " and that
5 day, November 13th, when you said he came up?
6 A Not to the best of my knowledge.
7
Q
Doesn't i say he did in a police report you and Dr.
8 Merliss -
9 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object as to
1 0 hearsay. There's no police report, and the police report is hearsay, Judge.
1 1 THE COURT: I' m going to overrule the objection. You can ask
12 that question, M. Coughlin. I'm not sure what relevance it has, but go
1 3 ahead.
1 4 THE WITNESS: Can you say that again, please?
1 5 M. COUGHLIN: Isn't there some signed written document, either
1 6 in one of your Motions for Order to Show Cause or your Protection Order
1 7
Application, or one of your letters to the State Bar, or one of your police
1 8 reports, wherein you report on Dr. Merliss's behalf that he was there at the
1 9 property approximately a week prior to the arrest on the 13th, and he, Dr.
20 Merliss, noticed things had been changed?
21
A No, I didn't. I was in there several times during that
22 period oftime, M. Coughlin, and I kept noticing things being moved
23
around, and windows and doors that I' d locked, specifcally, the back door,
24 kept being unlocked.
25
Page -99-

I Q And you never made any statements that Dr. Merliss
2 had noticed that?
3 A Not to the best of my knowledge. We had the key.
4
Q And Dr. Merliss had never made such statements?
5 A I have no idea what he may have said, M. Coughlin.
6 We had the key.
7
Q Well, I'm talking about things your ofce has fled.
8 A But for somebody breaking in, they would have had to
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
go through us to get the key. And I' m unaware of Dr. Merliss having
contacted us --
Q Was there some sign of-
THE COURT: Hang on, hang on, hang on.
M. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: I would like Mr. Hill to finish his question you
asked. Let him finish the question, and then you can ask another question.
Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Merliss had
not been in town during that period of time. He made a special trip up on
that Sunday for that purose.
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, next question?
BY M. COUGHLIN:
22
Q
You mentioned some breakage?
23 A No.
24
Q
Breaking -well somebody, you said somebody had
25 been breaking in?
Page - 1 00-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9

A
Q

Yes.
What was the breakage?
A Not breakage, sir. Break in. Breaking in. Entering a
closed space. You apparently had fgured out how to jimmy the back door
open, and kept coming in and out through the back door.
Q
Was there some sign of breaking?
A No, but it was obvious that you had been -you had
some way to get that back door open.
Q
Why do you say me?
A Well, you were living in the basement.
M. COUGHLIN: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. You asked these open-
ended questions, M. Coughlin. And when you answer them - Mr. Hill is
entitled to answer those questions. You may not agree with the answer. But
Mr. Hill, you can answer that question.
THE WlTNESS: Thank you. I kept fnding food wrappers on the
counter when I' d come in.
BY M. COUGHLIN:
Q
Okay, did they have my name tag on them or
20 something?
Not that I saw. 21
22
A
Q
Okay, but you are testifing here under oath that they
23 were my paper wrappers?
24
A No, sir. I said there were food wrappers, and you were
25 living in the basement.
Page -1 01 -

1
2
3
Q
Okay, ifthat' s true that I was living in the basement,
how long were you aware of that?
A I became aware of it on Sunday when you were found
4
down there, as I have testified. I deduced that you were living there when
5 afer you were taken away.
6 Dr. Merliss and I went downstairs and what we found -we
7
found jugs of water. Two and a half gallon jugs of water. There could have
8 been 5 or 6 of those.
9
You had a hot plate. You had a microwave. We had
1 0
interrupted your breakfast. There was a half eaten bowl of oatmeal on the
1 1
table. You had a bed down there suspended in one of the comers with
1 2
computer screens set up. You had your computer set up. You had
1 3 automobile seats.
1 4
At a later time, I counted 1 3 automobile seats, including what
1 5
somebody identifed as the font bench seat out of a Bronco.
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
How do you know that this wasn't -you mentioned you
felt the tenant was a hoarder, how do you know all this stuff wasn't there for
months?
A Well, sir, you were down there. I forgot to mention
when you came up you had your dog with you.
There was dog food down there, dog water bowl that had
water in it. I noticed that there were papers there that pertained to the
eviction. I noticed envelopes with my retur address on them out stewn
about down there.
Page -1 02-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q
Well, how long had that eviction been going on at that
point?
A Mr. Baker testified that he began in late August.
Q
Then?
A So, fom late August through September, through
October, and now into mid-November.
Q
Did you ever receive notice, any emails that you
purported to send to the tenant, would be either blocked or not recognized as
an accepted form of communication of service by you from the tenant?
1 0 A Yes, you would email us, and ten respond and say that
I I you would not accept email service. That was the only way that we could
1 2 communicate with you.
1 3
Q
Why do you say that?
1 4 A Because you'd call up and harass my staf and then
1 5
hang up. We had no address for you at that point in time. We didn't know
1 6 where you were.
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
Q
Do you know whether or not a forwarding address had
been fled?
I know that one had not been provided to us. A
Q
Okay, but do you know whether or not, say the United
21 States Postal Service had a forwarding address?
22 A I wouldn't have any idea what you did, sir.
23
Q
And what about the tenant's fax number?
24 A What about it?
25
Q
Did you ever utilize that?
Page -103-

1
A I' m sorry?

2
Q
You mentioned you had no way of contacting the tenant
3 (inaudible) fax number, did he not?
4 A I don't know.
5
Q
You don't know whether the opposing attorey in a
6 litigation wherein you billed $60,000 and not have a fax number?
7 THE COURT: M. Coughlin.
8 M. HALETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object.
9 THE COURT: It's argumentative. It's been asked and
1 0 answered, and I think it's irrelevant. I mean, let me tell you, you can go on
1 1 and ask questions that were raised on the second testimony, but again, the
1 2
issues regarding notice and the presence ofthe property seemed to be
1 3 relevant to the issues in this case that have been testified to, and which I
1 4 think are ripe for cross-examination.
1 5 But it just
comes to an end as it gets closer (inaudible).
1 6 M. COUGHIN: Okay, Your Honor.
1 7 BY M. COUGHLIN:
1 8
Q
So you were unaware there was a basement on the
1 9 property?
20 A Correct.
21
Q
Okay, and you were - were you purorting to charge
22 some fll rental value of $900 a month under a theory that you were entitled
23 to do so, and assert a lien for the reasonable storage, moving and inventor
24 of expenses?
25
Page -1 04-

1
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to object a to
2 relevance.
3 T COURT:
4 Coughlin.
That's sustained. It's not relevant, M.
5 M COUGHLIN: Your Honor.
6 T COURT: It's not relevant.
7
MR. COUGHIN: I understand that, Your Honor, with respect to
8
the lien. But with respect to whether or not he was purorting to charge fll
9 rental value, I believe that might be relevant.
1 0 THE COURT: I think it's irrelevant. Whether or not someone -
1 1
what's relevant in this case is all the proceedings in the Justice Court related
1 2
to the eviction, the presence of the parties at those proceedings, the location
1 3 of you on the premises on November
1
3
th
1 4 Those are all relevant items for this Court.
1 5
M= COUGHIN: And here's what I mean by that, Your Honor. If
1 6
someone is evicted, but then the landlord later accepts a rent, the eviction is
1 7 withdrawn, and they have to go through the whole thing again.
1 8 So, I feel Mr. Hill is saying -
1 9 THE COURT: And you can ask M. Hill those types of
20
questions, whether or not the eviction was withdrawn, whether or not any
21
payments were made afer the fact, and he can answer those, ifhe can
22 answer those. He may not be in a position.
23 BYMR. COUGHLIN:
24
Q M. Hill, did you, or anyone with your ofce ever
25
indicate to the tenant that you would be charging the same amount, the same
Page - 1 05-

1 $900 per month that was previously charged for a fll use and occupancy of
2 the premises to the tenant during this period of time?
3 A Mr. Coughlin, as you well know, the landlord is obliged
4 to care for the tenant's possessions for
3
0 days.
5
M+ COUGHLIN: Objection, non-responsive.
6 T COURT: To the extent, I agee with M. Coughlin. He
7
asked a question, Mr. Hill. See if you can focus in. I know these questions
8
are sometimes open-ended. See if you can answer the question without
9 any -
1 0 TH WITNSS: I'll do what I can.
1 1 T COURT: I'm not sure I need a lot of editorial comment
1 2
from anybody in this case to come to the right conclusion under the law and
1 3 the facts. But do your best to answer that question.
14
T WITNSS: M. Coughlin, I believe the correspondence was
1 5
directed to you to the effect that because ofthe quantity of materials lef
1 6
behind at the property, we could not eficiently move it out. And therefore,
1 7
since you were, in effect, occupying the whole place, we felt that the fair
1 8 storage fee was the rent, yes.
1 9 BY Mq COUGHLIN:
So the full rental value of the property?
Yep.
20
21
22
Q
A
Q
Is that the same as what was charged prior to November
23
1 s
?
24
25
A
Q
I believe so.
$900 a month?
Page -1 06-

I believe so. 1
2
A
Q
Okay, and so you just testifed, "We believe that since
3
you were occupying the property, we were justifed in charging you the same
amount, $900 a month, that we charged you prior to November
1 s
t
"
A
Q
No.
Well, you did say --
A You were not --
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q -- just you were efectively occupying the property.
You did say that, corect?
A Your possessions were there, M. Coughlin.
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
Q But that's not what you just said. Now you're saying
that.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, you can ask questions, but I don't
14
want you to entertain any argument, any argumentative commentary with
1 5 any of the witnesses.
16 M COUGHLIN: Okay.
1 7 THE COURT: Go ahead and ask another question. I can hear
1 8
the questions. I can hear the witness's response. I don't need anybody to
19 argue with the witness to make a point .
20 M. COUGHIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
21 BY M COUGHLIN:
22
Q
So, earlier you testifed that you and Dr. Merliss
23
perceived that the door was barricaded, and you said, "That's it," and you
24 went and called the police, correct?
25 A Yep.
Page -1 07-

4
And they said, "Come out Zach."
5 They said, "This is the police. Come out Zach."
1 0 And then the police - one of the oficers actually - did
1 1
he climb over the broken door and actually step foot in the basement?
1 2
1 3
1 4
A
Q
A
No.
He never stepped foot in the basement?
My recollection is that he reached around the comer
1 5
with his gun drawn and his fashlight out. He may have stepped through.
1 6
Q
Okay, and he said something to the effect of, "Come
A
Q
direction?
A 21
Yeah, you came upstairs with your dog.
Q
22
So, when did anybody war the tenant to leave?
A 23
In addition to what M. Baker told you, I had sent you
24
an email telling you that you were not authorized to be on the property.
25
Page -1 08-

1
Q
You said an email, and you testifed earlier that you
2 were told that emails would not be accepted from you or would not be
3 effective forms of service?
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
15
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
A
Q
Yeah, emails with you were a one way street.
What's that?
A It was a one way street dealing with you.
Q
Okay, so you were put on notice that emails were not an
effective means of communicating anything to the tenant?
A It didn't seem that way because I'd get responses
occasionally.
Q
Okay, but on this day in question, November 13'h, I've
heard you testif about you and D. Merliss ascertained that the door was
barricaded, and immediately you went and called the police, and then the
police came and banged on the door with a nightstick, and say, "Come out,
Zach."
But I haven't heard anything wherein the relevant provisions
ofRMC 8. 1 0.040 -
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, this is argumentative.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, you are aware that you can ask
20 Mr. Hill questions to the extent he can answer them, he can answer them.
21 But this is argumentative in the legal sense, not in the fact you're arguing
22 with him.
23 M. COUGHLIN: Right.
24 THE COURT: It does no good for the Court for you to have a
25 narrative tpe of argument.
Page - 1 09-

1 M COUGHLIN: I apologize, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: When Mr. Hill is here to ask some questions that
3 I think you've explored the possibilities, and I don't know what else you can
4 offer the Court in terms of this case via cross-examination.
5 M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I'll wrap this up quickly.
6 BY M COUGHIN:
7
8
9
Q Mr. Hill, at any time on that day, November 1 3t, did
the owner of the premises war the arrestee to leave the property?
A I think the message was communicated.
Via what medium? 1 0
1 1
Q
A The fact that you were handcufed and arrested. Didn't
1 2 you get the picture?
1 3
Q Okay, prior to the handcufng and the arresting, did
1 4 anybody say, "You need to leave the premises?"
1 5 A I didn't hear that.
1 6 Q Nobody said that?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
I did not hear that, sir.
Did you say it?
No.
Did Dr. Merliss?
Not that I heard.
Did the police?
A No, not that I heard.
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q So, nobody that you heard of waed the person
arrested for tespassing?
Page -1 1 0-

1
THE COURT: I think it's been asked and answered. I've heard
2
the question five times, and we're going nowhere by answering this. I think
3
you asked the question that's relevant. Mr. Hill answered it. Now, move on
4 to your next relevant question if you have any.
5
MR. COUGHIN: Alright, Your Honor. And this might not be
6
relevant, but the other part of te statute is someone failed to leave afer
7 being waed to do so.
8
We have testimony that there was no waing.
9
THE COURT: You can ask a question right now. This is all
1 0
subject to argument later on. It's subject to other testimony, but M. Hill has
1 1
answered the questions that you seem to have answered (sic) that are
1 2 relevant to his direct testimony.
1 3 BY M COUGHLIN:
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
Did the accused ever fail to leave the propert afer
being waed to do so?
A You were there.
THE COURT: To the extent you can answer that would be yes
or no, M. Hill. Answer the question so we don't drag this out.
THE WTSS: I don't know that I can answer it yes or no.
THE COURT: If you can't answer it, that's fne.
M4 COUGHLIN: And then just quickly, and I'll wrap this up,
Your Honor.
BY M4 COUGHLIN:
Q
Did the accused ever say anything to the police to the
effect that, "Why would you arrest me instead of telling me to leave?"
Page -1 1 1 -

A
Q
A
No.
Wa me to leave?
No.

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q
Do the videos that you propounded to the City Attorey
showed just that?
I don't remember. A
Q
City Attorey?
Have you reviewed the videos you propounded to the
Not really.
1 0
A
Q
Okay, did the police report that you filed indicate
1 1 whether or not you waed the accused to leave?
I' d have to see it. 1 2
1 3
A
Q
Okay, did the police ever ask you whether or not you
1 4
had indicated to the accused that you would be charging him the fll rental
1 5 value of the property during this period of time?
1 6
MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object.
1 7 T COURT: It's irrelevant, sustained.
1 8 M. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I believe it -
1 9 TH COURT: We're not -that doesn't help the Court with the
20
issues at all. I'm just telling you right now that's irelevant in my opinion.
21
M. COUGHLIN: I f the eviction is withdrawn?
22 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. You can ask your next
23 question.
24 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir. I think this is my last question, Your
25 Honor.
Page -1 12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23

BY MR. COUGHLIN:
Q
Mr. Hill, you say the police -you're testifing under
oath that you're sure the police specifically identifed themselves as police
prior to the door being kicked down?
A l am.
Q
And can you tell me specifcally how -
M= HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I ' m going to object as to
relevance. It's not relevant.
THE COURT: It's irrelevant to me, Mr. Coughlin, what the
police identified - he's testified they've identified themselves. They were
ofcers on the premises. What relevance is it at this point to explore any
line of questioning related to that fact?
M= COUGHLIN: Well, ifit's someone with authority to war
someone to leave, that's one thig. If it's a crazy person outside on the
street, saying, "Come on out."
THE COURT: Ask Mr. Hill a couple of questions related to the
police, what they were dressed like, what they asked when they showed up.
You can ask that.
to that.
M COUGHLIN: I'm sorry, I couldn't understand what -
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask some questions related
BY M COUGHLIN:
Q
Can you tell me exactly what the police said when they
24
identifed themselves as police prior to the door being kicked down?
25
Page -1 1 3-

1 A We told them that we were pretty sure you were there,
2
so my best recollection is that they shouted, "Come on out, Zach. Come on
3 out, Zach." Words to that effect.
4
I recall hearing that, as well as, "Come on out, this is the
5
6
7
8
9
police."
basement.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
When did you hear, "Come on out, this is the police."
When they were down banging on the door of the
Prior to the door being kicked down?
Yes.
You're sure?
Positive.
Were you videotaping during this period oftime?
I wasn't.
You were not videotaping?
Nope.
At any time on this date in question?
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, that misstates the question.
1 9
He said, "Were you taping at this time?" He answered that question. He
20 said, "No."
21 THE COUT: Ask another question, Mr. Coughlin. I'm not
22 sure how relevant this is, to tell you the truth.
23
Again, I think I've made myself very clear. You are getting
24
far afeld. It's not necessarily helpful to the Court, and you're making an
25 ultimate conclusion regarding the trespass violation.
Page - 1 1 4-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
M4 COUGHLIN: Here's my offer of proof, Your Honor, is that if
Mr. Hill was taping, and he has a tape of everything except a period where
anybody wars the accused to leave, or a period where the police actually
identit themselves as police, prior to the door being kicked down, then that
would tend to indicate that those things didn't happen.
TH COURT:
questions for M. Hill?
Okay, I'll note for the record. Any other
MR. COUGHIN: No, sir, Your Honor.
T COURT: Okay, any redirect?
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Yes, Your Honor.
RE-DIRECT EXINATION
BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
Q
Mr. Hill, did you - briefly, did anyone in your ofce
14 file or serve a Notice of Entry of Order of the Findings of Facts, Conclusions
1 5 of Law, (inaudible) that are Exhibit 2 of the City?
16 A I would expect we did.
1 7
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, I'd like this marked
1 8
1 9
as City's 3, please.
20 that.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin? Show Mr. Coughlin a copy of
21 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, may I approach the
22 witness?
23
24 III
25 III
THE COURT: Yes.
Page -1 l 5-


1 BY M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS:
2
Q M. Hill, can you please take a look at this document?
3 It's been marked as Cit's 3.
4 A What's the question?
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Do you recognize that document?
Yes.
Q
A
Q
Can you please tell the Court what that document is?
A That is a Notice of Enty of Order that I signed on
November 1 s. Attached is a copy Judge Sferrazza's Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order for Summary Eviction.
The Certifcate indicates that it was mailed on November 1 to
M. Coughlin at his last known address by my secretary.
Q Thank you.
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, I'd move to admit
what's been marked as City's 3 into evidence.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, any objection to that?
M4 COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I'd just object in that it's not signed
by Judge Sferrazza.
THE COURT: That goes to the weight, I think, of the evidence,
not the admissibility. I don't think a Notice of Entry of Order, I've ever seen
signed by a Judge. I could be wrong.
M4 COUGHLIN: Your Honor, the attached Order to the Notice of
Ent of Order.
THE COURT: You're objecting because the -the nature of
your objection is because his stamp is on there?
Page - 1 1 6-


I
MR. COUGHLIN: His stamp rather than a signature, and it's being
2 offered and purorted as being a -
3 T COURT: And I am in possession of the original Findings
4
of Fact, which are signed by Judge Sferrazza, so the objection is noted for
5 the record and overuled. The City's Exhibit 3 is admitted.
6 M4 COUGHLIN: ' Your Honor, it's not offered for the veracity of
7
whether or not Judge Sferrazza ultimately signed that. It's offered for - had
8
he siged it, if they have it, when they noticed -when they served, mailed
9 this Notice of Entry.
1 0
THE COURT: Objection is noted, and Exhibit 3 is admitted.
II
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: No frther questions, Your Honor.
1 2
T COURT: Any questions related specifically, and only to
1 3 the City's Exhibit No. 3, Mr. Coughlin?
1 4 M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
1 5
T COURT: That's the extent of M. Hill's testimony, and
1 6 then we will (inaudible) the cross-examination.
1 7
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
1 8 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
1 9
Q
M. Hill, is the Order here by Judge Sferrazza signed,
20 or is it a rubber stamp of Judge Sferazza?
21
A I f you say it's a rubber stamp, I'll take your
22 representation. That's the way it comes back fom the Court when the clerk
23 conforms the cert. You should know that.
24
25
Page - 1 1 7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4


T COURT: And for the record, let's show M. Hill City's
Exhibit 3 so he can answer that question so there's nothing lef in the record
as an open-ended question.
THE WITNESS: That has Judge Sferaza's stamp on it, yes, sir.
BY M COUGHLIN:
Q
And is that your typical practice to attach a stamped
version of the Order, rather than a photocopy of the signed version?
A M. Coughlin, up until we were able to access these
online very recently -these you can't through Justice Court, but District
Court, for example, that's all you usually get. The clerk will stamp the
conformed copies that you get back. It's customary.
Q
Okay, but do you --
A
Q
It has been up until you could get them online.
Okay, was it typical for the Justice Court to fax you a
1 5 copy of the signed Order?
1 6 A No, this was not a typical case either. To be specifc, if
1 7 it was faxed, and I don't see anything on here to indicate that it was, I don't
1 8 see anything on here to indicate that it was, M. Coughlin.
1 9
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay, I have nothing frther.
20 THE COURT: Okay, any frther questions?
21
M. HALETT-STEVENS: No fer, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you again, M. Hill.
23 Alright, any other witnesses?
24 Me HAZLETT-STEVENS: The City rests.
25
Page - 1 1 8-

1 THE COURT: Okay, the City has rested, M. Coughlin. We are
2 now at 1 0 minutes to 12.
3
I'll give you a couple options. I don't know if you intend to
4
call any witnesses or to testif yourself. Certainly, as a criminal Defendant
5 in this case, you know that you have a Fifh Amendment privilege against
6 self-incrimination. If you don't testif, and you elect to invoke that Fifh
7
8
9
Amendment privilege, that is a fact the Court will not hold against you.
Are you going to be calling any witnesses this aferoon? Are
you going to be testifing? Or would you rather take a lunch break and
10 address that afer the lunch break? Because I think if you're going to -
1 1 whatever we're going to do here, well, it depends on what you're going to
1 2
do.
13
So, it's your time to present any evidence. Call your first
1 4 witness.
1 5 M COUGHLIN: Your Honor, the lunch break idea sounds
1 6 amenable to me, if it is with the Court.
1 7 THE COURT: Okay.
1 8
M4 COUGHLIN: And this might be inappropriate, Your Honor,
19 but I' m a little bit unsure of whether to what extent - i fI choose to testif,
20
can I testif to what I want to testif to, and then assert the Fifh
21 Amendment, or is it once you testif, you have to testif?
22 THE COURT: No, when you open the door, once you get up
23
and testif, the line of cases with use immunit, transactional use immunity
24 and derivative immunity, once you testif, you can't decide what you want
25 to testif to.
Page - 1 1 9-

1
You can decide what you want to testif to, but in my Court, I
2
give a great deal of leeway to all parties in terms of cross-examination, as
3
you've seen, and the City is free to ask a lot of questions, certainly not
4 irrelevant questions.
5
Mq COUGHLIN: So, it's matters testified to on direct, the City is
6 allowed to cross-examine?
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: That's correct.
M COUGHIN: But then they can't call me as their own witness
and ask me new matters that weren't -
THE COURT: That's a good question for the Court. I don't
really think it would really make a difference in this case, but that's a
question in this case, I' ll tell you the benefit of that will inure to you that if
you decide to testif, I will limit the City's cross-examination to simply
matters that you've testifed to, and nothing else, and I'll direct the
prosecutor to limit his questions to that fact.
Mw COUGHLIN: And when you state his questions in his cross,
did you also mean any direct that he might -
THE COURT: Well, I don't know ifhe's going to - he'll be
cross-examining you because you'll - if you decide to testif, your testimony
will act as direct examination. He will be able to cross-examine you with
leading questions. That's the benefit of cross-examination.
But that's a decision only you can make, and only you can
make alone. So, if you have any witnesses other than yourselfthat you
intend to call as a witness.
Page -1 20-

1
M. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I do, but I have to say I'm not
2
totally sure I served them with a subpoena. I believe I did with respect to
3
Oficer Chris Carter ofthe Reno PD, and Sergeant Monica Lopez. I believe
4
I did subpoena them, but I do want to tell the Court, I'm not absolutely sure.
5 THE COURT: Alright, well, I'll tell you what we're going to
6
do. It's 1 0 minutes to 12. Are you going to testif this aferoon, Mr.
7'
Coughlin, or do you need an hour to pause and reflect upon this decision?
8
M. COUGHLIN: It would - I'd prefer to have -
9 THE COURT: Alright, I'm going to give it to you again. For
1 0
the record, I' m going to give you the benefit ofthe doubt to allow you to
1 1 contemplate your legal options before we start Court.
1 2 And we'll start Court again at I :00. Does that work, Mr.
1 3 Hazlett- Stevens? Does that work, M. Coughlin?
1 4 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: I'll take care of my docket.
1 5 THE COURT: Okay, I would like everything started at 1 :00.
1 6
We'll be ready to go. I'd admonish and remind the witesses that you're
1 7
under oath. I a going to direct you not to discuss your testimony to
1 8 anybody outside the Courtroom.
1 9 MR. HILL: So we are to be back at 1 :OO?
20 THE COURT: You don't have to come back. You've testifed,
21
unless M. Coughlin intends to recall you as a witness, you don't need to be
22 back.
23
Mr. Coughlin, do you anticipate calling either M. Hill or Mr.
24
Baker back as witnesses? I can't imagine a reason you'd want to based on
25
Page -1 21 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7


the fact I seem to have all the evidence I need, but that's an opportunity I
will aford you.
M4 COUGHIN: Your Honor, I don't -
THE COURT: I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what I'm going to
do. You don't need to be back at 1 :00. If, for reasons unknown, the trial
develops in a manner that is unanticipated and your testimony becomes
relevant and necessary, I will afford M. Coughlin the opportunity to call
you back at that time.
M4 HILL: Your Honor, we're two blocks away.
T COURT: Thank you, Mr. Hill.
MR. HILL: We can be here i fve minutes.
THE COURT: I appreciate that very much. Mr. Baker, thank
you. M. Coughlin, we'll see you back at 1 :00 shar. Mr. Hazlett-Stevens,
thank you ver much.
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Are we going to be in Courtroom
B again, Judge.
THE COURT: We'll be (iriaudible). We'll be back here in B.
1 8 In fact, we are going to be back here i B. That's my order. You can leave
1 9
your stuffhere. We are going to secure the Courtroom so nobody - once
20 you guys leave the Courtroom, no one will come back in the Courtroom
21 without the company of Mr. Menzel!.
22 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Judge.
23 THE COURT: So, if there is anything you need to take at lunch,
24 take it. But everything will be secure in the Courtroom when we leave.
25 We'll be in recess until I :00. Thank you.
Page -1 22-


(Court in recess at 1 1 : 5
3
:04 a.m.)
(Court in session at I :02:48 p.m.)
I
2
3 THE COURT: Alright, M. Hazlett-Stevens, Mr. Coughlin have
4
a seat.
5 Gentlemen, we're back on the record in the case of City versus
6 Zachary Coughlin, 1 1CR26405.
7 This moring, the City rested its case in chief. M. Coughlin, I
8 gave you an hour at lunch to think about what you want to do. Do you want
9 do you have any witesses to call? Are you going to testif or are you not
1 0 going to testif?
1 1
M. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if! did subpoena them corectly,
1 2
which I'm no
'
t sure whether or not I did, I would like to call either Ofcer
1 3
Carter or Sergeant Lopez. I don't believe either of them are here.
THE COURT: Okay, well, that presents a problem. 14
1 5
1 6
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Yeah, not that the City is aware of.
THE COURT: Any other witnesses then if they're not here? Do
1 7 you have any witnesses that are here that you want to testif, call to the
1 8 stand, or any documentar evidence you'd like to present?
1 9
M. COUGHLIN: Is citations to relevant case law documentary
20 evidence?
2 1 THE COURT: I'll consider that. That's really not evidence that
22 I'm interested in hearing right now. Right now, I want to know if there are
23
any other live witnesses that you intend to call, or do you intend to testif?
24 M. COUGHLIN: r think I 'll testif, Your Honor, but tis case law
25
r mentioned, it's not real (inaudible) on landlord/tenant stuff. All it is, is the
Page - 123-


1 best cases I found speaking to situations where criminal trespas statutes are
2 applied, and to those subject to civil evictions.
3 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to ask that you
4 reserve that for argument. That sounds like argument to me.
5 THE COURT: Yeah, we'll address that in argument. There's
6
certainly some case law i Nevada. Mr. Hazlett-Stevens cited a case today
7
that the Supreme Court of Nevada has talked about the Fourth Amendment
8 issues and trespass issues afer evictions have been duly served, but we'll
9 deal with that at argument.
1 0 Right now, any witnesses you'd like to put on, or any
1 1 testimony - or do you want to testit?
1 2 MR. COUGHLIN: Ur, I do want to testit, Your Honor. It's pretty
1 3 narrow and limited.
1 4 TH COURT: Whether you testit or not, it's up to you. By
1 5

testiting, the City Attorey can cross-examine -you are open to cross-
1 6 examination by the City Attorey, and I' m not going to give you any
1 7
guidance as to what the questions are going to be. We're going to address
1 8 that on a case-by-case basis.
1 9 So, you don't get to make a decision to testit and then not
20
answer questions on cross-examination as if you would have some sort of
21 immunity.
22 So, by testiting and waiving your Fifh Amendment privilege,
23 you're going to be opening yourself to cross-examination, and we'll address
24
the questions on a question by question basis as we did this moring.
25
Page - 1 24-


1 Or you have the Fifh Amendment option of not testifing, but
2 you've got to let me know what you want to do, M. Coughlin. I've given
3 you an hour to think about it.
4 In addition, you've had really since May 8'h, six weeks to think
5 about the trial, but today you need to make that decision.
6 M. COUGHLIN: Then I won't, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 M. COUGHLIN: I'll refain from that.
9 THE COURT: That's your decision, and we respect tat. And I
1 0 will tell you, I will not hold that against you. I never hold it against anybody
1 1 who doesn't testif. It's an important Fifh Amendment privilege you have,
1 2 and I' ll respect that.
1 3 So, given the fact that you don't want to testif and subject
14
yourself to cross-examination, which is your right, do you have any other
1 5
documentary evidence, or witnesses you'd like to present? Or are we ready
1 6 to go to argument?
1 7
1 8
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: The City is ready, Judge.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin?
1 9 M. COUGHLIN: Other than the cites to this case law.
20 THE COURT: Now, I'm going to allow you to cite the case law
21
in argument and make whatever legal argument you want to make in closing.
22
But to make it very clear for the record, I'm hearing from you
23
there' s no witnesses here to testif, and you are desirous of invoking and
24
maintaining your Fifh Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, is
25 that correct?
Page -1 25-

1
M COUGHLIN: Yes, Your Honor, and with respect to any other
2
documentary, I would like to introduce the videos that were propounded to
3
me. I don't have them here, so if that prevents me from doing so.
4 TH COURT: That's a logistical problem if you don't have
5 them. Today is the day set for trial, and the time set for trial. So absent that,
6
I 'm going to consider the evidence portion of the case closed.
7
I' ll respect Mr. Coughlin's Fif Amendment privilege not to
8
testif, and based on that, there certainly will be no rebuttal given the fact
9 M. Coughlin offered no evidence, and I would open the matter now to
1 0
closing argument, starting with, of course, M. Hazlett-Stevens who has the
1 1 burden of proof, then giving M. Coughlin an opportunity to address the
12 facts and law, and then finish it up with Mr. Hazlett-Stevens.
1 3 So, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, go ahead.
14 BY M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 5
This case, I'll tell you, has been, frankly by the testimony
1 6
presented today, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge of Trespass
1 7 was proven by at least two diferent avenues in this case.
1 8
Mr. Coughlin was wared not to trespass, not to go on 1 21
1 9 River Rock, which is in the Cit of Reno, and he was wared at least fve
20 times by these people in all kinds of different manner.
21
He was wared originally when he was sent a 5-day and a 30-
22 day notice. They didn't want him on the property. They wanted him to quit.
23 They wanted him to leave the property. They sent those notices.
24
25
Page 1 26

1
He was noticed again on an additional 5-day notice sometime
2
later before the 1 0/25 proceeding where they sent another notice asking him
3 to leave the property.
4
Most importantly in this case, Your Honor, is the 1 0/25
5
hearing where Judge Sferrazza - where Judge Sferrazza announced in open
6 Court where M. Coughlin was present, that the eviction is ganted.
7
And I draw Your Honor's attention to City's 1 . IfI could find
8 that, I would -
9
THE COUT: Do you need a copy of it? I have it right here in
1 0
evidence.
1 1
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: No, it's in evidence, Your Honor.
1 2
And I'll draw your attention to the part that says, "Decision."
1 3
And it also says, "Matthew Merliss present, Casey Baker - represented by
1 4
Casey Baker," and then it also indicates Zachary Coughlin present.
1 5
And then I'll draw your attention to the decision where it says
1 6
"eviction granted effective October 31 st, 201 1, at 5:00 p.m."
1 7 That's what Judge Sferrazza announced in open Court with
1 8 Mr. Coughlin, according to M. Baker, listening, actively listening to the
1 9
Judge. He wasn't writing anything down, but he was actively listening to
20 the Judge when he announced that decision in open Court.
21 And you have the Order granting eviction right there.
22
Now, there was another issue whether or not the proceedings
23
were stayed pending some sort of appeal, but that Motion to Stay was also
24 denied in the October 25
t
h, 201 1 , hearing. And you'll see in City's 1, it
25
Page -1 27-


I
actually says, "Tenant's verbal motion to stay, denied." The case was over
2 at that point.
3
Then, M. Baker drafed up the Findings of Facts, Conclusions
4
of Law, and Order of Summary Eviction. That was provided to you as
5
City's 2. That was also emailed to M. Coughlin. There's another notice
6 that they don't want him here. They want him off the property. They
7
waed him to be of the property as of October 31 st at 5:00 p.m.
8 This Order of Eviction specifies that M. Coughlin, excuse me,
9
the tenant of the property or anyone thereon, is to be out of the property no
1 0 earlier than October 3 1 st, 201 1 , at 5:00 p.m., just as announced in open Court
II on 1 0125.
1 2
So, Mr. Baker emailed that document to Mr. Coughlin as a
1 3
courtesy, I imagine. And then what happens next? On November 1, 201 1,
1 4 1 2 days before the trespass in this case, M. Hill executes a Notice of Entry
1 5
of Order and sends that to M. Coughlin' s last known address, as he would
1 6
normally do in his course of business, i s send a Notice of Entr of Order.
1 7
And what does he attach to that? The Findings of Facts,
1 8 Conclusions of Law, and Order of Su ary Eviction.
1 9
What does M. Coughlin do in response to that? 1 2 days,
1 3
20
days afer M. Coughlin was evicted from that property, pursuant to Judge
21
Sferrazza's Order of Eviction, he's found on the property by M. Hill.
22
In fact, Mr. Hill testifes he sees him walk up the stairs from
23
the basement, walk in the living room into -or in the kitchen into the living
24
room. He's at the house afer he's been evicted fom the property. That is a
25 criminal trespass, Your Honor.
Page -1 28-


1 He's been waed many times that they do not want him there,
2 and yet, he's there on the property afer being formally evicted, afer going
3
through all of the Court proceedings, and that doesn't keep him out. He
4 goes back afer all of this.
5 There's another issue here too, Your Honor. The City argues
6
that anyone that goes on the property and "lives in the property" was found
7
in his pajamas, his night - a shirt, slippers, his dog downstairs, is living at
8 that property with the intent of vexing or annoying the owners of that
9
property. Because that is vexing and annoying afer they go through all the
1 0
legal proper procedures, pursue this case in Court, fnally afer days of test -
1 1
or afer a fll day of testimony and argument. And then on 1 0/25, finally
1 2 geting an Order of Eviction, he goes back to the house.
1 3
That is indicia of vexing or annoying the owners of that
1 4 property afer this huge legal battle. That' s not even enough.
1 5
Then you have M. Baker testif that well, he was at the Court
1 6 proceeding, or excuse me, he was at the eviction, the lockout he called it, on
1 7
November 1 st, 201 1 , where he saw the Sheriff, the Washoe County Sheriff,
1 8
tape onto the front door, City's 2, Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law,
1 9 Order of Eviction. They tape it onto the front door.
20
But that's not all that happens. There's a locksmith there as
21
well. The locksmith goes about to change or rekey the locks, both the front
22
door and the back door, so that no one can enter that property.
23
In fact, his testimony was that afer a question, "Could the
24
person with the key previously have entered that afer he rekeyed?" "No."
25 That' s the idea. You lock them out.
Page -129-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
{
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25


And so he recalls that he was given the new set of keys. There
was no way in that property other than some kind of forced entry, or illegal
entry at that point, fankly. That's enough of a waing right there. We
don't want you. We're locking you out. The Court says we can lock you
out. We're locking you out.
How many warings does Mr. Coughlin need? That was a
huge waing. He has to enter some other way. His key wouldn't work
anymore, so in order to get in that property, he had to enter that propert
having been locked out. That shows an intent to vex or annoy the owners, as
well, of the waing, not to trespass, not to be on that property, and being on
that propert.
Now, there isn't a lot of case law as you might imagine in
Nevada, Your Honor, with regard to reentering property afer being evicted,
and whether that's a criminal trespass. There is that one case I did
announce, and that was State v. Nichols, 1 06 Nev. 651 , where the Court did
say, "Reentr afer eviction is a trespass." It's a trespass. They can't be any
clearer than that. It's a tespass. That's what the Court said. And we agee.
It's a trespass.
There is case law in other jurisdictions, most of it unpublished,
Your Honor, because as you might imagine, these are pretty benig matters
that go through the criminal justice process.
But there was one case out in Nashville, Tennessee, the Court
of Criminal Appeals. This was a published decision, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App.
Lexus 1 002, where the Court did find that afer being served a Notice of
Eviction afer remaining on the property afer being evicted, the person was
Pae -130-


1
subject to criminal trespass penalties. The jury had sufcient evidence to
2 actually fnd that person criminally trespassed.
3 So, this isn't anything new. This is actually what's happening
4 out in the country, and this is just one case that I could fnd that was a
5
published opinion on just this. Here, I'll just provide it to you.
6 THE COURT: And just for the record, is there a cite or a name
7 on that Tennessee case?
8 M. HAZLETI-STEVENS: Yes, Your Honor.
9
THE COURT: Just because we've run into this.
1 0 M. HAZLETI-STEVENS: Certainly, it's Tennessee v. Lovins
1 1
(inaudible), L-O-V-I-N-S, and I'll say it slowly, it's 2009, Tenn., T-E-N-N,
1 2 period, Crim, period, App. , A-P-P, period, Lexus, 1002.
1 3 THE COURT: Okay, thank you.
1 4 BY M. HAZLETI-STEVENS:
1 5
And, Judge, I think based on all of the evidence presented with
1 6
M. Hill having authority provided to him by M. Merliss to evict, to have
17
M. Coughlin leave that propert, and going through all the proper channels
1 8
to have him leave that property - they didn't use self-help in this case. They
1 9
went through the summary eviction proceeding a they were supposed to do.
20
And yet, afer they've noticed him, they've wared him,
21
they've asked him not to be on the property by many different avenues, he
22
still is on the property. And I think they were lef to no other remedy than to
23
call the police and have him arrested for criminal trespass, and that's
24
pursuant to 8 1 0.01 0, trespassing statute of the Reno Municipal Code.
25 Ta you, Judge.
Page - 1 31 -


1 THE COURT: Thank you, M. Hazlett-Stevens. M. Coughlin,
2 closing argument?
3 M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
4 BY M COUGHLIN:
5
I actually came across that Lovins case, too. I don't know that
6 it quite says what M. Hazlett-Stevens purports it to say, but it's impressive
7 that he found that nonetheless.
8 I found a number of cases that do speak to just this situation.
9
I' ll quickly cite to them. Not all of them, I believe, are entirely positive fom
1 0
my point of view, but I believe the vast majority of them are given the public
1 1 policy behind.
1 2 I'm trying to avoid situations where you're evicting someone,
1 3
and that's tough enough, but then when you go and you pile on criminal
1 4
prosecution on top of it, and maybe like in this case, you pile on a forced
1 5 rent escrow deposit that's contrary to Nevada law, and the Court failing to
1 6 give back that money, while at the same time, apparently requiring the
1 7 commercial tenant who was evicted in a su ary proceeding for non-
1 8
payment of rent was not alleged, contrary to Nevada law again. I know I'm
1 9
running on with this sentence, but there's just a lot of stuff that went on here
20
that adds up to a pretty tough set of circumstances that the Legislature
21
actually enacted laws to prevent, but unfortunately, maybe it's due to my
22
poor legal work, maybe it's due to Judge Sferrazza's court having limited
23
jurisdiction having to deal with too broad of a subject matter. God knows it
24 would be difcult to do all the work that he does do.
25
Page -1 32-


1
But Steele v. State, Steele with an "E" on the end, 1 32 - and
2
Your Honor, I can give this to the Court so to avoid anyone - if you need to
3
write it down. But for the record, Steele v. State, 1 32, N.E. 739 at 740.
4 State v. Peers, 41 7 A.2d 1 085. Reed v. Comm, 366 S.E. 2d
5
275. There is an Aw Jur. Section, 75 Aw Jur. 2d trespass, section 87,
6 that's fairly relevant.
7 The case Lynn v. Desiderio, 1 59. Fed. App. 382. Dawson v.
8
State, 52 Indiana 478. Myers v. State, 1 30 N.E. 1 16. Charles S Downy v.
9
S&D Liquor, 880 N.E. 2d 322. And just quickly, Houston, 647 N.E. 2d 1 6.
1 0 State v. Johnson, Higgins v. Penoscot, In The Matter ofMaricopa, 942 P.2d
1 1 477, and finally Ken v. Wood, 275 S.2d. 60.
1 2 Those cases largely speak to what the public policy rationale
1 3 underlining my position that wherever possible a criminal eviction statute
14 should not be applied incident to a civil eviction, the criminal trespass
1 5 incident to a civil eviction.
1 6 Now, obviously, there's got to be some reasonable place to
17 draw the line. Some (inaudible) will not leave. They just keep (inaudible)
1 8
the Court' s authority. I guess a contempt order could be issued, a Motion to
1 9 Show Cause.
20
There's a number ofthings, and maybe somewhere way down
21
the line, sure a criminal trespass arrest, or a citation. I would hope not what
22
happened here, three days in jail, a custodial arrest, and all that's attendant to
23 that.
24
Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, in his closing argument, cited to a lot of
25
emails that I don't believe were introduced into the record. At least not
Page -133-


1
today. I could be wrong. They might have been somewhere i there, but it
2
was kind of curious because he mentioned a number ofthese warings
3 occurred in these emails, yet, they are not intoduced as exhibits herein.
4 Perhaps that's due to the fact that the opposing attoreys were
5
waed that email would not be a valid means of serving notice of anything.
6 And that was done because the speeding nature of these
7
summar eviction proceedings is fast enough as is. Mr. Hill's law firm
8
seemed to continually attempt to speed it up even more by sering things
9 through email.
1 0
The Legislature i n NS 40.253 has explicitly provided that for
1 1 commercial tenants it is against the law to use a summary eviction
1 2
proceeding to evict them unless the non-payment of rent is alleged.
1 I take that to mean the Legislature saying look, it's hard.
1 4
We're a pro-business state. It's hard enough to succeed in business. We
1 5
don't want people being summarily evicted unless they're just not paying
1 6 their rent.
1 7
If they're paying their rent, and they have - and the landlord
1 8
just wants them out for some other reason, well, they're going to have to do
1 9 it a little bit slower.
20
Now, there was testimony today that the rent was being -was
21
not being paid. However, that's not what was served. That's not what was
22 ftIed. That's not what was litigated.
23
M. Hill and his client chose to litigate it a certain way for
24
legitimate reasons. They chose not to allege the non-payment of rent. They
25
could say it's because I'm making up stuff. They could say it's because I'm
Page -1 34-

I
-what was the term he used? I forget, but Mr. Baker used a term, and I
2
queried him on it. They could say all that, and they've said that about just
3 about everything I've ever uttered.
4
You know, I'm kind ofa Yosemite Sam cartoon villain as far
5
as they put it. Everything I do or say is just ridiculous, I'm crazy, I'm a
6
charlatan, fraud, and all this. Well, that's their position, but to me, it dilutes
7
itself. They don't ever mix in a little bit of ''well you got a point there" once
8 in a while.
9
There was a lot of evidence put on in this summary eviction.
1 0
They spent $60 grand litigating this so to say it was totally baseless and I put
1 1 on no evidence, yet their fees of $60 gand were legitimate and appropriate
1 2
and they should be compensated for them is to me, trying to have it both
1 3 ways.
1 4
If my case was so baseless and groundless and vexatious, I
1 5
would think they could have brought it home for something less than $60
1 6 gand.
1 7
In Nevada, under - and I know this isn't speaking to the real
1 8
reason we're here, the criminal trespass, but in Nevada there's a case called
1 9
Aitkens in the landlord/tenant context which provides that the procedural
20 notice requirements, and it's A-I-T-K-E-N-S, the procedural notice
21
requirements within the context of eviction proceedings, particularly within
22
summary eviction proceedings, must be strictly adhered to.
23
The policy rationale underlying, that is that given the privacy
24
of one's home ,or business, and in my case, both the home ofce, is so
25
important that the law really needs to strictly adhere to them. Similar to
Page - 1 35-

1 what the Nevada Supreme Court has reinterpreted the Foreclosure Mediation
2 Statute to be whereas the Legislature might have said you need substantial
3 compliance with it, and the Nevada Supreme Court said, "No, we're going
4
to say you need strict compliance with it." Well, that's somewhat of an
5 analogy in what goes on in these eviction matters.
6
I believe there is a couple quasi 60(b) basis for challenging the
7
validity of any - to the extent this Court views te Eviction Order as a
8
waing, which I think is kind of the big inquir here. Maybe not, but to me,
9 it seems like it's possibly what the case could come down to.
1 0 To the extent the Court does consider a valid Eviction Order
1 1
appropriately served, a waing suficient to satisf the criminal trespass
1 2 statute, I believe there is a couple 60(b) like basis to challenge that Order.
1 3 One is brought up by M. Loomis, who so astutely pointed out
1 4 that under the McManley case there was a Notice of Appeal fled in the
1 5 interim between the initial October 1 3t hearing, and then the October 25t
1 6 trial.
1 7 M. HLETT-STEVENS: Judge, this is getting into
1 8 testimony - or evidence that's not in testimony, testimony that's not in
1 9 evidence rather. It's not there about any appeal taken.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin?
21 MR. COUGHIN: Well, I believe Mr. Loomis -
22 THE COURT: Your argument is limited to the facts that were
23 produced today at trial.
24 MR. COUGHLIN: Just today, not what Mr. Loomis -
25
Page -1 36-

1 THE COURT: That's correct, today's trial. So to that extent,
2
the objection - and I try to give parties a great deal of leeway in closing
3 argument, but when you start getting far afield of what was argued,
4 presented via facts of the trial, that's not proper argument.
5 M COUGHLIN: Okay, and I thought it was part of the record at
6 this point. And ifit's not too late, I'd object to the notice by email that was
7 intoduced. THE COURT: Okay, go ahead.
8 BY M COUGHLIN:
9 Beyond tat 60(b) basis, I believe there is an additional basis
1 0 in that -there is a couple. I think under the ANVUI, A-N-V-U-I-E-
I I
A-N-V-U-I, which is kind of the main Nevada case on summary evictions of
1 2
commercial tenants. That was a restaurant in Vegas doing a lot of business,
1 3 like $500K a month or something, and they got evicted, and it went to the
1 4 Nevada Supreme Court, and a lot of litigation was done over that.
1 5 And the holding, the take home holding fom that was that it's
1 6 basically a summary judgent standard in the summary eviction
1 7
proceedings. The tenant merely needs to present a material issue of law or
1 8
fact to beat a summary judgment motion. If they do that, the Court may do
1 9 nothing frther, and it has to go on to a (inaudible) unlawfl detainer
20 approach. Served, 20 days to respond, discovery, all that.
2 1
So, my position would be that there's a 60(b) basis for viewing
22 this - any summary eviction order, as void in that I was a licensed attorey,
23
at that time, at least, and I held that out as my law ofce. I fled a tenant's
24
afdavit that I was a commercial tenant. I pled that. Mr. Hill testifed today
25 that he wasn't aware of that, and he didn't consider it a particular
Page -137-


consideration, for his neurosurgeon client who had spent $60 grand on this.
2 That's where I'm at the analogy of the wrong side legal surgery, because I
3 think it could wind up potentially being fairly important to his client if it's
4 proven that a wrongful eviction occured.
5 If it's proven that yes, I did present a (inaudible) issue of
6
material fact, that this was a commercial tenancy, and to the extent judicial
7 notice could be taken that i was merely a No-Cause Eviction Notice that
8 was pursued and that non-payment of rent was not alleged, then this could
9 be problematic, and Mr. Hill might wish he had considered that point
1 0
whether this was a commercial tenancy, and I ' m not subject to su ary
1 1 eviction proceedings in 40.253, and (inaudible) pay my rent as alleged as
1 2 being in fact very important.
1 3
Just some ancillary factual considerations. The main summary
14 eviction statute in Nevada is NRS 40.253. It's about this long. It's 8 to 9
1 5 subsections, and that's just kind of the procedural mechanisms of that. It's
1 6
mixed in there with the construction defect and Chapter 40 and some other
1 7 stuf.
1 8 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, how does this all relate to the
1 9 case? We're getting really far afield on these eviction issues when we're
20 here on a tespassing case. So let' s try to keep our focus limited to this
21 crminal case, and the trespassing issues raised in this hearing.
22 BY M. COUGHLIN:
23
Yes, Your Honor. I guess the reason I' m going into this one,
24
my position is I' m not guilty. But if you are reading some guilt into this, I
25 think there are some mitigating factors that the Court might consider.
Page - 1 38-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25


If that's appropriate, I could go into those briefly.
TH COURT: Well, I'm not going to - I just want you to limit
your argument to testimony that was presented here this moring on the
trespassing statute. That's what M. Hazlett-Stevens did, and that's what
I'm asking you to do.
M. COUGHLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: I doesn't mean you have to be up here for an
hour talking, and necessarily more isn't necessarily better. But if you focus
in on the legal issues and identif them during your closing argument and
why they support your position that you're not guilty, that would be helpfl.
BY M. COUGHLIN:
Okay, the charge is RMC 8 10.040. I believe that the specific
language -
T COURT: Section 810. 010.
M. COUGHLIN: Oh, it's 01 0, okay.
THE COURT: Just for the record.
M. COUGHLIN: Okay, I believe that the exact language is failure
to leave the premises afer being waed to do so.
It doesn't say failure to leave the premises afer kind of having
an Eviction Notice served, according to the procedures ofthe Washoe
County Sheriff, maybe, but maybe not according to the NRCP that's ruled
expressly applicable to civil evictions under NRS 40.258.
It doesn't say that. It says, "Failure to leave the premises afer
being waed to do so." So, what do we have when we have somebody
evicted, and they need to go get their mail for a couple days? Are we going
Page - 1 39-


1
to go arrest them when they go into their mailbox ad get that social security
2
check? Are we going to charge them with criminal trespass there? Or are
3
we going to say, "Hey you need to leave," and if they don't leave, then
4 maybe consider that because that's what the precedent would be here today
5
is anybody who is evicted who's found on the property and is unfortunate
6
enough to have Richard Hill roll up and call the police and do what took
7
place here, is going to not only be facing an eviction, wherein they might
8
have also been subject to an impermissible rentescrow deposit, in that the
9
Reno Justice Court is not allowed to do that, unless they pass a rule like Las
1 0 Vegas Justice Court Rule 44.
1 1
In order to do so, they have to publish it and get it approved by
1 2
the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court let Las Vegas
1 3
implement such a rent/escrow requirement i n their Justice Cout Rules
1 4
because it's Las Vegas. It's crazy. I went to law school there. They have to
1 5
make some crazy rules to deal with the transiency of that community. I love
1 6
Las Vegas. Don't get me wrong. But I can understand why the Court would
1 7
say, "Alright, normally, we're not going to allow these forced rent escrow
1 8 deposits to tenats in a sua eviction setting."
1 9
But because it's Las Vegas, and otherwise it would be too hard
20
to be a landlord, we're going to let you implement Rule 44.
21 Now, Justice Court Rule 84 says before a Justice Court can
22
implement such a rule like that, they have to get it approved by the Nevada
23 Supreme Court.
24
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, we're getting way out again.
25 MR. COUGHLIN: Alright.
Page -140-


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
THE COURT: I mean, (inaudible) State v. McNichols, the
Nevada Supreme Court case in 1990 clearly indicated that someone who has
been evicted from the property and subsequently reenters the property is
guilty of trespass.
M. COUGHLIN: Is that a casino case though?
THE COURT: A resident where someone lost their home in
foreclosure, went back on the propert, eviction was served, and then there
was ultimately an arrest made on the property for the crime of narcotics.
M. COUGHLIN: For a crime of narcotics?
THE COURT: Although the Supreme Court has said subsequent
1 1 reentry is a trespass.
1 2 M. COUGHLIN: Afer the eviction?
1 3 THE COURT: Afer being evicted.
14 M. COUGHLIN: The eviction was --
1 5 THE COURT: Afer being evicted and having the owners
16 change the locks.
1 7
M. COUGHLIN: Afer the eviction was served you said.
1 8 THE COURT: Then why don't you focus in -no, I didn't say
1 9
that. I said afer an eviction. Why don't you focus in on the relevant issues
20 so we're not here for the next three hours talking about things that are
21 irrelevant.
22 M. COUGHIN: Okay, but I did, Your Honor, hear you say the
23 & word "served."
24 THE COURT: I said subsequent reentry was a trespass afer an
25 eviction process. Three and four days notices of an unlawful detainer were
Page -1 41 -


I
served as present order of summa eviction. So, if you think that there's a
2 defense there, that's what you should focus in on.
3
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir. I do think there is, and especially under
4 the Aitken case that I mentioned earlier requiring that strict adherence.
5 There was not appropriate service here. And, in fact, M. Hill
6
in his pleadings struggles to point to some rule somewhere that says, "Yeah,
7
that's appropriate. That satisfies the standard having the Sheriff post it on
8 the door."
9
In fact, if one really looks into the Anvui restaurant summary
10
eviction case, there is a strong argument that Hill, et aI., were not allowed to
1 1 effectuate this lock out for at least five days.
1 2
Furthermore, and the Court was holding $2,275.00 of my
1 3
money. Given that under 1 1 8(a).380, a supercedes bond is only $250.00.
1 4 There is a very strong argument that this -
1 5
THE COURT: What does that have to do with this case? You
1 6
are going nowhere with helping the Court when you get off on these
1 7
tangents about the specifcs of the Justice Court. You do make some
1 8
headway when you talk about the service of the eviction proceedings, so if
1 9
you want to focus on that and limit i t to that, that would be fine. But you are
20
just geting way out there, and it's also, I think, outside the course and scope
21 of the evidence presented today at the trial.
22
M. COUGHLIN: So, is it not something this Court considers
23 whether or not something is void under 60(b)4?
24 TH COURT: I' m not going to give any legal advice durng
25
closing argument, M. Coughlin. You know as a lawyer that's inappropriate.
Page -142-


1 I'm just saying that you are getting far afield on your arguments based on the
2 evidence.
3 M. COUGHLIN: Well, I feel I'm trying to make relevant
4 arguments that point out that --
5 T COURT: I'm telling you they're not that relevant, at least
6 to this Judge.
7 M. COUGHLIN: Well, but I didn't get to say much about the
8 supercedes bond, and the fact that the Court took 1 0 times what it was, and
9 didn't give me a stay.
1 0 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: And, Judge, I' m going to object to
1 1 that because that's not testimony that's presented here at trial today.
1 2 THE COURT: Tat's not even the testimony. I didn't even hear
1 3 anything about a supercedes bond until just about two seconds ago.
1 4 M. COUGHLIN: It's in my motions on file in the record.
1 5 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 6 I'm going to object.
Those are not evidence, Judge.
1 7 TH COURT: Let's move forward with the argument, M.
1 8 Coughlin. Mr. Hazlet-Stevens' objection is sustained.
1 9
M. COUGHLIN: Okay. I believe it is NRS 40.280, but it is
20
somewhere in NRS 40 that specifcally incorporates NRCP or applies NRCP
21
to service requirements, just in general, to these landlord/tenant matters to
22 the extent the subject matter has been spoken to already in the
23 landlord/tenant statute.
24 So, when you want to know how you serve somebody, it's not
25 set forth in the landlord/tenant statute, which it's not, you go to NRCP,
Page 1 43


1 Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. And if you can't serve somebody in
2 person, personally served, and I ask that you take judicial notice that
3 personally served means handing something to someone in person. Because
4
the Washoe County Sherif doesn't view it that way. They think posting
5 something on the door, ad they've told me tis.
6 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to object. Him
7 telling - it's hearsay that wasn't even provided in testimony.
8 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, I don't know if you're hearing
9 what I'm saying here. You are getting so far afield that it's undermining and
1 0 eroding your argument.
1 1 MR. COUGHLIN: Well, I heard you say that I should focus on --
1 2 THE COURT: I' m not tell you what to say. You need to stay
1 3 focused and comment only on evidence that was related this moring.
14 MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
1 5 THE COURT: And when you rehash it for the fifh and sixth
1 6 time, it loses it's value and punch. I mean, afer awhile you make your
1 7 argument, there's nothing else to be said. I mean, a good lawyer knows
1 8
when to sit down afer making an argument instead of droning on and
1 9 droning on, I mean, forever.
20
At some point, the aguent is made and the information is
2 1 digested, and then it becomes to be noise.
22 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
23 THE COURT: You've made some valid points. I've heard
24
them. But I don't need to hear them ten times. I heard a lot of stuff this
25 moring over and over and over.
Page -144-


1 M. COUGHLIN : Yes, Your Honor, and I'll just conclude with
2 stating that there was no waing to leave the premises.
3 There was no failure to heed a waing to leave the premises.
4 Perhaps it's a matter of Mr. Hill just jumped the gun and called the police a
5 little too soon, and he would have been better off saying, "You need to
6
leave," and then getting that refsal to leave, and then call the police.
7 But as it occurred, there simply was no waing to leave the
8
premises. A Eviction Order, even if appropriately served, and I don't
9 believe it was here, prior to the lockout, is not a waring under all those
1 0 cases, or at least a majority of those cases that I cited to you, sufcient to
1 1 sustain a criminal trespass prosecution.
1 2 Ta you, Your Honor.
1 3 THE COURT: Thank you, and I appreciate you zooming in on
14 that because I think that's a good issue.
1 5 M. Hazlett-Stevens, would you like to fmish up?
1 6 BY M. HALETT-STEVENS:
1 7
That's right, Your Honor. That's the crux of the issue in this
1 8 case.
1 9
M. Coughlin restates or limits RMC 8 1 0.01 0 just a little bit,
20 and improperly. There' s many ways to get a trespas under the law, Your
21
22
Honor.
M. Coughlin said you had to be waed and remain on the
23
propert in order to get a trespass, but that's not the only way to have a
24
criminal trespass under statute. There are three ways under Subsection A.
25
Page -145-

1 If you go on the propert with the intent to vex or annoy
2
someone, you've committed a criminal trespass. That's it, right there.
3
There' s another part of the statute that says if you go or remain
4 on the property afer being waed not to trespass, you are guilty of a
5 trespass.
6 So, it is the case that sometimes, and we see these all the time
7
in casino cases, where the casino security is saying, "You leave the
8 propert." And they say, "No, I'm not leaving the propert," or they do
9 some other gesture that indicates they're refsing to leave the property.
1 0 That's a criminal trespass.
1 1
But if you go onto the property afer being waed not to go on
1 2
the propert, that's also a trespass. He was waed so many times by them
1 3 personally, by Mr. Hill and Mr. Baker, through notices, through Judge
1 4
Sferrazza that he was evicted from the property, and then through a Notice
1 5 of Entry of Order.
1 6
I don't know how many other ways they could have possibly
1 7
done this. Are they required to war him when they actually go on the
1 8
propert 1 3 days later, and he's still living on the property? I don't think so.
1 9
I think they're well within their rights to call the police, and say, "Hey, we
20
got this guy evicted, and he's still on our property." That's a valid arest.
21
Now, we're not here to talk about the public policy, Your
22
Honor, about whether it's advisable, whether it's a good idea to arrest
23
someone who's been evicted fom the propert. That's not why we're here.
24
We're not here to have you decide whether that's good public policy or not.
25
Pae -1 46-


1 We're here to have you decide whether there was a criminal
2 trespass under RMC. You might not think so, or you might think so, but
3 that's why we're here. We're not here to set public policy precedent about
4
trespassing people who have been evicted for various reasons, or foreclosed
5 upon, or anything like that. We're not here to do that.
6
With regard to all ofthe issues Mr. Coughlin brought up in
7 regard to commercial residence, commercial property, notices, whether or
8 not they can take summar eviction proceedings against a commercial
9 tenant, this is not the proper forum to decide that issue.
1 0 That, Mr. Coughlin, had an opportunity to address in front of
1 1 Judge Sferrazza, in his appeal in front of Judge Flanagan, which you actually
1 2 did hear in evidence today. That matter is appealed, and Judge Flanagan
\ 3 already denied the appeal.
14 That issue should have been litigated in the proper jurisdiction.
1 5 The issue here is simple. He was evicted from his property a announced in
1 6 open Court by Judge Sferrazza. He was provided a copy ofthe Notice.
1 7
Regardless, it was announced by Judge Sferrazza, "You are evicted a of
1 8 October 3 1s at 5:00 p.m."
1 9 That's enough right there. Right there. Ifhe was on that
20 property afer October 3 1 s, 201 1 , afer 5 :00 p.m., he is criminally
21 trespassing on that property either by an intent to vex or annoy the other
22 litigants in that party, or by being waed not to come on that propert, and
23 going on that property pursuant to statute.
24
I think the Cit has proven its case based on those two
25 theories, and I'll submit it beyond that. Thank you.
Page - 147-


1 THE COURT: Thank you ver much. Alright --
2 M. COUG: Your Honor, could I?
3 THE COURT: No, we're done. That's it. You know how it
4
works. The prosecutor goes frst, you go second, they finish up. They have
5 the burden of proof. That's it. No more argument. That's very clear.
6
Alright, let me just make a couple comments here. Both
7
parties have identifed - there's numerous issues here. The big issue is the
8
waing. Under our statute, both 207.200, and RC 810.0lD, the part - it
9
doesn't even talk about the vex or annoy, the party who goes or remains,
1 0
either one, M. Hazlett-Stevens pointed that out, into any building afer
1 1
being waed by the owner or the occupant, ad the owners and occupants
12
can be agents with ostensible, actual or implied authority, and certainly M.
1 3
Hill and M. Baker had that authority. That's clearly established by the
1 4 evidence.
1 5
I f you go back onto that propert afer having been wared,
1 6 you are guilt of a trespass, and I guess the question is what is a waing?
1 7
And unlike many areas in the law, it's not defined under the trespassing
1 8 ordinance, or the trespassing statute. It's a notice requirement.
1 9
And the real issue in this case -there's a number of issues, but
20
I do - there's no question, M. Coughlin, that you were on propert that
21
belonged to another at 1 21 River Rock on November 1 3th, and that's in the
22 City of Reno, and there' s no question about that.
23
The question is, what tpe of waing did you have? You had
24
so many types of waings, it's hard to fgure out which one is the best.
25
Page 148


1 First of all, the first waing -and by the way, when we talk
2 about waring here, when you look at the statute under state law or the
3
Municipal Code, both the Legislature and the City Council have given some
4 guidace tat indicate for some occupants they've got sufcient waing if
5
the property is posted in a conspicuous manner in intervals of not less than
6 700 feet.
7 So, something as broad as that is sufcient waing under our
8 trespass statute. And the statute goes on to say it's prima facia evidence of a
9
trespass if the property is posted or fenced on a propert. That's prima facia.
1 0 So, the question is did you have notice? Did you have some
1 1 sort of waing not to be on that property, and here's what the Court has
1 2 determined.
1 3 You received some kind of mild notice, and a waring when
14 you were given a 5-day notice and a 30-day notice. Probably in and of itself,
1 5 probably not enough to support a trespassing fi
n
ding.
1 6
But at two separate hearings in October of201 1 , on the 1 3
th
17
and the 25
t
h, where you were present in Court, there can be no question that
1 8
the issue is whether or not the owner of that property wanted you on that
19 propert more, or should you be on that property.
20
Then, right in open Court, Judge Sferraza evicted you fom
21 the property. He followed that up with a written Eviction Decision ad
22
Order clearly indicating that you were evicted, and that the stay was denied.
23
So, I don't know what - that would be what I call super notice, or super
24 waing, coming from the Judge himself.
25
Pae -1 49-


1 It's ofen the situation we never get that kind of waing. So
2 not only did you get a waring, you got an Order from the Judge that you
3 were evicted fom the property. That was then posted on the font door of a
4 propert that you had been i and retured to on November p
t
, 2012 (sic)
5 the day it was posted.
6 There was a copy lef on a coffee table later at some point in
7
time afer Mr. Hill had entered the property ad realized that there had been
8 someone in the property.
9
You were emailed. Whether or not you received that email, I
1 0
don't know, but there was at least another attempt to email you at an address
1 1
to which you had responded, and to an address, an email address, to which
1 2
you had responded that you would not accept emails on your - as notice.
l 3
Finally, you were mailed a Notice of Entry of Judgment to 1 21
1 4
River Rock. I'm sure - I would guess you didn't get that, but the parties
1 5 here did everything possible to provide you notice, to provide you waing,
1 6 and you had actual notice, you had constructive notice, tat you shouldn't be
1 7 on that property.
1 8
The State of Nevada and the Supreme Court decision which
1 9
Mr. Hazlett-Stevens quoted this moring and I have in front of me, State v.
20 McNichols, \ 06 Nev. 651 , clearly, clearly, says that afer someone has been
21 evicted, a subsequent reentry in the property is a trespass.
22
A trespass reentry is what the Supreme Court called it, did not
23 create an objective of that expectation of privacy.
24
So, that's just te frst section. That's been proved beyond any
25
doubt. There's no question that portion of the statute has been proved.
Page -1 50-


1 And I would also submit that M. Hazlett-Stevens is correct.
2
And afer going back on that property numerous occasions, seting up a
3 residence with your pet in the basement, constitutes a separate basis
4
independent from the notice requirement that you went on to that property
5 with the intent to vex or annoy the owner.
6 So, under any theory set forth by the City, I find you guilt of
7 the charge of Trespassing. We can proceed to sentencing.
8 Mr. Hazlett-Stevens?
9 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 0 you know, I think the --
Thank you, Your Honor. I'll let
II T COUT: I've indicated before there will be no jail. There
1 2 will be no suspended sentence. That's been part of my ruling and that will
1 3 not happen in today's case.
14 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: And I've already announced that
1 5 on the record, too, that the City is not going to be pursuing any sort of jail
1 6 time, whether suspended or actual in this case. I don't think it's appropriate.
17
I think we all should know the value of our diferent cases that we have.
1 8
I'm going to ultimately submit sentencing to you, Judge,
1 9
because I'll tell you, fom the City's perspective, the problem is (inaudible)
20 by M. Coughlin's arrest.
21 So, based on that, I'm submitting to you. Whatever you decide
22 in this case, and putting time served, would be okay with the City.
23 TH COUT: I don't believe there has been any other issue
24 since tis issue. This problem is not recurring, and we have no reason to
25 believe M. Coughlin is headed back to that property, correct?
Pae - 1 51 -


1 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: That's exactly right, Your Honor.
2 T COURT: M. Coughlin, anything you'd like to say? I
3 noticed you have $3 1 0 cash bail posted. As I indicated, a suspended
4 sentence or any jail sentence at all will not be issued by this Court.
5 So, anything you'd like to say in terms of sentencing?
6 MR. COUGHIN: Well, Your Honor, I mean, there' s things I'd like
7
to point to as mitigating factors, but to the extent -by sentencing, maybe I
8 don't -
9 TH COURT: I can sentence you. I'm telling you right now,
1 0
part of my jurisdiction is up to 6 months in jail, up to a $2,000, stike that, up
1 1
to a $1 ,000 fne, up to two years probation, and up to 200 hours community
1 2 service.
1 3 I will not be putting you on probation. That means there will
1 4
be no jail. I' m not putting you on probation anyway, but with a suspended
1 5
sentence of a fne, there will be no jail. So, we're looking at a fme and/or
1 6 community service and/or time served.
1 7
So, we have $3 1 0 posted, and the question is what sentence
1 8 should I impose? Should I give you community service? Should I not?
1 9 Should I fine you in excess of up to $1 ,000? Should I not? What would be
20
the appropriate sentence? There are mitigating circumstances, as pointed
21 out by the prosecutor, that you have not been back to the property and I
22
consider that a very mitigating circumstance. I'm open to any areas in terms
23 of what sentence you think would be appropriate here.
24
M COUGHIN: Well, Your Honor, things that I consider
25 mitigating circumstance, and if this Court doesn't, I don't.
Page - 1 52-


1 THE COURT: Well, I don't know what they are until you
2 mention them to me, but I'm all ears.
3
M. COUGHLIN: Okay, Nevada law does not allow for forced
4
rent/escrow deposit that is ten times the amount - at all to a summar
5
eviction litigant, much less one that is ten times the amount one would need
6 to put up to get a stay of eviction where the rent is less than a grand.
7
THE COURT: How would that relate to what I just said, in
8
terms of what I could impose, whether it's community service or fmes?
9 How would that relate to that argument?
1 0 M. COUGHIN: Because this wrecked my life.
1 1
THE COURT: Okay.
1 2
MR. COUGHLIN: In a ver real way. And not just my life. It
1 3 wrecked a lot ofpeople's lives in my family.
1 4
TH COURT: So, what do you think is an appropriate
1 5 sentence? M. Hazlett-Stevens is asking the Court to determine it, and
1 6 unless you have anything you' d like to offer up, I do find a mitigating factor
1 7
that upon the arrest, there have been no frther problems, and that's a very
1 8 large mitigating factor.
19 M. COUGHLIN: Then I'd consider the pain someone has gone
20 through a mitigating factor, and also, any sort of mistakes made by the
21
judicial system a mitigating factor. I don't consider these events to take
22 place in a vacuum.
23
THE COURT: Okay.
24 M. COUGHLIN: I think if the Court looked at it, it would agree
25 with me that this rent/escrow deposit was not allowable by the law.
Page - 1 53-


1 THE COUT: I'm not going to look into and buy into whether I
2 agree with you or not on anything that has to do with the landlord and tenant.
3 I'm trying to decide if! should give you more than a $3 1 0 fine,
4
up to $1 ,000 fne, or give you some community service. Or is a fne
5
enough? Or the jail time you spent in jail, is that enough to wrap this thing
6 up?
7
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I' d ask that the $3 1 0, and I say this
8
respectflly, sir, and I' d ask that it be given back to me. I'm fat broke. I've
9
had my law license taken away. I went through a divorce just immediately
1 0 preceding this.
1 1 So, this has been a pretty difcult period of time. I don't
1 2 know.
1 3 THE COURT: Alright.
1 4 M# COUGHLIN: With respect to other mitigating factors, I think
1 5
that -I mean, there was three days served i jail, frst of, you know.
1 6 I believe the bond was --
1 7 THE COURT: It was a cash bail. There was no bond.
1 8 MR. COUGHLIN: There was no bond?
1 9 THE COURT: You posted a cash bail. There was no bond.
20
And it's been on the books since you posted it to get out of jail.
21
M= COUGHLIN: Yeah, yeah. I don't know ifit's a mitigating
22 factor is the misconduct of Mr. Hill or others in this.
23 T COURT: Well, I don't find any misconduct presented
24
today. I' m more interested in what I - I don't think that's a mitigating
25 factor.
Page - 1 54-
,

1 Here's the Court's Order. There's been no further issues, M.
2 Coughlin. You've conducted yourself professionally in this trial. I
3 appreciate that.
4 The fines and fees in this case of $3 1 0 will be imposed as the
5 fne, and time served, and tat will close te case. Time sered plus $3 10.
6 Alright, that's it. Thank you, gentlemen.
7 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you for your time, Judge.
8 T COUT: Alright, we'll be in recess.
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Court adjoured at 1 :59:27 p.m.)
Page - 1 55-
1
2
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE
SS:
3 I, PAMLA D. LONGONI, a notary public in and for the County of
4 Washoe, State of Nevada, do hereby certif:
5
That I was provided an audio of the hearing above-referenced, and
6
that said transcript, which appears hereinbefore was transcribed verbatim
7
into tpewriting as herein appears to the best of my knowledge, skill, ad
8 ability and is a true and correct record thereof.
9
I fher certif that I a not an attorey or counsel for any ofthe
10 parties, nor a relative or employee of any attorey or counsel connected with
1 1 the action, nor financially interested in the action.
1 2
DATED this 3 day of July, 2012.
\ 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
PAML D. LONGaN!
Page - 1 56-