9 18 12 4 of 5 ROA 60302 Coughlin V Washoe Legal Services, Elcano Appeal of CV11-01896

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
Sup. Ct. Case No. 60302
Case No. CV11-01896
vs. Dept. 6
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL,
Defendants.
/
RECORD ON APPEAL
VOLUME 4 OF 5
DOCUMENTS
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Zachary Coughlin Gary Fuller, Esq. for Committee to Aid
P.O. Box 60952 Abused Women
Reno, NV 89506 100 W. Liberty Street, Suite 800
Reno, NV 89501
Brian Gonsalves, Esq. for Crisis
Intervention
P.O. Box 907
Kings Beach, CA 96143
Joseph P. Garin, Esq. & Shannon D.
Nordstrom, Esq for Washoe Legal
Services; Paul Elcano; Todd Torvinen;
Karen Sabo; Jon Sasses; Marc
Ashley; Kathy Breckenridge; Caryn
Sternlight
9080 West Post Rd., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
F I L E D
Electronically
02-08-2012:07:48:28 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Document Code: Clerk of the Court
Zach Coughlin
Transaction # 2753601
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9
th
St. 2
!eno" N# $9%12
&ele: 77%'33$'$11$
(a): 949'**7'74+2
,ttorne- .or /ro Se ,ttorne- /lainti..
0N &1E SEC2ND 34D0C0,5 D0S&!0C& C24!& 2( &1E S&,&E 2( NE#,D,
0N ,ND (2! &1E C24N&6 2( 7,S12E
Z,C1 C248150N9 ;
;
/5,0N&0(("
;
;
Case No: CV11-01896
v:.
7,S12E 5E8,5 SE!#0CES E& ,59
;
;
;
Dept No: 6
;
;
DE(END,N&S. ;
;
OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in the
Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amen to ORer
C2<ES N27" ,==ellant" Zach Coughlin" >- and through him:el." and .ile: thi: motion
(2! E?&ENS02N 2( &0<E &2 (05E ,n 2==o:ition to all o. 8arin@: neAe:t <otion: to Di:mi::"
and the !nersi"ne a#t!all$ %ishes this to &e 'ile as (ple in that alternative) as a ; or in the
alternative Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, ho%ever the 'ilin" o''i#e ro!tinel$ re*e#ts an$thin"
Plainti'' so 'iles as violative o' +DCR ,-, even %here the phrase (ple in the alternative) is
pla#e in the #aption or name o' the 'ilin"...NOTE THIS IS AN /PDATE, THE PART
IMMEDIATEL0 PRECEEDIN1 THIS NOTE INDICATES THE DESIRE TO HA2E THIS
CO/RT 2IE+ THE MOTION 3OR E4TENSION O3 TIME AS AN OPPOSITION AND
- 1 -
OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in
the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amen to ORer
V4.1001

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
SETS 3ORTH SOME O3 THE IMPERMISSI5LE O5STACLES, IN LI1HT O3 NRCP 67E8
RELATED TO THE /NDERSI1NED SEE9IN1 TO PLED IN THE ALTERNATI2E. TO
THE E4TENT THE /NDERSI1NED HAS 5EEN PRE2ENTED 3ORM HA2E HIS
3ILIN1S ACCEPTED 3OR 3ILIN1 OR 1I2EN A 3ILE STAMPE, OR HA2IN1 A
(RELATION 5AC9) DOCTRINE APPL0, THE ORDER IS 2OID /NDER NRCP :-57;8
AND sho!l 5E SET ASIDE OR 2ACTED. 3/RTHER Nevaa la% allo%s interpretin" a
NRCP 6< motion as a motion 'or re#onsieration an vi#e versa epenin" on the spirit o' %hat
is s!&mitte, an a similar appli#ation is in orer her, "iven the !nerline #aveat a&ove.
3!rther, this is a nr#p 6< motion to alter or amen the orer in that the Orer #ontains #lear
error in 'inin" that an opposition %as not 'ile. PLAINTI33'S MOTION 3OR E4TENSION
O3 TIME TO 3ILE OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or
plea in the alternative, OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS. 3!rther, %hile DCR ,=
ma$ sa$sthat 'ailin" to oppose a Motion ma$ &e interprete to ta>e the motion's #ontents as
amitte or tr!e, DCR ,= oes not sa$ the Co!rt m!st o that. Certainl$, &asi# 'airness has a
pla#e in that anal$sis.
C2<ES N27" ,==ellant" Zach Coughlin" >- and through him:el." and .ile: thi: motion
(2! E?&ENS02N 2( &0<E &2 (05E ,n 2==o:ition to all o. 8arin@: neAe:t <otion: to Di:mi::"
and the udner:igned actuall- Ai:he: thi: to >e .iled a: B=led in that alternativeC a: a 9 or in the
alterntive 2==o:ition to <otino to Di:mi::" hoAever the .iling o..ice routinel- reDect: an-thing
/lainti.. :o .ile: a: violative o. 7DC! 1+" even Ahere the =hra:e B=led in the alternativeC i: =laced
in the ca=tion or name o. the .iling...PLEASE NOTE, THIS IS AN /PDATE. THIS MOTION
+AS S/5MITTED PRE2IO/SL0 5/T +AS RE?ECTED. A3TER HA2IN1 SOME @@
STRAI1HT 3ILIN1S ACCEPTED, THE /NDERSI1NED RECENTL0 +ENT THRO/1H
- 2 -
V4.1002
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
A SPELL +HERE ,< O3 @= 3ILIN1S +ERE RE?ECTED. THE RE?ECTION O3 THE
RECENT 3ILIN1 +AS PRO2IDED +ITH THE 3OLLO+ RATIONALEA (Re*e#te -@B-CB
@-,@A,-A@DA;: AM ReasonA The #ase n!m&er in the #aption is in#orre#t. Please res!&mit 'ilin"
%ith the #omplete #ase n!m&er. I' $o! have an$ E!estions, please #all Lori at =@DB=,,;. Date
remove 'rom EC3A -;B@CB@-,@)
I DO NOT 5ELIE2E THAT +DCR ,- ALLO+S 3OR the vol!mino!s RE?ECTIONs o' m$
3ILIn" ON the &asis #ite, an a ,; pa"e letter to Cler> o' Co!rt Or!na %as re#entl$
s!&mitte 'or #onsieration %ith spe#i'i#s etailin" %here the !nersi"ne &elieves the
appli#ation o' %#r ,- an other r!les has &een impermissil&e. To &e #lear, the !nersi"ne is
tr$in" his &est to #ompl$ %ith %#r ,-, an respe#t'!ll$ intens to o ever$tin" possil&e to "ive
the #o!rt %hat it %ants an to pra#ti#e in a manner in '!rtheran#e o' #onservation o' *!i#ial
reso!r#es an pra#ti#al e#onom$.. CERTAINL0, I HA2E A MOTION TO SET ASIDE AN
ORDER 1RANTIN1 S/MMAR0 ?/D1MENT IN CARPENTIER 2 AAMES 5ASED /PON
THE +RON1 CASE N/M5ER 750 ONE DI1IT, SAME AS HERE8 5EIN1 IN THE
CAPTION. IN CARPENTIER, A DEADLINE +AS NOT 5LO+N D/E TO THE CASE
N/M5ER 5EIN1 +RON1. HERE, IT LI9EL0 IS, /NLESS THIS CO/RT RELATES
5AC9 THE DATE OR DECLARES E4C/SA5LE NE1LECT. 5OTH HERE AND IN THE
CARPENTIER MATTER THE DOC/MENT +AS (3ILED) IN THE CORRECT CASE IN
LI1HT O3 THE E3LE4 METHOD O3 DECLARIN1 THE (E4ISTIN1 CASE) 5EIN1
RATHER CLE2ER, IN REF/IRIN1 A PART0 TO 5OTH SPELL THE NAME
CORRECTL0 AND ENTER THE CASE N/M5ER....TH/S, E2EN I3 THE CAPTION IS
+RON1, AR1/A5L0, THE 3ACT THAT ONE MANA1ES TO 1ET THE DOC/MENT
3ILED ON E3LE4 IN THE RI1HT CASE IS C/RATI2E..../NLESS THE 3ILIN1 O33ICE
- 3 -
V4.1003

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
PRO2IDES A RE?ECTION LI9E THAT SEEN A5O2E, THEN...I DO NOT 9NO+ +HAT
HAPPENS. IT IS INTERETIN1 THO/1H, TO CONSIDER A PARALLEL TO A
SIT/ATION +HERE A N/RSE MA0 TA9E A SCALPEL O/T O3 A DOCTOR'S HANDS
IN THE OR, 5ECA/SE THE DOCTOR IS /SIN1 A RED SCALPEL, +HERE THE R/LES
SA0 HE SHO/LD /SE A 0ELLO+ SCALPEL. O3 CO/RSE THE PATIENT DIES ON
THE TA5LE 7LI9E THIS CASE IS APPARENTL08 5ECA/SE, RE1ARDLESS O3 THE
COLOR O3 THE SCAPEL /SED, THE PATIENT NEEDED THAT PROCED/RE DONE
F/IC9L0 +HERE TIME +AS O3 THE ESSENCE. 5/T AT LEAST THE COLOR O3
THE SCALPEL R/LE +AS MAINTAINED. SO, THERE'S THAT. +HICH IS NICE.
ALSO, 3OR AN E4/CSA5LE NE1ELCT AR1/MENT, N2 ENER10 SH/T O33 M0
PO+ER, /NNOTICED LAST 3RIDA0. I HA2EN'T HAD A SHO+ER SINCE, AND HA2E
5ASICALL0 5EEN LI2IN1 AT STAR5/C9S /SIN1 THEIR +I3I ON M0 LAPTOP
7+HEREAS M0 PRACTICE +AS PRIMARIL0 DES9TOP 5ASED8 AND /SIN1 A
(HI?AC9 THIS) ANTI2IR/S CA/SE M0 3ILIN1S ON 3E5R/AR0 :TH, @-,, TO 5E
LATE, SE2ERAL NOT 1ETTIN1 S/5MITTED /NTIL 2ER0 EARL0 MORNIN1
3E5R/AR0 CTH...
LE1AL AR1/MENT
E)ten:ion: and e)cu:a>le neglect are a .unn- thing. 0t Eind o. de=end: Aho -ou are" Ahat
cla::e: -ou .it in" grou=:" etc. and hoA the e-e o. the >eholder vieA: -ou in deciding Ahether or not
to grant them. 0 get ever->od-@: >e:t :hot. ,lAa-: have. Sarah Cla::" 7a:hoe 5egal Service:
Child ,dvocac- ,ttorne-" can taEe o.. her :hoe: in :ta.. meeting: and :it B0ndian'St-leC F:orr- i. that
term ha: gone the =oliticall- incorrect Aa- o. the con.lict avoiding Bchine:e AallC >ut 0 don@t EnoA
another =hra:e .or it...; then do head:tand: again:t the Aall Ahile Elcano i: talEing" dre::ed liEe a
- 4 -
V4.1004
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
mid'career Stevie NicE:" Aearing -oga =ant: to court" and it: oEa-" :he@: color.ul....>ut me" 0 get .ired
and :anctioned G1"+++ .or arguing a =o:ition that i: the maDorit- vieA=oint throughout ,merican
3uri:=rudence and .or Ahich Nevada laA ha: nothing on =oint" and Ahere 0 alerted 3udge 8ardner to
an ,5! on =oint vi: a vi: that Bdut- :tronger than a de>tH:et o.. un:ecured third =art- credit card de>t
.or Ahich the hu:>and i: the :ole :ignator-Hre.u:e S=ringgate@: :ettlement o..er o. Aaive alimon- in
e)change .or <r. 3o:hi agreeing to taEe on all the third =art- credit card de>t .or Ahich he Aa: the
:ole :ignator- an-Aa-: FEind o. a chimera con:ideration;" and Ahere <r. 3o:hi enDo-ed the BDuluth'
model B=oAer and controlC o. having onl- hi: name on the card:" and the a>ilit- to :o :=end Aithout
con:ternation....and it: a Summar- Contem=t under N!S 22.+1+ Ahere 0 don@t immediatel- >end to a
:ettlemnt o..er =ut .orth at the :ettlement con.erence" Ahich Aa: 1+ minute: >e.ore the B&rialC" .or
mi:conduct in the court@: =re:enceI 1oA a>out com=l-ing Aith the =rocedural dictate: o. N!C/ 11"
<r. S=ringgate" and :erving me a .iling read- motion" =rovidign 21 da- :a.e har>or" etc. "etc. N!S
7.+$% Aa: .or medical mal=ractice ca:e:" and noA" =redicta>l-" it: u:ed .or ever-thing and an-thing"
including Ahere 0 re.u:ed to acce=t a :ettlement o..er >a:ed u=on a rationale and :u==ort that i: the
maDorit- vieA=oint in ,merican legal deci:ion: on the i::ue....and a doctrine o. the nece::arie: :uit i:
unliEel- given the de>t i: :=read out among:t numerou: credit card com=anie: each de>t >eing not
liEel- Aorth the co:t o. :uch a com=licated :uit again:t m- client" <:. 3o:hi F0 .iled a <andamu:
action relative to the :anction i::ued" liEe 3o:e=h 1ou:ton...; &he .iling o..ice continue: to
im=ermi::i>l- reDect time :en:itive .iling: de:=ite N!C/ %Fe;" 7DC! 1$" and Nevada Su=reme Cour
deci:ion: liEe 7hitman and Sullivan and Donoho. /lainti.. reJue:t: and e)ten:ion to 2==o:e the
<otion to Di:mi:: or alternativel- a:E: that thi: Court incor=orate >- re.erence argument =reviou:l-
:u>mitted in relation to :u>:tantiall- :imilar <otion: >- 8arin" adding to that the .act that i.
Sternlicht Aa: onl- :erved a Summon: and no Com=laint" e)cu:a>le neglecdt given the 7CS2@:
- 5 -
V4.1005
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
=romi:e: to :erve Aere relied u=on to /lainti..@: detriment and there doe: e)i:t authorit- .or and a
good .aith >a:i: to argue that merel- :erving the Summon: :u..ice: .or the reJuirement to :ervice
>oth Summon: and Com=laint Fit: .ederal authorit-" >ut it: =er:ua:ive...;.
7DC! !ule 11. E)ten:ion or :hortening o. time. 1. ,ll motion: .or e)ten:ion: o. time :hall
>e made u=on % da-:K notice to all coun:el. Such motion :hall >e made to the Dudge Aho i: to tr- the
ca:e" or" i. the Dudge i: not in the courthou:e during regular Dudicial hour:" to a Dudge on the :ame
.loor Aho :hall :et or cau:e the motion to >e :et .or earl- hearing. F(or the :aEe o. thi: rule
De=artment 1+ i: deemed to >e on the :econd .loor.; 2. E)ce=t a: =rovided in thi: :u>:ection" no e)
=arte a==lication .or e)ten:ion o. time Aill >e granted. 4=on =re:entation o. a motion .or e)ten:ion"
i. a :ati:.actor- :hoAing i: made to the Dudge that a good .aith e..ort ha: >een made to noti.-
o==o:ing coun:el o. the motion" and the Dudge .ind: good cau:e there.or" the Dudge ma- order e)
=arte a tem=orar- e)ten:ion =ending a determination o. the motion. 3. (or good cau:e :hoAn" the
Dudge Aho i: to tr- the ca:e" or i. the Dudge i: not in the courthou:e during regular Dudicial hour:" the
chie. Dudge" ma- maEe an e) =arte order :hortening time u=on a :ati:.actor- :hoAing to the Dudge that
a good .aith e..ort ha: >een made to noti.- the o==o:ing coun:el o. the motion. 4. E)ten:ion: to
an:Aer or otherAi:e re:=ond to a com=laint :hall not e)ceed 4+ da-: Aithout court a==roval. &he trial
Dudge :hall determine the a==ro=riate :anction i. thi: rule i: violated. ,==ellant cite: e)cu:a>le
neglect or other circum:tance: FliEe o==o:ing coun:el in an :ummar- eviction .rom one@: laA o..ice
>a:ed on no cau:e notice" not non=a-ment o. rent" commercial tenant in cv11'+3*2$ getting him
Arong.ull- arre:ted Fan having =olice that looE liEe the- >elong on the :hoe B3er:e- ShoreC give lot:
o. B>lame the victimC :tatement: regarding dome:tic violence committed again:t the under:igned in
:ituation: Ahere Ai:e <a:ter Edmund:on Fa con:ummate =ro.e::ional and Duri:t; actuall- granted
tAo E/2@: to the under:igned in (#12'++1$7 and (#12'++1$$ and =olice mi:conduct and the .ailure
- 6 -
V4.1006
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
to return :ecurit- de=o:it and ,==ellant: recentl- >eing a victim o. dome:tic violence in E/2 granted
in (#12'++1$$" and (#12'++1$7 in a:Eign .or an e)ten:ion and =age limit e)ce=tion.
<- mountain >iEe Aa: :tolen right a>out the time landlord <erli:: had N# Enereg- tre:=a::
on m- =ro=ert- and do an unnoticed :hut o.. o. electricit-. ,ll the .ood in m- re.ridgerator Aent >ad"
and other damage: Aere incurred. N# Energ- a::erted =rivit- o. contract Ahere the are not alloAed
to" Ahile >eing a mono=ol- :u==l-ing an e::ential Service. AAA.Shame2nN#Energ-.com
(urther" Du:t la:t (rida-" (e>ruar- 3rd" 2+12" N# Energ- again :hut o.. ,==ellant: electricit- Aithout
notice" and noA i: re.u:ing to alloA ,==ellant to have :ervice :tarted" demanding all :ort: o.
documentation" =roo." =rivate" =er:onall- identi.ia>le in.ormation" and :=eci.ic .orm: o.
Bagreement:C to Ahich N# Energ-" a mono=ol-" ha: not right. &hat cau:e thi: Brie. to e)ceed %
=age: and .orm: a >a:i: .or thi: reJue:t to alloA an e)ten:ion o. time to re.ine and .ini:h ,==ellant@:
2=ening Brie..
,l:o" a: 0 :it at Star>ucE: u:ing their Ai.i >ecau:e N# Energ- i: retaliating again:t me an not
onl- :hut o.. m- =oAer Aithout notice FAa: :ome>od- on li.e :u==ort in:ideI 7ould N# Energ- >e
lia>le i. :oI;" >ut then re.u:ed to alloA me to =ut the =oAer in m- name" even a.ter 0 caved to their
arrogant mono=ol- reJuirement to give them m- :ocial :ecurit- num>er" >ut not >e.ore the =hone
clerE and :u=ervi:or =roceeded to e)=lain the .iner =oint: o. Nevada landlord tenant laA to me"
including hoA the .act that N!S 11$,.1++" Ahich indicate: Brental agreement:C could >e >oth ver>al
or Aritten" Aa: not the relevant :tandard" >ut rather that" N# Energ-@: Ahim: and de:ire: and
demand: .or one to :ign a..idavit: and =rovide them to N# Energ- to create =rivit- o. contract Ahere
non e)i:t: Fdid -ou live Aith the =reviou: tenant: .or an- =eriod o. timeI 0. :o" Ae Aon@t connect the
=oAer until their >ill i: =aid in .ull....Can !&C re.u:e to let me ride the >u: on that >a:i: tooI;.
7AA.Shame2nN#Energ-.com. 0ntere:tingl-" >e:ide: m- attem=t to FAhich Aa: :hot doAn in the 0(/
- 7 -
V4.1007

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
:tage; it doe:n@t :eem an- Doe :chmoe Nevada ha: ever :ued the >ehemoth N# Energ- or it:
=redece::or in name" Sierra /aci.ic" in 7a:hoe Di:trict Court" de:=ite the .act that the are a
mono=ol-" and nearl- ever->od- ha: to u:e them" and the- are EnoAn .or >ull-ing =eo=le around liEe
#lad and Nico" the :treet thug:" in 8rand &he.t ,uto 0# do to the citiLen: o. Centur- Cit-.
CONCL/SION
Ba:ed u=on the .oregoing the under:igned re:=ect.ull- reJue:t: that thi: Court grant an
e)ten:ion to .ile an 2==o:ition to the <otion to Di:mi::" or alternativel- den- :uch <otion to
Di:mi:: another relie. thi: Court deem: Du:t. ,==ellant Declare: under =enalt- o. =erDur-"
=ur:uant to N!S %3.+4%" that the a::ertion: in thi: document are true and correct.
A33IRMATION P/RS/ANT TO NRS @=<5.-=-
&he under:igned doe: here>- a..irm that the =receding document doe: not contain the :ocial
:ecurit- num>er o. an- =er:on.
Dated: (e>ruar- *
rd
" 2+12
HSH Zach CoughlinMMMMMMMM
Zach Coughlin" /lainti..
- 8 -
V4.1008
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
PROO3 O3 SER2ICE
/ur:uant to N!C/ %F>;" 0 certi.- that 0 :erved a co=- o. the .oregoing document u=on the
.olloAing =art- >- electronicall- .iling on (e>ruar- *
rd
" 2+12 and there.ore :erving u=on regi:tered
e.iler:
3oe 8arin" E:J.
,ttorne- .or 75S
Brian 8on:alve:" E:J.
,ttorne- .or &7S" Cri:i:
712 ,!E N2& E#EN N,<E 0N &1E C,/&02N 2( &1E C2</5,0N& ,ND ,!E N2&
E#EN B/,!&0ESC 0( 624 ,SN <E
Date thi: (e>ruar- *
rd
" 2+12:
HSH Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin" /lainti..
- 9 -
V4.1009
******IMPORTANTNOTICE-READTHISINFORMATION*****
PROOFOFSERVICEOFELECTRONICFILING
AfilinghasbeensubmittedtothecourtRE:
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
Document(s)Submitted:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-08-2012:19:48:28
02-09-2012:15:02:41
SecondJudicialDistrictCourt-StateofNevada
ZACHCOUGHLINVS.WASHOELEGAL
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
ZACHARYCOUGHLIN,ESQ.
Youmayreviewthisfilingbyclickingonthe
followinglinktotakeyoutoyourcases.
Thisnoticewasautomaticallygeneratedbythecourtsauto-notificationsystem.
Ifserviceisnotrequiredforthisdocument(e.g.,Minutes),pleasedisregardthebelowlanguage.
Thefollowingpeoplewereservedelectronically:
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQforTAHOE
WOMEN'SSERVICES
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.forMARCASHLEY,
WASHOELEGALSERVICES,KATHY
BRECKENRIDGE,PAULELCANO,CARYN
STERNLIGHT,KARENSABO,JONSASSER
ZACHARYCOUGHLIN,ESQ.forZACH
COUGHLIN
Thefollowingpeoplehavenotbeenservedelectronicallyandmustbeservedbytraditional
means(seeNevadaelectronicfilingrules):
PROPERPERSON
TODDTORVINEN
PAULELCANO
V4.1010
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
SHANNON NORDSTROM, ESQ
V4.1011
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
26
27
28

Document Code: 2075
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV BA No: !"7#
$"22 E. !th %t. &2
eno, NV '!5$2
(ele: 775)##')'$$'
*a+: !"!),,7)7"02
ZachCoughlin-hotmail.com
Atto.ne/ 0o. 1.o %e Atto.ne/ 1lainti00
F I L E D
Electronically
02-11-2012:12:19:34 AM
Clerk of the Court
2N (3E %EC4ND 56D2C2A7 D2%(2C( C46(
4* (3E %(A(E 4* NEVADA
2N AND *4 (3E C46N(8 4* 9A%34E
ZAC3 C46:372N;
1lainti00.
<s.
9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, a Ne<ada
Co.=o.ation, >A(38 BEC>EN2D:E,
2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as Boa.d
1.esident o0 97%, (4DD (4V2NEN,
2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97% . Boa.d
?em@e., 1A67 E7CAN4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as E+ecuti<e Di.ecto. o0 97%,
D4E% $)$00, 2ndi<iduall/ and in thei. ca=acit/
as mem@e.s o0 the B4AD 4* D2EC(4%
4* 9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, CA8N
%(EN72:3(, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/
as 97% atto.ne/, 54N %A%%E, 2ndi<iduall/
and in his ca=acit/ as 97% agent, >AEN
%AB4, 2Andi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97%
atto.ne/, ?AC A%37E8, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/, ZANDA
741EZ; 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as
97% em=lo/ee; ?elissa ?angia.acina,
indi<iduall/ and in ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/
CAA9; (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices
De0endants.
C
C
C
C
C
C CA%E N4: CV$$)0$!55
DE1(. N4: $0
4114%2(24N (4 A77 ?4(24N% *4 A((4NE8% *EE%
PLAINTIFF, Zach Coughlin, by and through himself as his own attorney files this 4114%2(24N
(4 A77 ?4(24N% *4 A((4NE8% *EE% is based on the Memorandum of Points and
- $A$$ -
OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES
V4.1012
xxxxxxxxxxx
xx
cv11-01896
department 6
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Authorities below, together with the leadings and files herein, and any oral argument this Court
ermits!
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITI ES
"! Introduction Factual #ac$ground!
bA%ICALL&, T'I% C()*T +N(,% ,'-T'-* (* N(T ATT(*N-&.% F--% A*-
A/AILA#L-! s)*-, P(L+ MI0'T %A& %(M-T'IN0, 1C* MI0'T %A& %(M-T'IN0, #)T
C(MM(N %-N%- *-MAIN% A CATC' ALL -2C-PTI(N! ALL T'- ATT(*N-&% A*-
A%+I0N F(* %ANCTI(N%, N(T 'A1L& AN& (F T'-M 'A/- #(T'-*-1 F(LL(,IN0
T'- 3" 1A& %AF- 'A*#(*1 N*CP "" 4I 1I1 AT (N- P(INT, #)T!!!P*(#A#L& N(T IN
-/-*& %IT)ATI(N, IT% #--N A *AC- T( T'- %ANCTI(N FILI0N 0)TT-* '-*-!!!5 AN1
T'- LA,%)IT ,A% N(T 1I%MI%%-1 (N T'- M-*IT%, ALL T'- (*1-*% A*-
P*(#A#L& %C*I/-N-*% -**(*% T( T'- -2T-NT T'-& CIT- T( N*CP "3#6 IN
1I%MI%%IN0 ,'-N N(#(1& A*0)-1 A "3#6 M(TI(N! %( 1(-% *-% 7)1ICATA %A& I
,IN (N "3#8 AN1 "3#9 A*0)M-NT% F*(M N*CP: (L+:
There is something really imortant to note! t'- C(MPLAINT WAS FILED ON jUNE 30TH,
201 1. TORVINEN WAS SERVED ON OCTOBER 27TH, 201 1. 120 DAYS AFTER
JUNE 30TH, 201 1 IS OCTOBER 28TH, 201 1. TORVINEN WAS SERVED
TIMELY, AND IVEN HIS POSI TION AT WLS, WHICH HAS AT VARIOUS
POITNS INCLUDED BEIN AN OFFICER OR DIRECTOR AND OR CFO, OR
SOMETHIN SIMILAR !TORVINEN IS A CPA IN ADDITION TO BEIN AN
ATTORNEY AND HIS FATHER FOUND WLS WITH CHARI SMATI C REAAN
COMMENDEE"ADFLY COE SWOBE IN 1#$ %. . . &. . . SO TORVINEN AND BY
E'TENSI ON, WLS, WERE SERVED TIMELY. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE
COURT (NOWS THIS. TORVINEN WAS IVEN A COMPLETE L Y LEIBLE
COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS. PERHAPS THE TITLE ON THE
DOC(ET VIS A VIS THE NOVEMBER 2, 201 1 FILIN WHEREI N FIT)HENRY* S
PROOF SERVI CE WAS SUBMITTED !AND IT LAC( A SUMMONS, BUT THAT
HAS BEEN CURED BY THE FILIN OF SUCH TODAY&. Plaintiffs ;6 age Motion to
Alter or Amend Per N*CP 6< is a rollic$ing truth e=losion eered with insight into the human
condition as well as a great deal of cogent legal argument, whereas 0arin files his usual robo>
(osition comlete with assertion and argument that he would ma$e regardless of what the
oosing arty actually filed! %ort of li$e a ?macro? comuter rogram, auto>ilot lawyering,
3@@" ?A Insurance 1efense Lawyer (dyssey!!!?! And 'al is telling 0arin he.s got it coAerd!!
- 2A$$ -
V4.1013
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
iN T'AT *-0A*1, AN IN A N(/-L L-0AL T-C'NIB)-, T'- )1N-*%I0N-1 '-*#&
1(-% %(M- *(#(>*-PL&IN0 'IM%-LF, IN '(MA0- T( 0A*IN, AN1 PA%T-% 0A*IN.%
-NTI*- (PP(%ITI(N AN1 A%+ T'I% C()*T T( TA+- IT A% T'- )N1-*%IN0-1.%
*-PL& %A/- T'AT T'- *-A1-* %'()L1 *-A1 -/-*&T'I0N T'AT F(LL(,% ,IT' A
?N(T? IN F*(NT (F -/-*& A%%-*TI(N A0AIN%T PLAINTIFFF, AN1 IN%T-A1 APPL&
T'- C(NT*A*& (F ,'AT I% %AI1 T( 0A*IN, #A%-L-%% C(N%L)%(*& ACC)%ATI(N%
AN1 ALLC
?The oints that Plaintiff.s Motion does raise haAe reAiously been briefed, argued,
and decided! NeAertheless, Plaintiff made a conscious choice to file this Motion to
insult and harass this Court and 1efense counsel for the motions filed and the
Court.s earlier decisions! This should not be tolerated! The Court should deny the
Motion and sua sonte order sanctions against Plaintiff! Plaintiff Coughlin was
formerly emloyed as an attorney for ,ashoe Legal %erAices 4?,L%?5! Coughlin
filed two lawsuits against ,L%, et aI!, attemting to assert claims for wrongful
terminationC Zach Coughlin A! ,ashoe Legal %erAices, et! al! Case No!C C/"">
@";<D 'on! #rent Adams FiledC 7une 3E, 3@"" and Zachary Coughlin A ,ashoe
Legal %erAices, et! al! Case No!C C/"">@"<66 'on! %teAen P! -lliott FiledC 7une 8@,
3@"" 1oc$et *eorts, attached hereto as -=hibit ?"!? (n August 3<, 3@"",
Coughlin began attemts at serAice of the summons and comlaint in the second
case, Case No! C/"">@"<66, against 1efendants! 1esite Coughlin.s Aarying
attemts at serAice on 1efendants, as fully briefed in their resectiAe Motions to
1ismiss, all attemts roAed imroer! Accordingly, 1efendants sought dismissal
of Plaintiff.s Comlaint ursuant to N*CP "34b5485 andFor 495 and N*CP 9! This
Court ordered dismissal of the case as to all 1efendants on 1ecember ;, 3@"" and
7anuary "8, 3@"3, collectiAely! (rders, attached hereto as -=hibits ?3? through ?;!?
(n 7anuary 3@, 3@"3, Plaintiff filed an ;6 age Motion to Alter or Amend Per
N*CP 6<! Plaintiff.s Motion is nothing more than a blatant attemt to get another
shot at Motions already thoroughly briefed, argued, and lost!" Plaintiff fails to ma$e
any cogent argument in his ;6 age diatribe as to why he is filing the resent
Motion! Instead, Plaintiff chooses to insult and " This Court recently denied
Plaintiff.s Motion for *econsideration and Motion to %et Aside or /acate (rder
- #A$$ -
V4.1014
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
0ranting 1ismissal, on 7anuary "8, 3@"", (rder, attached hereto as -=hibit ?<,?
harass this Court and 1efense counsel for the motions filed and for the Court.s
rior rulings! Plaintiff chooses to bring u issues either roerly decided or
inaosite to the resent Motion!3 (Aerall, Plaintiff.s arguments are wholly
unsubstantiated and friAolous! 1efendants reGuests this Court deny Plaintiff.s
Motion to Alter or Amend Per N*CP 6<, deny any and all additional relief
reGuested by Plaintiff, and further reGuests the Court sanction Plaintiff! 3! Plaintiff
does not meet the standard under N*CP 6<! ?*ule 6<4e5 roAides an oortunity,
within seAerely limited time, to see$ correction at the trial court leAel of an
erroneous order or Hudgment, thereby initially aAoiding the time and e=ense of
aeal!? Chiara A! #elaustegui, ;D NeA! ;6D, ;6<, 9EE P!3d ;6E 4"<E@5! Among the
grounds for this tye of motion are correcting manifest errors of law or fact, newly
discoAered or reAiously unaAailable eAidence, a need to reAent manifest
inHustice, or a change in controlling law! AA Primo #uilders, LLC A! ,ashington,
"3D NeA! AdA! (! 68, 396 P!8d ""<@, ""<8 43@"@5! Notably, the motion must state
with articularity its grounds and set forth the relief or order sought! Id! 'ere,
Plaintiff fails to artic)late with articularity the grounds on which he brings this
Motion! The ;6 age Motion raises Aarious arguments, none of which ma$e clear
who this Motion ertains to, on what grounds it is brought, or what relief is
reGuested! To the contrary, Plaintiff ma$es nonsensical arguments which fail to
demonstrate any tye of manifest error in law or fact, newly discoAered eAidence or
reAiously unaAailable eAidence, a need to reAent manifest inHustice, or a change
in controlling law!8 Plaintiff ma$es arguments he made or could haAe made in his
Aarious oositions to 1efendants. Motions to 1ismiss! Plaintiff.s arguments do not
meet the standard set forth in N*CP 6<! Accordingly, Plaintiff.s Motion should be
denied! 3 Plaintiff ma$es blan$et arguments throughout the Motion that are difficult
to follow! Plaintiff includes statements regarding consolidation, reconsideration,
reGuest for attorney.s fees, *ule "" sanctions, reargues serAice of rocess, tolling,
reGuests a declaration, and argues he had a right to untimely amend his
oositions ursuant to N*CP "6! 8 Plaintiff argues in forma aueris throughout
this Motion, howeAer Plaintiff neAer alied to roceed in forma aueris in this
case! 8! Plaintiff does not meet the standard for a Motion for *econsideration! If
- "A$$ -
V4.1015
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Plaintiff is see$ing reconsideration of the Court.s dismissal, it must be denied once
again! A court ?may reconsider a reAiously decided issue if substantially different
eAidence is subseGuently introduced or the decision is clearly erroneous!? Masonry
and Title Contractors Ass.n of %o! NeA! A! 7olley, )rga I ,irth, Ltd!, ""8 NeA! E8E,
E9" <9" P !3d 9;D, 9;< 4"<<E5 4citing Moore A! City of Las /egas, <3 NeA! 9@3,
9@6, 66" P!3d 399, 39D 4"<ED5 4?(nly in Aery rare instances in which new issues of
fact or law are raised suorting a ruling contrary to the ruling already reached
should a motion for rehearing be granted!?J Plaintiff.s grounds for bringing this
Motion are unclear! It can best be surmised that Plaintiff belieAes serAice of
rocess on 1efendants is roer desite the Court.s findings that Plaintiff.s serAice
attemts were imroer! Plaintiff does not resent any new eAidence to light or
change the fact that serAice of rocess on 1efendants did not comly with N*CP
9! The Court roerly held that Plaintiff did not comly with rocedural serAice
reGuirements in serAing 1efendants! All serAice aers were accurately attached to
each resectiAe motion! ,hether Plaintiff is otentially reHudiced by this dismissal
does not affect this Court.s determination! Indeed, this is Plaintiff.s second time
ma$ing the same arguments before this Court in see$ing reconsideration! Plaintiff
does not meet the standard for reconsideration and therefore the Motion should be
denied! 9! Plaintiff does not meet the standard under N*CP D@! If Plaintiff is
see$ing to set aside or Aacate the Court.s dismissal, Plaintiff.s reGuest must be
denied once again! %etting aside or Aacating a Hudgment or order are generally
aroriate if the district court is resented with newly discoAery eAidence,
eAidence of mista$e, inadAertence, e=cusable neglect, or fraud! %ee N*CP D@! It
can best be surmised that Plaintiff is claiming e=cusable neglect in failing to
roerly serAe 1efendants in accordance with N*CP 9 and is also claiming that
1efendants misreresented to the Court Plaintiff.s serAice aers! Plaintiff does not
introduce new eAidence that would suort setting aside or Aacating the Court.s
(rders nor does Plaintiff aear to be arguing there is new eAidence! Accordingly,
1efendants will address Plaintiff.s > 6 > resumed arguments of e=cusable neglect
and misreresentation in setting aside or Aacating the Court.s dismissal! A! Plaintiff
fails to establish e=cusable neglect! In %toec$lein A! 7ohnson -iec! , Inc! , the
NeAada %ureme Court set forth standards for relief under N *CP D@4b5 4 "59,
- 5A$$ -
V4.1016
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
stating, ?The resence of the following factors indicates that the reGuirements of
this rule haAe been satisfiedC 4"5 romt alication to remoAe the HudgmentK 435 an
absence of an intent to delay the roceedingsK 485 a lac$ of $nowledge of the
rocedural reGuirements on the art of the moAing artyK and 495 good faith! "@<
NeA! 3D;, 3E", ;9< P!3d 8@6 4"<<85! The only factor that Plaintiff has met is the
first factor! ,ith resect to the second factor, Plaintiff has needlessly delayed the
roceedings by failing to roerly serAe 1efendants, by failing to essentially
oose 1efendants. Motions to 1ismiss, and by continuing to file groundless
motions to set aside the Court.s dismissal! ,ith resect to the third factor, Plaintiff
is a licensed and racticing attorney in the %tate of NeAada! 'e is or should be well
aware of rocedural reGuirements and haAe $nowledge that N*CP 9 imutes a
burden on a Plaintiff to roerly roAide serAice of rocess to a 1efendant to
satisfy due rocess concerns! Lastly, with resect to the fourth factor, Plaintiff is
certainly not filing the motion in good faith! *ather, Plaintiff see$s to insult and
harass this Court, 1efendants and their counsel for the motions filed and for the
Court.s rior rulings! Plaintiff.s suort for ?e=cusable neglect? rests solely on an
eAiction roceeding and his financial troubles at the time which allegedly hindered
him from roerly serAing defendants in accordance with N*CP 9! Plaintiff
disregards the fact that he had "3@ days to roerly serAe 1efendants, had the
ability to file a motion to enlarge time
for serAice, and had an oortunity to oose 1efendants. Motion to 1ismiss!
Plaintiff has made no showing suorting e=cusable neglect and therefore, this
Court should deny Plaintiff.s reGuest to set aside or Aacate the Court.s dismissal! 9
N*CP D@4b54"5 states, ?(n motion and uon such terms as are Hust, the court may
relieAe a arty or a arty.s legal reresentatiAe from a final Hudgment, order, or
roceeding for the following reasonsC 4"5 mista$e, inadAertence, surrise, or
e=cusable neglect!? #! 1efendants. made accurate reresentations to the Court
regarding Plaintiff.s serAice attemts on 1efendants! In order to reAail on grounds
of misreresentation and lor fraud on the court, the burden is on the moAing arty
to show by clear and conAincing eAidence that ?an unconscionable lan or
scheme !!! designed to imroerly influence the court in its decision? was
eretrated! (cchiuto A! (cchiuto, <E NeA! "98, "9D n!3, D36 P!3d 6D; 4"<;"5
- ,A$$ -
V4.1017
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
4citing -ngland A! 1oyle, 3;" F!3d 8@9, 8@< 4<th Cir! "<D@5! 'ere, Plaintiff alleges
that 1efendants. attached inaccurate serAice aers to their resectiAe Motions to
1ismiss and therefore made misreresentations to the Court! Plaintiff ma$es
baseless accusations against 1efendants with absolutely no suort and
contradicts himself throughout the Motion! At one oint Plaintiff ac$nowledges he
imroerly serAed 1efendants and then turns around and accuses 1efendants of
attaching inaccurate serAice aers! All the while Plaintiff has not roduced what
he claims to be ?the accurate? serAice aers roAided to 1efendants! Indeed,
1efendants roAided accurate reresentations of the serAice aers! Plaintiff
raises no basis uon which to grant the relief reGuestedK he has failed to meet his
burden in ma$ing these unfounded accusations! In sum, Plaintiff does not meet the
standard under N*CP D@ and this Court should deny Plaintiff.s reGuest to set aside
or Aacate the Court.s dismissal! 6! This Court denied Plaintiff.s Motion for
Consolidation! Plaintiff contends that his Motion for Consolidation is ending before
the Court! This Court denied any roosed motion, on 7anuary "8, 3@"", when it
ordered Plaintiff.s First and %econd %et of %ulemental Motions denied! (rder,
attached hereto as -=hibit ?<!? D! Plaintiff.s fails to oose -lcano.s Motion for
Attorney Fees! To the e=tent that this Motion is an (osition to ,ashoe Legal
%erAices and Paul -lcano.s Motion for Attorney Fees, it fails to formulate any
oosition the Motion! (ther than a blan$et first sentence that says Plaintiff is
oosing -lcano.s Motion for Attorney.s Fees, the remainder of the Motion fails to
ma$e any sound argument that eAidences an oosition! A > E > arty.s failure to
oose contentions can be construed as an admission to their merit! %ee Pol$ A!
%tate, "3D NeA! AdA! (! "<, 388 P!8d 86E 43@"@5! Accordingly, Plaintiff has
otentially conceded 1efendants. arguments!6 E! Plaintiff.s reGuest for attorney
fee.s is i mroer and unfounded! Plaintiff contends that this Court should award
him attorney.s fees for the costs incurred in oosing 1efendants. motion for
sanctions! %ecifically, Plaintiff aAers that 1efendants. Motions are friAolous,
misreresent the holdings of cases, misreresent facts, and that 1efendants haAe
an ulterior motiAe for filing their motions! Plaintiffs arguments are without merit
seeing as 1efendants. neAer filed a motion for sanctions! Imortantly, Plaintiff
refuses to recogniLe that he failed to abide by N*CP 9.s mandate in serAing
- 7A$$ -
V4.1018
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1efendants, and in failing to do so, the Court roerly dismissed this case against
1efendants! 1efendants haAe not misreresented the law or facts to this Court!
Motions to 1ismiss were roerly and timely filed after Plaintiff.s numerous and
Aarying serAice attemts on 1efendants! 0iAen Plaintiff.s unfounded reGuest, this
Court should deny Plaintiff reGuest for attorney.s fees! ;! Plaintiff.s reGuest for
sanctions is i mroer and unfounded! In this Motion, Plaintiff aears to be
arguing that he should be awarded sanctions and l or that he reAiously filed a
motion for sanctions! First, a reAiew of the doc$et clearly shows that Plaintiff neAer
filed a Motion for %anctions against 1efendants! %econd, if Plaintiff is see$ing to
file a Motion for %anctions ursuant to N*CP "" Aia this Motion to Alter or Amend,
which aears to be the case, he is imroerly doing so! N*CP "" 4c54" 54A5 not
only reGuires that a motion for sanctions be made searately from other motions or
reGuests, but reGuires the motion describe the secific conduct to be sanctioned
and that the non>moAing arty be roAided 3" days after serAice of the motion to
withdraw or correct the sanctionable conduct! Plaintiff has not done any of the
aforementioned! Plaintiff did not file a motion for sanctions searately, did not
secify the conduct to be sanctioned, and did not serAe nor roAide 1efendants 3"
days to withdraw or correct any sanctionable conduct! As a result, this Court
should deny Plaintiff.s reGuest for sanctions! 6 Plaintiff filed an (osition to
-lcano.s Motion for Attorney.s Fees on 7anuary 36, 3@"3! <! Plaintiff did not haAe a
right to ma$e untimely oositions ursuant to N*CP "6! Plaintiff contends that his
%ulemental (ositions to 1efendants. Motions to 1ismiss were roerly and
timely filed in accordance with N*CP "6! It is unclear what 1efendant is trying to
argue> whether this Court erred in denying Plaintiff.s %ulemental (ositions
and I or whether 1efendants. imroerly argued that his %ulemental (ositions
were untimely! NeAertheless to address Plaintiff.s contentions, N*CP "6 goAerns
amendments and sulements to leadings not motions! %ee N*CP E! In this
case, Plaintiff sought to sulement an (osition> a motion! Accordingly, N*CP
"6 is inalicableK Plaintiff.s argument are flawed and should not be considered by
this Court! "@! This Court should sanction Plaintiff for his unrofessional and
disresectful remar$s throughout the Motion! 1efendants reGuest this Court
sanction Plaintiff for his unrofessional and disresectful remar$s addressed to this
- 'A$$ -
V4.1019
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Court and 1efense counsel! PreAiously, the Court.s warned Plaintiff to refrain from
ma$ing derogatory and unrofessional remar$s! This Court stated, ?the Court
admonishes Plaintiff to conduct himself rofessionally and ciAilly in the roceedings
before this Court! Plaintiff.s sarcastic, derogatory, and disresectful remar$s, do not
assist in resolAing this litigation, and may result in sanctions if continued! ?D
1esite the rior warning, Plaintiff continues to ma$e inflammatory and
disresectful remar$s aimed at this Court, 1efense counsel and seAeral
1efendants! Plaintiff should be sanctioned to reAent him from continuing such
misconduct! %ecifically, Plaintiff criticiLes the Court.s dismissal by stating ?This is
a bunch of cra,?E itlt is ridiculous,,,a it,hat a Ho$e!?g? those ,ashoe
CountA7udges won.t $now the D (rder, attached hereto as -=hibit ?8!? %ee age
3C3D>3;! E Motion to Alter or Amend at 63C3; ; Motion to Alter or Amend at 3C"9 <
Motion to Alter or Amend at 68C" > < > difference,?"o and ?this is still a bunch of
baloneyM,,"" Plaintiff then decides to insult 1efense counsel by referring to counsel
as, ?tac$y 0arin, ,,"3 ?7oey 1etroit by way of /egas At Cha %irAiss,?"8 and ?old
chestnut! ?"9 Plaintiff roceeds to moc$ 1efense counsel through some form of
bac$ and forth dialogue in the Motion,"6 and through statements such as ?I am 7oe
0arin and my stuff loo$s retty legit,?"D and ?I iust do my oid 7oe>0arin>atented
obfuscate and confuse, throw mud, and mis>state what Coughlin argued and filed
song and dance, ya $now:? Plaintiff also alleges, ?,hat is so desicable about
0arin !!! ,?"E ?0arin is urosefully scanning ages on really low di settings to
ma$e then loo$ way worse than they actually do, ,""; and ?0arin.s whole defense
has been a study in aAoiding haAing anybody with anything damaging to say not
saying anything while haAing eole with nothing to say say something about that
to which they haAe no $nowledge, including 0arin himself! ,""< Plaintiff.s criticisms
are a shameful attemt to diAert the attention away from Plaintiff.s shortcomings!
They are offensiAe, disresectful and entirely unrofessional! This Court should
sanction Plaintiff for ignoring the Court.s rior warning and continuing to ma$e
imroer and inflammatory remar$s! 1efendants. suggest a N",6@@!@@ sanction
ayable to 1efendants would be aroriate! F "F "@ Motion to Alter or Amend at
33C3 "" Motion to Alter or Amend at 63C9 "3 Motion to Alter or Amend at 3"C "D "8
Motion to Alter or Amend at 3"C "; "9 Motion to Alter or Amend at 3" C "< "6
- !A$$ -
V4.1020
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Motion to Alter or Amend at 3" > 33C ">"6 "D Motion to Alter or Amend at 33C " "E
Motion to Alter or Amend at 9;C36 "; Motion to Alter or Amend at 63C3D>3; "<
Motion to Alter or Amend at 69C "<>33 > "@> ""! Conclusion #ased on the foregoing,
1efendants resectfully reGuest that the Court deny Plaintiff.s Motion to Alter or
Amend, deny any and all additional relief reGuested by Plaintiff, and award
1efendants monetary sanctions! 1AT-1 this 8"st day of 7anuary, 3@"3!
CONCLUSION
1lease set aside all the dismissals and .ecogniDe =.ocess and se.<ice o0 =.ocess as a==.o=.iatel/
conducted, consolidate these cases, and an/ othe. .elie0 this Cou.ts sees as a==.o=.iate.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
(he unde.signed does he.e@/ a00i.m that the =.eceding document does not contain the social secu.it/
num@e. o0 an/ =e.son.
DA(ED (32%: *e@.ua./ $0, 20$2,
AsA Zach Coughlin, signed elect.onicall/
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1lainti00
- $0A$$ -
V4.1021
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Proof of Ser!"e#
4n this date, 2, Zach Coughlin elect.onicall/ se.<ed a t.ue and co..ect co=/ o0 the 0o.egoing
document to those Eho a.e .egiste.ed e0ile.s and o. Ehom e0le+ still lists as .ecei<ing elect.onic
notice...as to those Eho a.enBt, the/ Ee.e mailed a t.ue and co..ect co=/ o0 the 0o.egoing @/ =lacing
such in the us mail on this date:
B.ian :onsal<es, Esq
1.4. Bo+ !07
>ings Beach, CA !,$"#
Atto.ne/ 0o. (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices FC2%2% 2N(EVEN(24N %EV2CE%C 932C3 2% N4( A
NA?ED 1A(8 AND 3A% N4( 2N(E17ED 4 *27ED A% A EA7 1A(8 2N 2N(EE%(
721%4N, NE27%4N, C47E, %E7(ZE G :A2N
54%E13 1. :A2N, E%H.
Ne<ada Ba. No. ,,5#
%3ANN4ND N4D%(4?
Ne<ada Ba. No. '2$$
!0'0 9est 1ost oad, %uite $00
7as Vegas, Ne<ada '!$"'
(E7: F702C#'2)$500 *AI: F702C #'2)$5$2
Atto.ne/ 0o. De0endant 9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, a Ne<ada Co.=o.ation, >A(38
BEC>EN2D:E, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as Boa.d 1.esident o0 97%, (4DD
(4V2NEN, 2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97% Boa.d ?em@e., 1A67 E7CAN4, 2ndi<iduall/
and in his ca=acit/ as E+ecuti<e Di.ecto. o0 97%, D4E% $)$00, 2ndi<iduall/ and in thei. ca=acit/ as
mem@e.s o0 the B4AD 4* D2EC(4% 4* 9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, CA8N
%(EN72:3(, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/, 54N %A%%E, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as 97% agent, >AEN %AB4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/,
?AC A%37E8, 2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/, ZANDA 741EZ; 2ndi<iduall/
and in he. ca=acit/ as 97% em=lo/ee;
:a./ *ulle., Esq.
Atto.ne/ 0o. CAA9
DA(ED (32%: *e@.ua./ $0th, 20$2,
JAsA Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
1lainti00
- $$A$$ -
V4.1022
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
02-13-2012:02:15:41 PM
2175
Clerk of the Court
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNON D. NORDSTROM
Nevada Bar No. 8211
9080 West Post Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services,
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge,
J on Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
IN THE SECOND J UDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
ZACH COUGHLIN, CASE NO.: CV11-01896
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs. DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO
)
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET ASIDE
)
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada ORDER
)
Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE,
)
Individually and in her capacity as Board
)
President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN,
)
Individually and in his capacity as WLS
)
Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually
)
and in his capacity as Executive Director of
)
WLS, DOES 1-100, Individually and in their
)
capacity as members of the BOARD OF
)
DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
)
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT,
)
Individually and in her capacity as WLS
)
attorney, J ON SASSER, Individually and in
)
his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO,
)
)
attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and
)
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA
)
LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as
)
WLS employee, DOES and ROES 1-100.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
/ / /
V4.1023
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
26
27
28

DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Defendants Paul Elcano, individually and in his capacity as Executive Director of WLS,
Todd Torvinen, individually and in his capacity as WLS Board Member, J on Sasser, individually
and in his capacity as WLS agent, Marc Ashley, individually and in his capacity as WLS
attorney, Karen Sabo, individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney, Kathy Breckenridge,
individually and in her capacity as Board President of WLS, and Washoe Legal Services, a
Nevada Corporation, (collectively Defendants), by and through their attorneys of record,
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., hereby submit their Opposition to Plaintiffs
Motion to Set Aside Order.
This Opposition is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, together
with the pleadings and files herein, and any oral argument this Court permits.
DATED this 13
th
day of February, 2012.
LIPSON NEILSON COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C
G
By: __________________________________
J oseph P. Garin (Bar No. 6653)
Shannon D. Nordstrom (Bar No. 8211)
(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy
Breckenridge, J on Sasser,and Caryn Sternlicht
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
- 2 -
V4.1024
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
26
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. Introduction

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Plaintiffs 93 page Motion to Set Aside Order is a rambling diatribe peppered with
insulting and unprofessional remarks and very little in terms of legal argument. The points that
Plaintiffs Motion does raise have previously been briefed, argued, and decided. Nevertheless,
Plaintiff made a conscious choice to file this Motion to insult this Court and Defense counsel
for the motions filed and the Courts earlier decisions. This Court should deny the Motion and
sua sponte sanctions against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Coughlin was formerly employed as an attorney for Washoe Legal Services
(WLS). Coughlin filed two lawsuits against WLS, et al., attempting to assert claims for
wrongful termination:
Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services, et. al.
Case No.: CV11-01896
Hon. Brent Adams
Filed: J une 27, 2011
and
Zachary Coughlin v Washoe Legal Services, et. al.
Hon. Steven P. Elliott
Docket Reports, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. On October 27, 2011, Coughlin began
attempts at service of the summons and complaint in the second case, Case No. CV11-01896,
against Defendants. Despite Coughlins varying attempts at service on Defendants, or lack
thereof, as fully briefed in their respective Motions to Dismiss, all attempts proved improper.
Accordingly, Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(3)
and/or (4) and NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal of the case as to all Defendants on
J anuary 11, 2012. Order, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
On J anuary 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a 93 page Motion to Set Aside Order. Plaintiffs
Motion is nothing more than an attempt to get another shot at Motions already briefed, argued,
and lost. Plaintiff chooses to insult this Court and Defense counsel for the motions filed and
for the Courts prior rulings. Moreover, Plaintiff chooses to bring up issues either properly
- 3 -
V4.1025
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
decided or inapposite to the present Motion.
1
By and large, this case has evolved into a
guessing game in terms of what Plaintiff is filing with this Court and what he believes he is
filing.
Overall, Plaintiffs arguments are unsubstantiated and needlessly long. Defendants
request this Court deny Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside Order, deny any and all additional relief
requested by Plaintiff, and further request the Court sanction Plaintiff for his immaterial and
unprofessional remarks and failure to comply with WDCR 21.
3. Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 60.
Plaintiffs request to set aside or vacate the Courts dismissal must be denied.
2
Setting
aside or vacating a judgment or order are generally appropriate if the district court is presented
with newly discovery evidence, evidence of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or fraud.
See NRCP 60.
It can best be surmised that Plaintiff is claiming mistake and excusable neglect in failing
to timely and properly serve Defendants in accordance with NRCP 4 and is also claiming that
Defendants misrepresented to the Court Plaintiffs service papers. Plaintiff does not introduce
new evidence that would support setting aside or vacating the Courts Order nor does Plaintiff
appear to be arguing there is new evidence. Accordingly, Defendants will address Plaintiffs
presumed arguments of mistake, excusable neglect, and misrepresentation in setting aside
or vacating the Courts dismissal.
A. Plaintiff fails to present evidence of mistake.
On J anuary 11, 2012, this Court ordered Defendants dismissed from this case on the
grounds that Plaintiffs service attempts were untimely. Specifically, the Court stated, The
Court need not address Defendants argument that Plaintiffs attempted service of process was
1
Plaintiff makes blanket arguments throughout the Motion that are difficult to follow. Plaintiff includes
statements regarding consolidation, reconsideration, request for attorneys fees, Rule 11 sanctions, reargues
service of process, tolling, statute of limitations, requests a declaration, and requests a default. Specifically, a
Motion to Dismiss based on statute of limitations is not before this Court. Thus, Plaintiffs citations and statements
in this regard are misplaced.
2
Plaintiff titles the Motion as a Motion to Set Aside pursuant to NRCP 60. However he states, This Motion
is made pursuant to the authorities discussed below, including NRCP 59. Motion at 3:18-19. Therefore, Defendants
will address both arguments.
- 4 -
V4.1026
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
insufficient since the Court has already determined that it was untimely. See Exhibit 2.
Plaintiff argues that the Courts dismissal determining J une 27, 2011 as the filing date of the
Complaint is incorrect, and if correct, he was unaware that the 120 days would start running
from such date. In support of his argument, Plaintiff string cites to a plethora of cases, some
applicable to this matter, however, the vast majority not. While there is no binding precedent
holding that the filing date in in forma pauperis cases is the date in which the court receives
the complaint, and a few jurisdictions have ruled to the contrary, the Ninth Circuit has provided
this Court with some direction.
In Cintron v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 813 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir.1987), a case Plaintiff
cites in his Motion, the Ninth Circuit held that a complaint is considered filed when it is placed
in possession of the clerk of the court. In other words, when the clerk receives the Complaint
the matter is deemed commenced and filed. Such a holding is consistent with NRCP 3 and
5(e).
3
In this case, the clerk of the court received Plaintiffs Complaint on J une 27, 2011. As
evidenced by the Docket Report, the matter was deemed filed on J une 27, 2011. Therefore,
pursuant to NRCP 4, Plaintiff had 120 days from that date to properly serve Defendants, which
he failed to do. The fact that Plaintiff, a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of Nevada,
was unaware of his service requirements is inexcusable and does not support evidence of
mistake. Importantly, Plaintiff never bothered to file a motion to enlarge his time
/ / /
/ / /
3
NRCP 3 states, A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.
NRCP 5(e) states, Filing With the Court Defined. The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as
required by these rules shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court, except that the judge may permit
the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the judge shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith
transmit them to the office of the clerk. A court may by local rule permit papers to be filed, signed or verified by
electronic means that are consistent with technical standards, if any, that the Judicial Conference of the United
States establishes. A paper signed by electronic means in compliance with the local rule constitutes a written paper
presented for the purpose of applying these rules. The clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented
for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or
practices.
- 5 -
V4.1027
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
for service, never truly opposed Defendants respective Motions to Dismiss, and has
needlessly continued this proceeding through unsubstantiated motions. In conclusion, Plaintiff
has failed to present any evidence of mistake.
B. Plaintiff fails to establish excusable neglect.
In Stoecklein v. Johnson Elec., Inc., the Nevada Supreme Court set forth standards for
relief under NRCP 60(b)(1)
4
, stating, The presence of the following factors indicates that the
requirements of this rule have been satisfied: (1) prompt application to remove the judgment;
(2) an absence of an intent to delay the proceedings; (3) a lack of knowledge of the procedural
requirements on the part of the moving party; and (4) good faith. 109 Nev. 268, 271, 849 P.2d
305 (1993).
Plaintiff cannot satisfy any of these factors. Plaintiff, currently a license Nevada attorney
with litigation experience, has not acted promptly in any respect in this case. With respect to
the second factor, Plaintiff has needlessly delayed the proceedings by failing to properly serve
Defendants, by failing to essentially oppose Defendants Motions to Dismiss, and by continuing
to file groundless motions to set aside the Courts dismissal. With respect to the third factor,
Plaintiff is a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of Nevada. He has litigation
experience and is well aware of procedural requirements. He knows that NRCP 4 requires a
plaintiff to timely and properly provide service of process to a Defendant to satisfy due process
concerns.
Lastly, with respect to the fourth factor, Plaintiff is certainly not filing the motion in good
faith. Rather, Plaintiff seeks to insult and harass this Court, and to needlessly multiply these
proceedings. Plaintiffs argument for excusable neglect rests solely on an eviction proceeding
and his alleged financial troubles at the time which allegedly hindered him from properly
serving defendants in accordance with NRCP 4. Plaintiff disregards that he waited until the last
minute before attempting to complete service. He had 120 days to properly serve Defendants.
He had the ability to file a motion to enlarge time for service. He had an opportunity to oppose
4
NRCP 60(b)(1) states, On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a
partys legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
- 6 -
V4.1028
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Defendants Motions to Dismiss. He has been afforded ample opportunity to move the case
along. Plaintiff seeks to absolve himself of the failed service attempts by placing blame on the
Washoe County Sheriffs Office. However, Plaintiff has made no showing to support his
allegations. Furthermore, Exhibit 1" attached to the Motion to Set Aside Order proves Plaintiff
failed to both timely and properly serve Defendants.
Interestingly, Plaintiffs argument appears to largely rest on a New York case, McKenzie
v. Amtrak M of E, 777 F.Supp. 1119, 1121 (S.D. NY 1990) in averring excusable neglect/good
cause under NRCP4(i).
5
In McKenzie the New York court found that a plaintiff proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis was excused from failure to timely serve a legible copy of the
complaint on a Defendant because court personnel provided the plaintiff with an illegible copy
of the complaint. Id.
McKenzie is inapplicable in this case for several reasons. First, Plaintiff was never
provided an illegible copy of the complaint. Rather Plaintiff, by his own admission, was
responsible for providing illegible copies to the Defendants he attempted to serve.
6
The defect
in service is attributable to Plaintiff, not court personnel or anyone else for that matter.
Secondly, unlike McKenzie, Plaintiff is a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of
Nevada and either knows or should know NRCP 4's service requirements. The Court cannot
simply disregard this key factor. Overall, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of
excusable neglect and this Court should deny Plaintiffs request to set aside or vacate the
Courts dismissal against Defendants.
/ / /
5
NRCP (i) states, If a service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120
days after the filing of the complaint, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the
courts own initiative with notice to such party or upon motion, unless the party on whose behalf such service was
required files a motion to enlarge the time for service and shows good cause why such service was not made within
that period. If the party on whose behalf such service was required fails to file a motion to enlarge the time for
service before the 120-day service period expires, the court shall take that failure into consideration in determining
good cause for an extension of time. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall extend the time for service and
set a reasonable date by which service should be made.
6
Defendants Marc Ashley, Jon Sasser, and Washoe Legal Services were never served in this case. Albeit,
Plaintiff appears to be arguing in his Motion that WLS was served on December 9, 2011 via service on Paul Elcano.
- 7 -
V4.1029
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
C. Defendants made accurate representations to the Court regarding
Plaintiffs service attempts on Defendants.
In order to prevail on grounds of misrepresentation and /or fraud on the court, the
burden is on the moving party to show by clear and convincing evidence that an
unconscionable plan or scheme ... designed to improperly influence the court in its decision
was perpetrated. Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 146 n.2, 625 P.2d 568 (1981) (citing
England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir. 1960).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants attached inaccurate service papers to their
respective Motions to Dismiss and therefore made misrepresentations to the Court. Plaintiff
makes baseless accusations against Defendants with absolutely no support and contradicts
himself throughout the Motion. At one point Plaintiff acknowledges he improperly served
Defendants and then turns around and accuses Defendants of attaching inaccurate service
papers. All the while Plaintiff has not produced what he claims to be the accurate service
papers provided to Defendants.
Indeed, Defendants provided accurate representations of the service papers. Plaintiff
raises no basis upon which to grant the relief requested; he has failed to meet his burden in
making these unfounded accusations. In sum, Plaintiff does not meet the standard under
NRCP 60 and this Court should deny Plaintiffs request to set aside or vacate the Courts
dismissal.
4. Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 59
Rule 59(e) provides an opportunity, within severely limited time, to seek correction at
the trial court level of an erroneous order or judgment, thereby initially avoiding the time and
expense of appeal. Chiara v. Belaustegui, 86 Nev. 856, 859, 477 P.2d 857 (1970). Among the
grounds for this type of motion are correcting manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice, or a change in
controlling law. AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, 245 P.3d 1190,
1193 (2010). Notably, the motion must state with particularity its grounds and set forth the relief
or order sought. Id.
- 8 -
V4.1030

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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Here, Plaintiff fails to articulate with particularity the grounds on which he brings this
Motion. The 93 page Motion raises various arguments, the majority of which are superfluous
and confusing given the length of the motion and Plaintiffs string cites from various legal
reports. None of Plaintiffs arguments truly make clear on what grounds the Motion is brought,
or what relief is requested. To the contrary, Plaintiff makes nonsensical arguments which fail
to demonstrate any type of manifest error in law or fact, newly discovered evidence or
previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice, or a change in
controlling law.
7
Plaintiff merely makes arguments he made or could have made in his various
oppositions to Defendants Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs arguments do not meet the standard
set forth in NRCP 59. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion should be denied.
5. Plaintiff does not meet the standard for a Motion for Reconsideration.
To the extent Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the Courts dismissal, it must be
denied. A court may reconsider a previously decided issue if substantially different evidence
is subsequently introduced or the decision is clearly erroneous. Masonry and Title
Contractors Assn of So. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd., 113 Nev. 737, 741 941 P.2d 486,
489 (1997) (citing Moore v. City of Las Vegas, 92 Nev. 402, 405, 551 P.2d 244, 246 (1976)
(Only in very rare instances in which new issues of fact or law are raised supporting a ruling
contrary to the ruling already reached should a motion for rehearing be granted.))
Plaintiffs grounds for bringing this Motion are unclear. Plaintiff cites to pages and page
of case law without tying it into this case. It can best be surmised that Plaintiff believes service
of process on Defendants was both timely and proper despite the Courts findings that
Plaintiffs service attempts were untimely. Plaintiff does not present any new evidence to light
or change the fact that service of process on Defendants did not comply with NRCP 4. The
Court properly held that Plaintiff did not comply with procedural service requirements in serving
Defendants. All service papers were accurately attached to each respective motion. Whether
/ / /
7
Plaintiff argues in forma pauperis throughout this Motion, however Plaintiff never applied to proceed in
forma pauperis in this case.
- 9 -
V4.1031
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Plaintiff is potentially prejudiced by this dismissal does not affect this Courts determination.
Plaintiff does not meet the standard for reconsideration and therefore the Motion should be
denied.
8
6. Plaintiffs Motion for Consolidation does not exist.
Plaintiff contends that his Motion for Consolidation is pending before the Court. It
appears Plaintiff has confused this case with the second case, Case No. CV11-01955. A
Motion for Consolidation was never filed in this case. Moreover, the Court in the second case
denied any proposed motion on J anuary 13, 2011, when it ordered Plaintiffs First and Second
Set of Supplemental Motions denied. Order, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
7. Plaintiffs request for attorney fees is improper and unfounded.
Plaintiff contends that this Court should award him attorneys fees for the costs incurred
in opposing Defendants motion for sanctions. Moreover, Plaintiff avers that Defendants
Motions are frivolous, misrepresent the holdings of cases, misrepresent facts, and that
Defendants have an ulterior motive for filing their motions.
Plaintiffs arguments are without merit seeing as Defendants never filed a motion for
sanctions. Importantly, Plaintiff refuses to recognize that he failed to abide by NRCP 4's
mandate in serving Defendants, and in failing to do so, the Court properly dismissed this case
against Defendants. Defendants have not misrepresented the law or facts to this Court.
Motions to Dismiss were properly and timely filed after Plaintiffs numerous and varying service
attempts on Defendants. Given Plaintiffs unfounded request, this Court should deny Plaintiffs
request for attorneys fees.
8. Plaintiffs request for sanctions is improper and unfounded.
In this Motion, Plaintiff appears to be arguing that he should be awarded sanctions and
/ or that he previously filed a motion for sanctions. First, a review of the docket clearly shows
that Plaintiff never filed a Motion for Sanctions against Defendants. Second, if Plaintiff is
8
Even if this Court is persuaded that Plaintiff's service attempts were timely, for those Defendants that were
served, the Court must still consider the sufficiency of the service. As fully discussed in Defendants respective
Motions to Dismiss, service and / or process was nonetheless improper.
- 10 -
V4.1032
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
seeking to file a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to NRCP 11 via this Motion to Set Aside Court
Order, which appears to be the case, he is improperly doing so. NRCP 11(c)(1)(A) not only
requires that a motion for sanctions be made separately from other motions or requests, but
requires the motion describe the specific conduct to be sanctioned and that the non-moving
party be provided 21 days after service of the motion to withdraw or correct the sanctionable
conduct.
Plaintiff has not done any of the aforementioned. Plaintiff did not file a motion for
sanctions separately, did not specify the conduct to be sanctioned, and did not serve nor
provide Defendants 21 days to withdraw or correct any sanctionable conduct. As a result, this
Court should deny Plaintiffs request for sanctions.
9. This Court should sanction Plaintiff for his unprofessional and disrespectful
remarks throughout the Motion.
Defendants request this Court sanction Plaintiff for his unprofessional and disrespectful
remarks addressed to this Court and Defense counsel. Previously, the Court in the second
case warned Plaintiff to refrain from making derogatory and unprofessional remarks. The Court
stated,
the Court admonishes Plaintiff to conduct himself professionally and civilly in the
proceedings before this Court. Plaintiffs sarcastic, derogatory, and disrespectful
remarks, do not assist in resolving this litigation, and may result in sanctions if
continued.
9
Despite the prior warning, Plaintiff continues to make inflammatory and disrespectful remarks
aimed at this Court, Defense counsel and several Defendants. Plaintiff should be sanctioned
to prevent him from continuing such misconduct.
Specifically, Plaintiff criticizes the Courts dismissal by stating This is a bunch of
crap,
10
What a joke,
11
and this is still a bunch of baloney!
12
Plaintiff then proceeds to
insult Defense counsel through statements such as What is so despicable about what
9
Order, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. See page 2:26-28.
10
Motion at 62:13
11
Motion at 62:13
12
Motion at 61:20
- 11 -
V4.1033
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Garin does...,
13
Garin is purposefully scanning pages in pages on really low dpi
settings to make then look way worse than they actually do,
14
and Garins whole
defense has been a study in avoiding having anybody with anything damaging to say
not saying anything while having people with nothing to say say something about that
to which they have no knowledge, including Garin himself.
15
Plaintiffs criticisms are a shameful attempt to divert the attention away from Plaintiffs
shortcomings. They are offensive, disrespectful and entirely unprofessional. This Court should
sanction Plaintiff for continuing to make improper and inflammatory remarks. Defendants
suggest a $1,000.00 sanction payable to Defendants would be appropriate.
10. This Court should award Defendants monetary sanctions pursuant to WDCR 21.
Washoe District Court Rule 21 states,
"If a party or an attorney fails or refuses to comply with these rules, the court
may make such orders and impose such sanctions as are just, including, but not
limited to the following: 1. Hold the disobedient party or attorney in contempt of
court. 2. Continue any hearing until the disobedient party or attorney has
complied with the requirements imposed. 3. Require the disobedient party to
pay the other party's expenses, including a reasonable attorney's fee, incurred
in preparing for and attending such hearing. 4. Enter an order authorized by
N.R.C.P. 37."
(Emphasis added). Furthermore, Washoe District Court Rule 10(9) provides, (a)ny motion,
opposition, reply, etc. must be filed as a separate document unless it is pleaded in the
alternative. (Emphasis added).
Here, Plaintiff violated Washoe District Court Rules in combining an Motion to Set Aside
with a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion to Alter or Amend, among other requests
discussed above, into one single document, in contravention with WDCR 10(9). Defendants
request that the Court award Defendants monetary sanctions pursuant to WDCR 21 for
Plaintiffs noncompliance with WDCR 10(9).
/ / /
13
Motion at 58:13
14
Motion at 62:9-13
15
Motion at 64:1-4
- 12 -
V4.1034
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
26
27
28
11. Conclusion

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs
Motion to Set Aside Court Order, deny any and all additional relief requested by Plaintiff, and
award Defendants monetary sanctions.
DATED this 13
th
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, J on Sasser, and Caryn Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
(Pursuant to NRS 239B.030)
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, DEFENDANTS
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET ASIDE COURT ORDER, filed in Case No.
CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 13
th
day of February, 2012
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, J on Sasser, and Caryn Sternlicht
- 13 -
V4.1035
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
26
27
28
_______________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
I certify that on the 13
th
day of February, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of
DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET ASIDE COURT ORDER,
upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Brian A. Gonsalves, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 907
Defendant for Crisis Intervention Services
and by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women; and
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.
- 14 -
V4.1036
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
EXHIBIT INDEX
No.1 Docket Reports on
CV11-01955 and
CV11-01896
2 pages
No. 2 Order 3 pages
No. 3 Order Denying Plaintiffs
Motion for Reconsideration
and Motion to Set Aside or
Vacate Order Granting
Dismissal; Motion to Tax
Costs; Motion for Extension
of Time; And Additional
Motions
4 pages
No. 4 Order Granting Motion to
Dismiss for Insufficient
Service of process and
Other Relief
5 pages
- 15 -
V4.1037
F I L E D
Electronically
02-13-2012:02:15:41 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1038
." "1
I IT "1"
V4.1039
Docket Report Results
Repprt Selectipn Crjteria
CaselD: CV11-01896
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case oescriptipn
Case 10: CV11-01896 -ZACH COUGHLlNVS. WASHOE LEGAL
Filing
Date:
SERVICES ETAL.(06)
Monday, June 27th, 2011
Type: WT - TORTS-WRONGFUL TERMINATION
Status: EVNTCLOSEO - Event Closed
Related Cases
No related cases found.
Case Eyent SchedYle
No case events oore found.
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
Expn
Type ID
Date
1 Judge J2Q
Name'
ADAMS,
HONORABLE
BRENT
HOme
.

(e) Copyright2001 Allilialed CO!11luler SyskllT'S,lnc.ACSand the ACSlogo are registered trade!T'arks.
This oontains !rade wcrets and Is subjectlo a confidentiality agreerrent The unauthorized
possession, USB, reproduction, dislribution, display, or disclosure of this rrelerlal or the information contained herein is prohibited.
Mi rights reserved. User Nollor official use.
V4.1040
Report Selection Criteria
Case 10: CV11-01955
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case Description
Case 10: CV11-01955-ZACHARYCOUGHLlNVS. WASHOE LEGAL
SRVC, ET AL(D10)
Filing Thursday, June 30th, 2011
Date:
Status: INITIAL - Case initiated.
Relgted Cases
No related cases VLere found.
Case Event Schedyle
No case events Mere found.
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
1

Expn
Type
Date
Judge

,.,'EyOOrSbtieaullt
10
D10
M3ooO'ilSweCtjOil'
.
Name
ELLIOTT,
HONORABLE
STEVEN P.
.
.
(c) Copyrlght2001 Affiliated COlT\luter SystelTE, Inc.ACS and the N:,S logo are registered traderrarks.
This contains trade secrets and is subJect to a confidentiality agreerrent The unauthorized
possession, use, reproduction, distribution, dlsplaY,or disclosure ofthlsrrelerial or the information contained herein is prohibited.
AlI.rights reserved. User Accsptsl,Aqrees to Disclalrrer.Not for official use.

EXHIBIT 2
V4.1041
F I L E D
Electronically
01-11-2012:04:20:41 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1042
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code 3370
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Case No. CV11-01896
Plaintiff,
Dept. No.6
v.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et ai,
Defendants.
----------------------------,
ORDER
There are currently eight motions pending before this Court. All eight motions ar
premised upon Plaintiff Zachary Coughlin's ("Plaintiff") failure to timely serve Defendants i
this action.
1
N.R.C.P. 4(i) provides in relevant part:
"If a service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a
defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the
action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice
upon the court's own initiative with notice to such party or upon
motion, unless the party on whose behalf such service was
required files a motion to enlarge the time for service and shows
good cause why such service was not made within that period."
Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 27, 2011. Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 4(i), Plaintiff would
have 120 days to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants or until October 25,
2011. Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants Paul Elcano ("Elcano"), Todd Torvine
("Torvinen"), Jon Sasser ("Sasser"), Marc Ashley ("Ashley"), Karen Sabo ("Sabo"), Kath
Breckenridge ("Breckenridge"), Washoe Legal Services ("WLS") and Crisis Intervention
Services ("CIS") within the mandated time period. In addition, Plaintiff failed to file a motio
1 The Court need not address Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs attempted service of process was insufficient since
the Court has already determined that it was untimely.
-1-
V4.1043
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
to enlarge time for service or show good cause as to why service was not made within th
statutory period.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants Elcano, Torvinen, Sasser, Ashley, Sabo,
WLS, CIS and Breckenridge's motion(s) to dismiss without prejudice.
2
DATED: This [ ~ a y of January, 2012.
DISTRICT JUDGE
28 2 Although CIS sought dismissal with prejudice, the Court may dismiss an action without prejudice when service is
untimely. See N.R.C.P. 4(i). In addition, CIS's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied at this time because the
Court dismissed this action on procedural grounds without analyzing the merits of Plaintiffs case.
-2-
V4.1044
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
26
27
28
I certify that I am an employee of THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT;
that on the fl1:f1 day of January, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ.
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
And, I deposited in the County mailing system for postage and mailing with the
United States Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true and correct copy of the attached
document addressed as follows:
Gary M. Fuller, Esq.
PO Box 2838
Reno, NV 89505

EXHIBIT 3
V4.1045
F I L E D
Electronically
01-13-2012:10:14:06 AM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1046
1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
8
***
9
10 ZACH COUGHLIN,
11
12
13
vs.
Plaintiff, Case No.: CV11-01955
Dept. No.: 10
14 WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et al;
15 Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL; MOTION TO TAX
COSTS; MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; AND ADDITIONAL MOTIONS
Presently before the Court are several motions filed by Plaintiff ZACH COUGHLIN
21 (hereafter "Plaintiff''). First, on December 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document titled
22 "Opposition to all Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and all Defendant's Motions to Quash
23 Service, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond/Continuance; Opposition to Motion to
24 Tax Costs Simultaneously Seeking Extensions of Time or Continuance to Respond"
25 (hereafter "Plaintiff's Initial Motions"). The following day, December 16, 2011, Plaintiff file
26 a document titled "Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside
27 NRCP 59, 60 Dismissal and Supplement to Opposition to all Defendant's Motions to Dismiss
28 and all Defendant's Motions to Quash Service, Motion for Extension of Time to
-1-
I
V4.1047
1 Respond/Continuance; Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs Simultaneously Seeking
2 Extensions of Time or Continuance to Respond" (hereafter "Plaintiff's First Set of
3 Supplemental Motions''). That same day, Plaintiff also filed a document titled "Opposition
4 to all Defendant's Motions to Dismiss; Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Order Granting
5 Dismissal NRCP 59, NRCP 50; Motion for Reconsideration" (hereafter "Plaintiff's Second Set
6 of Supplemental Motions',).!
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Subsequently, on December 27, 2011, Defendants WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES and
PAUL ELCANO (hereafter "Defendants") filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Order Granting Dismissal.
Contemporaneously therewith, Defendants filed an Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs.
Finally, on January 10. 2011, Defendants filed Requests for Submission of Plaintiff's
Motions, thereby submitting the matters for the Court's consideration.
Although Plaintiff's arguments are unclear, he appears to argue-in his First Set of
15 Supplemental Motions-that his service of Defendants was sufficient based on his
16 production of an application for a driver's license by the server, video evidence of the
17 service, an edited proof of service with typewritten additions by Plaintiff, and vague
18 reference to additional attempts at service. However, this evidence is not substantially
19 different from the evidence submitted by Plaintiff in his initial opposition to Defendants'
20
21
22
23
motion to dismiss, and the evidence does not cure the defects in service noted by the
Court in its Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Process and Other Relief.
Likewise, the evidence does not show that the Court's conclusion. was clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration through his motions,
24 the Court concludes that Plaintiff's motions must be denied. See NRCP 59; Masonry and
25
Title Contractors Assn of So. Nev. v. Jolly Urga & Wirth/ Ltd., 113 Nev. 737, 741,941 P.2d
26
486, 489 (1997) (holding that a court "may reconsider a previously decided issue if
27
28 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff's filings do not conform to District Court rules for such filings. Nonetheless, in
the interest of fairness, the Court will consider the merits of Plaintiff's arguments.
-2-
V4.1048
1 substantially different evidence is subsequently introduced or the decision is clearly
2 erroneous''). For the same reasons, the evidence advanced by Plaintiff does not meet the
3 standard for setting aside or vacating the Court's dismissal of his Complaint pursuant to
4 NRCP 60.
5 Although Plaintiff lists additional motions in the titles of his documents, he does not
6 actually provide any argument to support those motions. Further, Plaintiff does not
7
8
9
10
support any of his arguments with citation to relevant law. Accordingly, the Court must
dismiss the additional Motions brought by Plaintiff in the pleadings at issue. See NRCP 7(b)
(requiring that all pleadings must "state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall
set forth the relief or order sought''). Therefore, the Court will issue the following orders:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Order Granting Dismissal is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Initial Motions are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Set of Supplemental Motions is
19 DENIED.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Set of Supplemental Motions is
DENIED.
DATED this I'd.. day of January, 2012.
-3-
V4.1049
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by
3 using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
4
5 JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. for MELISSA MANGIARACINA, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, BOARD PRES.
OF WLS, MARC ASHLEY, TODD TORVINEN, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, TODD TORVINEN,
6 WLS BOARD MEMBER, PAUL ELCANO, PAUL ELCANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WLS
BOARD, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES
7
8 GARY FULLER, ESQ. for COMMmEE TO AIDE ABUSED WOMAN
9 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH COUGHLIN
10
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ for TAHOE WOMEN'S SERVICES
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this ICh
.
=-_ _

Judicial Assistant
-4-

EXHIBIT 4
V4.1050
F I L E D
Electronically
12-08-2011:11:22:08AM
CraigFranden
ClerkoftheCourt
Transaction#2634050
V4.1051
1
2
3
4
5
8
9 ZACH COUGHLIN,
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et al;
13
Defendants.
________________________
***
Dept. No.: 10
14
15
16
17
18
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF
PROCESS AND OTHER RELIEF
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process
-1-
V4.1052
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
October 10, 2011, Defendants filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the
matter for the Court's consideration.!
I. Factual &. Procedural Background
This case arises out of an employment dispute. Plaintiff was formerly employed as
an attorney for Washoe Legal Services. Plaintiff alleges that, while he was an employee,
he became aware of several potential legal violations by his former employer. Plaintiff
claims that he was fired after he informed his former employer of the violations, and that
such firing was in retaliation for his informing the former employer of the violations.
Additionally, Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to a hostile work environment.
Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer and related entities and individuals on
June 27, 2011, in Case No. CVll-01896. This suit is currently aSSigned to Department Six
of the 2
nd
Judicial District Court. Three days later, on June 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a secon
action, which he admits asserts the same claims as those presented in his first action.
Plaintiff's second action is Case No. CVll-01955, and it is Plaintiff's second action that is
currently before this Court. Defendants now move the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claim on
the basis that Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants in the manner prescribed by Nevada law.
As such, Defendants assert that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendants.
II. Standard of Review
Pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) the standard of review for a motion to dismiss is
20 rigorous. Blackjack Bonding v. City of Las Vegas Municipal Court, 116 Nev. 1213; 14 P.3d
21 1275 (2000). As such, the Court will construe the pleadings liberally and draw every
22 reasonable inference in favor of the non-moving party. Vacation ViI/age v. Hitachi America,
23 110 Nev. 481, 484, 874 P.2d 744, 746 (1994).
24 III
25
26
27
28
1 As a preliminary matter, the Court admonishes Plaintiff to conduct himself professionally and civilly in the
proceedings before this court. Plaintiff's sarcastic, derogatory, and disrespectful remarks do not assist in
resolving this litigation, and may result in sanctions if continued.
-2-
V4.1053
1 The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.
2 Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). However, there is a strong
3 presumption against dismissing an action for failure to state a claim. See Gilligan v. Jamco
4 Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Thus, upon being
5 adequately stated, a claim may be supported by showing "enough facts to state a claim to
6 relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969
7 (2007) (Citation omitted). However, the factual allegations included in a complaint "must
8 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." fd. at 1964-65. ''The
9 pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates
10 a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action." fd. at 1965.
11 III. Legal Analysis
12 As noted above, Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for insufficient service 0
13 process pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(4). As explained below, the Court agrees that service of
14 process was insufficient as to both Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
20
NRCP 4(a) requires that:
Upon the filing of the complaint, the clerk shall forthwith issue a
summons and deliver it to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's
attorney, who shall be responsible for service of the summons
and a copy of the complaint Upon request of the plaintiff,
separate or additional summons shall issue against any
defendants.
21 Emphasis added. NRCP 4(b) describes the form that a summons must resemble to be
22 valid, and NRCP 4(c) identifies the type of parties that may serve process. Specifically,
23 NRCP 4(c) requires that: "Process shall be served by the sheriff of the county where the
24 defendant is found, or by a deputy, or by any person who is not a party and who is over 18
25 years of age." Finally, NRCP 4(d) explains the proper methods of service for various
26 defendants.
27 As applied to the instant case, Plaintiff's Proof of Service shows that service was
28 insufficient in several respects. First, the Proof of Service indicates that Plaintiff did not
-3-
V4.1054
1 serve Defendants with a copy of the summons, as required by NRCP 4(a). Rather,
2 Plaintiff's Proof of Service indicates that he only served Defendants with a copy of the
3 Complaint. For this reason alone, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's claim on the basis of
4 insufficient service of process. See NRCP 4(a). However, the Court also notes that
5
6
7
Plaintiff's Proof of Service does not indicate whether the listed process server, whose name
is illegible on the Proof of Service, was eligible to serve process under NRCP 4(c). Indeed,
the Proof of Service does not include any identifying information relating to the process
8
9
server, the process server did not make any affirmations as to the details of the service,
and the process server's signature is not notarized. Accordingly, Plaintiff's service of
10
11
process is also insufficient under NRCP 4(c). Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff's method
12
of service for Defendants was also insufficient under NRCP 4(d)(1) and 4(d)(6).2 For all
13 of these reasons, the Court will issue the following order:
14 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to
15 Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process and Other Relief is GRANTED.
16
17
18
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
-
20 DATED this L day of December, 2011.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
District Judge
2 In light of the Court's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants for insufficient service of
process, Defendants separate argument that Plaintiff's suit must be dismissed, stayed or consolidated with hi
other pending action is rendered moot.
-4-
V4.1055
1
2
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by
3 using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
4
5 JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. for MELISSA MANGIARACINA, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, BOARD PRES.
OF WLS, MARC ASHLEY, TODD TORVINEN, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, TODD TORVINEN,
6 WLS BOARD MEMBER, PAUL ELCANO, PAUL ELCANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WLS
BOARD, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES
7
8 GARY FULLER, ESQ. for COMMmEE TO AIDE ABUSED WOMAN
9 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH COUGHLIN
10
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ for TAHOE WOMEN'S SERVICES
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this ---10$,-_ day of

Judicial Assistant
-5-
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-13-2012:14:15:41
02-13-2012:14:23:07
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.forJONSASSER,
WASHOELEGALSERVICES,PAULELCANO,
MARCASHLEY,KARENSABO,CARYN
STERNLIGHT,KATHYBRECKENRIDGE
COUGHLIN
WOMEN'SSERVICES
V4.1056
SHANNONNORDSTROM,ESQ
TODDTORVINEN
PROPERPERSON
ZANDRALOPEZ
BOARDOFDIRECTORSOFWASHOELEGAL
SERVICES
PAULELCANO
V4.1057
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-11-2012:00:19:34
02-13-2012:08:36:56
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
COUGHLIN
WOMEN'SSERVICES
TODDTORVINEN
PROPERPERSON
V4.1058
ZANDRA LOPEZ
SERVICES
PAUL ELCANO
V4.1059
V4.1060
13
4b
F\LED
2
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9815
'l.m rEB \ 5 Pl'I 2: \4
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845
Attorney for Defendant
Crisis Intervention Services
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et. aI.,
Defendants
Case No.:
Dept. No.:
CVII-OI896
6
CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
Defendant Crisis Intervention Services, incorrectly named as Tahoe Women's Services,
by and through its attorney Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., hereby opposes the following motions filed
by Plaintiff Zachary Coughlin, Esq.:
1. Motion to re-tax costs filed on January 31, 2012,
2. Motion to alter or amend filed on February 1,2012,
3. Motion for extension oftime filed on February 7, 2012, and
4. Motion to alter or amend filed on February 9, 2 ~ 1 2
Mr. Coughlin's motions should be denied because they were never properly served to this
Defendant. Counsel for Crisis Intervention Services is no longer an electronic filer and therefore
does not have access to pleadings via eflex. Since this Defen,dant is not an efiler, Mr. Coughlin
is required to print and mail his pleadings to this Defense counseL (or have those pleadings hand
delivered to Defense Counsel's office). Defense counsel notified Mr. Coughlin that defense
,
- I -
V4.1061
counsel was no longer an efiler and requested copies of Mr. Coughlin's recent pleadings on three
2 different occasions, bye-mail and by U.S. Mail, but Mr. Coughlin never sent copies of the
3 pleadings. (See Exhibit I.) Since Mr. Coughlin's motions were not properly served, they should
4 be denied.
5 To the extent that Mr. Coughlin's motions seek to alter or amend the order dismissing
6 Crisis Intervention Services from this suit, those motions should be denied because Mr. Coughlin
7 has already filed one motion to alter or amend that order which is still pending. Crisis
8 Intervention Services was properly dismissed because it is not named or mentioned anywhere in
9 the Complaint. Mr. Coughlin's motions must be denied.
10 The undersigned does hereby affirm that pursuant to NRS 239B.030, this document and
11 any attachments hereto does not contain the social security number of any person.
DATED: February 15,2012.
By: ~ ~ . : : : : .
BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ., SBN 9815
Attorney for Defendant Crisis Intervention
Services
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Case No.:
CVII-01896
20 I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed this Opposition to Motion to Set
21 Aside Order with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which served the following
22 parties electronically:
23 Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff.
24 Joseph P. Garin, Esq., for Kathy Breckenridge, Marc Ashley, Paul Elcano, Washoe
25 Legal Services, Caryn Sternlight, Karen Sabo and John
26 Sasser.
27 DATED: February 15,2012.
28 ~ LlZc--
Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq.
-2-
V4.1062
..
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
26
27
28
1.
Index of Exhibits
Email dated January 31, 2012, Email dated February 8, 2012, and letter dated February 8,
2012, all of which are from Brian Gonsalves to Zachary Coughlin.
3 -

V4.1063
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1
V4.1064
Hotmail Print Message
Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services
From: Brian Gonsalves (bgonsalves@live.com)
Sent: Tue 1/31/12 1:58 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com; Gary Fuller (gfuller@grgflaw.com); Joseph Garin
Ugarin@lipsonneilson.com)
Gentlemen:
I am no longer an e-filer.
Documents can be served to me by mail at:
P.O. Box 907
Page 1 of 1
Mr. Coughlin: I see that you filed two items today. As I am no longer an efiler, I am unable to access
those documents. Please print those items and any future filings and mail them to me at the address
above.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Gonsalves
http:!(byI60w.bay 160 .mail.live.com/maiIlPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5e 1 ffSb 1-8ca4-4c3a-... 1/3112012
V4.1065
RE: Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services
Sent: Wed 2/08/12 2:33 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
1 attachment
Coughlin.03.pdf (290.0 KB)
Mr. Coughlin:
Page I of 1
Please see the attached correspondence demanding that you properly print and mail your filings to
me since I have not received any of your recent pleadings, and demanding payment of the attorney's
fees and costs award that you owe to my client.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Gonsalves
From: bgonsalves@live.com
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com; gfuller@grgflaw.com;jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
Subject: Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:58:42 -0900
Gentlemen:
Documents can be served to me by mail at:
P.O. Box 907
Mr. Coughlin: I see that you filed two items today. As I am no longer an efiler, I am unable to access
above.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Gonsalves
http://by160w.bay160.mail.live.com!maillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=8bc 13ba3 -4dce-4 f2c-9... 2/812012
V4.1066
February 8, 2012
Sent via U.S. Mail and via e-mail tozacbcoughlin@hotmail.com.
Zachary Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. Ninth St., #2
Reno, NV 89512
Re: Coughlin v. Crisis Intervention Services
Case Nos. CVII-OI896 and CVII-019SS
Mr. Coughlin:
As you know per my e-mail to you dated January 31, 2012, I am no longer an e-filer in
Washoe County and therefore can not access documents through eflex. In order to serve your
documents, you need to print them and mail them to me. My mailing address is at the bottom of
this page.
Since I notified you that I am not an efiler, you have filed seven documents: a reply brief
and a motion on January 31,2012; two motions to alter or amend on Febmary 1, 2012; two
summonses on February 2, 2012; and an opposition on February 7, 2012. I have not received
any of these documents from you.
Please comply with the service requirements and print and mail your pleadings to me.
Also, another week has passed and r still have not received payment from you for the
$1,296.62 which was awarded to my client for attorney's fees, nor have I received any response
from you regarding payment. Please let me know when I can expect to receive payment from
you. If you can not afford to pay the award in a single lump sum, I am still willing to consider a .
reasonable payment plan. Please contact me, in writing, at your earliest convenience and let me
know when you wiII be sending payment.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
BRIAN A. GONSALVES
BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ArrORNEY AT LAW
P.O. Box 907, KINGS BEACH, CALIFORNIA 96143
530-386-6845' bgonsalves@live.com
F I L E D
Electronically
02-15-2012:11:35:36 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1067
I
,
,

s

7
I
,
10
\I
"
"
..
IS
16
17
..
"
20
"
"
"
"
2S
"
27
"
JNlllE
".
COURT 0'" THE STAn: OF NEVADA
IN AJIrolJ FOR THE COUNTY 0' WASHOE
PlaintilI', CASEND. :
DEPT. NO.;
>
MODON TO mocgD INlORMA rAUPEBlS
Punuant 10 NRS 12.01S, and t.sed aD the followintl Affidavit oC Poverty, I mave for
po:ruU!I5ion rm.n this Court II) Pl otted without filing or CC)IIIJ,. I trn IU(IlI:'StinI the CoUrt
allow me to iAUe I.IIr !IO.'I;UIary writ, piOCCIIS, pltading or paper witbouc cIIarie. wilb the
elleepdon of jwy fees. as j)f'I)vided ill NRS 12.015 heca"oe I lack .w'llclw tlnaricial ability 10
proceed without this "(liver, This is hued on the anached Affidlvit ofPovertj,
This 00a!!!Y"U doet; lID contain SocW Security Number of BIIY""Pef5OD.
DATEDIhis 22. dlyoC
slONAnnm'bA
PRIN'IED NAME:
Address: '
City. State, Zip:
TelepboJle:

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ZACH COUGHLIN
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL
ON APPEAL
ZACH COUGHLIN, ESQ.
NV BAR NO 9473
1422 E. 9TH ST. #2
RENO, NV 89512
TEL: 775 338 8118
FAX: 959 667 7402
ZACHCOUGHLIN@HOTMAIL.COM
ATTORNEY FOR PRO PER ATTORNEY APPELLANT
Zach Coughlin, Plaintiff/
Appellant
1422 E. 9th St. #2,
Reno, NV 89512
cv11-01896
D6
code: 2385
V4.1068

I
,
l
4
,
,
7

)
COWlI)'OrWI/Shoe {$II.
a .
I. (Filii Name), do hereby JweIr under penallY of pc!jurr
Ihallbe wertlDDS of thU affidavit arc bue. 10 iJIW, ill ruppon of my Motion to Proceed
Infonna
I . I am (circle one thBI you an) ill !be cmideilcax .
10 cue, III'Id I am unable 10 give leCunl)' (ortheQHts JIIII feq in this matter.
II l.
12 I9OIII'CO 10 pay the amount lV'(:#$Sary.
Il
"
Il
4. I ""';lh the CoIIIt 10 eonaIder this Affidavit of Povtny In Support of my Motioo. 10
"
17
II
"
20
"
22
"
,.
"
"
27
"
.... -
Selr-EInpJoyment
Social Security
Child Suppol'l
Alimony
StItdCoIuIty Benefitl, etc.
All oIbel ho.'odIold ; ......... frosn
A.IIotht% rncmbcr 0{ /be

!II"" Hgto/"...

0
S 0
S
iJ
S
()
S
Cl
,
ON APPEAL
V4.1069
I The follpwjns remsmu tis pr my HKY Md their yalucs;
2 Automobile ! W Bai"'ie ahDY)
l
$ .1Je"-'2

,

, 9
7 Bank ACCOU-n15
,

10
"
Il
13
"
"
16
17
18
I.
20
'1
n
"
"
"
"
"
"
I , S /J'
i.v--
Myll'!!.lmoplhlygl"$ll'r'an;; 5"rf
Renl or Mortpge a.. -"'\ S j'c;o
Phone,o.., El&ctricity, mel otltcr Util ities
, ...
QiJdCtn:
""""""
""1,,,
TI'IlIJpOrtation
Child Support and Child Care expt_ paid 10 sonltOOt ebe
- 'I e",>,,) -\l.,!<I ..o
, I<.. V'- -..!) J
TOTAL MONTHLY EXPENSES '

,
1<>q
s
/'

k'

p-

$:C

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
F I L E D
Electronically
02-15-2012:12:03:15 AM
Document Code: 2515 Clerk of the Court
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV BAR No: !"#
1!22 E. th $t. %2
Reno, NV &512
'ele: ""5(##&(&11&
)a*: !(++"("!,2
Atto.ne/ 0o. 1lainti00 Coughlin
2N '3E $EC4ND 56D2C2A7 D2$'R2C' C46R'
4) '3E $'A'E 4) NEVADA
2N AND )4R '3E C46N'8 4) 9A$34E
ZAC3 C46:372N; A
A
1lainti00. A
<s. A
9A$34E 7E:A7 $ERV2CE$, a Ne<ada A
Co.=o.ation, >A'38 BREC>ENR2D:E, A CA$E N4: CV11(,1&+
1.esident o0 97$, '4DD '4RV2NEN, DE1'. N4: +
2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97$ . Boa.d
his ca=acit/ as E*ecuti<e Di.ecto. o0 97$,
D4E$ 1(1,,, 2ndi<iduall/ and in thei. ca=acit/
as mem@e.s o0 the B4ARD 4) D2REC'4R$
4) 9A$34E 7E:A7 $ERV2CE$, CAR8N
$'ERN72:3', 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/
as 97$ atto.ne/, 54N $A$$ER, 2ndi<iduall/
and in his ca=acit/ as 97$ agent, >AREN
$AB4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97$
atto.ne/, ?ARC A$37E8, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as 97$ atto.ne/, ZANDRA
97$ em=lo/ee;
De0endants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
N4'2CE 2$ 3EREB8 gi<en that the a@o<e named 1lainti00, ZAC3 C46:372N he.e@/
a==eals to the $u=.eme Cou.t o0 Ne<ada 0.om all the <a.ious 4.de.s dismissing this case, including,
@ut not limited to those ente.ed 5anua./ 1#th, 2,12.
- 1B# -
N4'2CE 4) A11EA7
V4.1070
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
'he unde.signed does he.e@/ a00i.m that the =.eceding document does not contain the social secu.it/
Dated this )e@.ua./ 1!, 2,12:
BsB Zach Coughlin, signed elect.onicall/
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1lainti00
- 2B# -
N4'2CE 4) A11EA7
V4.1071
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
24
23
26
27
28
Proof of Servie!
document to:
1.4. Bo* ,"
>ings Beach, CA +1!#
Atto.ne/ 0o. 'ahoe 9omenCs $e.<ices DCR2$2$ 2N'ERVEN'24N $ERV2CE$A 932C3 2$ N4' A
NA?ED 1AR'8 AND 3A$ N4' 2N'ER17ED 4R )27ED A$ A REA7 1AR'8 2N 2N'ERE$'
721$4N, NE27$4N, C47E, $E7'ZER E :AR2N
54$E13 1. :AR2N, E$F.
Ne<ada Ba. No. ++5#
$3ANN4ND N4RD$'R4?
Ne<ada Ba. No. &211
,&, 9est 1ost Road, $uite 1,,
7asVegas, Ne<ada &1!&
'E7: D",2A#&2(15,, )AG: D",2A #&2(1512
Atto.ne/ 0o. De0endant 9A$34E 7E:A7 $ERV2CE$, a Ne<ada Co.=o.ation, >A'38
BREC>ENR2D:E, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as Boa.d 1.esident o0 97$, '4DD
'4RV2NEN, 2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97$ Boa.d ?em@e., 1A67 E7CAN4, 2ndi<iduall/
and in his ca=acit/ as E*ecuti<e Di.ecto. o0 97$, D4E$ 1(1,,, 2ndi<iduall/ and in thei. ca=acit/ as
mem@e.s o0 the B4ARD 4) D2REC'4R$ 4) 9A$34E 7E:A7 $ERV2CE$, CAR8N
$'ERN72:3', 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97$ atto.ne/, 54N $A$$ER, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as 97$ agent, >AREN $AB4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97$ atto.ne/,
?ARC A$37E8, 2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97$ atto.ne/, ZANDRA 741EZ; 2ndi<iduall/
and in he. ca=acit/ as 97$ em=lo/ee;
Dated this )e@.ua./ 1!, 2,12:,
BsB Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
17A2N'2))
- #B# -
N4'2CE 4) A11EA7
V4.1072
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-15-2012:00:03:15
02-15-2012:12:21:15
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
Notice/AppealSupremeCourt
COUGHLIN
WOMEN'SSERVICES
TODDTORVINEN
PROPERPERSON
V4.1073
ZANDRA LOPEZ
SERVICES
PAUL ELCANO
V4.1074
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-15-2012:23:35:36
02-16-2012:13:52:00
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
MtnProceedFormaPauperis
COUGHLIN
WOMEN'SSERVICES
TODDTORVINEN
PROPERPERSON
V4.1075
ZANDRA LOPEZ
SERVICES
PAUL ELCANO
V4.1076
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
02-20-2012:01:18:13 PM
1950
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
MOTION TO RETAX COSTS
)
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WLS employee,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
V4.1077
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
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RETAX COSTS

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Motion to Retax Costs.
DATED this 21
st
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, J on Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn
Sternlicht
- 2 -
V4.1078
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
26
27
28

1. Introduction.

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Hon. Brent Adams
and
On October 27, 2011, Coughlin began attempts at service of the summons and
complaint in the first case, Case No. CV11-01896, against Defendants. Despite Coughlins
varying attempts at service on Defendants, as fully briefed in their respective Motions to
Dismiss, all attempts proved improper. Accordingly, Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiffs
Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(3) and/or (4) and NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal
of the case as to all Defendants on J anuary 11, 2012.
The following day, on J anuary 12, 2012, Defendants filed and served a Notice of Entry
of Order. On J anuary 23, 2012, Defendants filed a Verified Memorandum of Costs pursuant
to NRS 18.110. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Retax Costs on J anuary 31, 2012.
Overall, Plaintiffs Motion is untimely. In addition, the Motion leaves a lot in question
considering nothing in Plaintiffs Motion supports retaxing costs. Based on Plaintiffs untimely
and unsubstantiated Motion, Defendants request this Court deny Plaintiffs Motion and grant
Defendants their costs.
2. Plaintiffs Motion to Retax Costs is untimely pursuant to NRS 18.110.
NRS 18.110(4) states, within 3 days after service of a copy of the memorandum, the
adverse party may move the court, upon 2 days notice, to retax and settle the costs, notice
of which motion shall be filed and served on the prevailing party claiming costs. Upon the
hearing of the motion the court or judge shall settle costs.
- 3 -
V4.1079
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
In this case, Defendants filed and served their Verified Memorandum of Costs on
J anuary 23, 2012. Pursuant to NRS 18.110(4), Plaintiff had until J anuary 30, 2012, to file a
Motion to Retax Costs.
1
Plaintiff waited to file a Motion to Retax Costs on J anuary 31, 2012.
Thus, Plaintiffs Motion is untimely pursuant to NRS 18.110(4) and should be denied on this
basis alone.
3. Defendants properly filed a Memorandum of Costs with this Court.
NRS 18.110(1) provides that a party who obtains judgment in its favor must file a
memorandum of costs within five days after the order is entered. In this case, the order for
dismissal was entered on J anuary 12, 2012. The memorandum of costs was filed on J anuary
23, 2012, and was well within the five day period prescribed by NRS 18.110(1). Such costs
have been properly documented as set forth in Counsels sworn statement and via exhibits and
were reasonably and necessarily incurred. Overall, Defendants properly filed a Memorandum
of Costs with this Court.
4. Plaintiffs arguments are inapplicable and warrant this Court grant Defendants
costs
Plaintiff raises various arguments in his Motion to Retax Costs which are wholly
inapplicable to Defendants request for costs.
First, Plaintiff argues that this court should deny Defendants request for costs based
on the Courts decision to deny Crises Intervention Services request for attorneys fees and
costs pursuant to NRS 7.085. Plaintiff fails to recognize that Defendants filed their
Memorandum of Costs pursuant to NRS 18.110, not NRS 7.085. Therefore, Plaintiffs
argument is inapplicable and misplaced.
Secondly, Plaintiff contends that the Court should enter a default judgment against
Defendants for failing to answer the Complaint on the grounds that Defendants waived any
service of process requirement in requesting costs. In support of his contention, Plaintiff relies
on the antiquated special appearance / general appearance distinction which was expressly
rejected by the Nevada Supreme Court in Hansen v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. ex rel. County of
1
This includes three days pursuant to NRS 18.110(4) and three days pursuant to NRCP 6(e).
- 4 -
V4.1080
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Clark, 116 Nev. 650, 655, 6 P.3d 982, 985-986 (2000) (holding the 1998 amendments to
NRCP 12 have abolished the age-old distinction between general and special appearances).
Presently, defenses under NRCP 12(b) are only subject to waiver if not raised promptly. Id. at
657, 986 n. 4.
Here, as evidenced through Defendants respective Motions to Dismiss and the Courts
granting such Motions, it is clear Defendants properly raised their defenses under NRCP 12(b).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs argument regarding waiver is without merit and entirely improper.
Lastly, Plaintiff cites to McKenzie v. Amtrak M of E, 777 F.Supp. 1119, 1121 (S.D. NY
1990) to reargue that service of process was proper and / or improper but excused. This is a
Motion to Retax Costs, not a motion for reconsideration or the like. Therefore, it is unclear why
Plaintiff has included this argument in this Motion. The argument is inapplicable and misplaced
and should not be considered by the Court in determining whether to award Defendants costs.
2
In sum, Plaintiffs various arguments throughout the Motion are unsubstantiated and
should be disregarded by the Court.
5. Conclusion.
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant
Defendants costs and deny Plaintiffs Motion to Retax Costs.
DATED this 21
st
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
2
Plaintiff raised this same argument in his Motion to Alter or Amend filed on J anuary 26, 2012. The
Motion is pending before this Court.
- 5 -
V4.1081
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
26
27
28
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RETAX COSTS, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not
contain the Social Security Number of any person.
DATED this 21
st
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, J on Sasser, Marc Ashley, and
Caryn Sternlicht

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
- 6 -
V4.1082
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
26
27
28
_______________________________________

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
st
DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RETAX COSTS, upon the following parties,
via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
P.O. Box 907
Attorney for Defendant Crisis Intervention Services
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff; and
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 7 -
V4.1083
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
02-20-2012:01:29:20 PM
3860
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, J on Sasser,
Marc Ashley, Kathy Breckenridge, and Caryn Sternlicht
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs. REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLICHT,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WLS employee.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
V4.1084
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
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
It is requested that DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, having been
filed and served on J anuary 30, 2012, Opposition having been filed and served on February
11, 2012, and Reply having been filed and served on February 21, 2012, be submitted to the
Court for decision.
The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of this request has been served on all
parties.
Dated this 21
st
LIPSON NEILSON COLE SELTZER
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, J on
Sasser, Marc Ashley, Kathy Breckenridge, and
Caryn Sternlicht
- 2 -
V4.1085
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
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, Request for
Submission, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of
any person.
Dated this 21
st
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
- 3 -
V4.1086
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
26
27
28
____________________________________________

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
st
Request for Submission, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 4 -
V4.1087
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
02-20-2012:11:22:13 AM
2540
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
snordstrom@lipsonneilson.com
J on Sasser, and Marc Ashley
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WLS employee,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
V4.1088
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
26
27
28
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
NOTICE is hereby given that an Order was entered granting Defendant Caryn
Sternlichts Motion to Dismiss on February 8, 2012, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
Dated this 21
st
& GARIN P.C
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, J on Sasser, and Marc Ashley
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, NOTICE OF
ENTRY OF ORDER, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security
Number of any person.
Dated this 21
st
& GARIN P.C
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, J on Sasser, and Marc Ashley
- 2 -
V4.1089
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
26
27
28
_______________________________________

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
st
Notice of Entry of Order, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
P.O. Box 907
Attorney for Defendant for Crisis Intervention Services
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
V4.1090
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
EXHIBIT INDEX
No. 1 Order 3 pages
- 4 -
V4.1091

EXHIBIT 1
V4.1092
F I L E D
Electronically
02-08-2012:03:24:48 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1093
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Code 3370
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Case No. CV11-01896
Plaintiff, Dept. NO.6
v.
Defendants.
~ /
ORDER
Defendant Caryn Sternlicht ("Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Zacha
Coughlin's ("Plaintiff') complaint for non-service of process. No opposition was filed.
1
Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 27, 2011. Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 4(i), Plaintiff would
have 120 days to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant or until October 25,
2011. Plaintiff failed to serve Defendant within the mandated time period. In addition,
1 On February 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Sterlicht's 0
27 Whoevers' Motion to Dismiss; however, such motion is not an opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Failure of the opposing party to serve and file his written opposition may be construed as an
28 admission that the motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the same. DCR 13.
-1-
V4.1094
Plaintiff failed to file a motion to enlarge time for service or show good cause as to wh
2 service was not made within the statutory period.
3
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss.
4
DATED: This ~ d y of February, 2012.
5
6 DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
V4.1095
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
26
27
28
that on the .May of February, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
United States Postal Service in Reno. Nevada. a true and correct copy of the attached
Judicial Assistant
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-20-2012:11:22:13
02-20-2012:11:22:34
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
NoticeofEntryofOrd
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.forJONSASSER,TODD
TORVINEN,WASHOELEGALSERVICES,
PAULELCANO,PAULELCANO,MARC
ASHLEY,KARENSABO,CARYNSTERNLIGHT,
SERVICES,KATHYBRECKENRIDGE
COUGHLIN
WOMEN'SSERVICES
V4.1096
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1097
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
02-21-2012:01:04:45 PM
2175
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
J on Sasser, Melissa Mangiaracina, Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ALTER OR
)
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada AMEND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WLS employee,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
V4.1098
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
26
27
28

DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Motion to Alter or Amend.
DATED this 21
st
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
- 2 -
V4.1099
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
26
27
28

1. Introduction

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Hon. Brent Adams
and
attempts at service of the summons and complaint in the first case, Case No. CV11-01896,
against Defendants. Despite Coughlins varying attempts at service on Defendants, as fully
briefed in their respective Motions to Dismiss, all attempts proved improper. Accordingly,
Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(3) and/or (4) and
NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal of the case as to all Defendants on J anuary 11, 2012.
Notice of Entry of Order was filed and served on J anuary 12, 2012. Notice of Entry of Order,
attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
On February 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Per NRCP 59. Overall,
Plaintiffs Motion is untimely and makes erroneous arguments pursuant to NRCP 59(a) instead
of NRCP 59(e). Defendants request this Court deny Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Per
NRCP 59, deny any and all additional relief requested by Plaintiff, and issue a restrictive order
to curb Plaintiffs repetitive and abusive filings in this case.
2. Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend is untimely pursuant to NRCP 59(e)
Plaintiffs brings this Motion pursuant to NRCP 59(e). NRCP 59 (e) provides, A motion
to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after service of written
notice of entry of the judgment.
\ \ \
- 3 -
V4.1100
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
In this case, Defendants filed and served a Notice of Entry of Order on J anuary 12,
2011. Pursuant to NRCP 59(e), Plaintiff had until J anuary 30, 2012, to file a Motion to Alter or
Amend.
Plaintiffs present Motion was filed on February 1, 2012, and is therefore untimely with
respect to all Defendants pursuant to NRCP 59(e). Accordingly, this Court should dismiss
Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend against Defendants on this basis alone.
3. Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 59(e)
To the extent this Court is to consider Plaintiffs present Motion, Plaintiff fails to make
any cogent argument supporting his Motion.
Rule 59(e) provides an opportunity, within severely limited time, to seek correction at
the trial court level of an erroneous order or judgment, thereby initially avoiding the time and
expense of appeal. Chiara v. Belaustegui, 86 Nev. 856, 859, 477 P.2d 857 (1970). Among the
grounds for this type of motion are correcting manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice, or a change in
controlling law. AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, 245 P.3d 1190,
1193 (2010). Notably, the motion must state with particularity its grounds and set forth the relief
or order sought. Id.
Here, Plaintiff improperly analyzes NRCP 59(a) to support his Motion to Alter or Amend.
NRCP 59(a) concerns a Motion for New Trial. Seeing as there has been no trial judgment, but
rather an order of dismissal, Plaintiffs arguments and assertions are improper. Plaintiff fails
to support the standard under NRCP 59(e) in which this Motion is brought. Specifically, Plaintiff
fails to articulate with particularity the grounds on which he brings this Motion. Plaintiff makes
nonsensical arguments which fail to demonstrate any type of manifest error in law or fact,
newly discovered evidence or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest
injustice, or a change in controlling law. Plaintiff does not meet the standard set forth in NRCP
59(e). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend should be denied.
\ \ \
\ \ \
- 4 -
V4.1101

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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
4. Plaintiff request for a Motion in Nunc Pro Tunc is improper and should be denied
It can best be surmised that Plaintiff is filing, in the alternative, a Motion in Nunc Pro
Tunc pursuant to NRCP 60(a). NRCP 60(a) states,
Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors
therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any
time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any,
as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so
corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter
while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate
court.
The object and purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to make a record speak the truth
concerning acts already done, and not to supply an omitted action. Talbot v. Mack, 41 Nev.
245, 169 P. 25, 27-28 (1917). Indeed, the court cannot amend a judgment nunc pro tunc to
change a judgment actually rendered to one which the court neither rendered nor intended to
render. McClintock v. McClintock, 122 Nev. 842, 138 P.3d 513, 515 (2006). Whether a nunc
pro tunc order should be made depends on the circumstances of the particular case and it is
to be granted or refused as justice may require. Allen v. Allen, 70 Nev. 412, 415, 270 P.2d
671, 672 (1954) (citations omitted).
In this case, there is no evidence of a clerical error that would support a nunc pro tunc
order. In support of his request, Plaintiff appears to be arguing that the Court improperly
granted Defendants Motions to Dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) despite Defendants failing
to request dismissal on these grounds and therefore, there is a clerical error. However, a
review of the Courts Order makes clear that the Court dismissed pursuant to NRCP 4 and
NRCP 12(b)(4) for insufficient service of process and never cited to NRCP 12(b)(5).
Importantly, Plaintiff attaches pages of string cites discussing nunc pro tunc orders to
presumably support his position, but fails to tie them in in any way to make a cogent argument.
Thus, it is wholly unclear what Plaintiff is trying to argue. In effect, Plaintiffs Motion for a Nunc
Pro Tunc Order should be denied.
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
- 5 -
V4.1102
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
26
27
28
6. Conclusion

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs
Motion to Alter or Amend, and deny any and all additional relief requested by Plaintiff.
DATED this 21
st
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND, filed in Case No. CV11-
01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 21
st
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 6 -
V4.1103
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
26
27
28
_______________________________________

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
st
DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND, upon the
following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 7 -
V4.1104
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
EXHIBIT INDEX
CV11-01955 and
CV11-01896
2 pages
No. 2 Notice of Entry of Order 8 pages
- 8 -
V4.1105
F I L E D
Electronically
02-21-2012:01:04:45PM
EXHIBIT1
JoeyOrdunaHastings
ClerkoftheCourt
Transaction#2776799
EXHIBIT1
V4.1106
V4.1107
CaselD: CV11-01896
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case oescriptipn
Filing
Date:
SERVICES ETAL.(06)
Related Cases
Case Eyent SchedYle
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
Expn
Type ID
Date
1 Judge J2Q
Name'
ADAMS,
HONORABLE
BRENT
HOme
.

V4.1108
Case 10: CV11-01955
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case Description
SRVC, ET AL(D10)
Date:
Relgted Cases
Case Event Schedyle
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
1

Expn
Type
Date
Judge

,.,'EyOOrSbtieaullt
10
D10
M3ooO'ilSweCtjOil'
.
Name
ELLIOTT,
HONORABLE
STEVEN P.
.
.
EXHIBIT2
EXHIBIT2
V4.1109
F I L E D
Electronically
01-12-2012:02:46:58 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1110
2540
2 P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNOND. NORDSTROM
. Nevada8arNo. 8211
49080West Post Road, Suite 100
5 (702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
6 jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
7
AttOrneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services,
8 Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge,
JonSasser,and Marc Ashley
9
10
11
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
COUNTY OF WASHOE
12
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
vs. )
Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, )
Individually and in her capacity as Board )
President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, )
Individually and in his capacity as WLS )
19 Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually)
and in his capacity as Executive Director of )
20 WLS, DOES 1-100, Individually and in their )
capacity as members of the BOARD OF )
21 DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL )
SERVICES,CARYN STERN LIGHT, )
22 Individually and in her capacity as WLS )
SASSER, Individually and in )
his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO, )
Individ ually and in her capacity as WLS )
attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and )
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA )
25 LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as )
WLSemployee, )
26
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: CV11-01896
DEPT. NO.: 6
V4.1111
2 NOTICE is hereby given that an Orderwas filed granting Defendants Elcano, Torvinen,
3 Sasser, Ashley, Sabo, WLS, CIS and Breckenridge's motion(s) to dismiss on January 11,
4 2012, acopyofwhich is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
5 [)ated this 12th day of January, 2012.
6
7
8
9
10
By:
& GARIN,e..,C .
~ / ~ ~
Joseph P. Garin (Bar No. 6653)
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, and Marc Ashley
AFFIRMATION
(Pursuant to NRS 2398.030)
18
19
26
27
Numberofany person.
Dated this 12th day of January, 2012.
By:
& GARIN,e..,C
~ / ~ ~
(702) 382-1500 .
- 2 -
V4.1112
I certify that on the 12th day of January, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Notice
of Entry of Order, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
4 a$follows:
5 Zach Coughlin
817 N. Virginia St. #2
6 Reno, NV 89501
19
20
24
25
Attorney for Plaintiff, In Pro Per
andbyusing the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women; and
Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., for Defendant Crisis Intervention Services
lsi Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
V4.1113
1
3
4:
5
8
9
10
22
23
26
27
28
EXHIBIT INDEX
No.1 Order 3 pages
L ~ ________________ ____________________ __________________
- 4 -
F I L E D
Electronically
01-12-2012:02:46:58 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1114
EXHIBIT "1"
V4.1115
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code 3370
F I LED
Electronically
01-11-2012:04:20:41 PM
Clerk of the Court
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Case No. CV11-01896
Plaintiff,
Dept. No.6
v.
Defendants.
__________________________
ORDER
There are currently eight motions pending before this Court. All eight motions ar
premised upon Plaintiff Zachary Coughlin's ("Plaintiff") failure to timely serve Defendants i
this action.
1
Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 27,2011. Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 4(i), Plaintiff would
have 120 days to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants or until October 25.
2011. Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants Paul Elcano ("Elcano"), Todd Torvine
("Torvinen"), Jon Sasser ("Sasser"), Marc Ashley ("Ashley"). Karen Sabo ("Sabo"), Kath
Breckenridge ("Breckenridge"), Washoe Legal Services ("WLS") and Crisis Interventio
Services ("CIS") within the mandated time period. In addition, Plaintiff failed to file a ITIOfio
I The Court need not address Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's attempted service of process was insufficient since
the Court has already determined that it was untimely.
-1-
V4.1116
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
to enlarge time for service or show good cause as to why service was not made within th
statutory period.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants Elcano, Torvinen, Sasser, Ashley, Sabo,
WLS, CIS and Breckenridge's motion(s) to dismiss without prejudice.
2
DATED: This fI-t1'ttay of January, 2012.
DISTRICT JUDGE
28 2 Although CIS sought dismissal with prejudice, the Court may dismiss an action without prejudice when service is
untimely. See N.R-C.P. 4(i). In addition, CIS's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied at this time because the
Court dismissed this action on procedural grounds without analyzing the merits of Plaintiff's case.
-2-
V4.1117
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
26
27
28
that on the H11'l day of January, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
Gary M. Fuller, Esq.
PO Box 2838
Reno, NV 89505
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-21-2012:12:58:32
02-21-2012:13:34:31
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
Reply
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
WOMEN'SSERVICES
V4.1118
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1119
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-21-2012:13:04:45
02-21-2012:13:33:55
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
WOMEN'SSERVICES
V4.1120
SHANNON NORDSTROM, ESQ
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V4.1121
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-20-2012:13:18:13
02-21-2012:09:31:51
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
WOMEN'SSERVICES
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1122
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-20-2012:13:29:20
02-21-2012:09:38:48
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
RequestforSubmission
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
WOMEN'SSERVICES
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1123
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
02-21-2012:12:58:32 PM
3795
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs. DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT
)
OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WLS employee,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
V4.1124
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
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., hereby submit their Reply in Support of their
Motion for Attorneys Fees.
This Reply is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, together with
the pleadings and files herein, and any oral argument this Court permits.
DATED this 21
st
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, J on Sasser,Marc Ashley, and Caryn
Sternlicht
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
- 2 -
V4.1125
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
26
27
28

1. Introduction.

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
This case has evolved into a guessing game in terms of what Plaintiff is filing with this
Court and what he is arguing. Nevertheless, it is clear that Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants
Motion for Attorneys Fees brings up issues either properly decided or inapposite to the present
Motion and fails to fashion any true opposition. Accordingly, Defendants request this Court
grant Defendants Motion for Attorneys Fees.
2. Factual and Procedural Background.
Hon. Brent Adams
and
attempts at service of the summons and complaint in the first case, Case No. CV11-01896,
against Defendants. Despite Coughlins varying attempts at service on Defendants, as fully
briefed in their respective Motions to Dismiss, all attempts proved improper. Accordingly,
Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(3) and/or (4) and
NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal of the case as to all Defendants on J anuary 11, 2012.
On J anuary 30, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees. Plaintiff filed an
Opposition to Defendants Motion on February 11, 2012. Seeing as Defendants request for
attorneys fees are reasonable and necessary and Plaintiff failed to fashion any true opposition
in his filing, this Court should grant Defendants Motion for Attorneys Fees.
/ / /
/ / /
- 3 -
V4.1126
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
3. Plaintiffs Opposition fails to oppose Defendants Motions for Attorneys Fees.
It is clear that Plaintiff fails to formulate any true opposition to Defendants Motion. The
extent of Plaintiffs argument involves the following:
1
bASICALLY, THIS COURT KNOWS WHETHER OR NOT ATTORNEY'S FEES ARE
AVAILABLE. sURE, POLK MIGHT SAY SOMETHING, DCR MIGHT SAY
SOMETHING, BUT COMMON SENSE REMAINS A CATCH ALL EXCEPTION. ALL
THE ATTORNEYS ARE ASKIGN FOR SANCTIONS, NOT HADLY ANY OF THEM
HAVE BOTHERED FOLLOWING THE 21 DAY SAFE HARBORD NRCP 11 (I DID AT
ONE POINT, BUT...PROBABLY NOT IN EVERY SITUATION, ITS BEEN A RACE TO
THE SANCTION FILIGN GUTTER HERE...) AND THE LAWSUIT WAS NOT
DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, ALL THE ORDERS ARE PROBABLY SCRIVENERS
ERRORS TO THE EXTENT THEY CITE TO NRCP 12B5 IN DISMISSING WHEN
NOBODY ARGUED A 12B5 MOTION. SO DOES RES J UDICATA SAY I WIN ON 12B3
AND 12B4 ARGUMENTS FROM NRCP? pOLK? [sic]
2
Plaintiffs Opposition fails to make any sound argument that evidences an opposition. At no
point does Plaintiff contest that the fees are reasonable and necessary.
3
To the contrary,
Plaintiff seeks to incorporate a NRCP 11 argument an argument without merit seeing as
Defendants never filed a motion for sanctions. Importantly, Plaintiff refuses to recognize that
he failed to abide by NRCP 4's mandate in serving Defendants, and in failing to do so, the
Court properly dismissed this case against Defendants.
A partys failure to oppose contentions can be construed as an admission to their merit.
See Polk v. State, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, 233 P.3d 357 (2010). Given Plaintiffs inability to
fashion an opposition, Plaintiff concedes Defendants attorneys fees in the amount of
$1,157.00 are reasonable and necessary and should be awarded.
1
Plaintiff makes additional arguments which are misplaced. He argues that Defendant Todd Torvinen was
properly served, references his Motion to Alter or Amend, and inserts Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion
to Alter or Amend for unknown reasons.
2
Opposition at 2:4-12
3
The following factors should be considered in assessing the reasonableness of attorneys fees: (1) the
qualities of the advocate: his ability, his training, education, experience, professional standing and skill; (2) the
character of the work to be done: its difficulty, its intricacy, its importance, time and skill required, the responsibility
imposed and the prominence and character of the parties where they affect the importance of the litigation; (3)
the work actually performed by the lawyer: the skill, time and attention given to the work; (4) the result: whether
the attorney was successful and what benefits were derived. Brunzell v. Golden Gate Natl Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349-
50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969).
- 4 -
V4.1127
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
26
27
28
4. Conclusion.

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant
Defendants Motion for Attorneys Fees.
DATED this 21
st
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, filed in Case No. CV11-01896,
does not contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 21
st
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 5 -
V4.1128
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
26
27
28
_______________________________________

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
st
DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, upon the
following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 6 -
V4.1129
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
EXHIBIT INDEX
CV11-01955 and
CV11-01896
2 pages
- 7 -
V4.1130
F I L E D
Electronically
02-21-2012:12:58:32PM
EXHIBIT1
JoeyOrdunaHastings
ClerkoftheCourt
Transaction#2776783
EXHIBIT1
V4.1131
V4.1132
CaselD: CV11-01896
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case oescriptipn
Filing
Date:
SERVICES ETAL.(06)
Related Cases
Case Eyent SchedYle
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
Expn
Type ID
Date
1 Judge J2Q
Name'
ADAMS,
HONORABLE
BRENT
HOme
.

V4.1133
Case 10: CV11-01955
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case Description
SRVC, ET AL(D10)
Date:
Relgted Cases
Case Event Schedyle
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
1

Expn
Type
Date
Judge

,.,'EyOOrSbtieaullt
10
D10
M3ooO'ilSweCtjOil'
.
Name
ELLIOTT,
HONORABLE
STEVEN P.
.
.

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
26
27
28

F I L E D
Electronically
02-22-2012:02:03:57 PM
Code 1350 Clerk of the Court
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV11-01896
vs.
Dept. No. 6
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et al,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________/
CERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND TRANSMITTAL NOTICE OF APPEAL
I certify that I am an employee of the Second J udicial District Court of the State of
Nevada, County of Washoe; that on the 22nd day of February, 2012, I electronically filed
the Notice of Appeal in the above entitled matter to the Nevada Supreme Court.
I further certify that the transmitted record is a true and correct copy of the original
pleadings on file with the Second J udicial District Court.
Dated this 22nd day of February, 2012.
J OEY ORDUNA HASTINGS
CLERK OF THE COURT
By /s/Lori Matheus
Lori Matheus
Deputy Clerk
V4.1134

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
26
27
28

F I L E D
Electronically
02-22-2012:02:03:57 PM
vs.
Plaintiff,
Dept. No. 6
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et.al,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
NOTICE OF APPEAL DEFICIENCY
TO: Clerk of the Court, Nevada Supreme Court,
and All Parties or their Respective Counsel Of Record:
On February 15, 2012, Plaintiff, Zachary Coughlin, filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Court. The Notice of Appeal did not include a Case Appeal Statement pursuant to NRAP
3(f)(1).
Pursuant to NRAP 3(a)(3), on February 22, 2012, the Notice of Appeal was filed
with the Nevada Supreme Court. By copy of this notice Plaintiff, Zachary Coughlin, was
apprised of the deficiency.
Dated this 22nd day of February, 2012.
CLERK OF THE COURT
By: _/s/Lori Matheus______
Lori Matheus
Deputy Clerk
V4.1135

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
26
27
28

CASE NO. CV11-01896
Nevada, County of Washoe; that on the 22nd day of February, 2012, I electronically
filed the Notice of Appeal Deficiency with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF
system.
I further certify that I transmitted a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
by the method(s) noted below:
Electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which will send
a notice of electronic filing to the following:
J oseph Garin, Esq.
Brian Gonsalves, Esq.
Deposited in the Washoe County mailing system for postage and mailing with the
United States Postal Service in Reno, Nevada:
Shannon D. Nordstrom, Esq,
/s/Lori Matheus______
Lori Matheus
Deputy Clerk
V4.1136
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-22-2012:14:03:57
02-22-2012:14:04:21
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
SupremeCtDeficiencyNotice
CertificateofClerk
LoriMatheus
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.forCARYN
STERNLICHT,WLSATTORNEY,JONSASSER,
TODDTORVINEN,KARENSABO,JON
SASSER,WLSAGENT,BOARDOF
DIRECTORSOFWASHOELEGALSERVICES,
TODDTORVINEN,WLSBOARDMEMBER,
KATHYBRECKENRIDGE,BOARDPRES.OF
WLS,KARENSABO,WLSATTORNEY,
MARCASHLEY,MARCASHLEY,WLS
ATTORNEY,CARYNSTERNLIGHT,PAUL
ELCANO,EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,WLS
BOARD,KATHYBRECKENRIDGE
COUGHLIN
V4.1137
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQforCRISIS
INTERVENTIONSERVICES
ZANDRALOPEZ
ZANDRALOPEZ,EMPLOYEEWLS
V4.1138
V4.1139
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845
Attorney for Defendant
Crisis Intervention Services
F I to< E D
20!2 FEB 23 PM 12: 22
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et. al.,
Defendants
Case No.:
Dept. No.:
CVII-01896
6
CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Defendant Crisis Intervention Services ("CIS"), incorrectly named as Tahoe Women's
Services, by and through its attorney Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., hereby opposes Plaintiff Zachary
Coughlin's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, filed on February 16,2012.
1. Mr. Coughlin's Motion Should Be Denied Because His Appeal is Frivolous.
Mr. Coughlin served CIS with a summons for this lawsuit even though CIS is not named
or mentioned anywhere in the complaint. CIS was subsequently dismissed without prejudice and
was not awarded any fees or costs. Mr. Coughlin has since filed two motions challenging the
order dismissing CIS and has also filed a notice that he will be appealing the dismissal to the
Nevada Supreme Court. As CIS is not named or mentioned anywhere in the complaint, Mr.
Coughlin has absolutely no basis to appeal the dismissal of CIS. Mr. Coughlin should not be
allowed to pursue this frivolous appeal (and thereby force CIS to incur additional fees and
expenses) without posting the bond and paying the fees required for an appeal.
- I -
V4.1140

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Mr. Coughlin's Motion Should Be Denied Because It Was Not Properly Served.
Mr. Coughlin's motion should be denied because it was not properly served to this
Defendant. CIS's counsel is no longer an electronic filer and therefore does not have access to
pleadings via eflex. Since CIS's counsel is not an efiler, Mr. Coughlin is required to print and
mail his pleadings to CIS's counsel (or have those pleadings hand delivered to CIS's counsel's
office). CIS's counsel notified Mr. Coughlin that he (CIS's counsel) was no longer an efiler and
requested copies of Mr. Coughlin's recent pleadings on three different occasions, bye-mail and
by U.S. Mail, but Mr. Coughlin has never sent copies of any of his pleadings. (See Exhibit 1.)
To be clear, CIS has never received a copy of the subject motion. Since Mr. Coughlin's motion
was not properly served, it should be denied.
3. Conclusion.
Mr. Coughlin's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be denied
because: I) his appeal is completely baseless and frivolous since CIS is not named or mentioned
anywhere in the complaint, and 2) Mr. Coughlin's motion was not properly served to this
Defendant.
The undersigned does hereby affirm that pursuant to NRS 239B.030, this document and
any attachments hereto does not contain the social security number of any person.
DATED: February 23, 2012.
By: g --.-4 c.----
BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ., SBN 9815
Attorney for Defendant Crisis Intervention
Services
-2-
V4.1141
I
2 Case No.: CV11-01896
3 I hereby certify that on this date I filed Crisis Intervention Services' Opposition to
4 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal with the Clerk of the Court and the
5 ECF system will serve the following parties electronically:
6 Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff.
7 Joseph P. Garin, Esq., for Kathy Breckenridge, Marc Ashley, Paul E1cano, Washoe
8 Legal Services, Caryn Sternlight, Karen Sabo and John
9
Sasser.
10 DATED: February 23, 2012.
11
12
Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
V4.1142
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
26
27
28
1.
Index of Exhibits
Email dated January 31, 2012, Email dated February 8, 2012, and letter dated February 8,
2012, all of which are from Brian Gonsalves to Zachary Coughlin.
- 4 -
V4.1143
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1
V4.1144
Hotmllli l'nnt Message
Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services
From: BrIan Gonsalves (bgonsalves@live.com)
Sent: Tue 1/31/12 1:58 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com; Gary Fuller (gfuller@grgflaw.com); Joseph Garin
(jgarin@lipsonneilson.com)
Gentlemen:
Documents can be served to me by mail at
Brian A. Gonsalves. Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 907
Kings Beach. CA 96143
Mr. Coughlin: I see that you filed two items today. As I am no longer an efiler. I am unable to access
above.
Sincerely.
Brian A. Gonsalves
http://byI60w.bayI60.mail.live.comlmaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5elfISbl_8ca4-4c3a_...1 /31120 12
------------ -----------------
----------------------------
V4.1145

;.
.qOUllWJ rCWL IVlt:::S:sagC
RE: Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services
Sent: Wed 2/08/12 2:33 PM
1 attachment
Coughlin.03.pdf (290.0 KB)
Mr. Coughlin:
.1 G ~ J. VJ. 1
Please see the attached correspondence demanding that you properly print and mail your filings to
me since I have not received any of your recent pleadings, and demanding payment of the attorney's
fees and costs award that you owe to my client
Sincerely,
Brian A. Gonsalves
From: bgonsalves@live.com
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com; gfuller@grgflaw.com;jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
Subject: Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services
Date: T ue, 31 Jan 2012 13:58:42 -0900
Gentlemen:
Documents can be served to me by mail at
P.O. Box 907
Kings Beach. CA 96143
Mr. Coughlin: I see that you filed two items today. As I am no longer an efiler. I am unable to access
above.
Sincerely.
Brian A. Gonsalves
http://bY160w.baYI60.mail.live.comlmaillPrintMessages.aspx ?cpids=8bc 13ba3-4dce-4f2c-9 ... 21812012
V4.1146
~ .' ,
February 8, 2012
Sent via U.S. Mail aDd via e-mail tozachcoughliD@botmail.com.
1422 E. Ninth St., #2
Reno, NV 89512
Re: Coughlin v. Crisis Intervention Services
Case Nos. CVll01896 and CVIl-OI955
Mr. Coughlin:
As you know per my e-mail to you dated 1anuary 31,2012, I am no longer an e-filer in
Washoe County and therefore can not access documents through eflex. In order to serve your
documents, you need to print them and mail them to me. My mailing address is at the bottom of
this page.
Since I notified you that I am not an efiler, you have filed seven documents: a reply brief
and a motion on January 31, 2012; two motions to alter or amend 00 February 1,2012; two
summonses on February 2, 2012; and an opposition on February 7, 2012. I have not received
any of these documents from you.
Please comply with the service requirements and print and mail your pleadings to me.
Also, another week has passed and I still have not received payment from you for the
$1,296.62 which was awarded to my client for attorney's fees, nor have I received any response
from you regarding payment. Please let me know when I can expect to receive payment from
you. If you can not afford to pay the award in a single lump sum, I am still willing to consider a
reasonable payment plan. Please contact me, in writing, at your earliest convenience and let me
know when you will be sending payment.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
BRIAN A. GONSALVES
BRIAN A. GoNSALVES, AlTORN.Y AT LAW
P.O. Box 907, KINGs BEACH, CALlFoRNrA 96 J 43
530-386-6845 bgonsalves@live.com
------------_._----- - ~ --------
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
26
27
28

Document Code:
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV BAR No: 947
!4"" E. 9th #t. $"
Reno, NV %9&!"
'ele: 77&(%(%!!%
)a*: 949(++7(74,"
Atto.ne/ 0o. 1lainti00 Coughlin
F I L E D
Electronically
02-25-2012:12:18:21 AM
Clerk of the Court
2N '3E #EC4ND 56D2C2A7 D2#'R2C' C46R'
4) '3E #'A'E 4) NEVADA
2N AND )4R '3E C46N'8 4) 9A#34E
ZAC3 C46:372N;
1lainti00.
<s.
9A#34E 7E:A7 #ERV2CE#, a Ne<ada
Co.=o.ation, >A'38 BREC>ENR2D:E,
1.esident o0 97#, '4DD '4RV2NEN,
2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97# . Boa.d
his ca=acit/ as E*ecuti<e Di.ecto. o0 97#,
D4E# !(!,,, 2ndi<iduall/ and in thei. ca=acit/
as mem@e.s o0 the B4ARD 4) D2REC'4R#
4) 9A#34E 7E:A7 #ERV2CE#, CAR8N
#'ERN72:3', 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/
as 97# atto.ne/, 54N #A##ER, 2ndi<iduall/
and in his ca=acit/ as 97# agent, >AREN
#AB4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97#
atto.ne/, ?ARC A#37E8, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as 97# atto.ne/, ZANDRA
97# em=lo/ee;
De0endants.
A
A
A
A
A
A CA#E N4: CV!!(,!%9+
DE1'. N4: +
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO ?4'24N '4 #E' A#2DE 4RDER :RAN'2N: D ?4'24NB#A '4 D2#?2##
'his ?otion is made @/ Zach Coughlin, Esq. =.o se atto.ne/ ligitant =lainti00 on his oCn
@ehal0, though the 2)1 in this matte., unde. 0ede.al laC, ma/ alloC 0o. a==ointed counsel, none has
@een =.o<ided and i0 the/ a.e liDe the/ 1D, Cell, ....=u.suant to the autho.ities discussed @eloC and is
- !E!4 -
V4.1147
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
su==o.ted @/ the attached ?emo.andum o0 1oints and Autho.ities, attached e*hi@its, the Decla.ation
o0 Zacha./ B. Coughlin, Esq., the =a=e.s and =leadings on 0ile he.ein, and an/ o.al a.gument this
cou.t ma/ alloC, as it is @eing .equested.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
01-FEB-2012 12:19 AM Mtn Alter r A!en" #$"%!ent C$%&l'n( E)*.(
+,-&,r. Entr.: MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND #UD/MENT0
OR( PLED IN THE ALTERNATI1E( MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER
02-FEB-2012 02:02 PM S$!!n) F'le" C$%&l'n( E)*.( +,-&,r.
Entr.: C!3l,'nt )er4e" n T"" Tr4'nen ,n" P,$l El-,n n 10526511 07-FEB-
2012 08:29 PM Or" /r,nt'n% Mtn ... Entr.: CARYN
STERNLICHT:S MOTION TO DISMISS 07-FEB-2012 06:97 PM O33)'t'n
t Mtn ... C$%&l'n( E)*.( +,-&,r. 06-FEB-2012 12:;; AM O33)'t'n
t Mtn ... C$%&l'n( E)*.( +,-&,r. Entr.: PLAINTIFF:S MOTION
FOR E<TENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT OR
=HOEE1ER:S MOTION TO DISMISS Entr.: OPPOSITION TO
STERNLICHT ET AL:S MOTION TO DISMISS0 OR PLEASE IN THE
ALTERNATI1E( MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND TO ORDER 18-FEB-2012
02:1; PM O33)'t'n t Mtn ... /,r'n( E)*.( #)e3& P. Entr.:
DEFENDANT:S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF:S MOTION TO SET ASIDE
ORDER
?/ R4B4(7aC/e. has not shoCn u= in the mail /et, so m/ stu00 doesnFt looD liDe :a.inFs,
YET. 'he.e a==ea.s to @e a clea.l/ e..oneous as=ect o0 the 4Rde. to Dismiss, @ased in 0act and laC
Cith .es=ect to each o0 the #ummonsECom=laint se.<ice =a=e.s se.<ed and the actual date o0 G0ilingG
that this matte. should @e acco.ded, conside.ing the 2)1 and the G0iling dateG stam=ed on it <e.sus
Chen the G=.o=osedG com=laint Cas included Cith the 2)1. 2 Cin unde. 1olD case @ecause none o0
these de0endnats ha<e gotten into m/ a.guments on that at all. An A==lication 0o. 2)1 status Cas
0iled along Cith a =.o=osed Com=laint on 5une "7th, ",!!. 'he 2)1 Cas 0inall/ g.anted August %,
",!!, and the Com=liant Cas stam=ed Cith a 0iling date o0 August !!, ",!! and ente.ed in the DocDet
in this matte. on that date as Cell. !", da/s 0.om August !!, ",!! is Decem@e. 9, ",!!, Chich
ha==ens to @e the da/ that '.a<is #he.man, o<e. !% /ea. old non =a.t/ .esident o0 9ashoe Count/
- "E!4 -
V4.1148
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
se.<ed 1aul Elcano and 97# Bgi<en Elcano is 97#Fs .egiste.ed agentA Cith the #ummons and
Com=laint in this matte., and =.oo0 o0 the same Cas 0iled on Decem@e. !,, ",!!. )u.the.,
B.ecDen.idge Cas se.<ed @/ the 9C#4 on !!E!&E!! in CV!!(,!%9+ B@ut that same A00ida<it o0
#e.<ice, 0iled onl/ in CV!!(,!%9+ also indicates B.ecDen.idge Cas se.<ed the #ummons and
Com=laint 0o. CV!!(,!9&& as Cell, @ut the 9C#4 did not manage to 0ile an A00ida<it o0 #e.<ice
attesting to that in CV!!(,!9&&, so the case against he. the.e got dismissed. 9hat is inte.esting is
that the =eo=le Cho Ce.e nt su@Hect to and 4.de. 0.om the Chie0 5udge, De=a.tment )ou., indicating
that the/ should se.<e =.ocess =u.suant to an 2)1 4.de. Bie, me, and m/ .agtag g.ou= o0 .andom
0.iends, st.ange.s, etcA manage to do a much, much mo.e tho.ough Ho@ than the g.ou= o0 9C#4
De=uties Cith .athe. nice sala.ies managed to do Bie, the g.ou= Cho Ce.e getting =aid quite Cell, Cith
a nice 1ER# =lan to @ootA. 'o to= it o00, >a.en #a@o Cas se.<ed something 0.om CV!!(,!%9+ Ba
#ummonsI a co=/ o0 the Com=laintIA its Hust that the 9C#4 0iled the A00ida<it o0 #e.<ice attesting
to that in the wrong case CV!!(,!9&& on !!E""E!! Bthe A00ida<it 0o. #a@o Cas 0iled in CV!!(,!9&&
@ut indicates ?s. #a@o Cas se.<ed: GG7ocation: 9ashoe 7egal #e.<ices "99 # A.lington A<enue
Reno, N8 %9&,! Date: !!!!+E",!! 'ime: !! :,4A? 'he documentBsA se.<ed Ce.e: #6??4N#:
C418 4) CA#E CV!!(,!9&& AND C418 4) #6??4N#, CA#E CV!!(,!%9+GA.
'his Cou.tFs 5anua./ !!, ",!! 4.de. held that: G 1lainti00 0iled a com=laint on 5une "7,",!!.
1u.suant to N.R.C.1. 4BiA, 1lainti00 Could ha<e !", da/s to se.<e the summons and com=laint on
De0endants o. until 4cto@e. "&, ",!!. 1lainti00 0ailed to se.<e De0endants 1aul Elcano BGElcanoGA,
'odd 'o.<ine BG'o.<inenGA, 5on #asse. BG#asse.GA, ?a.c Ashle/ BGAshle/GA, >a.en #a@o BG#a@oGA,
>ath/ B.ecDen.idge BGB.ecDen.idgeGA, 9ashoe 7egal #e.<ices BG97#GA and C.isis 2nte.<ention
#e.<ices BGC2#GA Cithin the mandated time =e.iod. 2n addition, 1lainti00 0ailed to 0ile a motion to
enla.ge time 0o. se.<ice o. shoC good cause as to Ch/ se.<ice Cas not made Cithin the statuto./
- E!4 -
V4.1149
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
=e.iod. Acco.dingl/, the Cou.t g.ants De0endants Elcano, 'o.<inen, #asse., Ashle/, #a@o, 97#, C2#
and B.ecDen.idgeFs motionBsA to dismiss Cithout =.eHudice." )N ": Although C2# sought dismissal
Cith =.eHudice, the Cou.t ma/ dismiss an action Cithout =.eHudice Chen se.<ice is untimel/. #ee
N.R.C.1. 4BiA. 2n addition, C2#Fs .equest 0o. atto.ne/Fs 0ees and costs is denied at this time @ecause the
Cou.t dismissed this action on =.ocedu.al g.ounds Cithout anal/Jing the me.its o0 1lainti00s case.G
2 donFt @elie<e an/ o0 the 0actual 0indings in that 4.de. a.e accu.ate, as all o0 those indi<idualsE
entities Ce.e se.<ed Bma/@e not @/ the 9C#4, @ut 2 got '.a<is #he.man to se.<e 97# and Elcano on
Decem@e. 9, ",!!, Chich is not too late conside.ing the Com=laint is 0ile stam=ed August !!, ",!!,
and 2 had 5e.ome )itJhen./ se.<e 'odd 'o.<inen Band attem=t to se.<e 97# and Elcano @/ lea<ing a
.eal nice co=/ o0 the #ummons and Com=laint unde. ElcanoFs home doo. matA on 4cto@e. "7th, ",,!
BChich, again, 2 do not @elie<e is outside the !", da/s alloCed unde. NRC1 4, as the 0iling o00ice Cill
not issue a #ummons in a case Che.e the 2)1 is still =ending...as such, the 2)1 onl/ @eing g.anted on
August % and the Com=laint stam=ed in on August !!, ",!!....maDes the )itJhen./ se.<ice on
4cto@e. "7th, ",!! onl/ some 77 da/s o. so into the !", da/ =e.iod alloCed unde. NRC1 !",.
)u.the., 2 @elie<e a ca.e0ul .e<ieC o0 the =leadings Cill .e<eal a ?otion 0o. E*tension o0 'ime to
E00ectuate #e.<ice Cas 0iled, as Cas a ?otion to Consolidate these cases on 4cto@e. &, ",!!. 1lease
set aside the dismissal.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
#ee N.R.C.1. 4BiA. 2n addition, C2#Fs .equest 0o. atto.ne/Fs 0ees and costs is denied at this time
@ecause the Cou.t dismissed this action on =.ocedu.al g.ounds Cithout anal/Jing the me.its o0
1lainti00s case. #o said this Cou.t. 2t seemed :a.in asDed 0o. sanctiosn too...@oth o0 Chich amount
to mo.e than a Gs=ecial a==ea.anceG and the.e0o.e these =a.ties ha<e Cai<ed an/ se.<ice o0 =.ocess
- 4E!4 -
V4.1150
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
.equi.ement and a.e noC in this litigation. And a de0ault is a==.o=.iate to ente. as the/ ha<e 0ailed
to 0ile and AnsCe. to the Com=laint Cithin ", da/s o0 se.<ice.
)ailu.e to maDe legi@le co=/ o0 com=laint 0o. se.<ice 2n the 0olloCing case the cou.t 0ound
that the 0ailu.e o0 cou.t =e.sonnel to maDe a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint 0o. se.<ice on a de0endant
su==o.ted its a==a.ent holding that the.e Cas good cause unde. Rule 4BHA o0 the )ede.al Rules o0 Ci<il
1.ocedu.e 0o. a =lainti00Fs 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e =.ocess. 9he.e a com=laint, alleging em=lo/ment
disc.imination, =hotoco=ied @/ cou.t =e.sonnel 0o. se.<ice on an em=lo/e. on @ehal0 o0 a 0o.me.
em=lo/ee =.oceeding =.o se and in 0o.ma =au=e.is, =.o<ed too 0aint 0o. the em=lo/e. to .ead, the
cou.t in ?c>enJie < Amt.aD ? o0 E B!99,, #D N8A 777 ) #u== !!!9, 0ound that the 0ailu.e o0 cou.t
=e.sonnel to maDe a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint 0o. se.<ice su==o.ted its im=licit holding that the.e
Cas good cause unde. Rule 4BHA o0 the )ede.al Rules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e 0o. the =lainti00Fs 0ailu.e to
timel/ se.<e a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint. 'he cou.t stated that, although the a.gument that se.<ice
should not @e deemed e00ecti<e unless the com=laint is legi@le is o.dina.il/ a st.ong one, the.e Cas
little Husti0ication 0o. dismissing the =lainti00Fs com=laint on that g.ound, @ecause the de0ect in se.<ice
Cas att.i@uta@le to cou.t =e.sonnel. 'he cou.t also noted that the em=lo/e., Cho had ad<ised the
em=lo/ee o0 the illegi@ilit/ o0 the com=laint @ut had 0ailed to so ad<ise the 6nited #tates ma.shal o.
the cou.t, notCithstanding the em=lo/e.Fs DnoCledge that the em=lo/ee Cas =.oceeding =.o se, Cas
=a.tl/ to @lame 0o. the dela/ in se.<ice.
2t sim=l/ Could not @e all that 0ai. to sa/ NRC1 4BiA gi<e the 1lainti00 !", da/s to e00ectuate
se.<ice o0 =.ocess Chen the Com=laint Cas not e<en gi<en a 0iling date in the docDet 0o. CV!!(,!%9+
until August !! BDe=a.tment 4 tooD 0.om the su@mission o0 the 2)1 on 5ul/ "7th, ",!! until August 9,
",!! to issue the 4.de. :.anting 2)1, and this occu..ed du.ing a =e.iod Che.e the 9DC Cas
changing the 2)1 0o.m it maDes a<aila@le to the =u@lic and the 0iling o00ice actuall/ .e0used to acce=t
- &E!4 -
V4.1151
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
an ea.lie. attem=ted su@mission o0 the 1etition 0o. 2)1 and =.o=osed Com=liant, citing .ationale @oth
<ague and cont.adicto./ and .elated to 9DCR !,. 'his Cou.t 5anua./ !!th, ",!" 4.de. indicates
that the e*=i.ation o0 !", da/s B0.om the 5une "7th date Chen the Com=laint Cas stam=ed G.ecei<edG
@/ the 0iling o00ice as the =.o=osed =leading called 0o. unde. NR# !".,!&A Could @e 4cto@e. "&th,
",!!.
Action o0 cou.t o. cle.D o0 cou.t as constituting o. su==o.ting 0inding o0 Ggood cause,G unde. .ule 4BHA
o0 )ede.al Rules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e, 0o. 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e =.ocess u=on de0endant. !,% A.7.R.
)ed. %+" B4.iginall/ =u@lished in !99"A.
'he unde.signed sCea.s he Cas unde. the im=.ession that G0ile stam=edG co=/ o0 the
Com=laint ma/ @e .equi.ed 0o. se.<ice, though no =.ecise autho.it/ eithe. Ca/ has @een 0ound in that
.ega.d, the unde.signed did go to s=ecial t.ou@le to t./ to get all de0endants a G0ile stam=edG co=/ o0
the Com=laint, and the.e0o.e, the unde.signed did not @elie<e he Cas e<en a@le to seeD to se.<e the
De0endants Cith the Com=laint in CV!!(,!%9+ =.io. to, at the ea.liest, the August %, ",!! 4.de.
g.anting the 2)1, and mo.e liDel/, not until the August !!, ",!! docDet ent./ Che.ein the Com=laint,
com=lete Cith a 0ile stam=ing o0 August !!, ",!! Cas ente.ed in the .eco.d.
E00o.ts o0 =lainti00 o. =lainti00Fs agent 0o. se.<ice o0 =.ocess as constituting o. su==o.ting 0inding o0
Ggood cause,G unde. Rule 4BHA o0 )ede.al Rules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e, 0o. 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e =.ocess
u=on de0endant, !!! A.7.R. )ed. &,
NRC1 4BiA: GBiA #ummons: 'ime 7imit 0o. #e.<ice. 20 a se.<ice o0 the summons and com=laint is not
made u=on a de0endant Cithin !", da/s a0te. the 0iling o0 the com=laint, the action shall @e dismissed
- +E!4 -
V4.1152
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
as to that de0endant Cithout =.eHudice u=on the cou.tKs oCn initiati<e Cith notice to such =a.t/ o.
u=on motion, unless the =a.t/ on Chose @ehal0 such se.<ice Cas .equi.ed 0iles a motion to enla.ge the
time 0o. se.<ice and shoCs good cause Ch/ such se.<ice Cas not made Cithin that =e.iod. 20 the =a.t/
on Chose @ehal0 such se.<ice Cas .equi.ed 0ails to 0ile a motion to enla.ge the time 0o. se.<ice @e0o.e
the !",(da/ se.<ice =e.iod e*=i.es, the cou.t shall taDe that 0ailu.e into conside.ation in dete.mining
good cause 0o. an e*tension o0 time. 6=on a shoCing o0 good cause, the cou.t shall e*tend the time
0o. se.<ice and set a .easona@le date @/ Chich se.<ice should @e made.G
NR# !".,!& Actions in<ol<ing indigent =e.sons. !. An/ =e.son Cho desi.es to =.osecute o. de0end a
ci<il action ma/: BaA )ile an a00ida<it Cith the cou.t setting 0o.th Cith =a.ticula.it/ 0acts conce.ning
the =e.sonKs income, =.o=e.t/ and othe. .esou.ces Chich esta@lish that the =e.son is una@le to
=.osecute o. de0end the action @ecause the =e.son is una@le to =a/ the costs o0 so doing; o. B@A #u@mit
a statement o. othe.Cise indicate to the cou.t that the =e.son is a client o0 a =.og.am 0o. legal aid. ". 20
the cou.t is satis0ied that a =e.son Cho 0iles an a00ida<it =u.suant to su@section ! is una@le to =a/ the
costs o0 =.osecuting o. de0ending the action o. i0 the cou.t 0inds that a =e.son is a client o0 a =.og.am
0o. legal aid, the cou.t shall o.de.: BaA 'he cle.D o0 the cou.t: B!A 'o alloC the =e.son to commence o.
de0end the action Cithout costs; and B"A 'o 0ile o. issue an/ necessa./ C.it, =.ocess, =leading o. =a=e.
Cithout cha.ge. B@A 'he she.i00 o. othe. a==.o=.iate =u@lic o00ice. Cithin this #tate to maDe =e.sonal
se.<ice o0 an/ necessa./ C.it, =.ocess, =leading o. =a=e. Cithout cha.ge. . 20 the =e.son is .equi.ed to
ha<e =.oceedings .e=o.ted o. .eco.ded, o. i0 the cou.t dete.mines that the .e=o.ting, .eco.ding o.
t.ansc.i=tion o0 =.oceedings Could @e hel=0ul to the adHudication o. a==ellate .e<ieC o0 the case, the
cou.t shall o.de. that the .e=o.ting, .eco.ding o. t.ansc.i=tion @e =e.0o.med at the e*=ense o0 the
count/ in Chich the action is =ending @ut at a .educed .ate as set @/ the count/. ...G
- 7E!4 -
V4.1153
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
NR# !".,!& does not sa/ Gthis Cou.t shall gi<e the 1lainti00, Chom Cas g.anted an 2)1, the tasD and
e*=ense o0 =.e=a.ing Gse.<ice =acDetsG 0o. the #he.i00, Chom shall @eha<e in an inc.easingl/
demanding manne. toCa.d the 1lainti00 and act as i0 the/ a.e doing the 1lainti00 a 0a<o. in e00ectuating
se.<ice o0 =.ocess and as thought the/ onl/ ha<e to do it i0 the 1lainti00 asDs .eall/ nicel/ and
genu0lects a @unch....G 2ndeed, ?c>enJie seems to maDe clea. that, at least in some Hu.isdictions, the
Cou.t and #he.i00 handle all the =hotoco=/ing and deli<e.ing to the #he.i00 that Chich is necessa./ to
e00ectuate se.<ice. )u.the., the.e a.e some highl/ =e.sonal, in0lammato./, and sensiti<e 0acts .elated
to the unde.signed .elationshi= Cith the 9ashoe Count/ #he.i00Fs 400ice that ma/ @a.e on the
9C#4Fs 0ailu.e to co..ectl/ com=l/ Cith the 4.de. :.anting 2n )o.ma 1au=e.is status to the
unde.signed. 3oCe<e., these 0acts a.e o0 such a natu.e that =.udence dictates onl/ going into them
Ce.e a@solutel/ necessa./. #u00ice to sa/, it is highl/ cu.ious that the 9C#4Fs, gi<en the time 0.ame
in Chich it occu..ed, onl/ manged to 0ile " A00ida<its o0 #e.<ice in this case, CV!!(,!%9+, Che.es
some nine =ages o0 A00ida<its o0 #e.<ice Ce.e 0iled in the G.elatedG case B0o. Chich the unde.signed
0iled an 4cto@e. &, ",!! ?otion to ConsolidateA, CV!!(!,9&&, a case 0o. Chich the unde.signed
sc.a=ed togethe. e<e./ last dime he had in the Co.ld and =aid the 0iling 0ee in 0ea. that the 2)1 in this
matte. Could @e denied and, acco.ding to 0iling o00ice =e.sonnel and De=a.tment 4 Administ.ati<e
Assistant, should the 21) @e denied Che.e, in the inte.im, the .unning o0 the a==lica@le statute o0
limitations should occu., as Could ha<e @een the case he.e should the 2)1 ha<e @een denied and
should the unde.signed ha<e 0ailed to 0ile in CV!!(!,9&& B'itle V22 alloCs 9, da/s to 0ile 0.om
G.ecei=tG o0 the EE4CFs Right to #ue 7ette., a situation made all the mo.e con0using gi<en the
EE4CFs 0ailu.e to =.o=e.l/ u=date the unde.signed mailing in0o.mation u=on a C.itten notice o0
Change o0 Add.ess @eing con0i.med .ecei<ed @/ the EE4C CeeDs =.io. to the mailing o0 the Right 'o
- %E!4 -
V4.1154
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
#ue 7ette., and the 6#1# ceasing to 0o.Ca.d to the unde.signed the o.iginal Right 'o #ue 7ette., @ut
.athe. .etu.n it to the EE4C Cith the Gno longe. at this add.essG /elloC sticDe. and notice o0 the
.eci=ients neC add.ess Bas is the 6#1# custom u=on the e*=i.ation o0 !" months 0.om the 0iling o0 an
400icial Change o0 Add.ess 0o.m Cith the 6#1#A.
F'l'n% , re*$e)t t 3r-ee" 'n >r!, 3,$3er')
G Deli<e.ing o. 0iling a motion o. a==lication to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is, along Cith the 0i.st
com=laint, to the dist.ict cou.t tolls the 9,(da/ statute o0 limitations 0o. 0iling a com=laint 0olloCing
the .ecei=t o0 the Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ CommissionFs BEE4CA .ight(to(sue lette..L !M ?o.e
s=eci0icall/, tolling has @een =e.mitted Che.eN N a 'itle V22 =lainti00 0iled an in 0o.ma =au=e.is
=etition on the %9th da/ o0 the 9,(da/ limitations =e.iod and 0iled the com=laint 0i<e da/s late., Chen
lea<e to =.oceed Cas g.anted.L "M N a =lainti00 0iled a timel/ cha.ge Cith the a==.o=.iate state agenc/
and a timel/ 'itle V22 com=laint, Chich Cas .eHected 0o. 0ailu.e to =a/ 0iling 0ees, onl/ !!9 da/s
ela=sed @etCeen the date he .ecei<ed his .ight(to(sue notice and the date he 0iled his success0ul
motion 0o. .econside.ation o0 the in 0o.ma =au=e.is denial, and the de0endants Ce.e not signi0icantl/
=.eHudiced @/ the additional "9 da/s.LM 'he 0iling o0 a .equest to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is along
Cith an a==lication 0o. a==ointed counsel tolls the time =e.iod 0o. a 0ede.al em=lo/ee to 0ile his 'itle
V22 action.L4M 4@se.<ation: 9ith .ega.d to the time limit 0o. 0iling a disc.imination action against a
0ede.al go<e.nment agenc/, once a =lainti00 has 0iled his com=laint and a =etition to =.oceed in 0o.ma
=au=e.is Cithin the limitation =e.iod, the =e.iod is tolled 0o. =u.=ose o0 .elation @acD to alloC se.<ice
o0 summons and the com=laint at a late. date.L&M 4the.Cise, the dela/ in deciding to g.ant the =etition
could easil/ consume the enti.e =e.iod and maDe im=.actica@le the 0iling o0 in 0o.ma =au=e.is
=etitions in such suits.L+M 3oCe<e., tolling o0 the 9,(da/ =e.iod Cas .e0used Che.e the =lainti00 0iled a
- 9E!4 -
V4.1155
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
.equest to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is on the %%th da/ o0 the 0iling =e.iod since the dela/ in 0iling the
action Cas not due solel/ to ci.cumstances @e/ond the =lainti00Fs cont.ol.L7M Additionall/, the 0iling o0
a .ight(to(sue lette. and a motion to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is did not toll the time limit since these
=a=e.s Ce.e not a com=laint, and the.e Cas no allegation that the =lainti00 had .ecei<ed inadequate
notice o0 the time .equi.ements o. had @een misled @/ the de0endant o. the cou.t.L%M A 'itle V22
com=laint that is accom=anied @/ a .equest 0o. lea<e to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is is 0iled 0o. the
=u.=oses o0 the 9,(da/ statute o0 limitations Chen it is o.iginall/ .ecei<ed @/ the cle.D o0 the cou.t,
and denial o0 a .equest to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is does not a00ect timel/ 0iling Che.e the .equi.ed
0ee is =aid Cithin a .easona@le time a0te. denial.L9M C6?67A'2VE #6117E?EN' Cases: 'itle
V22Fs 9,(da/ statute o0 limitations =e.iod Cas equita@l/ tolled @etCeen time that 0o.me. em=lo/ee
0iled his a==lication to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is and the time the Cou.t .uled on the a==lication. El
<. Belden, +, ). #u==. "d 9, BD.D.C. ",,4A. 1e.iod o0 9, da/s, du.ing Chich claimant unde.
Ame.icans Cith Disa@ilities Act BADAA must 0ile suit u=on .ecei=t o0 .ight to sue lette. 0.om Equal
Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission BEE4CA, Cas equita@l/ tolled, Che.e claimant su@mitted
timel/ com=laint, togethe. Cith .equest to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is, cou.t .etu.ned com=laint,
asDing 0o. additional in0o.mation in su==o.t o0 0o.ma =au=e.is .equest to @e su@mitted Cithin !& da/s,
and claimant su@mitted in0o.mation Cithin that deadline @ut outside o0 9, da/ =e.iod. 7eClai. <.
9ells )a.go BanD 2oCa, N.A., "9! ). #u==. "d %7 B#.D. 2oCa ",,A. LEND 4) #6117E?EN'M
L)N!M 4casio <. )ashion 2nstitute o0 'echnolog/, 9 )ed. A==*. ++ B"d Ci.. ",,!A; BaDe. <. 7a
Cum@.e ?anagement Co., 2nc., 9 )ed. A==*. 7&" B9th Ci.. ",,!A; 8el<e.ton <. Blue Bell, 2nc., &, ).
#u==. 7,! BE.D. N.C. !9%"A. L)N"M Ouiles <. 4F3a.e 3ilton, &7" ). #u==. %++ BN.D. 2ll. !9%A. L)NM
4.tiJ <. Cla.ence 3. 3acDett, 2nc., &%! ). #u==. !"&% BN.D. 2nd. !9%4A. L)N4M 8nclan <. De=a.tment
o0 Ai. )o.ce, 94 )."d !%%, ", )ed. R. #e.<. d !"9, B&th Ci.. !99!A; 9a..en <. De=a.tment o0
- !,E!4 -
V4.1156
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
A.m/, %+7 )."d !!&+, ! )ed. R. #e.<. d "! B%th Ci.. !9%9A. L)N&M 1aulD <. De=a.tment o0 Ai.
)o.ce, Chanute Ai. )o.ce Base, %, )."d 79, % )ed. R. #e.<. d !!% B7th Ci.. !9%7A. L)N+M 1aulD <.
De=a.tment o0 Ai. )o.ce, Chanute Ai. )o.ce Base, %, )."d 79, % )ed. R. #e.<. d !!% B7th Ci..
!9%7A. L)N7M 9est0ield <. Rhodes(1e.due )u.nitu.e Co. o0 :.eens@o.o, N.C., 2nc., !,9 ).R.D. !,+
B9.D. N.C. !9%&A. L)N%M Ellis <. 6.#. ?a.shal #e.<ice, 4, )ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. BBNAA !!&, 4,
Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. BCC3A P+"+%, !9%+ 97 %%7 B9.D. ?o. !9%+A. L)N9M Rounds <. ?ilCauDee
Count/ Communit/ Co..ectional Cente., %+" ). #u==. "" BE.D. 9is. !994A; A com=laint in a 'itle
V22 action Cas 0iled in a timel/ manne., des=ite the 0act that the cou.t cle.D held the com=laint in es
Ce.e =.esent he.e, it ce.tainl/ should aCa.d =lainti00 the 0ees it incu..ed .es=onding to this motion.
But e<en i0 the Cou.t does not 0ind that de0endants had im=.o=e. moti<es, it still can aCa.d 0ees to
=lainti00: @ased on the utte. lacD o0 me.it in de0endants. motion, andEo. the multi=le
mis.e=.esentations de0endants em=lo/ed to t./ to o@tain sanctions. E.g.: LBMecause . . . the allegations
in the =.esent LRule !!M motion a.e untena@le, mis=laced, ina==.o=.iate 0o. a Rule !! motion, o.
sim=l/ ine*=lica@le . . . the 1lainti00 Cill @e aCa.ded the costs associated Cith .es=onding to this
motion as the =.e<ailing =a.t/ unde. Rule !!. . . . LA motion 0o.M Rule !! sanctions LisM =.o=e.l/
de=lo/ed onl/ in e*ce=tional ci.cumstances, this is not such a ci.cumstance. 9a.tsila, !& ). #u==.
"d at +,. 1lainti00 .es=ect0ull/ su@mits that the same conclusion should @e .eached he.e.
CONCLUSION
1lease set aside all the dismissals and .ecogniJe =.ocess and se.<ice o0 =.ocess as a==.o=.iatel/
conducted, consolidate these cases, and an/ othe. .elie0 this Cou.ts sees as a==.o=.iate.
AFFIRMATION P$r)$,nt t NRS 289B.080
'he unde.signed does he.e@/ a00i.m that the =.eceding document does not contain the social secu.it/
- !!E!4 -
V4.1157
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
DA'ED '32#: 5anua./ !7, ",!",
EsE Zach Coughlin, signed elect.onicall/
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1lainti00
- !"E!4 -
V4.1158
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF +ACH COU/LIN IN SUPPORT OF THE FORE/OIN/ DOCUMENT
!. 'his Decla.ation is made =u.suant to the =.o<isions o0 NR# &.,4&, 2 am =.esentl/ in the #tate o0
Ne<ada and 2 decla.e unde. =enalt/ o0 =e.Hu./ that the 0o.egoing is t.ue and co..ect.
". Decla.ant is the 1lainti00 in the a@o<e title action.
. Decla.ant a<e.s that the 0actual statements set 0o. a@o<e in the 0o.egoing document a.e, to the
@est o0 his DnoCledge and unde.standing, accu.ate.
4. 2, Zach Coughlin, am a<aila@le to testi0/, i0 necessa./, as to these matte.s. 2 decla.e unde. =enalt/
o0 =e.Hu./ that the 0o.egoing is t.ue and co..ect.
E*ecuted o0e@ "&4, ",!!
EsE Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
17A2N'2))
- !E!4 -
V4.1159
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
24
23
26
27
28
Pr> > Ser4'-e:
document to:
1.4. Bo* 9,7
>ings Beach, CA 9+!4
Atto.ne/ 0o. 'ahoe 9omenFs #e.<ices BCR2#2# 2N'ERVEN'24N #ERV2CE#A 932C3 2# N4' A
NA?ED 1AR'8 AND 3A# N4' 2N'ER17ED 4R )27ED A# A REA7 1AR'8 2N 2N'ERE#'
721#4N, NE27#4N, C47E, #E7'ZER Q :AR2N
54#E13 1. :AR2N, E#O.
Ne<ada Ba. No. ++&
#3ANN4ND N4RD#'R4?
Ne<ada Ba. No. %"!!
9,%, 9est 1ost Road, #uite !,,
7asVegas, Ne<ada %9!4%
'E7: B7,"A%"(!&,, )AR: B7,"A %"(!&!"
Atto.ne/ 0o. De0endant 9A#34E 7E:A7 #ERV2CE#, a Ne<ada Co.=o.ation, >A'38
BREC>ENR2D:E, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as Boa.d 1.esident o0 97#, '4DD
'4RV2NEN, 2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97# Boa.d ?em@e., 1A67 E7CAN4, 2ndi<iduall/
and in his ca=acit/ as E*ecuti<e Di.ecto. o0 97#, D4E# !(!,,, 2ndi<iduall/ and in thei. ca=acit/ as
mem@e.s o0 the B4ARD 4) D2REC'4R# 4) 9A#34E 7E:A7 #ERV2CE#, CAR8N
#'ERN72:3', 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97# atto.ne/, 54N #A##ER, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as 97# agent, >AREN #AB4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97# atto.ne/,
?ARC A#37E8, 2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97# atto.ne/, ZANDRA 741EZ; 2ndi<iduall/
and in he. ca=acit/ as 97# em=lo/ee;
DA'ED '32#: 0e@"4, ",!",
EsE Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
17A2N'2))
- !4E!4 -
V4.1160
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-25-2012:00:18:21
02-27-2012:13:30:32
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
Replyto/inOpposition
ZACHARYCOUGHLIN,ESQ.forZACHARY
COUGHLIN
V4.1161
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1162
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-27-2012:12:06:40
02-27-2012:14:59:39
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
V4.1163
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1164
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
02-27-2012:12:06:40 PM
3860
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WLS employee.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
V4.1165
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
It is requested that PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS ELCANO, TORVINEN, SASSER, ASHLEY, SABO, WLS, CIS AND
BRECKENRIDGES MOTION(S) TO DISMISS, having been filed and served on J anuary 26,
2012, Oppositions having been filed and served on J anuary 29, 2012 and February 13, 2012,
and no Reply having been filed, be submitted to the Court for decision.
parties.
Dated this 27
th
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 2 -
V4.1166
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
26
27
28
____________________________________________

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
AFFIRMATION
any person.
Dated this 27
th
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
th
Request for Submission, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
V4.1167
F I L E D
Electronically
02-29-2012:12:17:30 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1168
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Appellant ,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, A NEVADA
CORPORATION; KATHY BRECKENRIDGE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS
BOARD PRESIDENT OF WLS; TODD
TORVINEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND HIS
CAPACITY AS WLS, BOARD MEMBER; PAUL
ELCANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
WLS; CARYN R. STERN LICHT,
INDIVIDUALLY AND HER CAPACITY AS WLS
ATIORNEY; JON L. SASSER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS WLS AGENT;
KAREN L. SABO, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN
HER CAPACITY AS WLS ATIORNEY; MARC
ASHLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
CAPACITY AS WLS ATIORNEY; AND
ZANDRA LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN
HER CAPACITY AS WLS EMPLOYEE,
Respondents.
Supreme Court No. 60302
District Court Case No. CV11 01896
RECEIPT FOR DOCUMENTS
TO: Zachary B. Coughlin
Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin, P.C.lJoseph Garin & Shannon D.
N9rdstrom
'<f' oey Orduna Hastings, Washoe District Court Clerk
You are hereby notified that the Clerk of the Supreme Court has received andlor filed
the following:
0212712012
0212712012
Filed Notice of Appeal. Appeal docketed in the Supreme Court this
day. (Docketing statement mailed to counsel for appellant. )
Appeal Filing fee waived. In Forma Pauperis.
DATE: February 27, 2012
Tracie Lindeman, Clerk of Court
Ip
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
02-29-2012:12:17:30
02-29-2012:12:18:57
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
SupremeCourtReceiptforDoc
MaryFernandez
COUGHLIN
V4.1169
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1170
F I L E D
Electronically
03-02-2012:01:40:28 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1171
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cJ
0.;
11
"
-0
c38
12

t; ";:; ;!;
13
jVl 0-, 0

-,2 N
--" 00
14
c3"

<uS
t:: :;;>t::.-
15

a
16

0
.e.
..0
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1950
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Jon Sasser,
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually)
WLS, DOES 1-100, Individually and in their )
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT, )
Individually and in her capacity as WLS l
attorney, JON SASSER, Individually and in )
Individually and in her capacity as WLS )
LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as )
WLS employee, )
Defendants.
I
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANT CARYN STERN LICHT'S
VERIFIED MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
V4.1172
1 DEFENDANT CARYN STERN LICHT'S VERIFIED MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
2 Defendant Caryn Sternlicht ("Defendant"), by and through her attorneys of record,
3 Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., respectfully submits her Memorandum of Costs
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a. Filing Fees
TOTAL
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF CLARK
)
)ss
)
$ 213.00
$213.00'
12 Shannon D. Nordstrom, being duly sworn, states she has personal knowledge of the
13 above costs and disbursements expended that the items contained in the above memorandum
14 are true and correct to the best of the Affiant's knowledge and belief, and that these costs and
15 disbursements have been necessarily incurred and paid in this action. I decree under penalty
16 of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada that the foregoing is true and correct.
17
18
19
20
21
Dated this 1
s1
day of March, 2012.
22 Subscribed and sworn to before me
this I ~ day of March, 2012.
23
4 N ~ ~
25
26
27
28
, Transaction cost file list is attached as Exhibit 1.
NANCY J. COOPER
Notary Public Stahl of Nevada
No. 91-20751
appt. expo July 15, 2012 .,
V4.1173
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
c.i
'"
11
d
c

08
12

1-<._ '<l-

13 ..: 0

"" 00
14 c3"
d N'

15

16
0

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, DEFENDANT
CARYN STERN LICHT'S VERIFIED MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, filed in Case No. CV11
01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 2
nd
day of March, 2012.
By:
& GARIN,E.C

(702) 382-1500
Paul E/cano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Saba, Jon
Caryn Sternficht
-3-
V4.1174
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
li
11
"-
"

ro
08
12
Od-
....

13
c::i-dOOS;:

-.2 N
14 8
o

15

16
0
J
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
nd
day of March, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of
Defendant Caryn Stern licht's Verified Memorandum of Costs, upon the following parties,
via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 4 -
V4.1175
1
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
3
Exhibit 1 Billing Details 1 page
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
<..i

11
.'

08
12

..... !

13
il.-o 00 :F;

--'l N
8
14

t;>L-
15

16
0

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 5 -
F I L E D
Electronically
03-02-2012:01:40:28 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1176
EXHIBIT "1"
EXHIBIT "1"
V4.1177
eFlex
Page I or I
HDme "file
My Profile Log Qut
user: Joseph P. Garin
Filing Charges
Report Month January
January 2012 Charges for Joseph P. Garin
Case Title My Case # Court case # Description .... Dilte Account Authorization Code Fee
ZAOiARY (I)lX;HUri VS. WASHOE lEGAl. SR'VC. ET Al.{DIO)
ZAQ-I ClJL(;HUN 'IS. WASHCIf lEGAl SERVICES ET At.(D6)
(11'11-01955
(\I'l1-01B96
Emptoyrroent fOf'l5 (Wrongful rermilli!li:!n) - WT 01-18-2012:04:26 X9921
Employment Torts (WnnpuI trmlimltbn) - WT 01-19-2012:08:10 X9921
User I temls of !he I pr'iwq lDfey I !XIii,), I I LIS I ilooul Tybera Group, loco
@200l-l0TyberaDneJopITlallGloup,IIlc.AD
12011825670019
120119257747)3
$213.00
$213.00
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-02-2012:13:40:28
03-02-2012:16:05:26
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
MemorandumofCosts
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
V4.1178
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1179
F I L E D
Electronically
03-05-2012:04:50:02 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1180
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
c..1
"-
11
"
'C
"
08
12
,,-

..... """
"'-
13
NVlC">O
.:: 0
"""

14
8 ;i::

15
,!!l"3

16

,9<
>--'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2175
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P,C.
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
President of WLS, TODD TOAVINEN, )
Individually and in his capacity as WLS l
DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL )
SERVICES, CARYN STERN LICHT, )
WLS employee, )
Defendants.
I
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
V4.1181
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
"
.
Clg
12

13
tjVJo-.O

"02 N
-" 00
14
8 ;i::

5>G
15

16
0
3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Defendants Paul Elcano, individually and in his capacity as Executive Director of
WLS, Todd Torvinen, individually and in his capacity as WLS Board Member, Jon Sasser,
individually and in his capacity as WLS agent, Marc Ashley, individually and in his capacity
as WLS attorney, Karen Sabo, individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney, Kathy
Breckenridge, individually and in her capacity as Board President of WLS, and Washoe
Legal Services, a Nevada Corporation, (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their
attorneys of record, Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., hereby submit their
Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal.
This OppOSition is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below,
together with the pleadings and files herein, and any oral argument this Court permits .
DATED this 5
th
day of March, 2012.
LIPSON NEILSQllI COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

By:
Joseph P. Gann (Bar No. 6653)
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and
Caryn Sternlicht
-2-
V4.1182
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 1. Introduction
3 On February 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on
4 Appeal. Pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(3), Plaintiffs Motion is
5 unnecessary seeing as this Court approved Defendant's prior application to proceed in
6 forma pauperis. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs Motion is defective. Moreover, the Appeal is
7 entirely baseless seeing as Plaintiff failed to complete proper service of process and
8 Plaintiff can make no argument that will change that determination. In light of Plaintiff's
9 Motion, Defendants request Plaintiffs Motion be denied and certify that the Appeal is not
10 taken in good faith and/or is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. This
11 Court should put an end to Plaintiff's continued disregard of time, resources and Court
12 mandated deadlines.
13 2. Plaintiff's Petition To Proceed In Forma Pauperis Is Defective And Should Be
Denied.
Pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), a plaintiff desiring to
16 proceed in forma pauperis must file a motion with an attached affidavit that: "(A) shows in
17 the detail prescribed by Form 4 in the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to payor to
18 give security for fees and costs; (6) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the
19 issues that the party intends to present on appeal."
20 Here, Plaintiff fails to comply with NRAP 24(a)(1)'s requirements. Plaintiff fails to
21 claim an entitlement to redress, fails to states the issues that he intends to present on
22 appeal, and fails to show the detail required pursuant to Form 4. Form 4, attached hereto
23 as Exhibit "1" for easy reference. Plaintiff merely provides that he is a "Jack of All Trades"
24 and earns approximately $800.00 per month as of November 2011, when his Affidavit was
25 signed and notarized. Plaintiff is a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of Nevada
26 and is or should be well aware of the Rule's requirements. Plaintiff has not informed this
27 Court whether he received any income from a business, profession, or other form of self-
28 employment within the past twelve months. He has also not informed this court whether he
- 3 -
V4.1183

.
l?8

\-< ..... ..,..

Nu:lO\O
1i.-goo

-'l
8
<lJ 0
t;;:> t::.-

0
j
1 owns any stocks, bond, notes, or other valuable property. Importantly, Plaintiff's Affidavit is
2 over three months old, making it unclear whether Plaintiffs financial circumstances remain
3 today as they were in November of last year. In sum, Plaintiffs Motion is defective and
4 should be denied on this basis alone.
5 3. Plaintiff's Motion Should Be Denied Because The Appeal Is Frivolous.
6 Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(3) states, in pertinent part:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil district court
action may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization,
unless the district court-before or after the notice of appeal is filed-certifies that
the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise
entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the
certification or finding." (Emphasis added).
In other words, the right of access to the court is not unrestricted. See Barnes v .
Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 103 Nev. 679, 682, 748 P.2d 483, 486 (1987) (citing Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir.1984) ("Because plaintiffs who are allowed to
proceed in forma pauperis are not affected by economic deterrents to filing frivolous
lawsuits, the courts may be justified in treating such actions differently from cases filed by
plaintiffs who have paid the requisite filing fee."))). Notably, "a plaintiff satisfies the "good
faith" requirement if he or she seeks review of any issue that is 'not frivolous.'" Gardner v.
Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir.1977) (quoting Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.
438, 445 (1962)). The good faith standard is an objective one. Id.
In this case, Plaintiffs appeal is not made in good faith and is frivolous. Plaintiffs
appeal lacks any arguable substance in law or fact seeing as he made untimely and
improper service attempts on Defendants. Plaintiff failed to make any true opposition to
Defendants' various Motions to Dismiss. He failed to request an extension of time to serve
Defendants and made no effort to explain why he did not request an extension prior to the
expiration of the service deadline. See Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, 126 Nev.
__ , 245 P .3d 1198, 1201 (2010) (explaining that, when a plaintiff seeks an enlargement
of time to serve process after the service period has expired, the district court must
consider whether the plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for his failure to file a timely
- 4 -
V4.1184

"
c
ro
"8

1-<._ '<t-
uo_
tlV'lCl'D

C'
.'" N
"8 B
<U 0
15

0

j<
motion for an extension before reaching the question of whether the plaintiff has shown
2 good cause for his failure to timely serve process). Therefore, the appeal has no merit and
3 is frivolous. Plaintiff should not be permitted to continue this frivolous Appeal without
4 posting a cost bond and paying the requisite fees to file an appeal.
5 The Court should certify that Plaintiffs appeal is not taken in good faith and deny
6 Plaintiffs Motion.
7 4. Conclusion
8 Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal and certify the appeal is not
taken in good faith and/or is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
DATED this 5
th
day of March, 2012.
LIPSON COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

By:
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 5 -
V4.1185
0
0.;
c
c
ro
08
,:,;-
I-<.g
""-
NU"lo-,O
13-0
00
::;;:

N
a
B a",
'V 0
55>!::>

erg
0
j-
2
3
4
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, DEFENDANTS'
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
APPEAL, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of
5
any person.
6
Dated this 5
th
day of March, 2012
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:
Joseph P. Gann (Sar No. 6653)
(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Saba, Kathy
Caryn Sternlicht
- 6-
V4.1186
II
p..
c
c
rn
08
cJj-;oo
1-< ..... '<t"

N<nO"c>
....::: 0

8"
is
Q.J C)

Zo

0

.&
>-l
2 I certify that on the 5
th
3 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
4 PAUPERIS ON APPEAL, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
5 addressed as follows:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
-7-
V4.1187
1 page
- 8 -
F I L E D
Electronically
03-05-2012:04:50:02 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1188
EXHIBIT "1"
EXHIBIT "1"
V4.1189
Form 4. Affidavit and Order to Accompany Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma
Pauperis
No ............... . Dept. No .......... .
IN THE ................ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF ............... .
STATE OF NEVADA }
v. }
A.B. }
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED
ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
State of Nevada }
}ss.
County of .................. }
I, ................................ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the
................................ in the above-entitled case; that in support of my motion to proceed on appeal
without being required to prepay fees, cost or give security therefor, I state that because of my
poverty I am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or to give security therefor; that I believe
I am entitled to redress; and that the issues which I desire to present on appeal are the following:
I further swear that the responses which I have made to the questions and instructions
below relating to my ability to pay the cost of prosecuting the appeal are true.
I. Are you presently employed?
a. If the answer is yes, state the amount of your salary or wages per month and give the
name and address of your employer.
b. If the answer is no, state the date of your last employment and the amount of the
salary and wages per month which you received.
2. Have you received within the past twelve months any income from a business,
profession or other form of self-employment, or in the form of rent payments, interest, dividends,
or other source?
a. If the answer is yes, describe each source of income, and state the amount received
from each during the past twelve months.
3. Do you own any cash or checking or savings account?
a. If the answer is yes, state the total value of the items owned.
4. Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable
property (excluding ordinary household furnishings and clothing)?
V4.1190
a. If the answer is yes, describe the property and state its approximate value.
5. List the persons who are dependent upon you for support and state your relationship to
those persons.
I understand that a false statement or answer to any question in this affidavit will subject
me to penalties for perjury.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ................ day of ........................... ,20 .... ..
Notary Public
ORDER
Let the applicant proceed without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving
security therefor.
DATED this ................ day of ........................... ,20 .... ..
District Judge
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-06-2012:12:35:18
03-06-2012:13:56:17
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
V4.1191
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1192
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-06-2012:12:37:00
03-06-2012:13:57:05
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
V4.1193
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1194
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-05-2012:16:50:02
03-06-2012:10:17:10
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
V4.1195
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1196
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
03-06-2012:12:35:18 PM
3860
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WLS employee.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
V4.1197
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
26
27
28


L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
It is requested that PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RETAX COSTS, having been filed and
served on J anuary 31, 2012, Oppositions having been filed and served on February 15, 2012
and February 20, 2012, and no Reply having been filed,
1
be submitted to the Court for
decision.
parties.
Dated this 6
th
day of March, 2012.
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
1
The time to Reply to the Motion expired on February 27, 2012 and March 1, 2012, respectively.
- 2 -
V4.1198
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
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
any person.
Dated this 6
th
day of March, 2012.
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
- 3 -
V4.1199
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
26
27
28
____________________________________________

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
th
day of March, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Request
for Submission, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 4 -
V4.1200
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
03-06-2012:12:37:00 PM
3860
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WLS employee.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
/ / /
V4.1201
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
26
27
28

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
It is requested that PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND, having been filed
and served on February 1, 2012, Oppositions having been filed and served on February 15,
2012 and on February 21, 2012, and no Reply having been filed,
1
be submitted to the Court
for decision.
parties.
Dated this 6
th
day of March, 2012.
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
1
The time to Reply to the Motion expired on February 27, 2012 and on March 2, 2012, respectively.
- 2 -
V4.1202
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
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
any person.
Dated this 6
th
day of March, 2012.
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
- 3 -
V4.1203
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
26
27
28
____________________________________________

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
th
day of March, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Request
for Submission, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 4 -
V4.1204
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-07-2012:00:10:08
03-07-2012:09:31:43
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
MtnforExtensionofTime
- **Continuation
COUGHLIN
V4.1205
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1206
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
26
27
28

Document Code: 2075
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV BA No: !"7#
$"22 E. !th %t. &2
eno, NV '!5$2
(ele: 775)##')'$$'
*a+: !"!),,7)7"02
.n /0o /e0
ZAC1 C24815.N9
:lainti;;.
<s.
.N (1E %EC2ND 34D.C.A5 D.%(.C( C24(
2* (1E %(A(E 2* NEVADA
.N AND *2 (1E C24N(6 2* 7A%12E
7A%12E 5E8A5 %EV.CE%, a Ne<ada
Co0/o0ation, =A(16 BEC=EN.D8E,
.ndi<iduall> and in he0 ca/acit> as Boa0d
:0esident o; 75%, (2DD (2V.NEN,
.ndi<iduall> and in his ca/acit> as 75% . Boa0d
?em@e0, :A45 E5CAN2, .ndi<iduall> and in
his ca/acit> as E+ecuti<e Di0ecto0 o; 75%,
D2E% $)$00, .ndi<iduall> and in thei0 ca/acit>
as mem@e0s o; the B2AD 2* D.EC(2%
2* 7A%12E 5E8A5 %EV.CE%, CA6N
%(EN5.81(, .ndi<iduall> and in he0 ca/acit>
as 75% atto0ne>, 32N %A%%E, .ndi<iduall>
and in his ca/acit> as 75% agent, =AEN
%AB2, .ndi<iduall> and in he0 ca/acit> as 75%
atto0ne>, ?AC A%15E6, .ndi<iduall> and in
his ca/acit> as 75% atto0ne>, ZANDA
52:EZ9 .ndi<iduall> and in he0 ca/acit> as
75% em/lo>ee9
De;endants.
F I L E D
Electronically
03-07-2012:12:10:08 AM
Clerk of the Court
A
A
A
A
A
A CA%E N2: CV$$)0$'!,
DE:(. N2: ,
?2(.2N *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
Zach Coughlin, /lainti;;, su@mits this motion ;o0 e+tension o; time to /e0;o0m se0<ice o;
/0ocess on his oCn @ehal;. (he D?> *ilingsD /age in Coughlin E;le+ account /0o<es he has
- $E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1207
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
/0e<iousl> attem/ted to su@mit this motion nume0ous times. Coughlin has com/lained a@out
0etaliato0>Edisc0iminato0> e;le+ 0eFections and othe0 im/e0missi@le conduct @> 7DC sta;;, including
3udge 5o0i ?atheus. (he attem/ts to /0e<iousl> su@mit this ?otion ;o0 E+tension, etc. include:
$#05'5! CV$$)0$'!, 0$)2")20$2:0':50:2! :? ?tn ;o0 E+tension o; (ime eFected
$#0"2'0 CV$$)0$'!, 0$)2#)20$2:05:5,:"0 :? ?tn ;o0 E+tension o; (ime eFected
$#02,2# CV$$)0$'!, 0$)22)20$2:0#:$$:02 A? ?tn ;o0 E+tension o; (ime eFected
$275$,' CV$$)0$'!, $2)2$)20$$:0$:##:0$ A? ?tn ;o0 E+tension o; (ime eFected
:5EA%E N2(E: (1.% A((E?:(, .* %4CCE%%*45 7.55 ?A= AB24( (1.% *.*(1 2
%.B(1 (.?E . 1AVE A((E?:(ED (2 8E( (1.% ?2(.2N :A%% (1E 8A(E=EE:E% (2
34%(.CE .N (1E *.5.N8 2**.CE, 5.=E ?%. 52. ?A(1E4%, 712? D2E% A
E?A=AB5E 32B .N(E:E(.N8 AND A::56.N8 7DC $0, 2NE 2* (1E *.NE%(
45E% EVE ?ADE, 71.C1 .N N27 7A6 .% 2N C2N(AVEN(.2N 2* NC: 5GeA, AND
71.C1 C5EA56 %1245D BE A::5.ED 24( 2* N271EE .N EVE ?2E CEA(.VE
AND .NVEN(.VE 7A6%, :A(.C45A56 (2 EA556 (.?E %EN%.(.VE ?2(.2N%
71EE 5.(.8AN(% AND 2 C5.EN(% A**A.% 1AVE A %4B%(AN(.A5 5.=E5.122D 2*
BE.N8 :E34D.CED %1245D AN A((E?:( A( ACCE%%.N8 34%(.CE BE H=.C=ED BAC=
24(H B6 (1E *.5.N8 2**.CE, 71.C1 A::5.E% 7DC $0 7.(1 E?A=AB5E
DEB(E.(6, :A(.C45A56 A8A.N%( %252 :AC(.(.2NEH%, B4( N2( A( A55 (2 A
5E%%E DE8EE D2E% .( 8E( A::5.ED (2 (1E DE:4(6 D.%(.C( A((2NE6% AND
B.8 ?2NE6 5A7 *.?%, AND .N N2 7A6 D2E% (1E EI4.E?EN(, *24ND .N 7DC
$0, :4( .N(2 5A7 B6 (1E %4:E?E C24( 2* NEVADA, (1A( (1E 2ND 34D.C.A5
D.%(.C( C24( %1245D 1AVE AN A*(E 124% D2:B2B NECE%%A.56 ?EAN
(1A( (1E 7DC NEED% (2 A::56 7DC $0 A8A.N%( .(%E5*.
- 2E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1208
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
(his ?otion is made /u0suant to the autho0ities discussed @eloC, including NC: "GiA and is
su//o0ted @> the attached ?emo0andum o; :oints and Autho0ities, the Decla0ation o; Zacha0> B.
Coughlin, Esq., the /a/e0s and /leadings on ;ile he0ein, and an> o0al a0gument this cou0t ma> alloC,
as it is @eing 0equested.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
An A//lication ;o0 .*: status Cas ;iled along Cith a /0o/osed Com/laint on 3une 27th, 20$$.
(he .*: Cas ;inall> g0anted August ', 20$$, and the Com/liant Cas stam/ed Cith a ;iling date o;
August $$, 20$$ and ente0ed in the DocJet in this matte0 on that date as Cell. $20 da>s ;0om August
$$, 20$$ is Decem@e0 !, 20$$, Chich ha//ens to @e the da> that (0a<is %he0man, o<e0 $' >ea0 old
non /a0t> 0esident o; 7ashoe Count> se0<ed :aul Elcano and 75% Ggi<en Elcano is 75%Hs 0egiste0ed
agentA Cith the %ummons and Com/laint in this matte0, and /0oo; o; the same Cas ;iled on Decem@e0
$0, 20$$. *u0the0, B0ecJen0idge Cas se0<ed @> the 7C%2 on $$E$5E$$ in CV$$)0$'!, G@ut that
same A;;ida<it o; %e0<ice, ;iled onl> in CV$$)0$'!, also indicates B0ecJen0idge Cas se0<ed the
%ummons and Com/laint ;o0 CV$$)0$!55 as Cell, @ut the 7C%2 did not manage to ;ile an A;;ida<it
o; %e0<ice attesting to that in CV$$)0$!55, so the case against he0 the0e got dismissed. 7hat is
inte0esting is that the /eo/le Cho Ce0e not su@Fect to and 20de0 ;0om the Chie; 3udge, De/a0tment
*ou0, indicating that the> should se0<e /0ocess /u0suant to an .*: 20de0 Gie, me, and m> 0agtag g0ou/
o; 0andom ;0iends, st0ange0s, etcA manage to do a much, much mo0e tho0ough Fo@ than the g0ou/ o;
7C%2 De/uties Cith 0athe0 nice sala0ies managed to do Gie, the g0ou/ Cho Ce0e getting /aid quite
Cell, Cith a nice :E% /lan to @ootA. (o to/ it o;;, =a0en %a@o Cas se0<ed something ;0om CV$$)
0$'!, Ga %ummonsK a co/> o; the Com/laintKA its Fust that the 7C%2 ;iled the A;;ida<it o; %e0<ice
attesting to that in the wrong case CV$$)0$!55 on $$E22E$$ Gthe A;;ida<it ;o0 %a@o Cas ;iled in
- #E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1209
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
CV$$)0$!55 @ut indicates ?s. %a@o Cas se0<ed: DD5ocation: 7ashoe 5egal %e0<ices 2!! % A0lington
A<enue eno, N6 '!50$ Date: $$$$,E20$$ (ime: $$ :0"A? (he documentGsA se0<ed Ce0e:
%4??2N%: C2:6 2* CA%E CV$$)0$!55 AND C2:6 2* %4??2N%, CA%E CV$$)0$'!,DA.
(his Cou0tHs 3anua0> $$, 20$$ 20de0 held that: D :lainti;; ;iled a com/laint on 3une 27,20$$.
:u0suant to N..C.:. "GiA, :lainti;; Could ha<e $20 da>s to se0<e the summons and com/laint on
De;endants o0 until 2cto@e0 25, 20$$. :lainti;; ;ailed to se0<e De;endants :aul Elcano GDElcanoDA,
(odd (o0<ine GD(o0<inenDA, 3on %asse0 GD%asse0DA, ?a0c Ashle> GDAshle>DA, =a0en %a@o GD%a@oDA,
=ath> B0ecJen0idge GDB0ecJen0idgeDA, 7ashoe 5egal %e0<ices GD75%DA and C0isis .nte0<ention
%e0<ices GDC.%DA Cithin the mandated time /e0iod. .n addition, :lainti;; ;ailed to ;ile a motion to
enla0ge time ;o0 se0<ice o0 shoC good cause as to Ch> se0<ice Cas not made Cithin the statuto0>
/e0iod. Acco0dingl>, the Cou0t g0ants De;endants Elcano, (o0<inen, %asse0, Ashle>, %a@o, 75%, C.%
and B0ecJen0idgeHs motionGsA to dismiss Cithout /0eFudice.2 *N 2: Although C.% sought dismissal
Cith /0eFudice, the Cou0t ma> dismiss an action Cithout /0eFudice Chen se0<ice is untimel>. %ee
N..C.:. "GiA. .n addition, C.%Hs 0equest ;o0 atto0ne>Hs ;ees and costs is denied at this time @ecause the
Cou0t dismissed this action on /0ocedu0al g0ounds Cithout anal>Ling the me0its o; :lainti;;s case.D
. donHt @elie<e an> o; the ;actual ;indings in that 20de0 a0e accu0ate, as all o; those indi<idualsE
entities Ce0e se0<ed Gma>@e not @> the 7C%2, @ut . got (0a<is %he0man to se0<e 75% and Elcano on
Decem@e0 !, 20$$, Chich is not too late conside0ing the Com/laint is ;ile stam/ed August $$, 20$$,
and . had 3e0ome *itLhen0> se0<e (odd (o0<inen Gand attem/t to se0<e 75% and Elcano @> lea<ing a
0eal nice co/> o; the %ummons and Com/laint unde0 ElcanoHs home doo0 matA on 2cto@e0 27th, 200$
GChich, again, . do not @elie<e is outside the $20 da>s alloCed unde0 NC: ", as the ;iling o;;ice Cill
not issue a %ummons in a case Che0e the .*: is still /ending...as such, the .*: onl> @eing g0anted on
August ' and the Com/laitn stam/ed in on August $$, 20$$....maJes the *itLhen0> se0<ice on
- "E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1210
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
2cto@e0 27th, 20$$ onl> some 77 da>s o0 so into the $20 da> /e0iod alloCed unde0 NC: $20.
*u0the0, . @elie<e a ca0e;ul 0e<ieC o; the /leadings Cill 0e<eal a ?otion ;o0 E+tension o; (ime to
E;;ectuate %e0<ice Cas ;iled, as Cas a ?otion to Consolidate these cases on 2cto@e0 5, 20$$. :lease
set aside the dismissal.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
D:lainti;;MA//ellant ode0icJ C. ?ann ;iled a ci<il action Cithin the
go<e0ning statute o; limitations @ut then did not se0<e /0ocess Cithin $20
da>s o; ;iling, as 0equi0ed Ga@sent time e+tensionA @> *ed..Ci<.:. "GmA.
?ann then mo<ed ;o0 an e+tension o; time to se0<e De;endantM A//ellee
Ame0ican Ai0lines, Cas g0anted additional time @> the dist0ict cou0t, and
e;;ected se0<ice Cithin the Fudiciall> e+tended time. 7e conside0 G$A Chethe0
the ;ailu0e to se0<e /0ocess Cithin the initial $20Mda> /e0iod causes the
statute o; limitations to 0un again and G2A Chethe0 the dist0ict cou0t ma>
e+tend the time to se0<e /0ocess, unde0 ule "GmA, a;te0 the $20 da>s ha<e
e+/i0ed Chen the statute o; limitations Could othe0Cise @a0 the 0e);iling o;
the suit i; the dist0ict cou0t had declined e+tension o; time and had dismissed
the suit....2n ?a> #0, 200$, ?ann ;iled an amended com/laint and the
dist0ict cou0t issued a summons. 2n 3une ", 200$, ?ann se0<ed on De;endant
Ame0ican Ai0lines the o0iginal com/laint, the amended com/laint, the
o0iginal summons, and the su@sequent summons. Ame0ican Ai0lines late0
mo<ed to dismiss /u0suant to *ed..Ci<.:. $2G@AG5A and G@AG,A, alleging
inadequate and untimel> se0<ice o; /0ocess and lacJ o; /e0sonal Fu0isdiction.
(he dist0ict cou0t g0anted the motion and dismissed the case Cith /0eFudice,
a//a0entl> @elie<ing that com/liance Cith the statute o; limitations as
/0o<ided @> "2 4.%.C. N 2000eM5G;AG$A is linJed to se0<ice o; /0ocess Cithin
the $20Mda> /e0iod set out in ule "GmA: .n this case, /lainti;;Hs o0iginal
com/laint Cas timel> ;iled, on the '!th da> o; the O$0!0 !0 da> /e0iod.
*iling a com/laint gi<es a /lainti;; $20 da>s to com/lete se0<ice o; /0ocess
acco0ding to *ed..Ci<.:. "GmA. .n this case /lainti;; ;ailed to timel> se0<e
and e+ /a0te mo<ed the cou0t ;o0 an e+tension o; time to com/lete se0<ice,
Chich the cou0t g0anted. 7hile the cou0t has disc0etion Cith 0ega0ds to
se0<ice o; /0ocess, the cou0t does not ha<e the /oCe0 to alte0 the !0 da>
statute o; limitations. 7ilson <. 80umman 2hio Co0/., '$5 *.2d 2,, 27 G,th
Ci0.$!'7A. :lainti;;Hs ;ailu0e to ;ile suit against Ame0ican PAi0linesQ Cithin the
!0 da> /e0iod mandated @> the ADA 0equi0es the cou0t to dismiss. GEm/hasis
added.A ?ann a//eals. .. P$QP2Q (he co00ectness o; the dist0ict cou0tHs
dismissal on statute o; limitations g0ounds is a question o; laC 0e<ieCed de
no<o. %ee 4nde0Cood Cotton Co., .nc. <. 1>undai ?e0ch. ?a0ine GAm.A,
.nc., 2'' *.#d "05, "07 G!th Ci0.2002A. (he inte0/0etation o; a *ede0al ule
o; Ci<il :0ocedu0e is also a question o; laC 0e<ieCed de no<o. %ee 4nited
%tates <. *oste0, 227 *.#d $0!,, $0!! G!th Ci0.2000A. ... P#QP"Q (his a//eal
- 5E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1211
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
0equi0es 0esolution o; tCo issues. *i0st, Ce add0ess Chethe0 ?annHs ;ailu0e to
se0<e /0ocess Cithin the initial $20Mda> /e0iod /0esc0i@ed @> *ed..Ci<.:.
"GmA caused the statute o; limitations to sta0t to 0un again. 7e conclude that
it did not. 2nce a com/laint is ;iled, the statute o; limitations is tolled unless
and until the dist0ict cou0t dismisses the action. %ee " Cha0les A. 70ight and
A0thu0 . ?ille0, *ede0al :0actice and :0ocedu0e: Ci<il #d N $05# G#d ed.
2002A.*N$ *N$. Neithe0 /a0t> dis/utes that ?ann ;iled his com/laint Cithin
the !0Mda> statute o; limitations. And, neithe0 /a0t> dis/utes that the statute
o; limitations initiall> is tolled u/on ;iling o; a com/laint. %ee %ain <. Cit> o;
Bend, #0! *.#d $$#", $$#' G!th Ci0.2002A. P5Q %econd, Ce add0ess Chethe0
the dist0ict cou0t had the disc0etion to e+tend the time to se0<e /0ocess e<en
a;te0 the $20Mda> /e0iod had e+/i0ed. 7e conclude that it did. *ed..Ci<.:.
"GmA /0o<ides: .; se0<ice o; the summons and com/laint is not made u/on a
de;endant Cithin $20 da>s a;te0 the ;iling o; the com/laint, the cou0t, u/on
motion o0 on its oCn initiati<e a;te0 notice to the /lainti;;, shall dismiss the
action Cithout /0eFudice as to that de;endant o0 di0ect that se0<ice @e e;;ected
Cithin a s/eci;ied time9 /0o<ided that i; the /lainti;; shoCs good cause ;o0 the
;ailu0e, the cou0t shall e+tend the time ;o0 se0<ice ;o0 an a//0o/0iate /e0iod.
*N2 :age " #2" *.#d $0'', 55 *ed..%e0<.#d $57, $" A.D. Cases "##, 25
ND5 : 2"5, 0# Cal. Dail> 2/. %e0<. 2'0,, 200# Dail> 3ou0nal D.A.. #557
GCite as: #2" *.#d $0''A *N2. ule "GmA 0e/laced ;o0me0 ule "GFA in the
$!!# amendments. (he cu00ent 0ule 0equi0es a dist0ict cou0t to g0ant an
e+tension o; time i; good cause is shoCn and /e0mits the dist0ict cou0t to
g0ant such an e+tension e<en a@sent good cause. 1ende0son <. 4nited %tates,
5$7 4.%. ,5", ,,2, $$, %.Ct. $,#', $#" 5.Ed.2d ''0 G$!!,A. (his di;;e0s
;0om ;o0me0 ule "GFA, Chich did not /e0mit e+tensions a@sent good cause.
.d. at ,,$M,2, $$, %.Ct. $,#'. 2n its ;ace, ule "GmA does not tie the hands
o; the dist0ict cou0t a;te0 the $20Mda> /e0iod has e+/i0ed. athe0, ule "GmA
e+/licitl> /e0mits a dist0ict cou0t to g0ant an e+tension o; time to se0<e the
com/laint a;te0 that $20Mda> /e0iod. C;. 1ende0son <. 4nited %tates, 5$7
4.%. ,5", ,,$, $$, %.Ct. $,#', $#" 5.Ed.2d ''0 G$!!,A Gconcluding that Rthe
$20Mda> /0o<ision o/e0ates not as an oute0 limit su@Fect to 0eduction, @ut as
an i00educi@le alloCanceSA. (he dist0ict cou0tHs disc0etion is not diminished
Chen the statute o; limitations Could @a0 0e);iling o; the suit i; the dist0ict
cou0t decided to dismiss the case instead o; g0ant an e+tension. (o the
cont0a0>, the ad<iso0> committee notes e+/licitl> contem/late that a dist0ict
cou0t might use O$0!$ its disc0etion to g0ant an e+tension in that <e0>
situation: Relie; ma> @e Fusti;ied, ;o0 e+am/le, i; the a//lica@le statute o;
limitations Could @a0 the 0e);iled action.S *ed..Ci<.:. ", Ad<iso0>
Committee Note to $!!# Amendments, %u@di<ision GmA. %ee also De (ie <.
20ange Ct>., $52 *.#d $$0!, $$$$ n. 5 G!th Ci0.$!!'A G0ecogniLing that an
e+tension ma> @e Ca00anted i; the statute o; limitations has 0unA. P,Q 1e0e,
e<en though the dist0ict cou0t /0o/e0l> used its disc0etion to e+tend the time
;o0 ?ann to se0<e /0ocess, the dist0ict cou0t late0 dismissed the action a;te0
concluding the statute o; limitations had not @een satis;ied. As the0e Cas no
othe0 a//a0ent @asis, Ce must assume that the dist0ict cou0t @elie<ed that the
- ,E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1212
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
statute o; limitations @egan to 0un u/on ?annHs ;ailu0e to se0<e /0ocess
Cithin the $20Mda> /e0iod.*N# But the ;ailu0e to se0<e /0ocess Cithin ule
"GmAHs $20Mda> /e0iod does not a;;ect the tolling o; the statute o; limitations
unless the ;ailu0e to se0<e /0ocess causes the dist0ict cou0t to dismiss the
action. C;. 1ende0son, 5$7 4.%. at ,5,, $$, %.Ct. $,#' Gholding that once a
;ede0al suit is commenced in com/liance Cith the go<e0ning statute o;
limitations, Rthe manne0 and timing o; se0<ing /0ocess a0e gene0all>
nonFu0isdictional matte0s o; T/0ocedu0eU SA9 :a0daLi <. Cullman ?ed. Ct0.,
'!, *.2d $#$#, $#$5M$, G$$th Ci0.$!!0A Gholding that se0<ice o; /0ocess
0equi0ements a0e not @ound u/ Cith the statute o; limitations unde0 "2 4.%.C.
N 2000eM5G;AG$AA. (he dist0ict cou0t did not dismiss ?annHs action @ut 0athe0
e+tended the $20 da> se0<ice o; /0ocess /e0iod, a decision /e0;ectl> Cithin its
disc0etion. *N" *N#. (he dist0ict cou0tHs 0eliance on 7ilson <. 80umman
2hio Co0/., '$5 *.2d 2, G,th Ci0.$!'7A, is mis/laced in /a0t @ecause that
case conce0ned the 0e ;iling o; a com/laint a;te0 it had al0ead> @een dismissed
@> the dist0ict cou0t ;o0 ;ailu0e to /0osecute. *N". 7e 0eFect De;endantHs
claims that the g0ant o; a #0Mda> e+tension Cas /0eFudicial. 1a<ing
concluded that the dist0ict cou0tHs dismissal o; this case Cas e00o0, Ce 0e<e0se
and 0emand ;o0 ;u0the0 /0oceedings.D ?ann <. Ame0ican Ai0lines, #2" *.#d
$0'', 55 *ed..%e0<.#d $57, $" A.D. Cases "##, 25 ND5 : 2"5, 0# Cal.
Dail> 2/. %e0<. 2'0,, 200# Dail> 3ou0nal D.A.. #557G C.A.!
G7ash.A,200#A.
Extension for Good Case Good !ase for an extension of ti"e to ser#e $ro!ess %as &een s%o'n
%ome atto0ne>Hs /leadings looJ 0eall> good, ;o0matting Cise, Fust @eauti;ul, hoCe<e0, the>
donHt 0eall> shed an> light on the legal issues in<ol<e o0 /ut ;o0th an ta0geted legal 0esea0ch. ()* A".
+r. )d Pro!ess , --. s$ea/s to t%e re0e#ant isses %ere. T%e ndersi1ned see/s an 2ad#isor3
o$inion2 or ad#an!e indi!ation fro" t%is Cort t%at4 s%o0d t%is Motion for Extension of Ti"e
to Effe!tate Ser#i!e of Pro!ess &e 1ranted4 'o0d t%is !ort r0e t%e EEOC5s 67 da3 0i"itations
$eriod to fi0e fro" 2re!ei$t2 of Ri1%t To Se Letter &ar t%is 0iti1ation 8or an3 !ase of a!tion
2refi0ed2 in 0i1%t of t%e dis"issa0 'it%ot $re9di!e: de to a ne' fi0in1 date &ein1 otside t%e
67 da3 0i"itations $eriod for &rin1in1 sit; T%e ndersi1ned as/s t%is no' in t%e interest of
9di!ia0 e!ono"3 and to 0essen an3 &rden $on t%e defendants in!ident to defendin1 a!tions
not &ased in fa!t or 0a' a 0a NRCP --.
- 7E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1213
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
7he0e the /lainti;;Hs counsel had no notice o; the de;ecti<e se0<ice and
negligence o; the /0ocess se0<e0 Cas in<ol<ed.P$Q V Che0e the /lainti;;Hs counsel Cas
misled in ce0tain 0es/ects and he e+e0cised diligence in attem/ting se0<ice.P2Q V
Che0e the /lainti;;Hs e00o0 in maJing se0<ice o; /0ocess u/on the C0ong /a0t> Cas
deemed to @e 0easona@le.P#Q V Che0e the /lainti;; Cas lulled into @elie<ing that
/0o/e0 se0<ice had @een accom/lished.P "Q V Che0e the /lainti;; Cas /0o se and had a
good);aith @elie; that he had made /0o/e0 se0<ice.P 5Q V Che0e the de;endant e<aded
se0<ice.P,Q V @> ci0cumstances @e>ond the cont0ol o; the /lainti;;Hs counsel due to the
counselHs se<e0e illness and e+tensi<e caseload.<=> ? '%ere a !ort !0er/ fai0ed to
isse in for"a $a$eris $0aintiff5s s""ons and to a$$oint a U.S. "ars%a0 to
ser#e $ro!ess.<@> ? &3 re0ian!e on t%e U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e4<6> as '%ere t%e
U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e fai0ed to !o"$0ete ser#i!e '%en reAired for a $0aintiff
$ro!eedin1 in for"a $a$eris after &ein1 s$$0ied 'it% t%e ne!essar3 identif3in1
infor"ation.<-7> ? &3 extraordinar3 diffi!0t3 t%at t%e $0aintiffs ex$erien!ed in
0o!atin1 defendant des$ite di0i1ent efforts.<--> ? in $ro$er !ir!"stan!es4 &3
sett0e"ent ne1otiations.P$2Q V @> a /lainti;;Hs 0easona@le @elie; that he Cas unde0 a
legal const0aint not to se0<e his com/laint Chile the de;endant Cas in @anJ0u/tc>
/0oceedings and Chile the case Cas not on the dist0ict cou0tHs acti<e caseload.P$#Q
C4?45A(.VE %4::5E?EN( Cases: Em/lo>ee te0minated ;0om he0 /osition as a
/0ison)@ased in;ectious diseases counselo0 shoCed good cause ;o0 he0 ;ailu0e to se0<e
a medical se0<ices com/an> Cithin the $20)da> /e0iod, and Cas thus entitled to a time
e+tension9 counsel a@andoned his 0e/0esentation o; the em/lo>ee <e0> ea0l> on in the
/0osecution o; he0 com/laint, and did not communicate Cith he0, o//osing counsel o0
the cou0t ;o0 almost a >ea0 @e;o0e su@stituted counsel Cas o@tained, and the
em/lo>eeHs e;;o0ts to /u0sue the /0osecution o; he0 case Ce0e diligent and 0easona@le.
Cunningham <. NeC 3e0se>, 2#0 *..D. #!$, ,2 *ed. . %e0<. #d $00# GD.N.3. 2005A.
(he0e Cas Dgood causeD ;o0 /0o se /0isone0Hs ;ailu0e to se0<e co00ections o;;ice0 Cith
o0iginal com/laint @e;o0e the $20)da> se0<ice deadline Che0e dela>s @> the ?a0shals
in com/leting se0<ice, Chethe0 due to di;;iculties in dete0mining the a//0o/0iate
add0ess ;o0 o;;ice0, o0 sim/l> @ecause o; the high <olume o; 0equests, did not e<idence
dilato0> @eha<io0 on the /a0t o; /0isone0, Cho Cas /0oceeding in ;o0ma /au/e0is,
/a0ticula0l> since o;;ice0 0ecei<ed actual notice o; suit. %idne> <. 7ilson, 22' *..D.
5$7 G%.D. N.6. 2005A. :lainti;; demonst0ated good cause ;o0 ;ailing to timel> se0<e
/h>sician in medical mal/0actice case, Che0e /lainti;;Hs atto0ne> immediatel> sought
to ha<e /h>sician se0<ed a;te0 associated local counsel ;ailed to initiate se0<ice,
atto0ne> had not lea0ned o; the ;ailu0e until th0ee da>s @e;o0e deadline ;o0 se0<ice, and
se0<ice Cas onl> one da> late. *oss <. 7illiams, !!# %o. 2d #7' G?iss. 200'A. PEND
2* %4::5E?EN(Q P*N$Q %mith <. %ent0> .ns., ,7" *. %u//. $"5!, ! *ed. . %e0<.
#d $2'' GN.D. 8a. $!'7A. P*N2Q Baden <. C0aig)1allum, .nc., $$5 *..D. 5'2 GD.
?inn. $!'7A. P*N#Q 7oods <. :a0ten0eede0ei ?.%. 6anJee Cli//e0, $$2 *..D. $$5, ,
*ed. . %e0<. #d $50 GD. ?ass. $!',A. P*N"Q DitJo; <. 2Cens).llinois, .nc., $$"
*..D. $0" GE.D. ?ich. $!'7A. P*N5Q anJel <. (oCn o; 80een@u0gh, $$7 *..D. 50,
! *ed. . %e0<. #d $!0 G%.D. N.6. $!'7A. As to autho0it> that /0o se status alone is not
good cause, see N N $$,, $$7. P*N,Q uiL Va0ela <. %ancheL VeleL, '$" *.2d '2$, 7
*ed. . %e0<. #d ,2, G$st Ci0. $!'7A. (alJing a /0ocess se0<e0 out o; lea<ing /a/e0s
- 'E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1214
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
cannot e+actl> @e called a<oiding se0<ice, @ut it is not e+actl> coo/e0ati<e eithe09
consequentl>, such an occu00ence might @e good cause ;o0 a ;ailu0e to e;;ect timel>
se0<ice. 7illiams)8uice <. Boa0d o; Educ. o; Cit> o; Chicago, "5 *.#d $,$, !7 Ed.
5aC e/. $$#, #0 *ed. . %e0<. #d '"' G7th Ci0. $!!5A. P*N7Q 5e?aste0 <. Cit> o;
7innemucca, $$# *..D. #7, , *ed. . %e0<. #d ""2 GD. Ne<. $!',A. <FN@> *3rd #.
Stone4 6B F.Cd )-=4 C( Fed. R. Ser#. Cd -664 -66( FED A$$. 7)=@P 8(t% Cir.
-66(:. <FN6> +a!/son #. Fo0e34 -.( F.R.D. .B.4 6B Ed. La' Re$. )6( 8E.D. N.Y.
-66B: 8%o0din1 t%at '%ere t%e fai0re to "a/e ti"e03 ser#i!e 'as so0e03 fa0t of
t%e U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e4 t%e $0aintiff s%o0d not &e $ena0iDed for it:. A $ro se
$0aintiff s%o0d not &e $ena0iDed for re0ian!e on a United States "ars%a0 to effe!t
$ersona0 ser#i!e. Terre00 #. *re'er4 6C. F.)d -7-. 86t% Cir. -66-:. Good !ase is
s%o'n '%en t%e de0a3 in ser#i!e is de to a &a!/0o1 at t%e "ars%a05s offi!e. U.S. #.
+a!/ CoDDa4 In!.4 -7( F.R.D. )(B4 ) Fed. R. Ser#. Cd -7=B 8S.D. N.Y. -6@.:.
<FN-7> Antone00i #. S%ea%an4 @- F.Cd -B)) 8=t% Cir. -66(: 8statin1 s!% a fai0re
is ato"ati!a003 1ood !ase reAirin1 extension of ti"e nder Fed. R. Ci#.P.
B8"::E Fa0/er #. S"ner4 -B F.Cd -B-.4 )@ Fed. R. Ser#. Cd 6-( 86t% Cir. -66B:.
F%ere t%e $0aintiff $ro!eedin1 in for"a $a$eris re$eated03 reAested t%e U.S.
Mars%a0 to ser#e t%e defendant4 &t %e fai0ed to do so4 1ood !ase ex!sed %er
fai0re to $ersona003 ser#e t%e U.S. Attorne3. D"a1in #. Se!retar3 of Hea0t%
and H"an Ser#i!es4 )@ F.Cd -)-@4 )6 Fed. R. Ser#. Cd =C= 8D.C. Cir. -66B:. As
to t%e reAire"ent t%at t%e U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e ser#e $ro!ess in !ertain
!ir!"stan!es4 see , , -)=4 -)6. P*N$$Q Coleman <. C0an@e00> Ba>e ental Agenc>,
202 *..D. $0,, 50 *ed. . %e0<. #d ',0 GN.D. N.6. 200$A. 8ood cause is shoCn
Che0e a /lainti;; attem/ted se0<ice on a de;endant th0ough its autho0iLed agent, then
lea0ned that the de;endant had sto//ed su@sc0i@ing to that se0<ice, then attem/ted to
e;;ect se0<ice at the @anJ @0anch Che0e the /lainti;; o/ened the account in dis/ute
Chen the de;endant and the @anJ Ce0e @oth /a0t o; a com/le+ co0/o0ate st0uctu0e.
1aCtho0ne <. Citico0/ Data %>stems, .nc., 2$! *..D. "7 GE.D. N.6. 200#A. P*N$2Q
BanJ o; Ca/e Ve0de <. B0onson, $,7 *..D. #70, #, *ed. . %e0<. #d ,05 G%.D. N.6.
$!!,A. P*N$#Q De (ie <. 20ange Count>, $52 *.#d $$0!, "$ *ed. . %e0<. #d 525 G!th
Ci0. $!!'A.D
(he a@o<e /assage is ;0om: ,2B Am. 3u0. 2d :0ocess N $$5.
N..C.:. "GiA. .n addition, C.%Hs 0equest ;o0 atto0ne>Hs ;ees and costs is denied at this time
@ecause the Cou0t dismissed this action on /0ocedu0al g0ounds Cithout anal>Ling the me0its o;
:lainti;;s case. %o said this Cou0t. .t seemed 8a0in asJed ;o0 sanctiosn too...@oth o; Chich amount
to mo0e than a Ds/ecial a//ea0anceD and the0e;o0e these /a0ties ha<e Cai<ed an> se0<ice o; /0ocess
0equi0ement and a0e noC in this litigation. And a de;ault is a//0o/0iate to ente0 as the> ha<e ;ailed
to ;ile and AnsCe0 to the Com/laint Cithin 20 da>s o; se0<ice.
- !E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1215
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
*ailu0e to maJe legi@le co/> o; com/laint ;o0 se0<ice .n the ;olloCing case the cou0t ;ound
that the ;ailu0e o; cou0t /e0sonnel to maJe a legi@le co/> o; the com/laint ;o0 se0<ice on a de;endant
su//o0ted its a//a0ent holding that the0e Cas good cause unde0 ule "GFA o; the *ede0al ules o; Ci<il
:0ocedu0e ;o0 a /lainti;;Hs ;ailu0e to timel> se0<e /0ocess. 7he0e a com/laint, alleging em/lo>ment
disc0imination, /hotoco/ied @> cou0t /e0sonnel ;o0 se0<ice on an em/lo>e0 on @ehal; o; a ;o0me0
em/lo>ee /0oceeding /0o se and in ;o0ma /au/e0is, /0o<ed too ;aint ;o0 the em/lo>e0 to 0ead, the
cou0t in ?c=enLie < Amt0aJ ? o; E G$!!0, %D N6A 777 * %u// $$$!, ;ound that the ;ailu0e o; cou0t
/e0sonnel to maJe a legi@le co/> o; the com/laint ;o0 se0<ice su//o0ted its im/licit holding that the0e
Cas good cause unde0 ule "GFA o; the *ede0al ules o; Ci<il :0ocedu0e ;o0 the /lainti;;Hs ;ailu0e to
timel> se0<e a legi@le co/> o; the com/laint. (he cou0t stated that, although the a0gument that se0<ice
should not @e deemed e;;ecti<e unless the com/laint is legi@le is o0dina0il> a st0ong one, the0e Cas
little Fusti;ication ;o0 dismissing the /lainti;;Hs com/laint on that g0ound, @ecause the de;ect in se0<ice
Cas att0i@uta@le to cou0t /e0sonnel. (he cou0t also noted that the em/lo>e0, Cho had ad<ised the
em/lo>ee o; the illegi@ilit> o; the com/laint @ut had ;ailed to so ad<ise the 4nited %tates ma0shal o0
the cou0t, notCithstanding the em/lo>e0Hs JnoCledge that the em/lo>ee Cas /0oceeding /0o se, Cas
/a0tl> to @lame ;o0 the dela> in se0<ice.
.t sim/l> Could not @e all that ;ai0 to sa> NC: "GiA gi<e the :lainti;; $20 da>s to e;;ectuate
se0<ice o; /0ocess Chen the Com/laint Cas not e<en gi<en a ;iling date in the docJet ;o0 CV$$)0$'!,
until August $$ GDe/a0tment " tooJ ;0om the su@mission o; the .*: on 3ul> 27th, 20$$ until August !,
20$$ to issue the 20de0 80anting .*:, and this occu00ed du0ing a /e0iod Che0e the 7DC Cas
changing the .*: ;o0m it maJes a<aila@le to the /u@lic and the ;iling o;;ice actuall> 0e;used to acce/t
an ea0lie0 attem/ted su@mission o; the :etition ;o0 .*: and /0o/osed Com/liant, citing 0ationale @oth
<ague and cont0adicto0> and 0elated to 7DC $0. (his Cou0t 3anua0> $$th, 20$2 20de0 indicates
- $0E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1216
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
that the e+/i0ation o; $20 da>s G;0om the 3une 27th date Chen the Com/laint Cas stam/ed D0ecei<edD
@> the ;iling o;;ice as the /0o/osed /leading called ;o0 unde0 N% $2.0$5A Could @e 2cto@e0 25th,
20$$.
Action o; cou0t o0 cle0J o; cou0t as constituting o0 su//o0ting ;inding o; Dgood cause,D unde0 0ule "GFA
o; *ede0al ules o; Ci<il :0ocedu0e, ;o0 ;ailu0e to timel> se0<e /0ocess u/on de;endant. $0' A.5..
*ed. ',2 G20iginall> /u@lished in $!!2A.
E;;o0ts o; /lainti;; o0 /lainti;;Hs agent ;o0 se0<ice o; /0ocess as constituting o0 su//o0ting
;inding o; Dgood cause,D unde0 ule "GFA o; *ede0al ules o; Ci<il :0ocedu0e, ;o0 ;ailu0e to timel>
se0<e /0ocess u/on de;endant, $$$ A.5.. *ed. 50#
NC: "GiA: DGiA %ummons: (ime 5imit ;o0 %e0<ice. .; a se0<ice o; the summons and com/laint is not
made u/on a de;endant Cithin $20 da>s a;te0 the ;iling o; the com/laint, the action shall @e dismissed
as to that de;endant Cithout /0eFudice u/on the cou0tUs oCn initiati<e Cith notice to such /a0t> o0
u/on motion, unless the /a0t> on Chose @ehal; such se0<ice Cas 0equi0ed ;iles a motion to enla0ge the
time ;o0 se0<ice and shoCs good cause Ch> such se0<ice Cas not made Cithin that /e0iod. .; the /a0t>
on Chose @ehal; such se0<ice Cas 0equi0ed ;ails to ;ile a motion to enla0ge the time ;o0 se0<ice @e;o0e
the $20)da> se0<ice /e0iod e+/i0es, the cou0t shall taJe that ;ailu0e into conside0ation in dete0mining
good cause ;o0 an e+tension o; time. 4/on a shoCing o; good cause, the cou0t shall e+tend the time
;o0 se0<ice and set a 0easona@le date @> Chich se0<ice should @e made.D
N% $2.0$5 Actions in<ol<ing indigent /e0sons. $. An> /e0son Cho desi0es to /0osecute o0 de;end a
ci<il action ma>: GaA *ile an a;;ida<it Cith the cou0t setting ;o0th Cith /a0ticula0it> ;acts conce0ning
the /e0sonUs income, /0o/e0t> and othe0 0esou0ces Chich esta@lish that the /e0son is una@le to
- $$E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1217
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
/0osecute o0 de;end the action @ecause the /e0son is una@le to /a> the costs o; so doing9 o0 G@A %u@mit
a statement o0 othe0Cise indicate to the cou0t that the /e0son is a client o; a /0og0am ;o0 legal aid. 2. .;
the cou0t is satis;ied that a /e0son Cho ;iles an a;;ida<it /u0suant to su@section $ is una@le to /a> the
costs o; /0osecuting o0 de;ending the action o0 i; the cou0t ;inds that a /e0son is a client o; a /0og0am
;o0 legal aid, the cou0t shall o0de0: GaA (he cle0J o; the cou0t: G$A (o alloC the /e0son to commence o0
de;end the action Cithout costs9 and G2A (o ;ile o0 issue an> necessa0> C0it, /0ocess, /leading o0 /a/e0
Cithout cha0ge. G@A (he she0i;; o0 othe0 a//0o/0iate /u@lic o;;ice0 Cithin this %tate to maJe /e0sonal
se0<ice o; an> necessa0> C0it, /0ocess, /leading o0 /a/e0 Cithout cha0ge. #. .; the /e0son is 0equi0ed to
ha<e /0oceedings 0e/o0ted o0 0eco0ded, o0 i; the cou0t dete0mines that the 0e/o0ting, 0eco0ding o0
t0ansc0i/tion o; /0oceedings Could @e hel/;ul to the adFudication o0 a//ellate 0e<ieC o; the case, the
cou0t shall o0de0 that the 0e/o0ting, 0eco0ding o0 t0ansc0i/tion @e /e0;o0med at the e+/ense o; the
count> in Chich the action is /ending @ut at a 0educed 0ate as set @> the count>. ...D
N% $2.0$5 does not sa> Dthis Cou0t shall gi<e the :lainti;;, Chom Cas g0anted an .*:, the tasJ and
e+/ense o; /0e/a0ing Dse0<ice /acJetsD ;o0 the %he0i;;, Chom shall @eha<e in an inc0easingl>
demanding manne0 toCa0d the :lainti;; and act as i; the> a0e doing the :lainti;; a ;a<o0 in e;;ectuating
se0<ice o; /0ocess and as thought the> onl> ha<e to do it i; the :lainti;; asJs 0eall> nicel> and
genu;lects a @unch....D .ndeed, ?c=enLie seems to maJe clea0 that, at least in some Fu0isdictions, the
Cou0t and %he0i;; handle all the /hotoco/>ing and deli<e0ing to the %he0i;; that Chich is necessa0> to
e;;ectuate se0<ice. *u0the0, the0e a0e some highl> /e0sonal, in;lammato0>, and sensiti<e ;acts 0elated
to the unde0signed 0elationshi/ Cith the 7ashoe Count> %he0i;;Hs 2;;ice that ma> @a0e on the
7C%2Hs ;ailu0e to co00ectl> com/l> Cith the 20de0 80anting .n *o0ma :au/e0is status to the
unde0signed. 1oCe<e0, these ;acts a0e o; such a natu0e that /0udence dictates onl> going into them
- $2E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1218
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ce0e a@solutel> necessa0>. %u;;ice to sa>, it is highl> cu0ious that the 7C%2Hs, gi<en the time ;0ame
in Chich it occu00ed, onl> manged to ;ile 2 A;;ida<its o; %e0<ice in this case, CV$$)0$'!,, Che0es
some nine /ages o; A;;ida<its o; %e0<ice Ce0e ;iled in the D0elatedD case G;o0 Chich the unde0signed
;iled an 2cto@e0 5, 20$$ ?otion to ConsolidateA, CV$$)$0!55, a case ;o0 Chich the unde0signed
sc0a/ed togethe0 e<e0> last dime he had in the Co0ld and /aid the ;iling ;ee in ;ea0 that the .*: in this
matte0 Could @e denied and, acco0ding to ;iling o;;ice /e0sonnel and De/a0tment " Administ0ati<e
Assistant, should the .:* @e denied Che0e, in the inte0im, the 0unning o; the a//lica@le statute o;
limitations should occu0, as Could ha<e @een the case he0e should the .*: ha<e @een denied and
should the unde0signed ha<e ;ailed to ;ile in CV$$)$0!55 G(itle V.. alloCs !0 da>s to ;ile ;0om
D0ecei/tD o; the EE2CHs ight to %ue 5ette0, a situation made all the mo0e con;using gi<en the
EE2CHs ;ailu0e to /0o/e0l> u/date the unde0signed mailing in;o0mation u/on a C0itten notice o;
Change o; Add0ess @eing con;i0med 0ecei<ed @> the EE2C CeeJs /0io0 to the mailing o; the ight (o
%ue 5ette0, and the 4%:% ceasing to ;o0Ca0d to the unde0signed the o0iginal ight (o %ue 5ette0, @ut
0athe0 0etu0n it to the EE2C Cith the Dno longe0 at this add0essD >elloC sticJe0 and notice o; the
0eci/ients neC add0ess Gas is the 4%:% custom u/on the e+/i0ation o; $2 months ;0om the ;iling o; an
2;;icial Change o; Add0ess ;o0m Cith the 4%:%A.
:lease set aside all the dismissals and 0ecogniLe /0ocess and se0<ice o; /0ocess as
a//0o/0iatel> conducted, o0 g0ant additional time to e;;ectuate such se0<ice o; /0ocess, including a
0uling that the 0equi0ements to ;ile a case Cithin !0 da>s o; D0ecei/tD o; the EE2C ight (o %ue
5ette0 is met 0ega0dless o; such an e+tension, and o0 consolidate these cases, and an> othe0 0elie;
this Cou0ts sees as a//0o/0iate.
- $#E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1219
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION Prsant to NRS )C6*.7C7
(he unde0signed does he0e@> a;;i0m that the /0eceding document does not contain the social secu0it>
num@e0 o; an> /e0son.
DA(ED (1.%: *e@0ua0> 27th, 20$2 Gthough . ha<e attem/ted to ;ile this thing
nume0ous times /0e<iousl> @ut ha<e had m> ;ilings 0eFected unde0 the most
sus/icious o; ci0cumstances and e<en a//lications o; 7DC $0A,
EsE Zach Coughlin, signed elect0onicall>
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
:lainti;;
- $"E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1220
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF GACH COUGLIN IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT
$. (his Decla0ation is made /u0suant to the /0o<isions o; N% 5#.0"5, . am /0esentl> in the %tate o;
Ne<ada and . decla0e unde0 /enalt> o; /e0Fu0> that the ;o0egoing is t0ue and co00ect.
2. Decla0ant is the :lainti;; in the a@o<e title action.
#. Decla0ant a<e0s that the ;actual statements set ;o0 a@o<e in the ;o0egoing document a0e, to the
@est o; his JnoCledge and unde0standing, accu0ate.
". ., Zach Coughlin, am a<aila@le to testi;>, i; necessa0>, as to these matte0s. . decla0e unde0 /enalt>
o; /e0Fu0> that the ;o0egoing is t0ue and co00ect.
E+ecuted on *e@0ua0> 27th, 20$$
EsE Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
:5A.N(.**
- $5E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1221
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Proof of Ser#i!eH
2n this date, ., Zach Coughlin elect0onicall> se0<ed a t0ue and co00ect co/> o; the ;o0egoing
document to all 0egiste0ed e;ile0s, and to those Chom a0e not . /laced a t0ue and co00ect co/> o; the
;o0egoing document in the us/s mail on this date:
B0ian 8onsal<es, Esq
:.2. Bo+ !07
=ings Beach, CA !,$"#
Atto0ne> ;o0 (ahoe 7omenHs %e0<ices GC.%.% .N(EVEN(.2N %EV.CE%A 71.C1 .% N2( A
NA?ED :A(6 AND 1A% N2( .N(E:5ED 2 *.5ED A% A EA5 :A(6 .N .N(EE%(
5.:%2N, NE.5%2N, C25E, %E5(ZE W 8A.N
32%E:1 :. 8A.N, E%I.
Ne<ada Ba0 No. ,,5#
%1ANN2ND N2D%(2?
Ne<ada Ba0 No. '2$$
!0'0 7est :ost oad, %uite $00
5asVegas, Ne<ada '!$"'
(E5: G702A#'2)$500 *AB: G702A #'2)$5$2
Atto0ne> ;o0 De;endant 7A%12E 5E8A5 %EV.CE%, a Ne<ada Co0/o0ation, =A(16
BEC=EN.D8E, .ndi<iduall> and in he0 ca/acit> as Boa0d :0esident o; 75%, (2DD
(2V.NEN, .ndi<iduall> and in his ca/acit> as 75% Boa0d ?em@e0, :A45 E5CAN2, .ndi<iduall>
and in his ca/acit> as E+ecuti<e Di0ecto0 o; 75%, D2E% $)$00, .ndi<iduall> and in thei0 ca/acit> as
mem@e0s o; the B2AD 2* D.EC(2% 2* 7A%12E 5E8A5 %EV.CE%, CA6N
%(EN5.81(, .ndi<iduall> and in he0 ca/acit> as 75% atto0ne>, 32N %A%%E, .ndi<iduall> and in
his ca/acit> as 75% agent, =AEN %AB2, .ndi<iduall> and in he0 ca/acit> as 75% atto0ne>,
?AC A%15E6, .ndi<iduall> and in his ca/acit> as 75% atto0ne>, ZANDA 52:EZ9 .ndi<iduall>
and in he0 ca/acit> as 75% em/lo>ee9
DA(ED (1.%: *e@0ua0> 27th, 20$2,
EsE Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
:lainti;;
- $,E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1222
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
INDEI TO EIHI*ITS
$. EB1.B.( $: A;;ida<it o; %e0<ice ;iled in CV$$)0$!55 ;iled @> 7ashoe Count> %he0i;;Hs
2;;ice con;usingl> com@ining se0<ice o; /0ocess A;;ida<it in tCo di;;e0ent cases CV$$)0$!55 and
CV$$)0$'!, and Collection o; mate0ials 0e<ealing 7ashoe Count> 8ang Bang against :lainti;;
Fusti;>ing the <a0ious 0elie; /lainti;; has 0equest in this matte09 2ne 1und0ed and *o0t> *ou0 G$""A
/ages.
- $7E$7 -
?2(.2N (2 *2 EB(EN%.2N 2* (.?E (2 :E*2? %EV.CE 2* :2CE%%
V4.1223
F I L E D
Electronically
03-07-2012:12:10:08AM
JoeyOrdunaHastings
ClerkoftheCourt
Transaction#2808250
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
V4.1224
eFlex
Home
eFile
NewCase
ExistingCase
CheckStatus
DraftFilings
Cases
MyCases
Notifications
FilingCharges
MyProfile
MyUserProfile
ChangeMyPassword
ViewLoginHistory
LogOut
user:ZachBarkerCoughlin,Esq.
FilingStatus
My Filings
ZachBarkerCoughlin,Esq.Filings
ReportCriteria:
ViewFilingsBetween: AND 01/01/2011
ClearDates
Go
MyFilingsBetween01/01/2011andToday
Delete
FilingIDClient#CourtCase# DateSubmitted DocumentType Status
CV11-01955 02-24-2012:11:59:22PM OppositiontoMtn AwaitingApproval
1339237
CV11-01896 02-24-2012:11:58:35PM Replyto/inOpposition AwaitingApproval
1339236
CR11-2064 02-24-2012:08:02:32AM Supplemental... Filed
1337942
CR11-2064 02-22-2012:05:27:45AM Supplemental... Filed
1335049
CV11-01955 02-22-2012:12:00:24AM OppositiontoMtn Filed
1335048
FV11-02864 02-21-2012:11:49:27PM OppositiontoMtn Filed
1335047
V4.1225
eFlex
Resubmit
Resubmit
1335046
FV11-02864 02-21-2012:11:41:02PM
1333416
FV05-04296 02-19-2012:10:51:47PM
1332788
FV12-00188 02-17-2012:02:50:42PM
CV11-03628 02-15-2012:11:59:35PM
1330702
CR11-2064 02-15-2012:11:23:07PM
1330701
CV11-01896 02-15-2012:11:16:04PM
1330700
CV11-01955 02-15-2012:11:02:28PM
1330699
CV11-03628 02-14-2012:11:57:28PM
1329240
CV11-01896 02-14-2012:11:43:50PM
1329239
CV11-01955 02-14-2012:11:42:06PM
1329238
CV11-01955 02-14-2012:12:04:36AM Notice/AppealSupremeCourt
1327720
CV11-03628 02-14-2012:12:00:43AM Replyto/inOpposition
1327719
CV11-03628 02-14-2012:12:00:08AM Replyto/inOpposition
1327718
CV11-03628 02-13-2012:11:59:29PM Replyto/inOpposition
1327717
CV11-01896 02-11-2012:12:00:15AM OppositiontoMtn
1326091
CV11-01955 02-10-2012:11:49:34PM RequestforSubmission
1326090
CV11-01955 02-10-2012:11:43:01PM OppositiontoMtn
1326089
1326088
CV11-01955 02-10-2012:11:16:52PM SummonsFiled
1326087
Rejected
Rejected
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Rejected
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Rejected
OppositiontoMtn
Supplemental...
ProofofService
AffidavitofPoverty
Resubmit
Resubmit
FV11-02864 02-10-2012:08:57:52AM MtnModifyTempCust/Visit/Spt Filed
1325013
FV12-00187 02-10-2012:12:27:29AM NoticeofAppearance Filed
1324933
V4.1226
eFlex
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Rejected
Filed
Rejected
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Rejected
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Rejected
V4.1227
CV11-01955 02-09-2012:11:48:50PM MtntoRetaxCosts
1324932
1323345
1323344
CR11-2064 02-07-2012:09:25:22AM MtnforExtensionofTime
1320390
CV11-00820 02-07-2012:09:11:41AM MtntoContinue
1320354
1320177
1320176
CR11-2064 02-07-2012:12:00:24AM OpeningBrief
1320175
CR11-2064 02-06-2012:11:50:34PM
1320174
CV11-03628 02-06-2012:11:37:23PM
1320172
CV11-03628 02-06-2012:11:34:59PM
1320171
CV11-03628 02-06-2012:11:25:11PM
1320170
CV11-03628 02-04-2012:12:01:53AM OpeningBrief
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
OpeningBrief
1318358
CR11-2064 02-03-2012:11:41:43PM
1318357
CV11-03628 02-02-2012:02:50:00PM
1316372
CR11-2064 02-02-2012:02:19:35PM
1316258
CV11-01955 02-02-2012:02:11:49PM
1316222
CV11-01896 02-02-2012:01:47:33PM
1316136
CR11-2064 02-01-2012:04:27:39PM
1315125
OpeningBrief
NoticetoSet
NoticetoSet
SummonsFiled
SummonsFiled
Supplemental...
DV10-00545 02-01-2012:12:23:11AM OppositiontoMtn
1313960
CV11-01896 02-01-2012:12:00:18AM MtnAlterorAmendJ udgment
1313959
FV05-04296 01-31-2012:11:56:09PM Replyto/inOpposition
Resubmit
eFlex
1313958
FV05-04296 01-31-2012:11:50:54PM Replyto/inOpposition Filed
1313957
CV11-01955 01-31-2012:11:43:02PM MtnAlterorAmendJ udgment Filed
1313955
CV11-01955 01-30-2012:11:59:41PM Replyto/inOpposition Filed
1312475
CV11-01896 01-30-2012:11:43:06PM MtntoRetaxCosts Filed
1312474
CV11-03628 01-30-2012:10:41:37PM MtnAlterorAmendJ udgment Filed
1312472
CR11-2064 01-30-2012:04:29:03PM OppositiontoMtn Filed
1312367
CR11-2064 01-30-2012:11:59:06AM NoticetoSet Filed
1311629
CR11-2064 01-30-2012:11:51:05AM OppositiontoMtn Resubmitted
1311598
FV11-03779 01-29-2012:12:32:29AM ObjtoMaster'sRecommendation Filed
1310788
FV11-03779 01-27-2012:12:56:53AM ObjtoMaster'sRecommendation Resubmitted
1309046
DV10-00545 01-27-2012:12:32:38AM OppositiontoMtn Rejected
1309045
CV11-01955 01-26-2012:11:46:37PM MtnforExtensionofTime Rejected
1309044
FV11-03779 01-26-2012:06:03:39AM ObjtoMaster'sRecommendation Rejected
1307491
CV11-01896 01-26-2012:01:34:56AM MtntoSetAsideDecree Filed
1307490
CV11-01955 01-26-2012:12:50:41AM **Continuation Rejected
1307489
DV10-00545 01-25-2012:11:53:54PM OppositiontoMtn Rejected
1307484
1305862
1305861
1305860
1305859
CV11-01896 01-24-2012:08:35:22PM MtntoSetAsideDecree Rejected
1305858
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
V4.1228
eFlex
Resubmit
Resubmit
CV11-01955 01-24-2012:08:19:41PM
1305855
CV11-01955 01-24-2012:08:11:35PM
1305854
CV09-00710 01-23-2012:06:30:42PM
1304286
CV09-00710 01-23-2012:06:22:36PM
1304285
CV11-01955 01-23-2012:06:04:23PM
1304283
CV11-01955 01-23-2012:06:01:04PM
1304282
CV11-01896 01-23-2012:05:59:48PM
1304281
CV11-01896 01-23-2012:05:56:40PM
1304280
CV11-01955 01-22-2012:03:52:57AM MtnforExtensionofTime
1302624
1302623
CV11-01896 01-22-2012:02:59:11AM MtntoSetAsideDecree
1302622
FV12-00188 01-21-2012:02:37:55PM ProofofService
1302617
CV11-01955 01-20-2012:07:26:28AM MtntoSetAsideDecree
1301031
CV11-03628 01-13-2012:11:49:06PM Supplemental...
1296427
1296426
CV08-01709 01-13-2012:07:18:30AM Supplemental...
1295293
1293591
CV11-03051 01-11-2012:05:59:53AM RequestforSubmission
1292459
CV11-03051 01-11-2012:05:44:52AM MtnClarificationofOrd
1292458
FV11-03779 01-11-2012:04:20:45AM Points&AuthoritiesSupport
1292457
FV05-04296 01-11-2012:01:47:03AM MtntoSetAsideDecree
1292456
Rejected
Rejected
Filed
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
MtntoSetAsideDecree
MtntoSetAsideDecree
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
V4.1229
eFlex
CV11-03051 01-10-2012:05:16:50AM NoticeofAppearance
1291151
CV11-03628 01-10-2012:01:44:55AM NoticeofAppearance
1291150
CV11-03126 01-10-2012:01:33:41AM MtnProceedFormaPauperis
1291149
CR11-2064 01-10-2012:01:10:58AM NoticeofAppearance
1291148
1289509
CV11-03628 01-05-2012:10:49:42PM NoticeofAppearance
1288127
CV11-03628 01-05-2012:10:42:08PM Reply
1288126
CV08-01709 12-31-2011:04:27:28PM MtntoSetAsideDecree
1284291
CV11-03628 12-30-2011:08:40:15AM **Continuation
1283238
CV11-03628 12-30-2011:08:30:08AM MtnforTRO
1283207
1276753
FV11-03779 12-21-2011:01:55:21PM **Continuation
1276020
1275168
1272290
CV11-01955 12-16-2011:04:46:46PM MtntoSetAsideDecree
1272233
1271082
1270200
1270149
1269410
1269409
1269407
CV11-01955 12-10-2011:04:29:30AM SummonsFiled
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Rejected
Rejected
Filed
Filed
Filed
Filed
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Filed
V4.1230
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
eFlex
1264734
1264733
CV11-01896 12-10-2011:04:28:10AM SummonsFiled Filed
1263487
CV11-01955 12-09-2011:06:25:37AM SummonsFiled Rejected
Resubmit
Delete
NumberofFilings:115
UserManual| termsofuse| privacypolicy| paymentpolicy| support| contactus| aboutTyberaDevelopment
Group,Inc.
2001-10 Tybera Development Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
V4.1231

Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 22
EvictionsRE:WCSODeputyMachem's"personally
served"Affidavitof11/1/2011
From: ZachCoughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 2/13/12 3:01 AM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: lstuchell@washoecounty.us; mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us; drakej@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov;
cdbaker@richardhillaw.com; jboles@callatg.com; bbuckley@lacsn.org; daolshan@yahoo.com;
jsoderlund@nlslaw.net; jdelikanakis@swlaw.com; jgoodnight@washoecounty.us;
jbosler@washoecounty.us; bdogan@washoecounty.us; mechols@maclaw.com; mclarkson@puc.nv.gov
Subject: Evictions RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:14:01 -0800
Subject: RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:40:39 -0800
From: LStuchell@washoecounty.us
CC: mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
Mr. Coughlin
Our records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served
by Deputy Machen by posting a copy of the Order to the residence. The residence
was unoccupied at the time.
Liz Stuchell, Supervisor
WCSO Civil Section
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:58 AM
2/13/2012 http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=084f5caf-5632-11e1-...
V4.1232

To: Stuchell, Liz; Kandaras, Mary; nvrenopd@coplogic.com; Silva, Roxanna;
kadlicj@reno.gov; fourthestate@gmail.com; jamesandreboles@msn.com
Subject: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Dear IA Supervisor Stuchell and DDA Kandaras,
I realize you will likely not read all of this. The main thing is I am respectfully
requesting that you confirm with Deputy Machem that he did, in fact, "personally
serve" the Summary Eviction Order on me at 121 River Rock St., Reno 89501 on
November 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm, in connection with performing the lockout. It is my
position that I was not "personally served" and I am trying to figure out whether
Deputy Machem is lying or whether the phrase "personally served" means something
other than what I believe it means, etc., etc. I appreciate your attention to this.
I am writing to inquire about and complain with regard to an Affidavit of Service
filed by or for WCSO Deputy Machem with respect to the service of a Order
Granting Summary Eviction against me (in my law office where non-payment of rent
was not alleged, no less in violation of NRS 40.253 and where a $2,275 rent escrow
deposit was foisted upon me in violation of 40.253(6), especially where a stay of
eviction was not granted even while the RJ C held on to most all my money...).
My issue with the WCSO is that Machem's Affidavit of Service indicates that he
"personally served" me, which kind of reminds me of all that robo-signing and
MERS fraud I come across in my day job (and do you wonder how many attorneys
in the foreclosure defense game I am in constant contact with who are watching and
witness the potential RICO violations this writing mentions?), which includes being
a foreclosure defense attorney. So which is it? Did Machem "personally serve" me
the Summary Eviction Order? Richard G. Hill, Esq. likes to argue that I was "served"
in compliance with all time related rules because it was done in the "usual custom
and practice of the WCSO. What, exactly, is the "usual custom and practice of the
WCSO? I hear a lot about this "within 24 hours" stuff. So, I go hunting for some
black letter law to support what those at the RJ C and in the clueless community at
large (which often includes Nevada Legal Services and Washoe Legal Services, the
people you guys had such trouble actually serving in the lawsuits I filed, which may
have actually helped improved legal services in this community, if they were not
dismissed due to insufficiency of service of process, even where the IFP required the
WCSO to served the defendants....). Anyway, back to the "within 24 hours"
phraseology: "
This whole business about The court may thereupon issue an order directing the
sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt
of the order... is inapplicable to this situation, where an Order Granting Summary
V4.1233

Eviction was signed by October 27th, 2011. That language is only found in situations
inapplicable to the current one. NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2), and NRS 40.253(5)(a) are the
only sections of NRS 40 where this within 24 hours language occurs, and those
situations only apply where, in:
40.253(3)(b)(2): 3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: ...(b)
Advise the tenant: . (2) That if the court determines that the tenant is guilty of an
unlawful detainer, the court may issue a summary order for removal of the tenant or
an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant, directing the sheriff or
constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the
order
and,
40.253(5)(a): 5. Upon noncompliance with the notice: (a) The landlord or the
landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court
of the township in which the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial
premises are located or to the district court of the county in which the dwelling,
apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever has
jurisdiction over the matter. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the
of the order. The way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in
Reno J ustice Court presently shocks the conscience and violates Nevada law. There
is not basis for effectuating a lockout the way WCSO's Deputy Machem did in this
case. The above two sections containing the within 24 hours of receipt language
are inapplicable, as those situations do not invoke the present circumstances, where
the Tenant did file an Affidavit and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen.
To require Nevada's tenants to get up and get out within 24 hours of receipt of the
order (what does that even mean? The use of terms like rendition, rendered,
notice of entry, pronounced, is absent here, and this receipt of the order
language is something rarely found elsewhere in Nevada law-see attached DMV
statutory citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a
Complaint within 90 days of receipt of a Right To Sue Letter, a situation which
follows NRCP 5(b), and NRCP 6(e) in imputing receipt of such a letter, when actual
receipt is not shown, by applying a constructive notice standard that relies upon
the days for mailing extension of time for items served in the mailing, etc.). In
Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 553 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2009), the
record did not reflect when the plaintiff received his right-to-sue letter. The letter
was issued on November 24, 2006. The court calculated that the 90-day period
commenced on November 30, 2006, based on three days for mailing after excluding
Saturdays and Sundays. In order to bring a claim under either Title VII or the ADA,
a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies and sue within 90 days of receipt of
a right to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). See Baldwin County Welcome
Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)
(granting plaintiff an additional three days for mailing pursuant to Rule 6).... ...
V4.1234

Dear Washoe County Sheriff's Office,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_of_process
"Substituted service
When an individual party to be served is unavailable for personal service, many
jurisdictions allow for substituted service. Substituted service allows the process
server to leave service documents with another responsible individual, called a
person of suitable age and discretion, such as a cohabiting adult or a teenager. Under
the Federal Rules, substituted service may only be made at the abode or dwelling of
the defendant.[4] California, New York,[5] Illinois, and many other United States
jurisdictions require that in addition to substituted service, the documents be mailed
to the recipient.[5] Substituted service often requires a serving party show that
ordinary service is impracticable, that due diligence has been made to attempt to
make personal service by delivery, and that substituted service will reach the party
and effect notice.[5]"
I am pretty sure "personally served" means you served the person in person, not that
a person named Machem went and posted a notice on a door, personally himself.
See, I think you guys are thinking of the "person" in the word personally as applying
to the server, when in all instances I have ever seen it used in the law, the "person"
part of "personally" applies to the person being served. Help me out here, Mary.
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=43084638f32f5f28&resid=43084638F32F5F28!
1897&parid=root
Also, does the WCSO have a position on what type of service is required of eviction
orders prior to the WCSO or whoever does it, being able to conduct a lockout?
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/nrcp.html
NRCP RULE 60. RELIEF FROM J UDGMENT OR ORDER... (c) Default
J udgments: Defendant Not Personally Served. When a default judgment shall have
been taken against any party who was not personally served with summons and
complaint, either in the State of Nevada or in any other jurisdiction, and who has not
entered a general appearance in the action, the court, after notice to the adverse party,
V4.1235

upon motion made within 6 months after the date of service of written notice of entry
of such judgment, may vacate such judgment and allow the party or the partys legal
representatives to answer to the merits of the original action. When, however, a party
has been personally served with summons and complaint, either in the State of
Nevada or in any other jurisdiction, the party must make application to be relieved
from a default, a judgment, an order, or other proceeding taken against the party, or
for permission to file an answer, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (b)
of this rule.
Okay, so, really, you guys do this for a living, right...you serve people things....and
sign Affidavits under penalty of perjury and stuff, and you are telling me you believe
"personally served" can included situations where the person was not there?
Okay.....You do know that, like, a Summons and Complaint need to be "personally
served" in the sense that, say Machem, would need to see that person and serve it on
them (I don't think they have to take the paper, they don't need to agree to accept
service, but Machem does need to see that person, in person, personally when he is
swearing under penalty of perjury that he "personally served" somebody. Usually
"personally served" is only done in the case of the first thing filed (unless there is an
IFP) in a case, the Summons and Complaint. Thereafter, typically, people just effect
"substituted service" because its cheaper, less of a hassle, and "personal service" is
only required for serving the pleadings that start a case, the Summons and
Complaint. Wow....Okay, so this is my whole point, these state sponsored lockouts
under color of state law should not be being done so fast, unless you guys
"personally serve" the tenant, I feel the law is quite clear, you have to effect
"substituted service" which, under NRCP 6(a) and NRCP 6(e) and NRCP 5(b)(2)
(and NRCP, not J CRCP is applicable to eviction matters according to NRS 118A)
the tenant cannot be deemed to have received or constructively received the Order
until the 3 days for mailing has passed.
Personal service by process server
Personal service is service of process directly to the (or a) party named on the
summons, complaint or petition. In most lawsuits in the United States, personal
service is required to prove service. Most states allow substituted service in almost
all lawsuits unless you are serving a corporation, LLC, LLP, or other business entity;
in those cases, personal service must be achieved by serving (in hand) the documents
to the "Registered Agent" of a business entity. Some states (Florida) do not require
that the documents actually be handed to the individual. In California and most other
states, the documents must be visible to the person being served, i.e., not in a sealed
envelope. If the individual refuses to accept service, flees, closes the door, etc., and
the individual has been positively identified as the person to be served, documents
V4.1236

may be "drop" served, and it is considered a valid service. Personal service of
process has been the hallmark for initialing litigation for nearly 100 years, primarily
because it guarantees actual notice to a defendant of a legal action against him or her.
Personal service of process remains the most reliable and efficacious way to both
ensure compliance with constitutionally imposed due process requirements of notice
to a defendant and the opportunity to be heard. [2]^The National Law Review: The
Continuing Relevance of Personal Service of Process
And even if something indicates Coughlin "knew" about the Order, much like in the
case of Coughlin's that was dismissed where the Washoe County Sheriff's didn't
manage to get the "personal service" of the Summons and Complaint done in time, or
"sufficiently", opposing counsel in that matter could tell you that "actual notice" is
not a substitute for compliance with the service requirements.
Which is nice because folks like Richard G. Hill, Esq. have less of an opportunity to
game the system and swoop in with lockout then assert a bunch of hooey about NRS
118A.460 "reasonable storage, moving, and inventorying expenses" subjecting the
tenant's personal property to a lien. Richard G. Hill insisted on throwing away the
last thing my beloved grandmother gave me before she died 2 years ago in the town
dump. He and his contractor lied about so many things, including the fact that they
used my own damn plywood to board up the back porch of the property, then
submitted a bill to the court in an exhibit for $1,060 for "securing" the property
(which doesn't really apply to NRS 118A.460's "reasonable storage moving and
inventorying expenses" like it is required to...further, the charged me $900 a month
for storage and sent me a bill for such prior to my arrest for trespassing at the 121
River Rock location,...well if they charged me $900 to have a home law office there,
then how is it someone could be trespassing if they are being charged the full rental
value for "use and occupancy of the premises"? Further, even if it was a storage
situations, there are sections of NRS 118A devoted to evicting someone from a
storage facility, not arresting them for trespass, and certainly not a custodial arrest
where the RPD Officer Carter and Sargent Lopez admit they never issued a warning
to me or asked me to leave prior to conducting a custodial arrest (which required
$800 of bail, great!, and 3 days in jail, no less). This is especially poor form where
Officer Carter admitted to me that he takes bribes from Richard Hill. Hey, if Officer
Carter did not say that to me, go ahead and sue me, my man....I'm waiting.....that's
what I thought.
He can say he was joking all he wants, but it ain't no joking ass situation to me when
you are arresting me and causing a google search result for my name to show an
arrest....that's damaging the only thing I have of monetary value (my professional
V4.1237

reputation and name). It ain't no stand up hour when you are putting me in cuffs, bro.
And Officer Carter and Sargent Lopez refused to properly query Hill as to whether
he had sent me, prior to the trespassing arrest, a bill for the "full rental value" of the
property, a value that, at $900, was the same charge for the full "use and occupancy"
of the premises. And Richard G. HIll, Esq. was too busy chortling and filling out the
Criminal Complaint to bother setting them straight, despite my cues, I guess.
Now, add to that malfeasance the fact that J udge Sferrazza let Casey Baker, Esq.
prepare the Order, which means faithfully put to writing what the J udge announced,
not attempt to steal $2,275 for your Californian Beverly Hills High School graduate
neurosurgeon client by slipping in something the judge never said, ie, that the
neurosurgeon gets to keep the $2,275 that Judge Sferrazza order the tenant to pay
into the Reno J ustice Court as a "rent escrow" deposit required to preserve the right
to litigate habitability issues. Now, nevermind the fact that J udge Sferrazza actually
did not have the jurisdiction to require that (there is not J CRLV 44 in Reno, that's a
Vegas rule, and if Reno wants a rule like that of its own J CRCP 83 requires the RJ C
to publish it and get it approved by the Nevada Supreme Court first....period.). Okay,
so, to take it a step even further, Baker's order goes on to say "but the $2,275 won't
be released to the neurosurgeon yet, "instead that sum shall serve as security for
Coughlin's cost on appeal, pursuant to Nevada J CRCP 73...". But wait, doesn't that
mean Coughlin then gets a Stay of Eviction during the pendency of the Appeal? Isnt'
that was a security that large must be for? Because the "Appeal Bond" is set by
statute at only a mere $250....so holding on to 10 times that much of Coughlin's cash
must have been for the "Supersedeas Bond" mentioned a yielding one a Stay of
Eviction in NRS 40.380 and 40.385.
I know, I know, its confusing because actually those sections force the landlord, his
attorneys and the RJ C to choose between viewing Coughlin as a residential tenant
whose rent is less than $1,000, and whom therefore is only required to post a measly
supersedeas bond of $250 (and remember, a supersedeas bond equals a stay of
eviction equals not trespassing) or the the other choice is to view Coughlin as a
commercial tenant, which would allow charging a higher supersedeas bond (except
for that pesky part about his rent being under the $1,000 required by the statute to do
so, his rent being only $900), except, darn it, old Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey
Baker, Esq. elected to pursue this summary eviction proceeding under a No Cause
Eviction Notice, which is not allowed against a commercial tenant (ie, you can't evict
a commercial tenant using the summary eviction procedures set forth in NRS 40.253
unless you alllege non payment of rent and serve a 30 Day Non Payment of Rent
Notice To Quit, which they didn't because they "are just taking the path of least
resistance here, Your Honor (insert their smug chuckling and obnoxious/pretentious
"can you believe this guy?" laughter and head shaking...).
V4.1238

NRS 40.380 Provisions governing appeals. Either party may, within 10 days, appeal
from the judgment rendered. But an appeal by the defendant shall not stay the
execution of the judgment, unless, within the 10 days, the defendant shall execute
and file with the court or justice the defendants undertaking to the plaintiff, with two
or more sureties, in an amount to be fixed by the court or justice, but which shall not
be less than twice the amount of the judgment and costs, to the effect that, if the
judgment appealed from be affirmed or the appeal be dismissed, the appellant will
pay the judgment and the cost of appeal, the value of the use and occupation of the
property, and damages justly accruing to the plaintiff during the pendency of the
appeal. Upon taking the appeal and filing the undertaking, all further proceedings in
the case shall be stayed.
So, why on earth is the City Attorney's Office still trying to try Coughlin on the
trespass charge for which he endured a custodial arrest and for which old Richard
Hill is still filing Motion's to Show Cause on in the appeal of the summary eviction
matter in CV11-03628? Why, oh why? Does the Reno City Attorney's Office have
some sort of vested interest in keeping Coughlin down, busy, besotted, encumbered,
or otherwise? It, why, it couldn't be because Coughlin has a really good wrongful
arrest cause of action against the Reno Police Department, could it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PR7q4OI5b0
And, well, yeah the Washoe County Sheriff's Office didn't quite get those Summons
and Complaints served in that one case Coughlin was suing his former employer in,
the one where Coughlin was granted an Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which
required the Washoe County Sheriff's Office to serve the Summons and
Complaints....But what does that have to to with the 6 days Coughlin spent in jail on
the arrest shown in the youtube video above? Its not like the Washoe County jailed
videotaped a scene where they were forcing Coughlin to get naked and put on a
green dress. What's that? It is? They did do that? Really? No...What? They also
forced him to simulate oral and anal sex with deputies, in the guise of some
ridiculous "procedure" necessary to insure Deputy safety? Oh, wow. And they
retaliated against him for failing to answer their religious preference interrogation
questions by placing him in an icy cold cell for hours at a time, refusing him medical
care despite his plaintive cries for help, while wearing a thin t-shirt? Wow. They
didn't jam a taser needle in his spine for extended periods of time, though, did they?
Your kidding! Whats next, your going tell me Sargent Sigfree of the Reno PD
ordered a custodial arrest on Coughlin for "jaywalking" while Coughlin was
peacefully filming, from a public spot, Richard G. Hill's fraudulent contractor Phil
Howard destroying and taking to the town dump items of enormous sentimental
value to Coughlin that he was prevented from retrieving from the property during the
scant time hewas allowed to (after hepaid$480 worth of a lien for what he knew
V4.1239

not, because, despite, ol' Contractor Phil's fraudulent $1,060 bill for "securing" the
back porch (with screws facing the outside, inexplicably, and a window unit a/c left
in the window facing the sidewalk near the Lakemill Lodge, secured by nothing but
duct tape
It is kind of a combo neon sign that says "Burglarize this Place, Everybody!"),
Coughlin's former home law office was burglarized on December 12, 2011 while
Richard G. Hill was holding its contents (including, tackily, Coughlin's client's files,
like the ones for the foreclosure defense actions, etc.), asserting his "lien". A lien for
"storage" where the charge for storage, $900, was the same as the charge for "full use
and occupany" was. However, that $900 a month for "storage" also included another
$1,060 charge for "securing" (and that bill actually listed "fixing a leak in the
basement...neither of which seem to have much to do with the "reasonable storage,
moving, and inventorying" expenses such a lien is provided for under NRS
118A.460....). J eez, your probably going to tell me Sargent Sigfree ordered another
custodial arrest on Coughlin just two days after the jaywalking arrest, for the same
fact pattern that Master Edmondson granted Coughlin's applications for Protections
Orders against based upon the battery and assaults that his former housemates
committed. Because, Sargent Sigfree thinks its "misuse of 911" for Coughlin to call
when he returns home at night and his dog has mysteriously disappeared, and his
housemates make menacing commentary about it. Surely, Coughlin, a former
domestic violence attorney would have nothing helpful to add to Sargnet Sigfree's
expert opinion that "animal abuse is not domestic violence" (tell that to NRS 33.010,
Sarge) and that its, rather, "a matter for animal control" and that Sargent Sigfree was
"trying to help" Coughlin by arresting him, again, and necessitating the $1,500 bail
associated with the gross misdemeanor charge, "Misuse of 911" because, as Sargent
Sigfree told Coughlin "you keep putting yourself in situations where you are
victimized" so it was necessary to arrest Coughlin in that regard.
But hey, at least NV Energy hasn't refused to let Coughlin get any electrical service
for the past week since those with the Protection Orders against them cancelled the
service and NV Energy shut it off, without providing any notice to Coughlin, right.
Nevermind. But...but surely when NV Energy shut of the power to Coughlin's home
law office on October 4th, 2011, just hours prior to the bad faith "inspection" with
videographer of Coughlin' s home law office that Casey Baker, Esq. thought so very
necessary one day before Coughlin's Tenant Answer was due...surely NV Energy did
not leave the back gate to Coughlin's home law office open and speed off, Coughlin's
beloved mountain bike suddenly missing (the one the parents of his girlfriend of 5
years gave him)? Well, NV Energy is probably not retaliating against Coughlin for
complaining about that by refusing him electric service for the past seven days, you
would have to assume....
NRS 40.385 Stay of execution upon appeal; duty of tenant who retains possession of
V4.1240

premises to pay rent during stay. Upon an appeal from an order entered pursuant to
NRS 40.253:
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a stay of execution may be
obtained by filing with the trial court a bond in the amount of $250 to cover the
expected costs on appeal. A surety upon the bond submits to the jurisdiction of the
appellate court and irrevocably appoints the clerk of that court as the suretys agent
upon whom papers affecting the suretys liability upon the bond may be served.
Liability of a surety may be enforced, or the bond may be released, on motion in the
appellate court without independent action. A tenant of commercial property may
obtain a stay of execution only upon the issuance of a stay pursuant to Rule 8 of the
Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure and the posting of a supersedeas bond in the
amount of 100 percent of the unpaid rent claim of the landlord.
2. A tenant who retains possession of the premises that are the subject of the appeal
during the pendency of the appeal shall pay to the landlord rent in the amount
provided in the underlying contract between the tenant and the landlord as it
becomes due. If the tenant fails to pay such rent, the landlord may initiate new
proceedings for a summary eviction by serving the tenant with a new notice pursuant
to NRS 40.253.
NRS 40.390 Appellate court not to dismiss or quash proceedings for want of form. In
all cases of appeal under NRS 40.220 to 40.420, inclusive, the appellate court shall
not dismiss or quash the proceedings for want of form, provided the proceedings
have been conducted substantially according to the provisions of NRS 40.220 to
40.420, inclusive; and amendments to the complaint, answer or summons, in matters
of form only, may be allowed by the court at any time before final judgment upon
such terms as may be just; and all matters of excuse, justification or avoidance of the
allegations in the complaint may be given in evidence under the answer.
NRS 40.400 Rules of practice. The provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure and Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure relative to civil actions, appeals
and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NRS 40.220
to 40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections.
But, back to the Sheriff's Office. And, I am not really buying the idea that you guys
don't know NRCP 4 through 6 like the back of your hand, but....hell, maybe you
don't. But, clearly the language in NRS 40 about how the Sheriff may "remove tenant
from the property within 24 hours of receipt of the Order" do not apply where the
Tenant filed a Tenant's Answer and showed up to the Hearing and litigated the
matter. Especially where, as here the lease had not terminated, by its terms, but was
V4.1241

rather renewed. This is particularly true where NRS 118A prevents so terminating a
holdover tenant's lease for a retaliatory or discriminatory purpose.
I would hate to see people start to think the Washoe County Sheriff's Office is
cutting corners on the whole "personally served" thing (just so a landlord could get
what they want quicker), just like I would hate for people to think the Reno
Municipal Court is letting the bottom line get in the way of providing that whole
Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel where jail time is even a possibility thing. And,
hey, if the RMC denies an indigent attorney the Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel,
the finds him guilty of NRS 22.030, Summary Contempt Commited in the Presence
of the Court, and the puts him in cuffs when the Trial ends, summarily sentencing
him to 3 days in jail for violating NRS 22.030, well....that's no big deal, right, I
mean, the RMC technically kept its promise that the underyling charge, though
technically it could result in incarceration would not...because the incarceration was
for a whole dang different charge, ie, Summary Contempt in the presence of the
Court....and so what if the whole zealous advocate thing and the denying the Sixth
Amendment Right to Counsel thing and the Summary Contempt thing don't go so
well together....Or if 6 court employees had to stay til 9pm getting paid overtime at
the RMC to get 'r done...
NRCP 4: "(d) Summons: Personal Service. The summons and complaint shall be
served together. The plaintiff shall furnish the person making service with such
copies as are necessary. Service shall be made by delivering a copy of the summons
attached to a copy of the complaint as follows:...(6) Service Upon Individuals. In all
other cases to the defendant personally, or by leaving copies thereof at the
defendants dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age
and discretion then residing therein, or by delivering a copy of the summons and
complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of
process. [As amended; effective J anuary 1, 2005.] (e) Same: Other Service. (1)
Service by Publication. (i) General. In addition to methods of personal service, when
the person on whom service is to be made resides out of the state, or has departed
from the state, or cannot, after due diligence, be found within the state, or by
concealment seeks to avoid the service of summons, and the fact shall appear, by
affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court or judge thereof, and it shall appear, either
by affidavit or by a verified complaint on file, that a cause of action exists against the
defendant in respect to whom the service is to be made, and that the defendant is a
necessary or proper party to the action, such court or judge may grant an order that
the service be made by the publication of summons. Provided, when said affidavit is
based on the fact that the party on whom service is to be made resides out of the
state, and the present address of the party is unknown, it shall be a sufficient showing
of such fact if the affiant shall state generally in such affidavit that at a previous time
such person resided out of this state in a certain place (naming the place and stating
the latest date known to affiant when such party so resided there); that such place is
V4.1242

the last place in which such party resided to the knowledge of affiant; that such party
no longer resides at such place; that affiant does not know the present place of
residence of such party or where such party can be found; and that affiant does not
know and has never been informed and has no reason to believe that such party now
resides in this state; and, in such case, it shall be presumed that such party still
resides and remains out of the state, and such affidavit shall be deemed to be a
sufficient showing of due diligence to find the defendant. This rule shall apply to all
manner of civil actions, including those for divorce"
I guess it don't matter much to me which one of you pays me my damages for the
wrongful eviction, illegal lockout, whether its the landlord, his attorney, or the
Sheriff's Office. Your money is always good with me.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Subject: RE: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:40:39 -0800
From: LStuchell@washoecounty.us
CC: mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
Mr. Coughlin,
Our records indicate that the eviction conducted on that day was personally served
by Deputy Machen by posting a copy of the Order to the residence. The residence
was unoccupied at the time.
Liz Stuchell, Supervisor
WCSO Civil Section
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:58 AM
V4.1243

To: Stuchell, Liz; Kandaras, Mary; nvrenopd@coplogic.com; Silva, Roxanna;
kadlicj@reno.gov; fourthestate@gmail.com; jamesandreboles@msn.com
Subject: WCSO Deputy Machem's "personally served" Affidavit of 11/1/2011
Dear IA Supervisor Stuchell and DDA Kandaras,
I realize you will likely not read all of this. The main thing is I am respectfully
requesting that you confirm with Deputy Machem that he did, in fact, "personally
serve" the Summary Eviction Order on me at 121 River Rock St., Reno 89501 on
November 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm, in connection with performing the lockout. It is my
position that I was not "personally served" and I am trying to figure out whether
Deputy Machem is lying or whether the phrase "personally served" means something
other than what I believe it means, etc., etc. I appreciate your attention to this.
I am writing to inquire about and complain with regard to an Affidavit of Service
filed by or for WCSO Deputy Machem with respect to the service of a Order
Granting Summary Eviction against me (in my law office where non-payment of rent
was not alleged, no less in violation of NRS 40.253 and where a $2,275 rent escrow
deposit was foisted upon me in violation of 40.253(6), especially where a stay of
eviction was not granted even while the RJ C held on to most all my money...).
My issue with the WCSO is that Machem's Affidavit of Service indicates that he
"personally served" me, which kind of reminds me of all that robo-signing and
MERS fraud I come across in my day job (and do you wonder how many attorneys
in the foreclosure defense game I am in constant contact with who are watching and
witness the potential RICO violations this writing mentions?), which includes being
a foreclosure defense attorney. So which is it? Did Machem "personally serve" me
the Summary Eviction Order? Richard G. Hill, Esq. likes to argue that I was "served"
in compliance with all time related rules because it was done in the "usual custom
and practice of the WCSO. What, exactly, is the "usual custom and practice of the
WCSO? I hear a lot about this "within 24 hours" stuff. So, I go hunting for some
black letter law to support what those at the RJ C and in the clueless community at
large (which often includes Nevada Legal Services and Washoe Legal Services, the
people you guys had such trouble actually serving in the lawsuits I filed, which may
have actually helped improved legal services in this community, if they were not
dismissed due to insufficiency of service of process, even where the IFP required the
WCSO to served the defendants....). Anyway, back to the "within 24 hours"
phraseology: "
This whole business about The court may thereupon issue an order directing the
of the order... is inapplicable to this situation, where an Order Granting Summary
V4.1244

Eviction was signed by October 27th, 2011. That language is only found in situations
inapplicable to the current one. NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2), and NRS 40.253(5)(a) are the
only sections of NRS 40 where this within 24 hours language occurs, and those
situations only apply where, in:
40.253(3)(b)(2): 3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: ...(b)
Advise the tenant: . (2) That if the court determines that the tenant is guilty of an
unlawful detainer, the court may issue a summary order for removal of the tenant or
an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant, directing the sheriff or
constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the
order
and,
40.253(5)(a): 5. Upon noncompliance with the notice: (a) The landlord or the
landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court
of the township in which the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial
premises are located or to the district court of the county in which the dwelling,
apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever has
jurisdiction over the matter. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the
of the order. The way these summary eviction proceedings are being carried out in
Reno J ustice Court presently shocks the conscience and violates Nevada law. There
is not basis for effectuating a lockout the way WCSO's Deputy Machem did in this
case. The above two sections containing the within 24 hours of receipt language
are inapplicable, as those situations do not invoke the present circumstances, where
the Tenant did file an Affidavit and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen.
To require Nevada's tenants to get up and get out within 24 hours of receipt of the
order (what does that even mean? The use of terms like rendition, rendered,
notice of entry, pronounced, is absent here, and this receipt of the order
language is something rarely found elsewhere in Nevada law-see attached DMV
statutory citations, and in employment law litigations where one must file a
Complaint within 90 days of receipt of a Right To Sue Letter, a situation which
follows NRCP 5(b), and NRCP 6(e) in imputing receipt of such a letter, when actual
receipt is not shown, by applying a constructive notice standard that relies upon
the days for mailing extension of time for items served in the mailing, etc.). In
Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 553 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2009), the
record did not reflect when the plaintiff received his right-to-sue letter. The letter
was issued on November 24, 2006. The court calculated that the 90-day period
commenced on November 30, 2006, based on three days for mailing after excluding
Saturdays and Sundays. In order to bring a claim under either Title VII or the ADA,
a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies and sue within 90 days of receipt of
a right to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). See Baldwin County Welcome
Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)
(granting plaintiff an additional three days for mailing pursuant to Rule 6).
V4.1245

Further, despite what the inaccurate handouts of Nevada Legal Services may say
about this 24 hours and the applicability of the J CRCP to cases like these, NRS
40.400 Rules of practice, holds that :The provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure and Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure relative to civil actions, appeals
and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NRS 40.220
to 40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections. As such
NRCP 6(a),(e) applies to the Order of Summary Eviction that WCSO Deputy
Machem alleged, under penalty of perjury, that he "personally served" upon me on
November 1, 2011. That is a lie by Mr. Machem, unless "personally served" is
defined in a rather impersonal way and or Machem and I have totally different
understanding of the definition of "personally served", which may be the case. Or,
perhaps the Sheriff's Office is busy and doesn't want to wait around to "personally
serve" every tenant it wishes to evict. Fine, then just use the "mail it and allow three
days" rule in NRCP 6(e)...the landlord's might not like it, but they can use that
frustration as an incentive not to jump to litigating every disagreement about
habitability that a tenant brings to them. You may not realize how ridiculous some
landlord's get. In my case, I offered to fix basic things that clearly implicated the
habitability rules in NRS 118A.290 and the Californian neurosurgeon, Beverly Hill
High School graduate landlord balked and complained then hired and attorney four
days into a dispute.....at which point the rules against contacting represented parties
prevented much in the way of real settlement discussion, particularly where opposing
counsel has continuously demonstrated a complete indifference to pursuing
settlement (why would he at the rates he bills hours at?). I just don't think the
Sheriff's Office needs to sully its image or damage the citizen tenants of Washoe
County in the name of pleasing people like Dr. Matt Merliss or Richard G. Hill, Esq.
I AM REQUESTING, IN WRITING, THAT BOTH OF YOUR OFFICES
INVESTIGATE THIS AND PROVIDE A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM MR.
MACHEM THAT ADMITS THAT I WAS NOT PERSONALLY PRESENT
WHEN HE SERVED THE ORDER FOR SUMMARY EVICTION IN RJ C
REV2011-001708 ON 11/1/12 AT 4:30 PM (ACCORDING TO HIS AFFIDAVIT
OF SERVICE). YOU NEVER KNOW, I MIGHT HAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF
THAT I WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE AT THAT TIME, SO, BE CAREFUL. There
simply is not anything specific in Nevada law addressing how such Summary
Eviction Orders are to be served and carried out. The sections dealing with
NRS 40.253 Unlawful detainer: Supplemental remedy of summary eviction and
exclusion of tenant for default in payment of rent....
6. Upon the filing by the tenant of the affidavit permitted in subsection 3, regardless
of the information contained in the affidavit, and the filing by the landlord of the
affidavit permitted by subsection 5, the justice court or the district court shall hold a
hearing, after service of notice of the hearing upon the parties, to determine the
V4.1246

truthfulness and sufficiency of any affidavit or notice provided for in this section. If
the court determines that there is no legal defense as to the alleged unlawful detainer
and the tenant is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the court may issue a summary order
for removal of the tenant or an order providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant....
7. The tenant may, upon payment of the appropriate fees relating to the filing and
service of a motion, file a motion with the court, on a form provided by the clerk of
the court, to dispute the amount of the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant
to NRS 118A.460 or 118C.230 for the inventory, moving and storage of personal
property left on the premises. The motion must be filed within 20 days after the
summary order for removal of the tenant or the abandonment of the premises by the
tenant, or within 20 days after:
(a) The tenant has vacated or been removed from the premises; and
(b) A copy of those charges has been requested by or provided to the tenant,
whichever is later.
8. Upon the filing of a motion pursuant to subsection 7, the court shall schedule a
hearing on the motion. The hearing must be held within 10 days after the filing of the
motion. The court shall affix the date of the hearing to the motion and order a copy
served upon the landlord by the sheriff, constable or other process server. At the
hearing, the court may:
(a) Determine the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant to NRS 118A.460
or 118C.230 and any accumulating daily costs; and
(b) Order the release of the tenants property upon the payment of the charges
determined to be due or if no charges are determined to be due...."
I also want to know why NRS 40. 253(8) was not followed with respect to my
November 17th, 2011 filing of a Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien. Why
didn't the WCSO serve notice, as required by NRS 40.253(8) upon the landlord's
attorney Richard Hill? Why didn't I get a hearing within the 10 days called called for
by that section (to get back my client's files no less), but rather, I had to wait a full 33
days to get a hearing, and service of notice of the hearing was not effectuated, as
required by NRS 40.235(8), by the WCSO. Why?
Please provide an indication, in writing, of the names and case numbers for the last
20 incidences when the WCSO has served notice of a hearing set pursuant to NRS
40.253(8). What's that? The WCSO has NEVER served such notice? Yet the WCSO
is there with bells on (or Machem is) to lie in Affidavits of Service to lock out the
citizen tenants of Washoe County impermissilby early vis a vis NRCP 5(b)(2) and
NRCP 6(e)? Why is that? Is it a conspiracy? Does money talk? When I was arrested
for trespassing on November 12th, 2011 by RPD Officer Chris Carter and Sargent
V4.1247

Lopez, Carter admitted to me that "Richard Hill pays him a lot of money and
therefore he arrests whom Richard Hill says to and does what Richard Hill says to
do...." Both Carter and Sargent Lopez refused to investigate, despite prompting,
whether Richard Hill has sent the tenant/arrestee a bill or demand letter in bill for the
full rental value of the property, $900 per month, under some interpretation of the
"reasonable storage, moving, and inventorying expenses" collectable by a landlord
under a personal property line set forth in NRS 118A.460 (one could also interpret
such a bill as Hill's withdrawing or eradicating the Order of Summary Eviction itself,
which was not "personally served" by the Washoe County Sheriff (despite what their
Affidavit of Service says...I wasn't even there at the time they changed the
locks...and so the Summary Eviction Order was not properly served under NRCP 6,
and despite the Reno J ustice Court impermissibly converting $2300 of my money
under a "rent escrow" Order its required I comply with in order to litigate habitability
issues in a summary eviction proceeding under NRS 40.253, despite NRS 40.253
(6)'s express dicate against such an Order (unless, pursuant to J CRCP 83, a justice
court gets such a rule, like J ustice Court Rule of Las Vegas (J CRLV) Rule 44,
published and approved by the Nevada Supreme Court, which the RJ C has not,
rather, the RJ C applies all these insidious secret "house rules" (like forcing tenants to
deliver themselves to the filing office to submit to personal service notice of a
summary eviction hearing within, like, 12 hours of the Tenant filing a Tenant's
Answer or Affidavit in response to an eviction Notice, rather than the service
requirements of such notice following NRCP 6 (days for mailing, etc., etc., in other
words, in the RJ C everything is sped up imperissilby to help landlord's out, and the
NV. S. Ct ruling in Glazier and Lippis clearly contemplate personal liability against
the Court and or J udges themselves for so doing)....A Qui Tam action or something a
la Mausert's in Solano County, I believe, in California, would be very
interesting...Still haven't heard anything from the Reno PD about the various
complaints I have filed with them in writing related to the wrongful arrests,
excessive force and other misconduct committed against me, though they did arrest
me the other day for calling 911incident to some domestic violence for which I was
granted to Extended Protection Orders against my former housemates....old Sargent
Sigfree ordered that arrest, as he did two days prior when he ordered a custodial
arrest of me for "jaywalking".
Funny thing, I never heard anything back from the RPD about complaints like the
following one:
From:
NvRenoPd@coplogic.com
Sent:
V4.1248

Wed 9/07/11 10:51 PM
****DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL****
We're sorry the following problem was found during review
of your submitted report T11005956:
THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THIS TYPE OF COMPLAINT HOWEVER
THIS REPORT WAS PRINTED AND PASSED ON TO THE OFFICER'S
SUPERVISOR AND IT WILL BE ADDRESSED.
Thank you,
Officer WOZNIAK,
Reno Police Department
What is interesting there is that at least I was provided the name of an officer, a
"Wozniak" (though I have been unable to confirm the existence of
such an RPD Officer...
or whether " THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THIS TYPE OF COMPLAINT
HOWEVER THIS REPORT WAS PRINTED AND PASSED ON TO THE
OFFICER'S SUPERVISOR AND IT WILL BE
ADDRESSED."
What is more strange is that I submitted several online police reports to the Reno PD
(a couple of which asserted complaints against various Reno PD officers, or asked
why RDP Officer Carter, whom admitted taking bribes from Richard G. Hill, Esq. at
the time of my custodial arrest for trespassing (the one where Richard Hill signed a
Criminal Complaint for trespass, then Officer Carter and Sargent Lopez refused to
follow up on my imploring them to ask Hill whether he has recently sent me a bill
for the "full rental value" of the property, the same amount that had been charged for
the "use and enjoyment" of the premises, $900, in comparision to what NRS
118A.460 may deem "reasonable storage" expenses for which a lien is available to a
landlord, though NRS 118A.520 has outlawed rent distraints upon tenant's personal
property....Regardless, between J anuary 8 - 12th, 2012, and was arrested twice by the
Reno PD shortly after submitting these written complaints to the Reno PD.
V4.1249

Actually, upon being released from jail on November 15th, 2011, incident to the
custodial trespass arrest, I went to Richard HIll's office to get my wallet and driver's
license. He refused to provide it to me until late November 22nd, 2011. Hill called
the Reno PD on the 15th (or maybe I did because he was withholding my state issued
ID, the one I would need to rent a room, drive my car, and my wallet, which is kind
of useful in such situations....). Anyways, Sargent Tarter of the Reno PD showed up,
he went inside Hill's office with Hill for quite some time and the result was Tarter
telling me to leave. I did, but while driving down St. Laurence towards S. Virginia
(Hill's office is at 652 Forrest St. 89503 and would have required turning down the
wrong way of a one way street, Forrest, to go back to Hill's Office (so clearly I was
not headed to Hill's office) Sargent Tarter began tailing me, then he pulled me over,
then he gave me a ticket, in retaliation if you ask me for reporting RPD Officer
Carter admitting that he takes bribes from Hill to Sargent Tarter minutes earlier. Uh,
well, anyways, another Sargent calls me later that night, taking the "good cop" role.
But upon informing him of what RPD Officer Carter told me about Hill paying him
money to arrest people during the 11/12/11 trespassing arrest, that Sargent
immediately informed me that, despite this being the first he heard of that, he was
sure that was not happening....I guess RPD Officer Carter is trying to explain away
his comments about Richard Hill paying him money to arrest people by dismissing
them as sarcasm, a joke, said in jest, whatever....but I don't see how that situation (a
license attorney getting arrested for a crime, a conviction for which would result in
that attorney being required to report said conviction to the State Bar of Nevada
under SCR 111, etc., and possibly resulting in a suspension of that attorney's license
to practice law, or worse...) is all that jocular of a situation. Combine that with the
too quick to dismiss my reports of bribery by Richard Hill to officer Carter to the
RPD Sargent who called me on 11/15/11 regarding the retaliation by Sargent Tarter
that I complained of, and I don't think it is all that unreasonable for anyone to take
RPD Officer Carter at his word regarding Richard G. Hill, Esq. paying him money to
arrest whom Hill says to arrest. Add to that Sargent Sigfree ordering my arrest for
jaywalking (by a trainee RPD Officer) on J anuary 12th, 2011 (custodial arrest, bail
of $160 emptied my bank account out, or pretty close to it) while I was peacefully
filming from a public spot Richard G. Hill, Esq's contractor Phil Howard, whom had
submitted bills in courts records and filings under the lien for "reasonable storage
moving and inventorying" found in NRS 118A.460, even where old Phil used my
own plywood at the property to board up the back porch (curiously leaving the
screws holding up the plywood exposed to exterior of the property where anyone
could easily unscrew them, and also leaving in a window unit ac secured only by
ducttape in a window facing a sidewalk by the LakeMill Lodge....which resulted in
$8,000 at least of my personal property being burglarized from my former home law
office on Decmeber 12th, 2011 while Hill was asserting a lien on all my personal
property found therein (and my client's files, which arguably are not even my
property, but rather, the client's property). Hill went on to place what he believes to
be my social security number in court records, on purpose, despite his signing an
Affirmation pursuant to NRS 239B.030 that that was not the case (attaching a two
V4.1250

page report to the RPD as an Exhibit). Then Hill and his contractor Phil Howard both
committed perjury when the signed Declarations attesting that I had climbed on the
contractors truck or ever touched Hill. Hill lies constantly, whether under penalty of
perjury or now, so I don't have time to rebut every little lie he makes (he makes me
out to comes across as a Yosemite Sam caricature of a human being in his filings
when he describes me...).
Further, why am I arrested for trespassing and not those from Nevada Court Services
where they went behind closed gate the the backyard of my home law office and
banged on window extremely loudly for 40 minutes at a time 3 times a day, one guy
ringing the doorbell, one guy moving around all other sides of the property banging
on the windows, peering in closed blinds, and affecting a phony "color of law" tone,
resemblance, and verbal communications, misleadingly announcing that they were
"Court Services, come out now!", wearing their pretend Sheriff outfits, big
equipment saddled belts (including firearms, I believe, and radios), etc. ,etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ132q2O7DY
Add to that that Nevada Court Services J eff Chandler drives by in his Monster Truck
baring his personalized "NCS" license plate while I am in the RPD squad car,
handcuffed, outside my former law office at 121 River Rock, at the time of the
1/12/12 jaywalking arrest and the appearances are troubling. Now, add to that that
Lew Taitel, Esq. was my court appointed public defender in the Reno Municipal
Court in the trespass case, and that Judge Gardner had refused to provide me the
names of prospective appointed defense counsel (I wanted to run a conflicts check)
at my arraignment (where Marshal Mentzel barked at me in a threatening tone, using
menacing language), whereupon Taitel was appointed as my defense attorney and
filed a notice of appearance, and received my confidential file, pc sheet, arrest
reports, ssn, etc....only its turns out that Taitel shares and office and a receptionist
with Nevada Court Services and they list him and his picture on their website as
"associated with" their Process Server corporation, despite the prohibition lawyers
face against fee sharing with non-lawyers. Then, Taitel somehow manages to get out
of defending my case without filing a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, despite that
being required by the Reno Municipal Court Rule 3(B):
RMCR Rule 3(B): Authorization to Represent (B): An attorney desiring to withdraw
from a case shall file a motion with the court and serve the City Attorney with the
same. The court may rule on the motion or set a hearing.
But, perhaps most troubling of all is the implication that the Reno City Attorney's
Office, which defends actions against the City of Reno Police Department and its
Officers, has a vested interest in discrediting me in advance of the wrongful arrest
lawsuit that the Reno City Attorney's office knew was imminent at the time of all of
V4.1251

the above incidents, relating to the following August 20th, 2011 wrongful arrest by
RPD Officer's Duralde and Rosa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PR7q4OI5b0
So, that's what attempting to coerce a suspect's consent to an impermissible search
sounds like? Add to that that the trespassing case is before J udge Gardner, whom
most recently was employed with the Reno City Attorney's Office.
And, you know what is funny? Officer Del Vecchio cuffed me and placed me in his
squad car last summer after he terrified me and another gentleman who had bicycles.
He veered across the road and screeched his squad car to a halt, jumped out, and did
some other stuff, then demanded my name and ID...and the lawyer in me didn't like
that that much, and he didn't like me not wanting to give it to him. This occurred
right in front of my home law office in the summer of 2011. He cuffed me and told
me I was going to jail for something about a light on the front of my bicycle (the one
NV Energy likely stole when the shut off my power, unnoticed, on October 4, 2011)
despite my bike actually having such a light....but then Del Vecchio's partner did him
a solid and talked some sense into him, and I humbled it up for Del Vecchio and we
both let it go, and I didn't go to jail....Until Del Vecchio was present supervising
some Officer's training at the scene of my custodial (9 hour) jaywalking arrest) on
1/12/12. But Del Vecchio, I guess either didn't want to or wasn't able to talk some
sense into Sargent Sigfree.....and then Sargent Sigfree (the spelling is likely off) had
me arrested and charged with a gross misdemeanor, "Misuse of 911" just two days
later, on J anuary 14th, 2011 when I called 911 to report that my roommates were
laughing menacingly when I asked them why my dog was missing (I had also been
chased up to my room numerous times since moving in with these people, something
I had to do because so much of my money had been taken up with bail or lost
earnings due to all these wrongful arrests and abuse of processes mentioned
above...also these housemates had chased me with a ten inch butcher knife, two of
my tires were slashed, I was locked out all night on New Years Even when these
changed the locks at around midnight, had my furniture thrown in the street, property
stolen, coffee thrown on me, destroying my smart phone in the process, etc.,
etc...And despite the housemate having an outstanding arrest warrant, and animal
abuse being listed amongst the elements of domestic violence, Sargent Sigfree told
me he was arresting me because I "keep putting yourself in these situations", like,
where I am a victim, and that he was "trying to help you", he said with a smirk and a
laugh to his fellow RPD Officers, whom then proceeded to use excessive force
against me. I guess he was helping me by saddling me with a gross misdemeanor
with a $1,500 bail, especially where its been arranged for Court Services, or pre-
Trial Services to forever deny me an OR, despite my meeting the factors for such set
forth in statute (30 year resident, entire immediate family lives here, licensed to
practice law in Nevada, etc., etc)...I guess it should not be too much of a surprise to
me that Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts failed to address the perjury of all three of
her witnesses or that her fellow Reno City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens lied
to me about whether or not the Reno City Attorney's Office even had any
documentation related to my arrest or whether it would in the month before my
V4.1252

arraignment, despite that fact that subsequent productions of discovery tend to
indicate that the Reno City Attorney's Office did have those materials at the time. I
could be wrong about some of this...But that would require and awful lot of
coincidences.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473
** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the
electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain
confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and
that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the
contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential,
intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is
privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of
this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in
error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail
from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by
anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work
product, or other applicable privilege.
V4.1253

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th t. !2
"EN#, N$ %9&12
tel: 77& 33% %11%
'a(: 949 ))7 74*2
ZachCoughlin+hot,ail.co,
"eno -ustice Court
Civil .ivision /a( 077&1 32&2)&91
"E: "-C2*122*744*%
E,ergenc3 Co,,unication regarding 4earing on $eri'ied Co,5laint scheduled 'or 2623612 at %:4&
a.,.
/e7ruar3 21, 2*12,
.ear 4on. -udge 83nch,
9 a, :riting to inquire a7out 3our status as the -udge rando,l3 assigned to "-C2*122*744*%.
;lease see the attached collection o' corres5ondences 'or e(5lication in this regard. 9 7elieve that 3ou
are su55osed to 7e the -udge on this case, under -C""< "ule 2, and 'urther, that even i' so,e court
5olic3 or 5ractice :ould result in a di''erent -udge hearing this case in 3our stead 'or one or ,ore
hearings, that the ancillar3 considerations detailed herein 5rovide that, 'or the sa=e o' a55earances, this
case should re,ain in 3our .e5art,ent and 5resided over 73 3oursel'.
incerel3,
Zach Coughlin
161
V4.1254

RE: cases being randomly assigned in RJC FW: attempt
to file prior to 5pm denied
From: Tuttle, Steve (stuttle@washoecounty.us)
Sent: Fri 2/17/12 10:40 AM
Cc: Sferrazza, Pete (psferrazza@washoecounty.us)
Thatisyoursole,complexinterpretationofa(two)simplemeetingrequeststodiscusscourtstaff
relatedissues,whichyoudeclinedboth.
Steve Tuttle
Court Administrator
Reno J ustice Court
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:09 AM
To: Tuttle, Steve
Subject: RE: cases being randomly assigned in RJ C FW: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Oh, you must be referring to when Ms. Stancil called and indicated you told her to tell me I would need
to come in and meet with you and the Bailiff prior to the RJ C agreeing to set for the Hearing on Motion
to Contest Personal Property Lien?
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
2/22/2012 http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=c9614f81-5996-11e1...
V4.1255

** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521,
and may contain confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review,
dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is
confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work
product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this
information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s),
please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately.
Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other
applicable privilege.
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:46:06 -0800
From: stuttle@washoecounty.us
Mr.Coughlin:
Iaminreceiptonyoursixpageemail,whichagainisriddlewithaccusationsandunfoundedclaims. I
donotseeanynewissuesthatnecessitateareply. However,Idofeelcompelledtoaddressone
accusationregardingyourperceptionofmymanagementresponsibilities. YouclaimIdidnotproperly
investigateyourallegationsofsexualassaultbecauseIdidnotinterviewyouthusbeinginviolationof
U.S.law. Pleasecheckyouremailsonorabout11/30/11whereyouwereaskedtwice(oncebyKaren
Stancilformeandoncebymedirectly)forameetingtodiscussyourissueswithcourtstaff. You
declinedbothinvitations.Steve
Steve Tuttle
Court Administrator
Reno J ustice Court
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:58 PM
To: Tuttle, Steve
V4.1256

Dear Court Administrator Tuttle,
I feel that you have misunderstood my import. Please consider that you and
others in the court are only human, whereas Richard G. Hill, Esq. is clearly a
lycan, who has also somehow managed to fashion himself and his brethren
into a sophisticated commercial law firm capable of distorting reality in ways
not commonly seen absent the administration of extremely potent
psychotropic drugs. There were no "assertions regarding "J udges Sferrazza,
Clifton and the Court's integrity" in anything I wrote you. There is a
difference between an "appearance" and a "reality", however, I think you will
find that "appearances of impropriety" are given considerable attention in the
Rules of Professional Responsibility, the Code of J udicial Conduct, and the
Model Code of Conduct for J udicial Employees in the State of Nevada.
Further, I think you will find that, contrary to your retaliatory assertions, my
duty to my client includes making a reasonably diligent effort to attempt to
access justice, and any subsequent excusable neglect analysis may, in fact,
call for making an attempt to inquire with court personnel or Sheriff's
Deputies in an attempt to address my concerns vis a vis the doors locking.
While you indicate the videos are the property of the Sheriff (quite a bit of
power for the Sheriff alone to own those videos) you do not make clear how
it is that you are able to review them, while at the same time, seemingly
disclaiming any liability for the negligent hiring, training, or supervision of the
various Deputies you supervise and or work with at the RJ C, especially, vis a
vis their propensity to tell litigants that they will have objects forcibly inserted
into their anuses should such litigants in any way question the cold, hard,
authority of these Sheriff's Deputie's jackboot.
What is not clear is why J udge Clifton would handle all the other cases on the
stacked docket of 2/13/12, beginning at 8:30, but then, after Chief Bailiff
Sexton came into the Court Room with Bailiff Reyes (whom I have been
forced to file for a Protection Order against just recently) and made some
phone calls, J udge Sferrazza replaced J udge Clifton. Further, while J udge
Sferrazza explained the non-appearance of J udge Lynch by indicating that
J udge Lynch was instead scheduled to do traffic court that day, Chief Civil
Clerk Stancil indicated today that, in fact, J udge Lynch was hearing matters
V4.1257

on a criminal calendar.'
Regardless, I certainly have not impugned the credibility of any of the fine
judges of the RJ C. However, your jumping to being "insulted" and failing to
ask me anything about these incidents involving threats to insert objects
inside of my anus leaves a bit to be desired, in my humble opinion, from the
perspective of a member of the public appearing in your court as a litigant.
You wrote: "You were not denied by this Court your right to file these
documents yesterday. You were, however, denied by Washoe County Sheriff
Court Security Unit access to the building after closing time; the same as
anyone else would be denied. You were not here before 5:00pm and trying
to gain access into the facility by coming through an exit only door is not
permissible."
I don't agree with your assessment, but I apologize for the annoyance this
seems to have caused. I hope you will consider that the date on which this
occurred was the last day to file a pre-trial motion (under NRS 174.125, such
motions, including a "motion to suppress" the fruits of an unlawful search by
law enforcement) in a matter for which I am a criminal defendant, and for
which a conviction could result in me being disbarred as an attorney, in
addition to fairly substantial criminal penalties, including incarceration. There
are a lot of things that can go wrong on the way to an innocent man being
convicted of a crime. One key area involves the failure to preserve for appeal
important issues. Such were the content of the documents I sought to filed
on February 14th, 2012. Additionally, only yesterday was I finally informed
by the RJ C, criminal division, that I may file by fax. I have previously been
told that I may not file by fax. Further, today Ms. Stancil, Chief Civil Clerk,
informed me that I may also file by fax in the Civil Division. I am quite
certain I have requested permission to do this before in both the civil and
criminal divisions and have been told I may not every single time. This
relates to your recent commentary on "favoritism" and applying the rules
evenly to all litigants. I am sure I have heretofore been disallowed from filing
by fax. Indeed, I have spent countless hours of my time travelling out of my
way, down to the Reno J ustice Court, to file each and every document that I
have filed in the few cases I have had in your court (and most any lawyer
V4.1258

will tell you that their "time" is the only thing a lawyer is much able to sell to
anyone for the purpose of making a living, something which, I assure, has
been an enormous struggle for me this past few years). You are aware of
just how enormous the file is in RJ C Rev2011-001708. I guess some would
say that is my fault, though I would counter that the law is rather clear that
NRS 40.253's summary eviction proceedings are forbidden against
commercial tenants where the non payment of rent is neither alleged nor
Notice of such is posted or served, as here.
Mr. Tuttle, you know as well as I do that there is a turnstile that only turns
one way that would obviously present any such attempt to gain access.
Further, the door you are referring to is not marked "exit only", and your
assertions that I was "trying to gain access to the facility" is so transparent
that it is disturbing considering your position with the court. I clearly knocked
on the window and waived to Deputies in an attempt to ask them my
questions. Surely, the video you reference easily show this. Additionally, you
do not mention exactly what time "after 5 pm" the video showed, and I find
that curious. Further, you do not mention any system in place to assure that
the time stamping on the video is in accord with the official United States
time at www.time.gov. Indeed, the RJ C or the Sheriff are not the only one's
in the this world with cameras and clocks, and it might be very interesting to
see a documentary of several days worth of footage of just when exactly the
doors lock, synced to a visual time stamping verified to be accurate vis a vis
www.time.gov. If such a video did exist, you don't sound like you would be
too interested in seeing it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You further wrote: "Because your actions could be consider trespassing is the
reason why Reno J ustice Court Chief Bailiff Michael Sexton again asked you
to leave. Fair and equal access to justice applies not only to discrimination,
but also to favoritism. Allowing one party to file documents after a deadline is
unethical and without question unfair." Your interpretation of the crime of
"trespassing" is interesting. I guess, under your approach, Richard G. Hill,
Esq. would be guilty of trespassing where, at the 12/20/11 Hearin on
Tenant's Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien, after the Tenant invoked
the Rule of Exclusion, and J udge Sferrazza ordered Hill and other prospective
witnesses to leave the court room, where Hill surreptiously snuck back in the
court room, found time during a recess to announce to myself Bailiff Reyes
and Chief Bailiff Sexton that Hill too would like to "put his boot up Coughlin's
ass", and then manage to sneak back into the court room during the
proceeding, and have Bailiff Sexton pass post-it notes from behind the Bar to
V4.1259

a struggling Casey Baker, Esq., whom was attempting to apply and unlawful
rent distraint under the guise of "reasonable storage" expenses.
At $30 a day for "reasonable storage" expenses, J udge Sferrrazza's Order
was more in line with what one gets in a room at the Sand's for a day,
complete with the full use and occupancy of the room, heat, plubming, light,
and premium cable television, and wi-fi access. $30.00 a day for "reasonable
storage" of that which could fit in a 10 by 30 foot storage shed (which
typically cost $125 per month, or about 1/8th of what J udge Sferrazza ruled
would be a reasonable daily storage charge, in the great Reno area). This
$30.00 a day storage charge is made all the more questionable by the fact
that the locations where all these items were being "stored" (and for which a
bill for $1,060 to "secure" this "storage" was filed with the RJ C) was actually
burglarized on December 12th, 2011, while under Hill and Baker control, and
many valuable were stolen, though neither Hill nor Baker ever provided
anything close to a reasonable detailed inventory of what was there prior to
the burglary and what remained after the burglary. The did manage to notice
that a 62 inch Television was missing, though.
I agree with your assessment that it would be unethical and without question
unfair for the criminal division filing office to ask a "red headed step child"
litigant "who is calling" on the phone when they inquire with court personnel
as to whether the court will, in fact, remain open, all the way up to the
posted 5pm closing time, and then for the door's to the court to, ever so
curiously, be locked prior to 5 pm when said redhead presents to access
justice, and even more so where a court administrator and Chief Bailiff then
arrange a version of the facts to explain away their actions and decisions,
replete with menacing allusions to retaliatory prosecution, etc., etc. You are
right about that, Sir.
You further wrote "Informing Chief Bailiff Sexton of your intention to wait
outside for Reno J ustice Court employees to leave so you could force them to
take your filings is a form of harassment and needs to stop immediately. If
this aggressive behavior continues, the Court will consider a protective order
against you, which will result in your ability or privilege to access Reno
J ustice Court." Well, it does seem somewhat untoward that you are now
V4.1260

threatening to file a protective order merely because a litigant asked to speak
with a supervisor regarding the court's doors locking prior to 5 pm. This is
particularly troublesome where you make accusations of such a litigant
engaging in "aggressive behavior" when, in fact, it is your own Chief Bailiff
Sexton and Bailiff Reyes who have both engaged in bullying behavior
towards litigants, replete with the ever so professional threats to forcibly
insert objects into a litigants anus, and other menacing commentary related
to a litigants "ass", particularly where such commentary occurred while said
litigant was attempting to access justice in the most basic way (by presenting
documents to be filed with the filing office, during hours for which the court
holds itself out as open for business).
You further wrote: "In addition, I have looked into your assertions of sexual
assault by the Reno J ustice Court Bailiffs and found these allegations to be
without merit." However, in your "looking into" these "assertions of sexual
assault" you have neither met with me nor interviewed me or otherwise
conducted anything close to a reasonably diligent inquiry, something which
you may have a duty to perform with respect to any negligent hiring,
training, or supervision claim or other 42 USC Sec 1983 claim a member, or a
class of members of the public may have. But you seem to suggest that you
do not bare any responsibility for the actions of the WCSO Court Security
Unit's actions. However, if that is the case, one must wonder why you would
have "looked into your assertions of sexual assault by the Reno J ustice Court
Bailiff's" or why you refer to said Bailiff's alternatively as "Reno J ustice Court
Bailiffs", while elsewhere using the designation Washoe County Sheriff
Court Security Unit.
You went on to write in another recent correspondence: "1) The locking of
the front doors to the Courthouse is the responsibility of the Sheriffs Office,
so all your questions regarding this issue will need to be directed to them.
However, I will state that the surveillance videos, which are dated and time
stamped, clearly shows that you were here after 5:00pm on 2/14/2012."
Well, the videos may technically show I was "here after 5 pm", but it is
curious you do not write that the videos show that I "did not arrive until after
5 pm"...or otherwise get very specific.
V4.1261

Please be aware that this correspondence places you on a LITIGATION HOLD
NOTICE with respect to any and all recordings made in conjunction with this
matter, and further, with regard to any recordings made concerning me
whatsoever. PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH A COPY OF THE VIDEO YOU
REFERENCE, COMPLETE WITH THE TIME STAMPING AND A WRITTEN
ATTESTATION AS TO THE PRACTICE IN PLACE TO ASSURE THE ACCURACY
OF THE TIMESTAMPING.
You go on to write: "3) I am not sure what your question is regarding your
11/16/11 filing - Motion to Contest Personal Property." By all means, let me
elucidate this matter for you more clearly. Please see the attached 1/5/12
Reply to Opposition in the appeal from this matter, in CV11-03628 wherein
the RJ C's liability for failing to appropriately carry out the dictates of black
letter Nevada law found in NRS 40.253(7)-(8) is quite clearly pronounced.
Further, I was never provided or served a copy of (until the filing of the
Record on Appeal, well after the 12/15 and 12/17/11 entries in the docket,
which preceded the 12/20/11 Hearing on Tenant's Motion to Contest
Personal Property Lien) the two statements the RJ C seemingly order Deputy
Clerk J ocelyn J onas and Chief Civil Clerk Karen Stancil to place in the file in
RJ C REV2011-001708.
In that Reply, in page 7 of 24, one' finds the following: 4. Funny thing about the
Reno J ustice Court: when it comes to setting a hearing within 10 days of my filing Motion to Contest
Personal Property Lien on November 16th, 2011, the RJ C is all "oh, we needed your permission, Mr.
Coughlin, to set such a hearing, its your fault that we couldn't get it on within the 10 days required by
statute under NRS 40.253(7-8); however, when Coughlin went in to file something on November 3,
2011 at 4:58pm, RJ C filing office Chief Clerk Karen Stancil didn't need no permission to serve personally
on Coughlin Notice of a Hearing to take place on Monday, November 7, 2011. Well, actually,
allegathetically, another clerk (Deputy Clerk Christine Erickson) had to sneak that Notice of the Hearing
on November 7, 2011 into a stack of papers she slipped Coughlin when she was pretending to be helpful
for a change, rather than sullen, and overly opinionated for someone who cares so little of the import of
the Whitman, Donoho, Byrant, and Sullivan decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court with respect to court
employees legislating from the filing office desk and refusing to accept filings because they just aren't
feeling it that day.... You see, somebody at the RJ C figured out that it probably was not legal to hold on
to Coughlin last $2,275 on earth if it was not granting him a stay (especially where NRS 40.385 entitles
Coughlin to one, for his posting a bond as little as $250 (instead the RJ C kept Coughlin's $2,275, and if
you believe Hill, did not grant a stay) as, in J udge Sferrazza's words, that would be "conversion". So,
how again is it Mr. Hill's outrageous allegations of Coughlin living here or there during this or that period
(something which Hill never bothers to support with anything other than his own bluster, hot air, and
conjecture, and apparent willingness to to incur NRCP Rule 11 sanctions if it means milking a willful
neurosurgeon good and dry in the process) are reasonably based in fact or law and therefore not worthy
V4.1262

of NRCP 11 sanctions?
Regardless, the RJ C did set a Hearing on Tenant's Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien, and Tenant
did show up for it, in face, he checked in with Chief Bailiff Sexton prior to that Hearing, which was set
for November 22, 2011. However, Tenant was the only one who showed up. Should that not yield a
default victory?
However, more troubling is the RJ C's conduct in forcing two of its filing office personnel to sign
unsworned "statements", one month after some alleged conversation incident to a litigants visit to the
filing office, and further, where Deputy Clerk J ocelyn J onas was called to testify by J udge Sferrazza,
would conducted a leading examination of the Court's witness, in a matter where the Court was not
even a party. Most troubling of all, however, it the fact that Ms. J ones, on cross-examination had to
admit matters that show here statement of December 15th, 2011 to be misleading, at best, and wholly
deficient in fulfilling the RJ C's duty to maintain an appearance of impartiality towards all litigants. It is
simply impermissible for the RJ C to have Ms. J onas sign and unsworn "statement" (truly a new one to
me, being neither a notarized Affidavit, nor a Declaration made under "penalty of perjury" in lieu of an
Affidavit. However, when Ms. J onas did get sworn in at the 12/20/11 Hearing, a few unpleasant truths
emerged. One, Ms. J onas was forced to admit that she did recall having a discussion with Tenant
Coughlin in RJ C REV2011-001708 about the requirement that the RJ C comply with NRS 40.253(8) which
reads:
"NRS 40.253(8): Upon the filing of a motion pursuant to subsection
7, the court shall schedule a hearing on the motion. The
hearing must be held within 10 days after the filing of
the motion. The court shall affix the date of the hearing to
the motion and order a copy served upon the landlord by
the sheriff, constable or other process server. At the hearing,
the court may:
(a) Determine the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord
pursuant to NRS 118A.460 or 118C.230 and any accumulating
daily costs; and
(b) Order the release of the tenants property upon the
payment of the charges determined to be due or if no charges
are determined to be due.
One thing you may notice about the jurisdiction granted to the Court, above, in NRS 40.253(8), is that
there is decidedly not any language allowing for an Order "Resolving" Motion to Contest Personal
Property Lien like that J udge Sferrazza entered on 12/21/11, and for which the RJ C filing office has
refused to allow me to file a Notice of Appeal for, and has further refused to even mark as "received" my
attempts at so filing Such a Notice Appeal and Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (to the
extent that would even be necessary considering the previous IFP status given the Tenant in that
V4.1263

matter, RJ C REV201-001708). That 12/21/11 Order is included following this corrspondence.
Coughlin is also the Defendant in this criminal matter, which is also before J udge Sferrazza, RCR11-
063341....J udge Sferrazza is now seemingly being placed onto another landlord tenant matter where
Coughlin is a named party, despite J CRRT 2 calling for a random assignment of cases (J udge Lynch was
randomly assigned to the case originally, RJ C2012-074408, Coughlin v. Park Terrace HOA, and, also,
J udge Sferrazza is now set to also take jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer matter that shall soon be
filed upon Coughlin filing a Tenant's Affidavit upon the proper service of a 5 day Unlawful Detainer
Notice to Quit). This is not about impugning J udge Sferrazza as a jurist. Its about criticizing and seeking
redress for the appearance of impropriety created where WCSO Bailiff's engage in conduct that is
impermissible (threatening to forcibly insert objects up a litigants anus) and then create an unduly
suspicious appearance of "judge shopping by Bailiff" (Why these Bailiff's seem to want to insult an
esteemed jurist like J udge Sferrazza, one who has an extraordinary depth and breadth of experience
throughout all three branches of government in Washoe County, is puzzling and unfortunate). It would
not take much for these Bailiff's to gather an opinion on which judges have which approach on landlord
tenant matters. It would be impermissible to allow Bailiff's go grudge based judge shopping to retaliate
against litigants asserting their consitutional rights, as Coughlin clearly does, much to their totalitarian
dismay. J udge Sferrazza has an approach to landlord tenants matters that is his own, as all judges
invariably will. That does not make him and impartial arbiter or imply any impropriety. However, to allow
RJ C Bailiff's to "gerrymander" what is supposed to be a random assigning of cases, would clearly be
impermissible. Even if that is not what is occurring here, a reasonable person could concluded that the
appearance of such is evident. This is particularly true where J udge Clifton was on the bench and heard
every other case set for the 8:30 stacked docket in court room "B" on 2/13/12. Mr. Tuttle did not get
where he is by being foolish or dim. He must work day in day out with these Bailiffs. Mr. Coughlin is but
a minor occasional litigant/attorney in the Reno J ustice Court. Reasonable minds may feel it would be
foolish for Mr. Tuttle to take any action which would appear to undermine his belief in the
reasonableness and justness of these Bailiff's actions, particularly where these brave men are called to
perform the heroic in truly dangerous circumstances at times. That is where rules get to be the "bad
guy" rather than judges or administrators. J CRRT 2 is the bad guy here, and it is only appropriate for
J udge Lynch to hear both this new Complaint for Unlawful Interruption of Essential Services, in addition
to any Summary Eviction and or Unlawful Detainer matter that may arise between those parties and
within a common nexus of circumstances and facts.
Also: "The justices' judgment obligation to pay attorneys' fees is based (1) on
their having followed a procedural rule (J CRCP 106) enacted by this court
and (2) on their having made several erroneous judicial decisions." Lippis v.
Peters, 112 Nev. 1008, 921 P.2d 1248 (Nev. Aug 16, 1996); G.C. Wallace,
Inc. v. Eighth J udicial Dist. Court of State, ex rel. County of Clark, 262 P.3d
1135, 1140+, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 64, 64+ (Nev. Oct 06, 2011) (NO. 56773) "
HN: 2,3,4 (P.2d) 2 Schneider v. Elko County Sheriff's Dept., 17 F.Supp.2d
1162, 1165 (D.Nev. Aug 06, 1998) (NO. CV-N-96-548-ECR) Mentioned 3
Cheung v. Eighth J udicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 124 P.3d 550,
552, 121 Nev. 867, 869 (Nev. Dec 15, 2005) (NO. 42212) HN: 1 (P.2d); "42
U.S.C. 1988 (1991). This federal statute permits the state courts to award
attorneys fees to successful civil rights litigants in civil rights actions brought
in the state courts under 1983. The cited code provision, section 1988,
V4.1264

allows for an award of fees to the prevailing party when that party has
sued to enforce a provision of ... 42 USCS 19811983. Even if we were
to recognize the tenants as the prevailing party in this litigation, it is more
than clear that this action was in no way designed or pleaded to enforce a
provision of ... 42 USCS 19811983. In their points and authorities in
support of their application for *1015 attorney's fees the tenants agree that
[i]n order to state a claim under 1983, Plaintiffs must allege a person has
deprived him or her of a federal right and the person so depriving acted
under color of state law. In no instance did plaintiff tenants ever allege
[that] a person has deprived him or her of a federal right. Lippis v. Peters
112 Nev. 1008, 921 P.2d 1248.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
2510-2521, and may contain confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not the intended
recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain
information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in
error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy
any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any
attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:46:45 -0800
CC: psferrazza@washoecounty.us
V4.1265

1) Questionsregardingclocksaskedandanswered.
2) Assertionsofacountywideconspiracyareunfoundandinsulting.
3) Casejudgeassignmentsarerandom,buthearingjudgeassignmentsareatthediscretion
ofthecourtandcaseswillbemovedforavarietyofreasons,mostlytoensurecontinuity
andcaseflowefficiency.
4) Statementsregardingyourassaskedandanswered.
5) AssertionsregardingJudgesSferrazza,CliftonandtheCourts integrityareunfoundand
insulting.
Steve Tuttle
Court Administrator
Reno J ustice Court
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:29 PM
To: Tuttle, Steve; Lynch, Patricia
Subject: cases being randomly assigned in RJ C FW: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Dear Mr. Tuttle,
Would you please confirm that the clocks in the court are
accurate, and indicate how the doors are locked, and
how they were locked yesterday. It is my position that I
was there prior to 5 pm, further the appearance given by
the fact that the person I spoke with on the telephone
from the criminal division filing office (she made sure to
ask for my name, as though that would affect the content
of her answer to my questions-contrary to your a
ssertions, I am seeking no special privilege, but rather,
seeking to avoid any special prejudice) made sure to ask
V4.1266

my name, and it was provided is troubling when viewed
in conjunction with the events before my 2/ 13/ 11
Hearing in the RJ C in Coughlin V. Park Terrace
Townhomes HOA. As you know, J CRRT Rule 2 requires
cases be assigned randomly. However, though J udge
Lynch was assigned to hear my Complaint for
Interruption of Essential Services, shortly before the
hearing, the court room was popuplate by two different
Deputies who have both made menacing statements to
me involving my "ass", one of which involved forcible
putting an object up my "ass". Chief Deputy Sexton
entered the court room and made a few calls, and he is
one of the two Deputies to which I refer when
mentioning this "ass" situation. Next thing I know,
J udge Sferrazza is hearing the case, and now I am told
J udge Sferrazza is "attached" to the case instead of
J udge Lynch. While hearing the case, before it was
continued, J udge Sferrazza apparently granted a license
to practice law to a property manager on behalf of
another named party, the Park Terrace Townhomes
HOA. I feel this case should be heard by J udge Lynch.
This is not a statement against J udge Sferrazza, it is a
statement with respect to the appearance created by the
above facts. This, combined with the unexplained
October 19th, 2011 fax to J udge Clifton seeking an ex
parte Order allowing inspection of my law office by Casey
Baker, Esq. of the Law Offices of Richard G. HIll, Esq.,
despite J udge Clifton not being Chief J udge at that time
in consideration of J CRCP 84.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
V4.1267

Page 14 of 17 Hotmail Print Message
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: stuttle@washoecounty.us
Subject: RE: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:15:02 -0800
Dear Mr. Tuttle,
Your correspondence contains numerous inaccuracies that I am
too pressed for time to counter at this point. I appreciate your
response though. Can you confirm that the clocks in your court
are correct? Deputy Sexton agreed to get a supervisor and it
was agreed I would wait outside to speak to one. You, of
course, have been informed numerous times previously of WCSO
Court Security efforts to deny the access to justice prior to the
5pm closing time. I am still waiting for some response from you
regarding the various statements concerning my "ass" by those
you have some supervisory position over. Further, can you
please indicate why I was, apparently, provided some demand
whereby I would perform the duty placed upon the WCSO
incident to my 11/16/11 filing of a Motion to Contest Personal
Property Lien vis a vis the service and scheduling dictates found
in NRS 40.253(7)-(8), especially considering the holding in Lippis
and NRS 42.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
V4.1268

RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
Subject: RE: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:57:32 -0800
CC: J Goodnight@washoecounty.us
Mr.Coughlin:
ThedocumentsthatyouemailedandfaxedtoRenoJusticeCourtat6:40pmonFebruary14,2012were
filedstampwithtodaysdate(February15,2012)andplacedinthefilefortheJudgesreview. Itwillbe
notedthatthesedocumentswerereceivedbytheCourtafternormalbusinesshoursonFebruary14,
2012.
YouwerenotdeniedbythisCourtyourrighttofilethesedocumentsyesterday. Youwere,however,
deniedbyWashoeCountySherriffCourtSecurityUnitaccesstothebuildingafterclosingtime;the
sameasanyoneelsewouldbedenied. Youwerenotherebefore5:00pmandtryingtogainaccessinto
thefacilitybycomingthroughanexitonlydoorisnotpermissible. Becauseyouractionscouldbe
considertrespassingisthereasonwhyRenoJusticeCourtChiefBailiffMichaelSextonagainaskedyou
toleave. Fairandequalaccesstojusticeappliesnotonlytodiscrimination,butalsotofavoritism.
Allowingonepartytofiledocumentsafteradeadlineisunethicalandwithoutquestionunfair.
V4.1269

InformingChiefBailiffSextonofyourintentiontowaitoutsideforRenoJusticeCourtemployeesto
leavesoyoucouldforcethemtotakeyourfilingsisaformofharassmentandneedstostop
immediately. Ifthisaggressivebehaviorcontinues,theCourtwillconsideraprotectiveorderagainst
you,whichwillresultinyourabilityorprivilegetoaccessRenoJusticeCourt.
Inaddition,IhavelookedintoyourassertionsofsexualassaultbytheRenoJusticeCourtBailiffsand
foundtheseallegationstobewithoutmerit.
Lastly,yourpracticeoffilinghundredsofdocumentsonmultiplecasesandthenrepeatedlyaskingfor
copiesofthecasefilesfreeofchargewillnolongerbegrantedbythe Court. RenoJusticeCourtwill
provideyouonefreecopyofyouroriginalcasefilesandonefreecopyofanyfuturefilings,butyouwill
bechargedappropriatelyforalladditionalcopies.
Steve Tuttle
Court Administrator
Reno J ustice Court
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:40 PM
To: Tuttle, Steve; Goodnight, J oseph W; Young, Zach; RJ CWEB
Subject: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Dear Reno J ustice Court Administration and Filing Office, DDA Young and DPD Goodnight,
Hello, I am emailing and faxing the document and one exhibit you will find herein as I was denied my
right to file it today. I presented to the court prior to 5pm today but was prevented from filing this
document (and today is the last day to file these pretrial motions absent receiving leave of court to do
so prior to the February 29th, 2012 Trial in Department 2 before J udge Sferrazza. J udge Sferrazza has,
in the past, expressed displeasure with regard to any attempt to file by email, and I do not wish to upset
J udge Sferrazza here, and accordingly am not copying him on this correspondence. However, I believe
the "excusable neglect"/"deprivation of rights under color of law" analysis may dictate that I promptly
attempt to make some record of my attempt to file and in that regard I am submitting this to you now.
Incidentally, I did call the criminal division RJ C filing office today shortly before 5pm alerting them to my
imminent attempt to access justice and received confirmation that they would not close prior to 5pm.
HOwver, the doors of the court house were locked prior to 5pm. I have witness timers/clocks in the
court to be set approximately 5 minutes fast in that past. I attempted to ask a supervisor about this by
V4.1270

alerting Chief Deputy Sexton, and while he initially refused to get a supervisor, he then finally indicated
he would, however, no supervisor ever appeared. Chief Deputy Sexton, along with another Deputy has
sexually assaulted me in that past, and as such, of course, the was a very unusual and uncomfortable
situation.
Additionally, I had another landlord tenant hearing involving myself on Monday, 2/3/12. AS per J CRRT
my case was randomly assigned to J udge Lynch. However, just prior to my case being heard, Deputy
Sexton entered the court room, made some calls, and J udge Sferrazza appeared to hear my case.
J udge Sferrazza then proceeded to grant a property manage a license to practice law on behalf of Park
Terrace Homeowners Associations (PTHOA). I, of course, am very uncomfortable having the Deputy
who sexually assaulted me appear in the court room at all my appeances, as Deputy Sexton seems to do
(in fact, he glowered over me at the 12/21/12 Hearing on my Motion to Contest Personal Property lien)
in such a menacing fashion that I was unable to think clearly, much to the detriment of my case.
Further, I am uncomfortable at the appearance given off by the curious changing of the J udge assigned
to my hearing after Deputy Sexton entered the court room and made a few calls. It may be
inappropriate to give off the appearance that Deputy Sexton is able to control the assignment of J udges
to certain cases rather than having cases randomly assigned pursuant to J CRRT. I believe this filing and
one exhibit you find herein should be accorded a filing date for 2/14/12, as I was prevented from
appropriately accessing justice, and in that regard, I don't believe this is a request to "bend" the rules or
allow a special exception, though I do believe one is able to file a motion seeking such an exception for
cause. Deputy SExton has sexually assaulted me in the past in similar situations where I attempt to use
all of the hours available to filing accorded to any other member of the public.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
V4.1271

HotmailPrintMessage
Print Close
retaliating against me, or afraid fo the Reno City Attorney?
From:Zach Coughlin(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed2/22/123:05AM
To: lori.matheus@washoecourts.us;joey.hastings@washoecourts.us;
joey.orduna@washoecourts.us;courtadmin@washoecourts.us;fourthestate@gmail.com;
centerforcourtadministrationaccountability@yahoo.com;eflexsupport@washoecourts.us
3attachments
FV11-02864_2662470JOFFEEVIOLATIONSOFWDCR10.pdf(59.3KB),1292012letterto
ClerkofCourtOrdunaHastingsregardingEflexrejectionswithattachments41pages
total.pdf(957.8KB),CR11-2064-2690562RenoCityAttorneyIndextoExhibitslackline
numbersyetnotrejectedunderWDCR10.pdf(229.0KB)
DearWDC,
Ihavehadmany,manyextremelyimportantfilingsrejectedoflatebaseduponthe"indexotexhibits
needstohavelinenumbersonit",whenincriminalcaefilingswhereWDCR18expresslyforbidsthe
clerkrejectingfilingforformissues. Now,InoticeRenoCityAttorneyPamRobertsisabletofile
whatshewishesto,inatimelymanner,withouthavingherattemptstoaccessjusticecruely
thwarted. Towit,theattachedfilingbyPamRoberts,Esq.containswhatIimaginesheintendstobe
anIndextoExhibit,butwhichshehastitlea"ListofAttachments". Ofcourse,thatpagelacksline
numbers,somethignforwhichIhavehadnumerousfilingsrejected,evenwheretimewasofthe
essence,and,Ibelieve,evenwheresorejectingwasprohibitedbyWDCR18:
"RulesofPracticefortheSecondJudicialDistrictCourtoftheStateofNevadaRule18.Paperswhich
donotcomplywithrulesExceptincriminalcasesandwritsarisingfromcriminalcases,filingoffice
personnelshallrefusetofileanydocumentorpleadingwhichisnotproperlysignedbyallpersons,or
whichdoesnotcomplywiththeserules,NevadaRulesofCivilProcedure,theDistrictCourtRules,or
applicablestatutes."SecondJudicialDistrictCourtRule18,NVST2DISTCTRule18
Further,theAffirmationisplacedinamannerthatdoesnotcomplywithWDCR10(Ihavehadmy
filingsrejectednumeroustimesforjustthisreason:
WDCR10(4)providesthat:"4.PursuanttoNRS239B.030(4),theSecondJudicialDistrictCourt
requiresthatanAffirmationmustbeattachedasthelastpageofeachdocumentpresentedforfiling
andbeforeanyattachedexhibits,ortheAffirmationmaybethelastsentencebeforethesignature
lineonthedocument,statingthatthedocumentdoesnotcontainthesocialsecuritynumberofany
person.Ifthedocumentdoescontainthesocialsecuritynumberofanyperson,theaffirmationmust
indicatethespecificstateorfederallawrequiringsaidnumber.TheAffirmationformisavailableatthe
SecondJudicialDistrictCourtFilingOfficeandonthecourt'swebsiteatwww.washoecourts.com."
SecondJudicialDistrictCourtRule10,NVST2DISTCTRule10.
Now,Iamprobablygoingtogooutofbusinesssoon,orgetdisbarredorboth,dueinlargepartto
myinabilitytogettheWDCfilingofficeorEflexstafftoallowmetoaccessjusticeonbehalfofmy
clients,ormyself(Ihavesomeproseactions). ATthatpoint,Iwillneedsomethingtodowithmy
time,andIimaginethatwillinvolvedissectingallthevariousrejectionsMs.Matheusetalhave
rendered,andassessingtheeffectsuchrejectionshadonmybusiness,mylicense,andanyother
damagessosustainedbythisdeprivation,undercoloroflaw,ofmyfundamentalsrights,due,atleast
inpart,toadiscriminatoryandretaliatoryintentonthepartofthosemakingtherejections,upon
informationandbelief,ofcourse. WhatIreallywanttodoisjustscratchoutalivingpracticinglaw,
and,hopefully,fromthe15pageletterIwroteClerkofCourtOrdunaregardingtheintricaciesof
WDCR10,IhavemadeclearthatItakeseriouslythespiritandintentofWDCR10andammaking
strongeffortsandstridetowardspracitingintheSecondJudicialDistrictinaconsideratemannerthat
V4.1272
file:///C|/...20STATION/ex%20x%202%2022%2012%20email%20to%20wdc%20filing%20needs%203%20attachmetns.htm[2/24/201210:47:53PM]

HotmailPrintMessage
ismindfulofthepremiumthattheCourtmustplaceonjudicialeconomyandpreservingresources.
Pleaseaddthiscorrespondencetothepapertrailthathasbeenmetastasizinggrotesquely(likea
hanzelandgretlbreadcrumbcollection)insupportofmycontentionthatretaliationanddiscrimination
againstmehaveresultedinaninordinaterejectionofmyfilings,whereastheDAand,here,theReno
CityAttorney,andothersdonotfacesuchobstaclesintheirattemptstoaccessjustice.
AsfortheuneventreatmentgiventorejectionsbasedupontheIndextoExhibitsnothavingline
numbersontheleftsideofthepage,pleaseseepages6,7,8oftheattached1292012letterto
ClerkofCourtOrduna,detailingpreviousrejectionsofmyfilingsonthatbasiswhereRenoCity
AttorneyRobertsattachedfilingwasnotrejected:
"
WDCR10(6)....AllexhibitsattachedtopleadingsorpapersmustbeprecededbyanIndexof
Exhibitsindicatingtheexhibitnumber,exhibitdescription,andthelengthofeachexhibit(numberof
pages)....
Matheushasrejectedanumberofextremelytimesensitivefilings(manyofwhichshehad
previouslyrejectedforsomeotherreason)baseduponherpositionthattheIndextoExhibitsmustbe
onpaperwithlinenumbers.However,WDCR10(6)andWDCR10(1)makeclearthatanIndexto
Exhibitsdoesnotcomewithinthoseitemstowhichthosethatruleapplies,further,Ihavehadafilings
acceptedpreviouslycontaininganIndextoExhibitsthatdoesnothavelinenumbersonit.....
Reason(s)forrejection:Signatureondocumentsmustappearonthesamedocumentasthetext.Lines
ofpagesmustbenumberedintheleftmarginoronlegalpleadingpaper.Page17(Note:Page17isthe
IndextoExhibits)isnotnumberedintheleftmargin.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecallLoriat
328-3114...
Reason(s)forrejection:...TheProofofServicedoesnotcomplywithWCDR10(1)Linesofpages
mustbenumberedintheleftmarginoronlegalpleadingpaper.
"To: ZachBarkerCoughlin,Esq.zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
From: eflex@washoecourts.us
Date: 2012-01-23 18:22:36.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling, Re:CV09-00710 - OtherTorts:Fraud/Misrepresentation- FM -
Request for Submission, wasrejected bySecond JudicialDistrict Court- State ofNevada.
CaseNumber: CV09-00710
CaseType: OtherTorts:Fraud/Misrepresentation- FM
DocumentType: Request for Submission
V4.1273

HotmailPrintMessage
Reason(s) for rejection:
Thedocumentdoesnotcomplywith WCDR 10(1)Linesofpages mustbenumbered inthe
leftmarginor onlegal pleading paper. Any questions, pleasecallLoriat 328-3114."
"To: ZachBarkerCoughlin,Esq.zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Date: 2012-01-23 17:59:48.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling, Re:CV11-01896 - Employment Torts(Wrongfultermination)- WT-
Mtnto Set AsideDecree,wasrejected bySecond JudicialDistrict Court- State ofNevada.
CaseType: Employment Torts(Wrongfultermination)- WT
DocumentType: Mtnto Set AsideDecree
DocumentType: **Continuation
Reason(s) for rejection:...Proof ofServicedoesnotcomplywith WCDR 10(1)Linesof
pages mustbenumbered intheleftmarginor onlegal pleading paper...."
"From:eflex@washoecourts.us
Sent:Tue1/24/121:31PM
To:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: ZachBarkerCoughlin,Esq.zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Date: 2012-01-23 18:01:04.0
Mtnfor ExtensionofTime,wasrejected bySecond JudicialDistrict Court- State of
Nevada.
DocumentType: Mtnfor ExtensionofTime
Page 14 ofthedocumentisadeclaration.Thedeclarationneeds to containtheoriginal
V4.1274

HotmailPrintMessage
signatureofthedeclarant.TheProof ofServicedoesnotcomplywith WCDR 10(1)Linesof
pages mustbenumbered intheleftmarginor onlegal pleading paper..."
"
Date: 2012-01-24 20:35:22.0
HotmailPrintMessagehttp://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=7eb...
Mtnto Set AsideDecree,wasrejected bySecond JudicialDistrict Court- State ofNevada.
DocumentType: Mtnto Set AsideDecree
Documentdoesnotcomplywith WCDR 10.Linesofpages mustbenumbered intheleft
marginor onlegal pleading paper. Ifyou haveany questions, pleasecallLoriat 328-3114."
"From:eflex@washoecourts.us
Sent:Wed1/25/1212:07PM
To:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Date: 2012-01-24 20:11:35.0
Nevada.
Documentdoesnotcomplywith WCDR 10.Linesofpages mustbenumbered intheleft
V4.1275

HotmailPrintMessage
marginor onlegal pleading paper. Exhibitsmustbeseparatedbyadivider pageand
clearlymarked with theexhibitnumberat thetopandbottomofthepage.Ifyou have
any questions, pleasecallLoriat 328-3114"
"
Date: 2012-01-26 00:50:41.0
Nevada.
Signatureondocumentsmustappearonthesame documentas thetext.Linesofpages
mustbenumbered intheleftmarginor onlegal pleading paper. Page 17 isnotnumbered
intheleftmargin. Ifyou haveany questions, pleasecallLoriat 328-3114"
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.,1422E.9thSt.#2,RENO,NV89512,tel:7753388118,fax:9496677402;
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com NevadaBarNo:9473
V4.1276
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9
th
St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Licensed in Nevada and the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Joey Orduna Hasting
Clerk of Court
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County
sent by email to: oey.hastings@washoecourts.us, courtadmin@washoecourts.us,
January 29
th
, 2012
Dear Clerk of Court Orduna Hastings,
Hello and congratulations on your recently becoming Clerk of Court for the Second Judicial
District Court. It was nice to briefly meet you outside the filing office last Thursday, January 26, 2012.
You bring such a wealth of experience with you to such a challenging position, including your time
with Governor Sandoval's Office, as the Assistant Clerk of Court of the Second Judicial District Court,
as Liaison/Manager of the Model Courts Division National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges (where I think we may have met one long ago), and in your studies at Gonzaga University
School of Law and the University of Nevada (where we both were students in 1997).
I am writing to seek clarification and action in relation to some issues I have encountered in
both my representation of clients in the Second Judicial District Court ("the Second"). I hope to get
some written response from you prior to taking up any of yours, mine, or my client's time in
participating in a meeting like the one you have suggested. Hopefully you have had some access to
correspondence I have previously sent former Clerk of Court Conyers and Court Administration. If
not, please let me know.
NRCP RULE 5. SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER
PAPERS....NRCP 5(e), Filing With the Court Defined: "The filing of pleadings and
other papers with the court as required by these rules shall be made by filing them
with the clerk of the court, except that the udge may permit the papers to be filed with
the udge, in which event the udge shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith
transmit them to the office of the clerk. A court may by local rule permit papers to be
filed, signed or verified by electronic means that are consistent with technical
standards, if any, that the Judicial Conference of the United States establishes. A paper
signed by electronic means in compliance with the local rule constitutes a written
paper presented for the purpose of applying these rules. The clerk shall refuse to ot
accept for filin2 any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not
presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or
practices." NRCP 5(e).
Please find below a copy of an email I received from then Acting Court Administrator Craig
1
V4.1277

Franden, who replied to my inquiry as to the "after hours drop box" required byWDCR 12(10) (and
specifically, the curious timing of the disappearance of the drop box in relation to the tripling of Eflex
subscription fees on July 1, 2011. Rules of Practice for the Second Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada, Rule 12(10) provides:
WDCR 12(10). Drop box filing.
(a) Papers eligible for filing. All papers and pleadings, including motions, oppositions and replies
may be filed in the drop box located outside the Court Clerks Office, with the exception of filings
which require the payment of filing fees. Filings which require the payment of filing fees must be
made directly with the Court Clerks Office.
(b) Procedure. Papers may be filed in the drop box during all hours the courthouse is open. Papers
must be date and time stamped prior to being placed in the drop box. Drop box filings shall be deemed
filed as of the date and time noted on the paper or pleading. If a drop box filing has not been date and
time stamped, the paper or pleading shall be deemed filed at the time it is date and time stamped by the
Court Clerk.
Perhaps the reason the Second has done away with the required drop box is that some there
wish to retain the ability to deny certain people the ability to access ustice in those situations where a
drop-box would be unable, technologically to discriminate against certain litigants or otherwise carry
out the wishes of those holding personal grudges in a setting where doing so is verboten. One might
think that, given the circumstances of a former filing office employee apparently being able to
embezzle several hundred thousand dollars from the public fisc, incredibly, without any other
employees or supervisors knowing or contributing in that undertaking, the Second would be especially
diligent in seeking maintain the appearance of fairness and propriety in all matters the filing office is
involved in. The adage that "ustice is blind" is meant to further the spirit of the law being applied
evenly to everyone, and not engaging in a retaliatory application of WDCR 10 to those not held in
favor by the filing office, and not to enable one's co-workers to embezzle a good deal of money while
carrying out the performance of their duties while operating in a position of trust for the public,
particularly where so many are out of work and do not have the salaries or benefits that those working
for Washoe County enoy.
"Subect: RE: Reection Notice:Your filing, Re:ARB09-00710 - Arbitration - AZ - Not/Stay Pend B
NotAll Deft, was reected
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:50:51 -0800
From: craig.franden@washoecourts.us
CC: Julie.Wise@washoecourts.usAndrew.Zion@washoecourts.us
Mr. Coughlin,
I have attachedAdministrative Order 2007-03, adopting ADT 404 for your
review. Please see Rule 8 (b) allowing for reection of documents.
Also, discussion regarding removal of the drop box began in March 2010 due
to the diminished use. Rule 10 states that the drop box may be used. It is not
stated that the Court shall provide a drop box for your use.
2
V4.1278

Thank you,
Craig Franden,Acting CourtAdministrator"
I would like an update response from CourtAdministration in this regard given the interim
nature of Mr. Franden's position when he made this response. Further, Mr. Franden's reliance upon the
term "shall" actually argues strongly in favor of my interpretation that NRCP 5(e) forbids the filing
office clerks reections of my filings (without even getting into any of the disparate treatment, disparate
impace, pretextual, or retaliation based arguments that one might make in relation to such reections).
To wit:NRCP RULE 5. SERVICEAND FILING OF PLEADINGSAND OTHER
PAPERS....NRCP 5(e), FilingWith the Court Defined: "The clerk shall ot refuse to accept for filin2
any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as
required by these rules or any local rules or practices." NRCP 5(e).
So, hopefully Mr. Franden's argument upon the import of the appearance (or, in Franden's
argument, the non appearance of the term "shall") will hold ust as much weight with Court
Administration where such an application may require more of the CourtAdministration or where it
may curtail the level of influence the filing office has in deciding whether or not one can access ustice.
ADT 404 makes the Nevada Rules of Electronic Filing (NEFR) applicable to the Second.
Further, I am appearing in a number of cases on a pro se basis, yet, especially in those cases, I
have had legion of pleadings submitted for filing despite the dictates of NEFR Rule 5. Electronic filing
system requirements....NER Rule 5k pecial needs of users. : In developing and implementing
electronic filing, a court must consider the needs of indigent,selfrepresented, non English-speaking,
or illiterate persons and thechallen2es facin2 persons lackin2 access to or skills in the use of
computers...
I notice that, apparently (please see attached page of Eflex Notifications) of my last
attempts to file somethin2 throu2h Efle econd udicial istrict Court ppeals Clerk Lori
atheus has reected of them or nearly all. Previous to that I had 24 straight attempts to file
something on Eflex filed without a single reection. Many of these reections of my attempted filings
have resulted in an intervening deadline to file some motion or opposition paper or other important
pleading having lapsed or run prior to any reasonable opportunity to cure whatever violation of WDCR
10 or some other unidentified rule was cited in the Eflex reection notice.
Would you please indicate, in writing, the official policy for the Second with respect to how
filing date are accorded to submissions that are reected, fixed (or attempted to be fixed), then
resubmitted I am interested in knowing whether the filing date of the first attempt to submit the filing
is applied to the document in whatever incarnation of it is ultimately accepted for filing, including
whether any "relation back" doctrine or application is applied for purposes of docketing and file
stamping.
Would you please indicate why Ms. Matheus, Appeals Clerk, is performing the review of each
and every attempt I make to file something through Eflex, and why the maority of the reections she
rules on in her role as a udge relate to matters that are not even on appeal, and therefore, would not
seem to come within parameters of her role asAppeals Clerk. Ms. Matheus stormed off furiously last
Thursday (prior to meeting you) when I inquired about something in the filing office accusing me,
3
V4.1279

completely out of the blue and for reasons that are totally unclear to me, of wearing a "wire" or
"recording her" or something like that. I do not know why she would say that, but regardless, she
works with the public in an important capacity and in a situation where transparency, accountability,
and fairness are usually attendant thereto, so it is curious that the idea of there existing a recording of
her and or how she has been handling things would engender such a dramatic and angry response from
her. Very curious, indeed. Regardless, all these reections, most of which are completely out of line
with the treatment of previous filings (and for which no advance notice was given with respect to this
sudden uber/hyper adherence to standards for reecting filings which may or may not be based in fact
or law) have severely damaged my law practice and preudiced my client's matters. Additionally, I
have spent probably upwards of 30 hours addressing this sudden onslaught of reecdtions. I would
appreciate the court compensating me for my time lost and other damages by settling this matter in the
form of a 25,000 check made out to me.
I do not know what I have done that seems to have upset her. Perhaps it relates to one instance
where I attempted to file something at approximately 4:55 pm in the filing office (ie, not on Eflex) and
Ms. Matheus refused to allow me to file, citing that the filing office was closed, despite the official
United States government time indicating that it was five minutes to the officialWDC closing time of
5pm. For quite some time the filing office has had a clock on the wall that is noticeably faster than the
official time atwww.time.gov by six minutes. I have informed numerous employees of the filing
office of this and NRCP 5(e). In one instance where I was refused in my attempts to file something in
the filing office where I presented the pleading and myself in line, prior to 5 pm, in the Second filing
office and was refused, I left and used the restroom, and returned to the line hoping to find someone to
ask if I could ask a supervisor a question about this. While waiting, two employees behind the cubicle
wall were talking about me, and much interesting commentary was heard. I called out to these two
employees and mentioned that I would like to ask a supervisor a question. Instead, a Deputy was
called in who told me to "watch my step" in a threatening and ominous tone.
If Ms. Matheus has been directed by her supervisors or CourtAdministration to review each
and every one of my filings, I would like to know that, please, in addition to some explanation as to
why such an arrangement has been put in place and a copy of any correspondence, writing, or other
documentation related thereto. There are other instances similar to the one I have mentioned above,
but I do not wish to go into them at this time, or, perhaps, ever. I merely want to practice law and
attempt to earn a living doing it. I understand there are reasons for WDCR 10 and that the orderly and
efficient administration is a very noble and important goal. However, so is the even and measured
application of such rules in a non-retaliatory manner.
Please find attached to this correspondence printouts of the Eflex record of recent Notifications
in addition to the email reection notices I have received from Eflex, including some that indicate that
In Forma Pauperis applications may not be submitted via Eflex (despite the fact that the drop down
menus on Eflex contain choices baring such designations). Further, it seems some of the reections
notice rationales that I have been provided are based upon matters not found in WDCR 10, and
requests I have made to be provided citation to what, if any rule, such reections were based have gone
unresponded to. Please indicate whether the Second has some position in this regard, including
whether there are certain unwritten or unpublished "house rules" that are being applied.
Specifically, some of the reection notices I have received, including many of those sent by Ms.
Matheus, do not seem to rest upon any written rule, as described below and in the attached collection
4
V4.1280

of E-Flex reection notices I have received. Additionally, I have reviewed all applicable rules that I can
find and have not come across anything related to the position you and Ms. Matheus described last
Thursday related to how CD/DVD's may be submitted for filing and or attached as exhibits (you and
Ms. Matheus indicated that a "Supplemental" hard copy pleading must be submitted wherein a
CD/DVD is attached as an Exhibit to the Supplemental pleading, which would be a Supplemental to
whatever pleading one originally wished to attach a CD/DVD to).
Additionally, I am hereby requesting in writing that the Second correct the filing date and
accept for filing all submissions I have made that were reected impermissibly in accordance with
NEFT 15. NEFR Rule 15: "System or user filing errors. (a) Failure of electronic filing or service:
When electronic filing does not occur due to technical problems, the court clerk may correct the
problem. Technical problems include: (1) An error in the transmission of the document to the
electronic filing system or served party that was unknown to the sending party (2) failure to
process the electronic document hen receied by the electronic filin2 system (3) Erroneous
exclusion of a party from the service list or (4) ther technical problem eperienced by the filer
ith the electronic filin2 system. (b) Time of filin2 of delayed transmission. Unless the technical
failure preents timely filin2 or affects urisdiction the court must deem a filin2 receied on the
day hen the filer can satisfactorily demonstrate that he or she attempted to file or sere the
document.The time for response is calculated from the time the document is correctly
transmitted.When the technical failure prevents timely filing or affects urisdiction, the issue shall
come before the court upon notice and opportunity to be heard. The court may upon satisfactory proof
enter an order permitting the document to be filed as of the date and time it was first attempted to be
sent electronically."
What follows intersperses some of the reection rationale I have been offered in E-Flex notices
with excerpts fromWDCR 10:
Washoe District Court Rules (WDCR), Rule 10, Form of pleadings...1. All pleadings and papers
presented for filing must be flat, unfolded, firmly bound together at the top,ont paper of
standard quality, not less than 16-lb. weight and 8 1/2 x 11 inches in size.All papers must be
typewritten or prepared by some other duplicating process that will produce clear and permanent
copies equally legible to printing."
-"Mon 1/23/12 2:39 PM Mtn to SetAside Decree, was reected by Second Judicial District Court -
State of Nevada. Case Number: CV11-01896 ... Reason(s) for reection:The document is being
reected due to the use of green font, as the font is not le2ible upon reproduction of the filed
document. Please resubmit document with a legible black font. In addition, the Exhibit List Index
displays on black background with green font. Please resubmit the Exhibit List Index on white
pleading paper with black font. Any questions please call Lori at 328-3114." (The same rationale was
offered with a reection in 2012-01-22 03:11:02.0 Subect:Your electronic filing, Re: CV11-01896 -
EmploymentTorts (Wrongful termination) - WT -Mtn for Extension of Time)).
WhileWDCR 10(1) does mention "white paper", I submitted the above filing in electronic
format, and therefore, no paper was involved. Further, I can find no rule that sets forth that one may
not print out exactly what I filed on white paper (ie, a piece of white paper can be printed out to reflect
green text on a black background).
5
V4.1281

...WDCR 10(6). ... All exhibits attached to pleadings or papers must be preceded by an Index of
Exhibits indicating the exhibit number, exhibit description, and the length of each exhibit (number of
pages)...."
Matheus has reected a number of extremely time sensitive filings (many of which she had
previously reected for some other reason) based upon her position that the Index to Exhibits must be
on paper with line numbers. However, WDCR 10(6) and WDCR 10(1) make clear that an Index to
Exhibits does not come within those items to which those that rule applies, further, I have had a filings
accepted previously containing an Index to Exhibits that does not have line numbers on it.
-"Reason(s) for reection: Document does not conform with WCDR 10 . The affirmation may be the
last sentence before the signature line on the document, stating that the document does not contain the
social security number of any person. If you have any questions, please contact Lori at 328-3114."
Actually,WDCR 10(3)(f) provides that: "(f) Pleadings or papers presented for filing should be in the
following order: Pleading or document including filer's signature Affirmation Certificate of
Service Index of Exhibits followed by the Exhibits, if any..." Further, WDCR(10)4 specifies:
"Pursuant to NRS 239B.030(4), the Second Judicial District Court requires that an Affirmation must be
attached as the last page of each document presented for filing and before any attached exhibits, or the
Affirmation may be the last sentence before the signature line on the document, stating that the
document does not contain the social security number of any person." Either WDCR 10(3)(f) and
WDCR 10(4) are contradictory or my submission was in compliance with WDCR 10. I do not believe
this reection was proper and time was of the essence when it was submitted. TheAffirmation was
"attached as the last page of" the "document presented for filing and before any attached exhibits".
The Opposition to Motion to Modify was the "document" presented for filing and theAffirmation was
attached as the last page.
Further, would you please indicate whether some special treatment is given to reected filings
which are "cured" then subsequently submitted from the section of E-Fflex linked to below, in
comparison to where an efiler merely resubmits such a filing after correcting it by a means that does
not spring from the link or section here:https://wceflex.washoecourts.com/worklist .
"Reason(s) for reection: Signature on document must appear on the same document as the text. If you
have any questions, please call Lori at 328-3114." No citation to a rule was provided and I have not
found one that supports this rationale for doing something rather serious, reecting a document
submitted for filing. Frankly, I feel quite strongly that clerks like Matheus fail to understand how
serious what they are doing is and the extremely harsh repercussion such reections may have on
citizen's legal matters. There are a plethora of cases where litigants were preudiced in the extreme in
matters such as these and where a court did not set aside the order or udgment from which preudice
stemmed, either because the court felt the reection was appropriate, did not understand how the
reection was impermissible, or where the court assumed such a rule allowing for so reecting
documents was being applied fairly and evenly to all litigants and not due to someone having a
personal ax to grind.
"Reason(s) for reection:The case number on the pleading does not match the case caption. Please
resubmit your documents with the correct case number. If you have any questions, please call Lori at
328-3114." I actually have a Motion to SetAside awaiting a ruling currently in CV08-01709 J
CARPENTIER, ETAL/AAMES FUNDING CORP., ETAL(D7) that is based, in part, on such an
6
V4.1282

apparent error. However, I can find no applicable rule that such a matter provides a proper basis for
reecting a filing.
"Reason(s) for reection:The document is being reected due to the use of an illegible black font . The
font is not legible upon reproduction of the filed document. Please resubmit document with a legible
black font. In addition, the Proof of Service displays on black background. Please resubmit the Proof of
Service on white pleading paper with black font. Any questions please call Lori at 328-3114." I do not
this reection is appropriate. The "illegible black font" was legible upon reproduction. It might not
have been as dark a shade of black or grey as one might like, but it did not present a proper basis for
reecting my filing and exposing me to malpractice liability or my client's to preudice. This reection,
like many listed here, occur on numerous occasions and I ask that all be corrected. The specific
occasions can be ascertained by reviewing the attached collection of reection notices.
"Reason(s) for reection: Mr. Coughlin, your filing is being reected as it does not comply withWCDR
10(9) - A document cannot contain multiple documents in one filing unless the document is being pled
in the alternative. If you have any questions please call Lori at 328-3114". I asked Matheus and
Assistant Clerk of CourtWise for some explication in regards to what is meant byWDCR10(9)'s:
"Any motion, opposition, reply, etc., must be filed as a separate document unless it is pleaded in the
alternative." No insight was provided other than Ms. Wise informing me of the existence of law
libraries. However, that helpful bit of information does not really provide me any indication of what
exactly Ms. Wise and here staff are using to decide whether something is in compliance with WDCR
10(9).
"Reason(s) for reection:Your exhibit one needs to be its own pdf file, then attached as a continuation
to your supplement. So after you enter in your supplement in eflex you browse and attach your
supplemental PDF and then press add then go back up top to your document category drop down and
pick others then in the document type will be continuation then you browse and attach your exhibit
one with cover page then press add and then submit your filing. also you can look on our website and
download the user guide for the eflex. Andrew @ 328-3115" Are matters discussed in the E-Flex
FAs or Training Guide given force of law sufficient to entitle clerks to reect one's filing should they
not comply with the same
"Reason(s) for reection: Signature on documents must appear on the same document as the text. Lines
of pages must be numbered in the left margin or on legal pleading paper. Page 17 (Note: Page 17 is the
Index to Exhibits) is not numbered in the left margin. If you have any questions, please call Lori at
328-3114"
"Reason(s) for reection: In your body you have Peter Eastman - he is not part of this case please
update for filing. Andrew @ 328-3115" If by "body" Mr. Zion is referring to the Caption of the case,
that same rationale did not prevent Brian Gonsalves, Esq. From appearing for TahoeWomen's Services
(Crisis) in CV11-01896 despite the fact thatTWS was not even a named party in the case. Regardless,
I do not believe this rationale provides a basis for reecting the filing. It may be helpful and point out
some errors, but I believe securing filing dates and avoiding the expense and necessity of filing NRCP
59 or NRCP 60 motions and litigating what is "mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect" should
dictate sending the efiler a notice and suggesting correction rather than reecting a filing. Further, in
another case I am attorney of record on, CV08-01709 J CARPENTIER, ETAL/AAMES FUNDING
CORP., ETAL(D7), the wrong court name, case number, and department was listed in various captions,
7
V4.1283

yet those mistakes did not result in reected filings, but rather, the opposing parties were able to secure
filing dates for their filings, many of which were of the time is of the essence variety, and then able to
later argue away (or attempt to) these "scrivener's errors".
"Reason(s) for reection: 1.) Exhibits need to be sent over as continuations. 2.) Since the exhibits needs
to be attached into 2 continuation files please attach a second exhibit one cover page on the second
continuation. Thank you, Matthew @328-3115." This "reason for reection" may cite an E-Flex
policy, but I do not believe is provides a legal basis for reecting my filing. Further, I have seen many,
many UIFSA filings by Deputy DistrictAttorneys that attach audits or schedule or arrears that lack not
only an Index to Exhibits but also any of the cover page for such exhibits, much less continuation
pages.
"Reason(s) for reection: Zach, please go to Reno Justice Court pay to the 216 for the filing fee, see
aren Stancil.They in turn will send the money and the appeal to District Court for filing. Any
questions callAnnie @ 328-3112."
"Summons Filed Reason(s) for reection: Pages within documents must be orginial. Please resubmit
Summons with original affidavit of service attached.Any questions callAnnie @ 328-3112." Would
you please provide a citation for the rule that allows for reecting my filing on this basis
"Reason(s) for reection: Mr. Coughlin, On Friday 12/16/11, the court made an exception for the filing
of your exhibit in CV11-01955. The court did not receive the CD by noon as indicated in your CV11-
01955 filing. It will be necessary for you to submit the appropriate paper filing in the filing office that
contains your CD..." I wish to be provided some indication in writing as to how one can file
electronically a document that attaches as an exhibit a CD/DVD.
"Reason(s) for reection:This is being reected for the following: ...You cannot E-FILE an IFP. It needs
to be paper filed... - Mia 328-3148"
"Reason(s) for reection:The document does not comply withWCDR 10... page 2 of Exhibit 2 is not
legible, page 245 of Exhibit 2 is scanned upside down and a number of the documents within Exhibit 2
appear to have been scanned at an angle. Please correct your filing and resubmit for approval. If you
have questions, please call Lori at 328-3114." I have two cases wherein the legibility of the
documents attached as exhibits has been litigated extensively, and none of the opposing counsel's
exhibits appear to have been reected on the basis set forth above, further, it is not clear how one could
now whether a page has been "scanned at an angel" or whether the page from the exhibit as presented
is the only representation of that page that exists, whether it appears that way due to a scanning error, a
a printing error, the scanning of the only copy of a page that was scanned in with that error, etc.
"Reason(s) for reection: ... Page is 86 of the document is blank. Is the document submitted for filing
complete or are you missing a page If not please remove the blank page 86. Any questions, please call
Lori at 328-3114." This is not a proper basis for reecting a filing, nor is any rule cited to in support of
this reection.
"Reason(s) for reection: ...The Proof of Service does not comply with WCDR 10(1) Lines of pages
must be numbered in the left margin or on legal pleading paper. Page 16 of the document contains an
Index of Exhibits however, no exhibit was submitted with this filing.Any questions, please call Lori at
8
V4.1284

328-3114" The rationale cited here might provide good suggestions, but they simply are not a basis
for reecting my filings and preventing my submissions for securing a filing date, particularly where
time is of the essence. Further a Proof of Service or Certificate of Service is not a requisite to a paper
being filed (NRCP 5(d)(4): "Proof of service may be made by certificate of an attorney or of the
attorneys employee, or by written admission, or by affidavit, or other proof satisfactory to the court.
Failure to make proof of service shall not affect the validity of service."). Further WDCR 10(1) does
not even apply to a Proof of Service or Certificate of Service: "WDCR Rule 10. Form of pleadings...
Lines of pages must be numbered in the left margin or on legal pleading paper." A Certificate of
Service may come after a pleading. Failure to attach a Certificate of Service is not a basis for reecting
a pleading for filing. Similarly, is it impermissible to reect a filing based upon the lack of line
numbers on a Certificate of Service."
Further, the use of the term "Pleading" can be a bit confusing. NRCP RULE 7. "PLEADINGS
ALLOWED FORM OF MOTIONS (a) Pleadings. There shall be a complaint and an answer a reply
to a counterclaim denominated as such an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-
claim a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the
provisions of Rule 14 and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleadin2
shall be alloed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer." So,
motions, a certificate of service, an opposition, etc are not included in what is considered a "pleading".
WDCR Rule 10 appears as: "Rule 10 Form of pleadings 1. All pleadings and papers presented for
filing..." So, WDCR relates to the form of "pleadings". While it is true that the text of that rule often
refers to "papers presented for filing", etc., it does not (and is not currently being applied in this
manner) apply to everything submitted for filing to the court. For instance, one does not need to have
the papers included in an exhibit presented on pleading paper or with line numbers. As such, given
that a Certificate of Service is not a pleading, and nothing in any other applicable rule requires line
numbers on papers that are not pleadings. WDCR is very specific as to what is applies to, taking great
pains to repeat over and over, where it intends to apply, the prhase "all pleadings and papers...". Where
the phrase "all pleadings and papers" does not appear, the dictates of WDCR 10 only apply to that
which the name of the rule invokes, ie, "pleadings". Given that the definition of a "pleading" does not
include a Certificate of Service or an Index to Exhibits, the E-Flex reections based upon the failure of
such documents to have line numbers (which is only required inWDCR 10 for "pleadings"-WDCR
10(1) states that "The lines of each page must be double spaced, except that descriptions of real
property may be single spaced. Pages must be numbered consecutively at the bottom. Lines of pages
must be numbered in the left margin or on legal pleading paper..." without prefacing those dictates,
with "all pleadings and papers" or any similar language. Further, WDCR 10(2)(f) may specify an
order for things, but it does not require, say, an Index to Exhibits. Indeed, many "pleadings" and even
some "papers presented for filing" do not have an Index to Exhibits. Likewise, there is no requirement
that a Certificate of Service be filed with a "pleading or paper" presented for filing. Failure to include
a Certificate of Service may have consequences to one's litigation, however, nothing in any applicable
rule allows for reecting one's filings in that regard, and certainly not anything in WDCR 10. Likewise,
no rule allows for reecting one's filing simply because an attached Declaration does not bare the
original signature of the Declarant
NRCP 5 offers further insight as to what is a pleading for WDCR 10 purposes. "NRCP RULE
5. SERVICEAND FILING OF PLEADINGSAND OTHER PAPERS (a) Service:When Required.
Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every order required by its terms to be served, every
pleading subsequent to the original complaint unless the court otherwise orders because of numerous
9
V4.1285

defendants, everypaper relating to discovery required to be served upon a party unless the court
otherwise orders, everywritten motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and everywritten
notice, appearance, demand, offer of udgment, designation of record on appeal, and similar paper shall
be served upon each of the parties.
Ms. Matheus has recently reected several extremely time sensitive pleadings I have submitted
in asserting that the Index to Exhibits must have line numbers on the page on which such and Index
appears. I do not believeWDCR 10, or any other applicable rules requires this (WDCR 10(1): Rule
10. Form of pleadings... Pages must be numbered consecutively at the bottom. Lines of pages must be
numbered in the left margin or on legal pleading paper... However, WDCR 10(6) clearly established
that an Index to Exhibits page is not considered part of the pleading itself. Therefore, please retract
the reection of all filings reected based upon that misreading of WDCR 10 and alert the respective
Departments as to the delay attendant to those filings and correct the dockets to reflect the correct
filing dates, as some of those cases have seen deadlines run without response (which makes the
opposing sides arguments and Motion deemed admitted under the Polk) due to what I believe is an
impermissible reection of the attempt to access ustice, not only in light of NRCP 5(e), but with
respect to your misreading of WDCR 10.
I would like my E-Flex electronic filing subscription charges waived or refunded in light of the
Court's failure to comply withWDCR 12(10) and due to the other issues presented herein. Please let
me know in writing the decision on that request.
Further, NRCP 5(e) holds that: (e).. The clerk shall not refuse to accept for filin2 any paper
presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these
rules or any local rules or practices.
With regard to theWDC filing office/ eFlex staff refusing to file papers submitted for filing,
please consider:
Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark, 904 P.2d 1039, 111 Nev.
1367 (Nev., 1995): "This proper person petition for a writ of mandamus seeks an order from this court
directing the Eighth Judicial District Court to file petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis
and his civil complaint. 1 On July 25, 1995, we ordered the state to file an answer to this petition.The
state's answer was filed on August 11, 1995. 2 Documentation submitted by petitioner to this court
establishes that petitioner submitted to the clerk of the district court for filing an application to proceed
in forma pauperis and a civil complaint on May 15, 1995. Although the application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis was in proper form and was sworn to under penalty of perury, the clerk of the
district court did not file that application. 3 The failure to file the application was in violation of the
clear statutory mandate that such an application be filed. NRS 12.015(1) provides that any person ...
may file an affidavit seeking leave to proceed without payment of fees. Further, we have repeatedly
instructed the clerk of the Eighth Judicial District Court that such documents must be filed. See
Bowman v. District Court, 102 Nev. 474, 728 P.2d 433 (1986) (clerk has a ministerial duty to accept
and file documents if those documents are in proper form clerk must not exercise any udicial
discretion) Barnes v. District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748 P.2d 483 (1987) (prisoner's right of access to
court cannot be denied on basis of indigency) Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991)
(clerk must create an accurate record of all pleadings submitted for filing, whether or not the
documents are actually filed)Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992) (clerk has no
10
V4.1286

authority to return documents submitted for filing instead, clerk must stamp documents that cannot be
immediately filed received, and must maintain such documents in the record of the case) Donoho v.
District Court, 108 Nev. 1027, 842 P.2d 731 (1992) (the clerk of the district court has a duty to file
documents and to keep an accurate record of the proceedings before the court) Grey v. Grey, 111 Nev.
388, 892 P.2d 595 (1995) (clerk of district court admonished for failure to keep accurate record of
documents submitted for filing).
Petitioner alleges that the district court has refused to file his application and has returned it
with directions to provide more information regarding employment. Indeed, petitioner has attached to
his petition for a writ in this court his original application as it was returned to him. Attached to the top
of the document is a post-it note with the handwritten notation: application denied incomplete info-
employment currently. 4 The state informs us that the note was written by the chief udge. In
addition, petitioner alleges, and the allegation is apparently true, that along with his denied
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, his civil complaint was returned to him unfiled.
Finally, petitioner alleges, and has attached documentation to support the allegation, that udges' law
clerks often return to prisoners unfiled motions along with letters purporting to rule on the legal
sufficiency of those motions. The state argues in its answer to this petition that petitioner's application
... was denied on the basis that the address of the Petitioner which was later given to the Court by
Petitioner ... did not appear to be a ail and that such information was contrary to the information
shown in the application which stated that the Petitioner was in prison. The 'out of ail' address
suggested an ability of the Petitioner to be employed. This vague reference to an out of ail address
is not explained in the documents before this court. Nevertheless, the state's assertion that petitioner's
application was denied is incorrect. The handwritten notation on petitioner's unfiled application clearly
does not constitute a proper udicial disposition of that application. Further, the action of the clerk of
the district court in returning petitioner's application and civil complaint to him unfiled is in direct
violation of this court's instructions to the clerk of the district court in Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev.
949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992). This court has several times confirmed the absolute obligation of the
district courts to file documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of citizens to access to the
courts, whether indigent or not. Barnes v. District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748 P.2d 483 (1987) Huebner
v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991).
Indeed, in Donoho v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027, 842 P.2d 731 (1992), a case directly
analogous to this case, we held that the clerk of the district court violated the rights of an indigent party
when she neglected to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for relief from
a default udgment. Specifically, we stated: The clerk of the district court had an absolute duty to
file the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to clearly stamp the date of receipt of the
other documents on the documents. Further, the clerk had a duty to keep an accurate record of the case
pending before the district court. Id. at 1029, 842 P.2d at 733 (citation omitted emphasis added).
Thus, petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be filed. If, on subsequent
review of the application, the district court determines that petitioner has not shown he is indigent, the
district court may order petitioner to provide further information or may deny the application in an
appropriately filed written order. If, on the other hand, the district court grants the application, the
district court must then proceed to require the filing of petitioner's other documents and to consider
them in due course. Donoho, 108 Nev. at 1030, 842 P.2d at 733. Of course, for statute of limitations
purposes, the complaint would have to be considered filed on the date of actual receipt by the clerk of
the district court.To continue the analysis, with respect to petitioner's civil complaint which he is
attempting to file concurrently, the district court clerk had an absolute obligation to stamp the
11
V4.1287

document received and to record the date on which the document was in fact received at the
courthouse. See Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991). This the clerk of the district
court did. However, the clerk then had a duty to maintain a copy of the received document in the record
of the case, whether or not the document is ever filed. Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d
1232 (1992).
This, the clerk neglected to do. While Huebner dealt with the timeliness of a notice of appeal,
the rationale compelling this court's ruling in Huebner, that all documents must be marked received and
dated, applies with equal force to a party's submission of a complaint. The legal rights of the parties to
litigation, whether acting in proper person or through counsel, often turn on the date of receipt by the
clerk of the district court of documents and pleadings. Huebner, 107 Nev. at 330, 810 P.2d at 1211. As
with a notice of appeal, the untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from hearing the
matter on its merits. It is the responsibility of the clerk of the district court to keep an accurate record
of all documents submitted to her, whether or not they are filed.As in Huebner, ambiguities regarding
when documents were received or filed must ultimately be resolved in favor of the party submitting
them. Id. at 332, 810 P.2d at 1212. The issue presently before this court is not whether petitioner's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient to establish petitioner's indigence. Further,
we are not now concerned with the merits of petitioner's civil complaint.We are vitally concerned,
however, with the preservation of the constitutional right of access to the courts and with the protection
of the constitutional right to due process of law.A writ of mandamus is available to compel the
performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. NRS
34.160. The clerk of the district court has an absolute duty to file petitioner's application and to
properly receive and keep a record of petitioner's complaint.Accordingly, we grant this petition for a
writ of mandamus. 6 The clerk of this court shall serve a copy of petitioner's application and complaint
on the clerk of the district court forthwith.The clerk of this court shall also issue a writ of mandamus
compelling the clerk of the district court to file petitioner's application, and to receive petitioner's
complaint. These documents will be considered to have been filed and received on May 15, 1995.
--------------- 1 Petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition enoining the district court, the clerk of the
district court and her employees from denying prisoners access to the courts in the future.We deny
petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition. 2 Cause appearing, we grant petitioner's proper person
request for leave to file a reply to the state's answer. The clerk of this court shall file the reply, entitled
petitioner's reply to petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition, which was received by this court
on August 21, 1995. 3 Although the document was entitled application rather than affidavit, it was
sworn to under penalties of perury, provided information concerning petitioner's financial condition
and clearly sought a udicial ruling regarding the question of whether petitioner would be allowed to
proceed with a civil action without the payment of fees.Thus, any deviation as to form was not
significant enough to ustify the clerk's failure to file the document.The clerk of the court has no
discretion to make any udicial ruling regarding the legal sufficiency of a document. When a document
in proper form is submitted to the clerk, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file that document. 4 We
note that petitioner is presently an inmate at the Nevada State Prison, and that his affidavit filed in this
court in support of this petition states that he is currently unemployed and has no prison ob. He also
avers that his only asset is 6.57 in his prison account. 5 One such letter from a law clerk to an inmate
states: Attached please find your Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis which you recently
submitted. NRS 12.015 requires an indigent litigant to set forth 'with particularity facts concerning his
income, property, and other resources ...'Your application to proceed sets forth this information very
generally. Please resubmit the Motion with a more particular statement regarding your finances and
any property you own.... Although this letter does not directly deny the motion, it clearly has the
12
V4.1288

effect of denying the motion without filing. Of course, like the clerk of the district court, a udge's law
clerk lacks udicial authority. 6 The state represents that the District Court will file the Petitioner's
complaint upon submittal by the petitioner.This statement was based on the state's view that we
determined in our Order to Show Cause that petitioner should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.
We, however, express no opinion regarding the merits of petitioner's application or complaint. We
merely determine that the application should have been filed and udicially resolved, and the complaint
should have been properly received. We note that petitioner has sent the original documents to this
court, and thus may not be in a position to resubmit them.Also, for statute of limitations purposes, the
documents must be considered filed as of the date of original receipt. Thus, we have determined that
this petition must be granted."Another very important and instructive case isWhitman v. Whitman,
108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (Nev., 1992): "On rehearing, appellant has submitted documents that
conclusively demonstrate that appellant submitted a timely notice of appeal to the clerk of the district
court.
Although the clerk of the district court stamped the notice of appeal received on December
30, 1991, the clerk did not file the notice of appeal. Instead, the clerk of the district court returned
appellant's notice of appeal to appellant because it was not accompanied by a filing fee and, although
the notice was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, appellant's
affidavit in support of that motion was apparently not signed. Consequently, there is no record of the
submission of appellant's timely notice of appeal. We note that the clerk of the district court filed
appellant's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis on the date of receipt, December
30, 1991, and that the district court eventually granted that motion. We have previously stated that it is
extremely important that the clerk of the district court keep an accurate record of the date of receipt of
every document submitted to the clerk, regardless of whether the document is in the appropriate form.
Indeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the clerk of the district court to neglect this ministerial duty.
Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 330, 810 P.2d 1209, 1211 (1991) (footnote omitted). In this case, the
clerk of the district court has failed to keep any record of the date of receipt of appellant's notice of
appeal instead, the clerk stamped the document received and returned it to appellant.The clerk of
the district court had no authority to take such action.
Although the clerk of the district court had no duty to file appellant's notice of appeal before
appellant paid the requisite filing fee or was relieved of the duty to pay the filing fee by order of the
district court, see NRS 19.013(2), the clerk had a duty to receive the document and to keep an accurate
record of the case pending before the district court. Particularly in this case it was essential that the
notice of appeal be retained in the record, because we have held that a notice of appeal is effective on
the date of receipt by the district court clerk. See Huebner v. State, 108 Nev. 952 107 Nev. 328, 810
P.2d 1209 (1991). Rather than returning the notice of appeal to appellant, the clerk of the district court
should have retained the notice of appeal in the record, and should have informed appellant by letter of
any perceived deficiencies in the document. 4 Appellant could then have taken whatever action was
appropriate to pursue his appeal. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant timely submitted
to the clerk of the district court a notice of appeal from an appealable order of the district court, and
that appellant's timely notice of appeal is not contained in the record due to the inappropriate action of
the district court clerk.Accordingly, we grant appellant's petition for rehearing, and we proceed to
address the merits of this appeal." Id. At 1232-1234. See, also, Barnes v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of
State of Nev., In and For Clark County, 748 P.2d 483, 103 Nev. 679 (Nev., 1987)."
13
V4.1289

Lastly, the Order granting the In Forma PauperisApplication I filed in CV11-01896 was
granted. However, that case has been dismissed due to problems associated with getting theWashoe
County Sheriff's Office to carry out service of process in accordance with the terms of that Order. Can
you please state the Second's position, in writing, with respect to the responsibility of pro se litigants
who have been granted an Order assigning them in forma pauperis status with respect to making copies
of their Complaint, Summons, etc. and delivery such to theWashoe County Sheriff's Office and or
providing instructions for service. Please provide an explanation of those positions after comparing
those policies or positions with the following holding: The defect in service (that the photocopy of
the complaint provided was too faint) was not attributable to the plaintiff, but to court personnel, who
are responsible for making copies of the initial pleadings for IFP litigants. McENZIE v. AMTRA
M OF E, 777 F.Supp. 1119.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
14
V4.1290
eFlex
Home
eFile
NewCase
ExistingCase
CheckStatus
DraftFilings
Cases
MyCases
Notifications
FilingCharges
MyProfile
MyUserProfile
ChangeMyPassword
ViewLoginHistory
LogOut
user:ZachBarkerCoughlin,Esq.
Home FilingStatus
My Filings
ZachBarkerCoughlin,Esq.Filings
ReportCriteria:
ViewFilingsBetween: AND 01/28/2012 11/01/2011
ClearDates
Go
MyFilingsBetween01/28/2012and11/01/2011
Delete
FilingIDClient# CourtCase# DateSubmitted DocumentType Status

1309046
1309045
DV10-00545 01-27-2012:12:32:38AM OppositiontoMtn Rejected
1309044
1307491
1307490
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
V4.1291
eFlex
CV11-01955 01-26-2012:12:50:41AM **Continuation Rejected

1307489
DV10-00545 01-25-2012:11:53:54PM OppositiontoMtn Rejected
1307484
1305862
1305861
1305860
1305859
1305858
1305855
1305854
CV09-00710 01-23-2012:06:30:42PM RequestforSubmission Filed
1304286
CV09-00710 01-23-2012:06:22:36PM RequestforSubmission Rejected
1304285
1304283
1304282
1304281
1304280
CV11-01955 01-22-2012:03:52:57AM MtnforExtensionofTime Rejected
1302624
1302623
CV11-01896 01-22-2012:02:59:11AM MtntoSetAsideDecree Rejected
1302622
FV12-00188 01-21-2012:02:37:55PM ProofofService Filed
1302617
1301031
CV11-03628 01-13-2012:11:49:06PM Supplemental... Filed
V4.1292
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
eFlex
1296427
1296426
CV11-03628 01-13-2012:11:41:47PM OppositiontoMtn Filed
1295293
CV08-01709 01-13-2012:07:18:30AM Supplemental... Filed
1293591
CV08-01709 01-11-2012:04:00:01PM Replyto/inOpposition Filed
1292459
CV11-03051 01-11-2012:05:59:53AM RequestforSubmission Filed
1292458
CV11-03051 01-11-2012:05:44:52AM MtnClarificationofOrd Filed
1292457
FV11-03779 01-11-2012:04:20:45AM Points&AuthoritiesSupport Filed
1292456
FV05-04296 01-11-2012:01:47:03AM MtntoSetAsideDecree Filed
1291151
CV11-03051 01-10-2012:05:16:50AM NoticeofAppearance Filed
1291150
1291149
CV11-03126 01-10-2012:01:33:41AM MtnProceedFormaPauperis Filed
1291148
CR11-2064 01-10-2012:01:10:58AM NoticeofAppearance Filed
1289509
1288127
CV11-03628 01-05-2012:10:49:42PM NoticeofAppearance Filed
1288126
CV11-03628 01-05-2012:10:42:08PM Reply Filed
1284291
CV08-01709 12-31-2011:04:27:28PM MtntoSetAsideDecree Filed
1283238
CV11-03628 12-30-2011:08:40:15AM **Continuation Filed
1283207
CV11-03628 12-30-2011:08:30:08AM MtnforTRO Filed
1276753
1276020
FV11-03779 12-21-2011:01:55:21PM **Continuation Filed
1275168
Resubmit
V4.1293
eFlex
Resubmit
CV11-01896 12-16-2011:10:24:24PM OppositiontoMtn Rejected

1272290
CV11-01955 12-16-2011:04:46:46PM MtntoSetAsideDecree Filed
1272233
1271082
1270200
1270149
CV11-01896 12-15-2011:03:58:20AM OppositiontoMtn Rejected
1269410
1269409
1269407
1264734
1264733
CV11-01955 12-09-2011:06:25:37AM SummonsFiled Rejected
1263487
CV10-01341 12-08-2011:02:58:42PM NoticeWithdrawalofAttorney Filed
1263128
CV09-00710 12-08-2011:02:57:23PM MtntoRelieveCounsel Filed
1263114
ARB09-0071012-08-2011:02:51:25PM Errata Filed
1263108
cv1103051 12-05-2011:12:35:58PM AppealFromJ ustice'sCourt Rejected
1258270
1252804
1252803
1252802
1252801
1251182
V4.1294
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit

Resubmit
eFlex
1251181
1251180
1251179
CV11-03126 11-29-2011:12:11:39AM RequestforSubmission Rejected
1251178
1251177
CV11-03126 11-28-2011:11:50:01PM AmendedAnswer Rejected
1250583
CV10-03675 11-28-2011:02:04:51PM Errata Filed
1249687
FV05-04296 11-25-2011:12:21:16AM NoticeofAppearance Filed
1249686
1249685
1249684
1249683
ARB09-0071011-24-2011:11:38:19PM Not/StayPendBKNotAllDeft Rejected
1249682
1246786
FV05-04296 11-22-2011:01:12:04AM MtnOrdShorteningTime Rejected
1246785
CV11-03051 11-21-2011:11:45:01PM MtnforReconsideration Rejected
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Resubmit
Delete
NumberofFilings:80
UserManual| termsofuse| privacypolicy| paymentpolicy| support| contactus| aboutTyberaDevelopment
Group,Inc.
2001-10TyberaDevelopmentGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
V4.1295
M

HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=7eb...
From:eflex@washoecourts.us
Sent: Tue6/28/1110:24AM
To: ZachBarkerCoughlin,Esq. zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Date: 2011-06-2800:17:27.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:FilingID1102535- EmploymentTorts(Wrongfultermination)-
WT- MtnProceedFormaPauperis,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- State
ofNevada.
CaseType: EmploymentTorts(Wrongfultermination)- WT
DocumentType: MtnProceedFormaPauperis
DocumentType: Complaint- Civil
Thisisbeingrejectedforthefollowing:1)AnIFPforthiscasehasalreadybeenfiledasof
6/27/11,youcannotre-submitanewone.2)YoucannotE-FILEanIFP.Itneedstobe
Reason(s)forrejection:paperfiled.3)Whene-filingdocuments,theymustcomeinseparately.and4)Your
exhibitsinyourcomplaintneedtobescannedseparately(withtherecoversheet)andsent
overascontinuationstoyourPDFdocument.- Mia328-3148
Sent: Thu7/21/114:07PM
Date: 2011-07-2115:32:37.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:DV08-01168- MarriageDissolutionCase:Divorce- Without
Children- DO- Master'sRecommendation/Ord,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrict
Court- StateofNevada.
V4.1296
M

CaseNumber: DV08-01168
CaseType: MarriageDissolutionCase:Divorce- WithoutChildren- DO
DocumentType: Master'sRecommendation/Ord
Ordersneedstobehand/paperdeliveredtocourtforJudgetosign- Andrew@
Reason(s)forrejection:
328-3115
Sent: Tue11/22/119:12AM
Date: 2011-11-2123:45:01.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:CV11-03051- AppealfromLowerCourt:JusticeCourtCivil
Appeal- CA- MtnforReconsideration,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt-
StateofNevada.
CaseType: AppealfromLowerCourt:JusticeCourtCivilAppeal- CA
DocumentType: MtnforReconsideration
Missingcasenumberanddeptnumberonpleadingandyouhaveapage30thatisblank,
areyoumissingapageifnotpleaseremoveforfiling.Andrew@328-3115
Sent: Tue11/22/119:12AM
V4.1297
M

Date: 2011-11-2201:12:04.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:FV05-04296- Support/Custody/Visitation- CU- MtnOrd
ShorteningTime,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- StateofNevada.
CaseNumber: FV05-04296
CaseType: Support/Custody/Visitation- CU
DocumentType: MtnOrdShorteningTime
Reason(s)forrejection:Missingmotion/oppositionform- Andrew@328-3115
Sent: Mon11/28/118:53AM
Date: 2011-11-2423:38:19.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:ARB09-00710- Arbitration- AZ- Not/StayPendBKNotAll
Deft,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- StateofNevada.
CaseNumber: ARB09-00710
CaseType: Arbitration- AZ
DocumentType: Not/StayPendBKNotAllDeft
InyourbodyyouhavePeterEastman- heisnotpartofthiscasepleaseupdateforfiling.
Andrew@328-3115
Sent: Tue11/29/1110:21AM
V4.1298
M

Date: 2011-11-2823:50:01.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:CV11-03126- OtherCivilFiling:OtherCivilMatters- GC-
AmendedAnswer,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- StateofNevada.
CaseType: OtherCivilFiling:OtherCivilMatters- GC
DocumentType: AmendedAnswer
Zachsorrybuttheblackboxthatyouputontheupperrighthandsideofthepleadingis
Reason(s)forrejection:coveringthenewfilestamp.Pleasemovetheboxforfiling.Alsothroughtheeflingsystem
wedon'thavetheablitiytostampormarkasreceived.ThanksAndrew@328-3115
Sent: Tue11/29/1110:57AM
Date: 2011-11-2900:11:39.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:CV11-03126- OtherCivilFiling:OtherCivilMatters- GC-
RequestforSubmission,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- StateofNevada.
CaseType: OtherCivilFiling:OtherCivilMatters- GC
DocumentType: RequestforSubmission
Zachwhenthemotionisfixedpleaseresubmittherequestforsubmit- Andrew@
328-3115
V4.1299
M

Sent: Wed11/30/118:29AM
Date: 2011-11-3005:55:02.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:CV11-01896- EmploymentTorts(Wrongfultermination)- WT-
OppositiontoMtn,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- StateofNevada.
DocumentType: OppositiontoMtn
Yourexhibitoneneedstobeitsownpdffile,thenattachedasacontinuationtoyour
supplement.Soafteryouenterinyoursupplementineflexyoubrowseandattachyour
supplementalPDFandthenpressaddthengobackuptoptoyourdocumentcategory
Reason(s)forrejection:dropdownandpick"others"theninthedocumenttypewillbe"continuation"thenyou
browseandattachyourexhibitonewithcoverpagethenpressaddandthensubmityour
filing.alsoyoucanlookonourwebsiteanddownloadtheuserguidefortheeflex.Andrew
@328-3115
Sent: Wed11/30/118:33AM
Date: 2011-11-3005:56:27.0
V4.1300
M

PleasemakeexhibitoneitsownPDFfileandattachasacontinuationtoyour
supplemental- Andrew@328-3115
Sent: Mon12/05/112:57PM
Date: 2011-12-0512:35:58.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:cv1103051- AppealfromLowerCourt:JusticeCourtCivilAppeal
- CA- AppealFromJustice'sCourt,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- State
ofNevada.
CaseType: AppealfromLowerCourt:JusticeCourtCivilAppeal- CA
DocumentType: AppealFromJustice'sCourt
Zach,pleasegotoRenoJusticeCourtpaytothe$216forthefilingfee,seeKarenStancil.
Reason(s)forrejection:TheyinturnwillsendthemoneyandtheappealtoDistrictCourtforfiling.Anyquestions
callAnnie@328-3112.
Sent: Fri12/09/1111:02AM
Date: 2011-12-0906:25:37.0
V4.1301
M

SummonsFiled,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- StateofNevada.
DocumentType: SummonsFiled
Pageswithindocumentsmustbeorginial.PleaseresubmitSummonswithoriginal
"affidavitofservice"attached.AnyquestionscallAnnie@328-3112
Sent: Thu12/15/118:49AM
Date: 2011-12-1500:12:26.0
DocumentType: Non-Opposition
1.)Exhibitsneedtobesentoverascontinuations.2.)Sincetheexhibitsneedstobe
Reason(s)forrejection:attachedinto2continuationfilespleaseattachasecond?exhibitone?coverpageonthe
secondcontinuation.Thankyou,Matthew@328-3115
V4.1302
M

Sent: Thu12/15/119:29AM
Date: 2011-12-1503:55:07.0
Eachexhibit(withtherecoverpage)needstocomeoverasacontinuation.thanks- Mia
328-3148
Sent: Thu12/15/119:29AM
Date: 2011-12-1503:58:20.0
Eachexhibit(withtherecoverpage)needstocomeoverasacontinuation.thanks- Mia
328-3148
V4.1303
M

Sent: Mon12/19/112:12PM
Date: 2011-12-1622:24:24.0
Mr.Coughlin,OnFriday12/16/11,thecourtmadeanexceptionforthefilingofyour
exhibitinCV11-01955.ThecourtdidnotreceivetheCDbynoonasindicatedinyour
CV11-01955filing.Itwillbenecessaryforyoutosubmittheappropriatepaperfilingin
thefilingofficethatcontainsyourCD.Inaddition,thisfilingisbeingrejectedasitdoes
notcomplywithWDCR10(9)- Adocoumentcannotcontainmultipledocumentsinone
filingunlesspleadedinthealternativenordoesyourfilingcomplywithWCDR10(6)-
Exhibitsmustcontaindividerpagers- exhibit4doesnothaveacoversheet.Ifyouhave
anyquestions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114.
Sent: Wed12/21/111:12PM
V4.1304
M

Date: 2011-12-2101:33:01.0
MtnforExtensionofTime,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- Stateof
Nevada.
DocumentType: MtnforExtensionofTime
Mr.Coughlin,yourfilingisbeingrejectedasitdoesnotcomplywithWCDR10(9)- A
Reason(s)forrejection:documentcannotcontainmultipledocumentsinonefilingunlessthedocumentisbeing
pledinthealternative.IfyouhaveanyquestionspleasecallLoriat328-3114
Sent: Mon1/23/122:39PM
Date: 2012-01-2202:59:11.0
MtntoSetAsideDecree,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- StateofNevada.
DocumentType: MtntoSetAsideDecree
Thedocumentisbeingrejectedduetotheuseofgreenfont,asthefontisnotlegible
uponreproductionofthefileddocument.Pleaseresubmitdocumentwithalegibleblack
Reason(s)forrejection:font.Inaddition,theExhibitListIndexdisplaysonblackbackgroundwithgreenfont.
PleaseresubmittheExhibitListIndexonwhitepleadingpaperwithblackfont.Any
questionspleasecallLoriat328-3114.
V4.1305
M

Date: 2012-01-2203:11:02.0
Nevada.
Thedocumentisbeingrejectedduetotheuseofgreenfont,asthefontisnotlegible
uponreproductionofthefileddocument.Pleaseresubmitdocumentwithalegibleblack
Reason(s)forrejection:font.Inaddition,theProofofServicedisplaysonblackbackgroundwithgreenfont.
PleaseresubmittheProofofServiceonwhitepleadingpaperwithblackfont.Any
questionspleasecallLoriat328-3114.
Date: 2012-01-2203:52:57.0
V4.1306
M

Nevada.
Thedocumentisbeingrejectedduetotheuseofanillegibleblackfont.Thefontisnot
legibleuponreproductionofthefileddocument.Pleaseresubmitdocumentwithalegible
Reason(s)forrejection:blackfont.Inaddition,theProofofServicedisplaysonblackbackground.Pleaseresubmit
theProofofServiceonwhitepleadingpaperwithblackfont.Anyquestionspleasecall
Loriat328-3114.
Date: 2012-01-2203:52:57.0
Nevada.
Thedocumentisbeingrejectedduetotheuseofanillegibleblackfont.Thefontisnot
legibleuponreproductionofthefileddocument.Pleaseresubmitdocumentwithalegible
Reason(s)forrejection:blackfont.Inaddition,theProofofServicedisplaysonblackbackground.Pleaseresubmit
theProofofServiceonwhitepleadingpaperwithblackfont.Anyquestionspleasecall
Loriat328-3114.
V4.1307
M

Sent: Tue1/24/121:27PM
Date: 2012-01-2317:56:40.0
Nevada.
Page13ofthedocumentisadeclaration.Thedeclarationneedstocontaintheoriginal
signatureofthedeclarant.TheProofofServicedoesnotcomplywithWCDR10(1)Linesof
pagesmustbenumberedintheleftmarginoronlegalpleadingpaper.Anyquestions,
pleasecallLoriat328-3114.
Date: 2012-01-2317:59:48.0
V4.1308
M

Reason(s)forrejection:signatureofthedeclarant.TheProofofServicedoesnotcomplywithWCDR10(1)Linesof
pagesmustbenumberedintheleftmarginoronlegalpleadingpaper.
Date: 2012-01-2318:01:04.0
Nevada.
signatureofthedeclarant.TheProofofServicedoesnotcomplywithWCDR10(1)Linesof
Reason(s)forrejection:pagesmustbenumberedintheleftmarginoronlegalpleadingpaper.Page16ofthe
documentcontainsanIndexofExhibits;however,noexhibitwassubmittedwiththisfiling.
Anyquestions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114
V4.1309
M

Date: 2012-01-2318:04:23.0
signatureofthedeclarant.Pageis86ofthedocumentisblank.Isthedocumentsubmitted
forfilingcompleteorareyoumissingapage?Ifnotpleaseremovetheblankpage86.
Anyquestions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114.
Date: 2012-01-2318:22:36.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:CV09-00710- OtherTorts:Fraud/Misrepresentation- FM-
RequestforSubmission,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- StateofNevada.
CaseType: OtherTorts:Fraud/Misrepresentation- FM
DocumentType: RequestforSubmission
ThedocumentdoesnotcomplywithWCDR10(1)Linesofpagesmustbenumberedinthe
leftmarginoronlegalpleadingpaper.Anyquestions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114.
V4.1310
M
Sent: Wed1/25/1211:47AM
Date: 2012-01-2505:21:58.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:FV11-03779- UIFSACase(formerlyURESA)- UF- Objto
Master'sRecommendation,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- Stateof
Nevada.
CaseType: UIFSACase(formerlyURESA)- UF
DocumentType: ObjtoMaster'sRecommendation
ThedocumentdoesnotcomplywithWCDR10.Socialsecuritynumbersandanyfinancial
accountnumbersmustberedactedfromanydocumentsfiledwiththecourt.Ifasocial
securityoraccountnumberisneededforidentificationpurposes,allbutthelastfour
digitsofthatnumbermustberedactedfromthepleadingsanddocuments.Exhibit2of
documentcontainssocialsecuritynumbersandfinancialaccountnumbers.Pleaseredact
beforeresubmitting.Allexhibitsmustbeseparatedbyadividerpageandclearlymarked
withanexhibitnumberatthetopandbottomofthepage.Inaddition,page2ofExhibit2
isnotlegible,page245ofExhibit2isscannedupsidedownandanumberofthe
documentswithinExhibit2appeartohavebeenscannedatanangle.Pleasecorrectyour
filingandresubmitforapproval.Ifyouhavequestions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114.
Sent: Wed1/25/1211:59AM
Date: 2012-01-2420:35:22.0
V4.1311
M

DocumentdoesnotcomplywithWCDR10.Linesofpagesmustbenumberedintheleft
marginoronlegalpleadingpaper.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114.
Sent: Wed1/25/1212:07PM
Date: 2012-01-2420:19:41.0
Nevada.
marginoronlegalpleadingpaper.Exhibitsmustbeseparatedbyadividerpageand
clearlymarkedwiththeexhibitnumberatthetopandbottomofthepage.Ifyouhave
anyquestions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114
V4.1312
M

Sent: Wed1/25/1212:07PM
Date: 2012-01-2420:11:35.0
Nevada.
marginoronlegalpleadingpaper.Exhibitsmustbeseparatedbyadividerpageand
clearlymarkedwiththeexhibitnumberatthetopandbottomofthepage.Ifyouhave
anyquestions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114
Sent: Thu1/26/129:11AM
Date: 2012-01-2606:03:39.0
Nevada.
V4.1313
M

DocumentdoesnotcomplywithWCDR10.SocialSecuritynumbersandanyfinancial
accountnumbersmustberedactedfromanydocumentsfiledwiththecourt.Ifasocial
Reason(s)forrejection:securityoraccountnumberisneededforidentificationpurposes,allbutthelastfour
digitsofthatnumbermustberedactedfromthepleadingsanddocuments.Pleasereferto
page17ofExhibit2.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactLoriat328-3114.
Sent: Thu1/26/129:27AM
Date: 2012-01-2523:53:54.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:DV10-00545- MarriageDissolutionCase:Divorce- With
Children- DC- OppositiontoMtn,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- State
ofNevada.
CaseType: MarriageDissolutionCase:Divorce- WithChildren- DC
DocumentdoesnotcontainaNotice/Oppositionform.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,please
callLoriat328-3114.
Sent: Thu1/26/121:55PM
V4.1314
M

Date: 2012-01-2600:50:41.0
Nevada.
Signatureondocumentsmustappearonthesamedocumentasthetext.Linesofpages
Reason(s)forrejection:mustbenumberedintheleftmarginoronlegalpleadingpaper.Page17isnotnumbered
intheleftmargin.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114
Sent: Fri1/27/124:23PM
Date: 2012-01-2700:56:53.0
Nevada.
V4.1315
M

Thecasenumberonthepleadingdoesnotmatchthecasecaption.Pleaseresubmityour
Reason(s)forrejection:documentswiththecorrectcasenumber.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecallLoriat
328-3114.
Date: 2012-01-2623:46:37.0
Nevada.
Signatureondocumentmustappearonthesamedocumentasthetext.Ifyouhaveany
questions,pleasecallLoriat328-3114.
V4.1316
M

Date: 2012-01-2700:32:38.0
Subject: Yourelectronicfiling,Re:DV10-00545- MarriageDissolutionCase:Divorce- With
Children- DC- OppositiontoMtn,wasrejectedbySecondJudicialDistrictCourt- State
ofNevada.
CaseType: MarriageDissolutionCase:Divorce- WithChildren- DC
DocumentdoesnotconformwithWCDR10.Theaffirmationmaybethelastsentence
beforethesignaturelineonthedocument,statingthatthedocumentdoesnotcontain
thesocialsecuritynumberofanyperson.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactLoriat
328-3114.
V4.1317
V4.1318
,
,
,

,

7

"
..
..
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

Code 4075
ALLISON W. JOFFEE, Esq.
Bar #2058
712 E. Musser Street
Carson City, NV 89701
7158833300

FILED
rN THE FAMILY OMS ION
OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR WASHOECOUNTV
ROBERT A. BELl.,
Plaintiff,
~ .
JESSICA F. GREER,
Defendant.
----- ,
CO-H. rJo r:-..J 11 - o;t : r . ~
D-<.,1- \I
SUBSlllUTIUN Or A IlQK'iill
Defmdanl. JESSICA F. GREER, does hereby agree to the sllbstiMipn of ALUSON
w. JOFFEE lIS her attorney in the abovC-enlitled acti"n in place of RONALD F. CAULI::Y .
DATED: January 18,2012.
ALLISON W. JOFFE, ESQ., ~ b y agreeIlO W substitution of hersel f auomcy
fur Defendant, JESSICA F. GREER in the aboV\"-eIl:itkd action in the ptact and seead of
RONAlD F. CAULEY.
DATED: January Ii. 2012.
V4.1319
I
,
J

,

7
I

to
II
17
II
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
17
28

RONAll) F. CAULEY, ESQ. hereby agrees 10 the substitution of AUlSON W.
JOFFEE, as attorney for Defendant, JESSICA F. GREER, in the above-cntitled action in his
place and stead,
""-
DATED: January .!!....,ZOI2.
RONALD F. CAULEY, Esq.
1475 U.S. Highway J9S North
GardDcrvilk, NV 89410
2
V4.1320
,
,
,
,

7

10
17
11
I'
"
21
n
"
"
"
"
17
"

CERTIfICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Pursuant to NRCP S(b), I certifY that I am an employee of TIIE LAW
OFFICES OF ALLISON W. JOFFEE, 712 E. Musser Street, Carson City, Nevada,
89701, and that on this date I deposited for mailing at Carson City, Nevada, a true copy
of the within document addressed to:
lach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. ~ Street #2
Reno, NY 89512
DATED: a n ~ 2012.
/llte-lIk
MARlAINELSON
AFfiRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 2398,Q)0
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding docwnent dgq not
contain the social security number of any penon.
DATED: a n u a r y ~ 2012.
F I L E D
Electronically
02-06-2012:04:41:30 PM
J oey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction #2747102
V4.1321
,
,
,
,
""" "'"
JOliN!. KADLIC
II ... , AII(\",o)
G.
D<puIyCiT; AUOmq
Slate 11M No, 41>1 I
l'mIOm""Il<.>,11IOO
Reno. Nevada S9}{lS
AIIiNh<i-' "" 1I<".,I\fJe",
,
7 IN
R IN "'''oj FOR OF Vo'",SHUL
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
crt" vi' RfNQ" ",," .... pooI

DEI' I
IS Rfrl, I I j\ Sr r l'tlRJ Of MO'",,:.: 'ro
IQ Ccrnn_,', 1'.",,,1> G Roberu. An",..-), h<',}, I/oply '" '''''''''''
nf MOl;"" fa lJlmriO$ W: "IoptolJ of A!,!""II,"' C""l:l1lm t-<d "I"'" ,Il< foll" ..
] I I'vi .... $J>! AU' horiO<S, !Ix" o.", 'arnrioo of PIlm<I, G. Roo"",,,. hhlM ! .w
n !ixhi!." A:anJ II on.xhed .... lh< Ikd"",,"" lile hero,".
lJ ,\1' 0 ,n rl'llOltl'l
24 00 lOlll>or)' 21H 2, ,,,,"Ito,,,,,,,.!.,,.. 'Oi"" . "','I;'" 10 o;>rTU .. Awe, 1 00 llnUal} Ju.
leu 1. Ii>c: ,1,1'1"'11"", mod hI> Ovr->sl,jOO '" .\1"000 D,,,",,, AI'l'<"I p,,",,,,,,, '" D.CR j J (4),
110< "",,,ntl*'l' m. y """t ..... Hie reply poinI>""" .. !han""" ",thto fil '< Hh'" or
11 1M .",w ... mg (10""> ..... "'''''''n';''' p""","", '0 n.t: j( 4, if !he 6til1 doy (," thI. """" .'<bru.:rt)
"
"M"" '--"
.fl. ... , ...
"-"-
V4.1322
,
1 r.....- NRCP I ''''''IY 'h" I "'" ,,' =rI"Y<'< of RENO CITY
I "'1' t'ORNl'Y'l) dirt,..." \hi. iliU., I "'" """og lhe .!oJ<' ITl """VO) \>II th<
5 1""')(.).., (""h bo.'lol'o I<
,
,

'"
"
u
"
"
"
"
"
"

25
"
.... "'.-
.n ... , ...
",- ",' -
o
o
o
o
Q< ' ''" <0] .!>cm:Jf iu. oeakd <I1'<I'J!'< pi"""" "" w lloctioTJ and
'TI>l I"'ll on ,Iio' Un;1t<! S ...... M.oj l." N .. 'lI!da. ro<Lt!!< 1''''l''"I. ..-,Ii.....,.
buoi""", """,,u,_
r..,.,,,.1 <k l;.""
F"""n1Lie
F..JnoJ F.>;J>I<'>O Of o<bn oV<fll,gn. d", ,,,,,,
Me.scnwr
".!dressOO follOw<:
'''''''-l (lorl. erC,"l);ftlin, ESq
I E&>I </' SI,2
iUoo,NV II9l 12
V4.1323
O"'otion of Pomela A. Itobor\s
_ Exhibit L
F I L E D
Electronically
01-18-2012:08:00:36 AM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1324
1 Code: 1255
2
3
4
5
IN THE FAMILY DIVISION
OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNT OF WASHOE
Zachary B. Coughlin
Applicant,
Case No. ______________ _
11
DeptNo.
12 vs.
Christopher Allaback, jg:1
14 Adverse Party.
15 APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY AND/OR EXTENDED ORDER FOR PROTECTION AGAINST
16
17
18
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Please write or print dearly. Use black or dark blue ink.
Complete this Application to the best of your knowledge.
19
Applicant states the following facts under penalty of peljury:
20 l.
23
ci
24 Lr)
VJ
26
.3'
27
28
2.
C. Allaback is 37
Applicant's Date of Birth: 9/27/76 Adverse Party's Date of Birth: EZ & __ is lJ6-.
------ SCI O?
Relationship: I am the housemate (for example, wife, ex-husband, girlfriend, father,
sister, etc.) of the Adverse Party.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
one month
Length of relationship:
------------
Have you ever lived together? Yes No D Ifso, how 10ng? __ A_l_m_o_s_t_on_e __ month
Are you living together now? Yes D No [j
Date of Separation: ______________________ _
We have child(ren) TOGETHER: YesD or No [3 If yes, where and with whom are
these child(ren) living? ____________________ _
My address is: D CONFIDENTIAL. (If confidential, do not write address here)
Ifaddress is not confidential, write below:
Address
1422 E. 9th St. #2, Reno,} NV 89501 correction 89512
--------------------------------------------
V4.1325
1
2
3
4
5
..,
.J.
6
7
8
9
10
4.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
5.
21
22
23 6.
24
25
26
27
28
City State
nv
Zip Code
89512
reno
IDown D rent this residence. Lease/title is held in all the following name(s):
this is up for debate given the Leyva and Pasillas decisions, assignments, subs
Trustees, etc. /MERS
How long have you been living in this residence? since late December 2011
Adverse Party's address is:
Address
1422 E. 9th St. #2
City
Reno
State
nv
Zip Code
89512
How long has the Adverse PaJ1y been living in this residence?
not known
My place of employment is 0 CONFIDENTIAL. (If confidential, do not write address here)
D Ifnot confidential, state place(s) of employment:
Name of employer
Address: Phone
City County State
Name of employer
Address: Phone
City County State
Name of employer
Address: Phone
City County State
Adverse PaJ1y's employer is:
I do not believe either is employed
Address: Phone
City County State
(a) The name(s) and date(s) of birth of the minor child(ren) of whom I am the parent, appointed
guardian, or who live in my home, are as follows:
NAME (first and last) DATE APPLICANT'S ADVERSE WHO
OF CHILD (YesINo) PARTY'S CHILD
BIRTH CHILD (YesINo) LIVES
WITH
Stephanie Allaback
17 y.o.
Circle one Circle one
djJ JdLellL..LY ::;lle
1. Yes No
x
Yesx No
st Ftys with her
wa .co L-a<:o CLua
2.
l' es
No Yes No
cu todial pare 0.1
Co p.tempt of O ~ l
Stephanie Allaback's custodial parent, on paper, is
tal.LUre to pay c
Angela Garska
support sporadic
.... ,.... ........ .-.+--i ........ ,...... .... l-.,...."..
t. of
ust
ad,
in
t for
hild
ally,
V4.1326
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
7.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
8.
23
24
25
26
27
28
NAME (first and last) DATE APPLICANT'S ADVERSE WHO
')
.J.
4.
5.
6.
OF CHILD (YeslNo) PARTY'S CHILD
BIRTH CHILD (YeslNo) LIVES
WITH
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
(b) Have you or the Adverse Party ever been awarded custody/guardianship of the minor
chiId(ren) by Court Order? DYes rn No c. A11aback may be a non custodial parent/gua dian
Who was awarded custody/guardianship? D Applicant D Adverse PaIiy
CVOO-OI078 DWSS/ANGELA ALLABACK VS. CHRISTOPHER E. ALLABACK Oblige 07-
By what Court? MlIR 2000 @L166L13 lILI.llBllCK, ANGEI,A KAY llnav"d lab] e Case 0'700-00727 IN
COUli Case No. E. & ANGELA K. ALLABACK
Please check the appropriate box, IF YOU or the ADVERSE PARTY have ever filed a case in
any couli for a [j Divorce, [3 Custody, D Paternity, D Child SupPOli, D Guardianship,
Order for Protection Against Domestic Violence, or D Stalking/Harassment Order. Please
indicate when and where the case(s) was filed, and list the case number(s) ifknown.
(a) Has CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) ever been contacted regarding any member of
the household in the past year? 13 Yes D No
(b) Is CPS currently involved with your family? DYes 0 No
If yes, give details, including the caseworker's name:
Laura Foreshee has indicated numerous times that CPS is involved in her life with
respecdt to her daughter, Jasmlne, who lS approxlmately 2 years old.
3
V4.1327
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
26
27
28
9.
10.
(a) Does the Adverse Party possess a firearm, or does the Adverse Patiy have a firearm under his
or her custody or control? DYes D No [] I don't know
(b) Has the Adverse Party ever threatened, harassed, or injured you, the minor child(ren), or
anyone else with a firearm or any other weapon? EJ Yes D No D I don't know
If yes, give details:
c. Allaback chased me with a kitchen/butcher knife and threw and ashtray at me
(a) EJ I have been or reasonably believe I will become a victim of domestic violence committed
by the Adverse Party.
(b) D The child(ren) have been or are in danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence
committed by the Adverse Patiy.
In the following space, state the facts that support your Application. Be as specific as you can,
starting with the most recent incident. Include the approximate dates and locations, and whether
law enforcement or medical personnel have been involved.
THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD
Please see attached TPO Application Supplementary Declaration; four (4) pages
4
V4.1328
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
26
27
28
PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THE BACKS OF ANY PAGES.
5
V4.1329
1
II.
2
3
4
5
6
12.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Have YOU ever been arrested or charged with domestic violence, or any other crime committed
against your spouse, partner, or child(ren)? DYes 0 No
If yes, WHEN and where?
To your knowledge, has the ADVERSE PARTY ever been arrested or charged with domestic
violence, or any other crime committed against his/her spouse, partner, or child(ren)?
DYes D No I don't know If yes, WHEN and where?
An emergency exists, and I need a TEMPORARY ORDER FOR PROTECTION AGAINST
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE issued immediately, without notice to the Adverse Party, to avoid
irreparable injury or harm. I request that it include the following relief, and any other relief the
Court deems necessary in an emergency situation. (Please check all the choice(s) that may apply
to YOU):
o (A) Prohibit the Adverse Party, either directly or through an agent, fi'om threatening,
physically injuring, or harassing me and/or the minor child(ren).
EI (8) Prohibit the Adverse Party from any contact with me whatsoever.
EJ (C) Exclude the Adverse Party fi'om my residence and order the Adverse Party to stay at
least 100 yards away from my residence.
[] (D) Obtain law enforcement assistance to D accompany me to the following residence,
______________________________ or
to accompany the Adverse Party to the following residence,
to obtain personal property.
D (E) Grant temporary custody of the minor child(ren) to me.
D (F) Order that custody, visitation, and suppOli of the minor child(ren) remain as ordered in
the Decree of Divorce/Order entered in Case N umber in the
--------------------
Court of the State of
--------------------- -------------------
6
V4.1330
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
26
27
28
D (G) Order the Adverse Party to stay at least 100 yards away from the minor child(ren)'s
school(s), or day care(s), located at D CONFIDENTIAL
(If confidential, do not write name of a school/day care and address here.)
D If NOT confidential, write name ofschool(s)/day care(s) and addressees) below:
(I) Name of school or day care ___________________________________ _
Address
------------------------------------------------------
City _____________________ County _________________ State _____ __
(2) Name of school or day care
-----------------------------
Address
--------------------------------------
City ________________ County ____________ State _____ __
(3) Name of school or day care __________________________ _
Address
----------------------------------------
City _____________ County _____________ State _____ __
D (H) Order the Adverse Party to stay at least 100 yards away from my place(s) of
employment.
D (I) Order the Adverse Party to stay at least 100 yards away from the following places,
which I or the minor child(ren) frequent regularly:
(I) Name ________________________________________ _
Address
-----------------------------------------
City ___________________ County ___________ State _____ __
(2) Name __________________________________________ __
Address
-----------------------------------------------
City ___________ County _______________ State ____ __
(3) Name ___________________________ _
Address
------------------------------------------------
City __________________ County __________ State _____ __
7
V4.1331
1
2
3
5
6
'7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(J) EJ (I) Prohibit the Adverse Party, either directly or through an agent, from physically
injuring or threatening to injure any animal that is owned or kept by the Adverse Party, the
minor child(ren), or me.
Ef(2) Prohibit the Adverse Patiy, either directly or through an agent, t"i'om taking
possession of any animal owned or kept by me or the minor child(ren).
(K) I further request the following other conditions:
I would like an Order that I can take to the Nevada DMV allowing me to chang
my driver's license number given that I believe C. Allaback and L. Foreshee
have it and they have threatened to harm me in ways that may include imprope
use of this number, further, I believe changing this number may assist me
in avoid their unwanted contact in the future.
IF YOU WISH TO APPLY FOR A HEARING FOR AN EXTENDED ORDER
FOR PROTECTION COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
17 14. EJ I request the COLlli hold a hearing for an EXTENDED ORDER FOR PROTECTION
AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (which could be in effect for up to one year), and at that
hearing the Court issue an Extended Order for Protection Against Domestic Violence and that it
include the following relief and any other reliefthe COLlli deems appropriate.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Please check all the choice(s) that may apply to YOU).
EJ (A) Prohibit the Adverse Patiy, either directly or through an agent, from threatening,
physically injuring, or harassing me and/or the minor child(ren).
(8) Prohibit the Adverse Patiy t"i'om any contact with me whatsoever.
EJ (C) Exclude the Adverse Patiy from my residence and order the Adverse Patiy to stay at
least 100 yards away t"i'om my residence.
o (D) Grant temporary custody of the minor child(ren) to me.
o (E) Grant the Adverse Party visitation with the minor child(ren).
o (F) Order the Adverse Party to pay support and maintenance ofthe minor child(ren). (You
may be required to file an Affidavit of Financial Condition prior to the hearing).
8
V4.1332
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
26
27
28
o (G) Order the Adverse Party to pay the rent or make payments on a mortgage or pay
towards my support and maintenance.
D (H) Order that custody, visitation, and suppoli of the minor child(ren) remain as ordered in
the Decree of Divorce/Order entered in Case N umber in the
-----
COLlli of the State of
------------------------------- ----------
D (1) Order the Adverse Party to stay at least 100 yards away from the minor child(ren)'s
school, or day care, located at: D CONFIDENTIAL
(lfconfidential, do not write name of school and address here).
D lfaddress is not confidential, please write name of school or day care and addressees)
below:
(1) Name of school or day care ____________________________________ _
Address:
----------------------------------------------------
City _________________________ County _______________ State
(2) Name of school or day care ________________________________ _
Address
--------------------------------------
City _____________________ County ___________ State __ _
3) Name of school or day care __________________________ _
Address
-------------------------------------------
City _____________________ County ____________ State
D (J) Order the Adverse Paliy to stay at least 100 yards away from my place of
employment. D CONFIDENTIAL
If address is not confidential, please write name of employer and addressees) below:
( I) Name of Employer ____________________________________ _
Address:
---------------------------------------------
City ____________________ County ________ State _____ _
9
V4.1333
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
26
27
28
(2) Name of Em pI oyer ______________________ _
Address ___________________________ _
City _____________ County _______ State, ____ _
(3) Name of Employer ______________________ _
Address
----------------------------
City _____________ County _______ State ___ _
D (K) Order the Adverse Party to stay at least 100 yards away from the following places,
which lor the minor child(ren) frequent regularly:
(I) Name _______________________ _
Address: _________________________ _
City ____________ County _______ State ____ _
(2) Name ________________________ _
Address
'---------------------------
City ____________ County _______ State ____ _
(3) Name, __________________________ _
Address, __________________________ _
City ____________ County ______ State _____ _
o (L) (I) the Adverse Party, either directly or through an agent, from physically
injuring or threatening to injure any animal that is owned or kept by the Adverse PaIiy,
the minor child(ren), or me.
(2) 0 Prohibit the Adverse Party, either directly or through an agent, from taking
possession of any animal owned or kept by me or the minor child(ren).
(3) D I request the COLlli to specify the arrangements for the possession and care of any
animal owned or kept by the Adverse Party, the minor child(ren), or me.
10
V4.1334
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
26
27
28
[j (M) Order the Adverse Party to pay for lost earnings and expenses incurred as a result of
my attendance at any hearing concerning this Application.
G (N) I further request the following other conditions:
Order the adverse party to reimburse me (to the extent this Court has jurisdiction
so) ror tEe monetary aamages I Eave sustalnea as a result or tEelr lmpermlsslEle c
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA THAT I HAVE READ THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN
THIS APPLICATION
I
KNOW THE CONTENTS THEREOF! AND BELIEVE THEM
TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT
Dated:
January 17th,

/s/ Zach Coughlin (si ed and manually)
Signature of Applicant
Zachary B. Coughlin
Applicant's Name (Please Print)
11
to do
and ct.
V4.1335
1 TPO Application Supplementary Declaration, Made Under Penaltv of Perjury, by
Zach COlHzhlin
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
T, Zach Coughlin, declare under penalty of pel jury and the laws of the State of Nevada that th
following is true to the best of my knowledge:
N. R. S. 33.018 provides that:
"I. Domestic violence oCCUl'S when a pel'son commits one of the following acts against
01' upon his spouse, forme/' spouse, any other pel'son to whom he is related by blood 01'
a pel'son with whom he is 01' was actuallv J'esiding, a pe/'son with whom he
has had 01' is having a dating relationship, a person with whom he has a child in
the minol' child of any of those persons, his minor child 01' any person who has
been appointed the custodian or legal guardian for his minor child:
I am "actually residing" with Christopher Allaback and Laura Foreshee, and. apparently, sometimes with
Allaback's daughter. Stephanie. and some orher lIiends. We have sharcd living quarters. We share the main 1100r level
living room and kitchen and halfbathrooll1 and upstairs full bathroom, and back fenced in patio, and the laundry
equipment (washer and dryer).
(a) A battery.
Within the last approximately 30 hours Allaback has thrown a lit cigarette at me, which
hit me, and the tip exploded on my clothes, with sparks and ashes. FUlther, Laura Foreshee has
thrown objects at me, including a football, which hit me in the leg. Chris has, within the last 30
hours, bumped me in the chest, as he menacingly approached me, invaded my personal space,
and chest to chest next to me, touching me with his body in an un consented to manner, growling
that he would "fuck you up", "fucking kill you", "handle this with my homies", that he had
"fucking warned you what will happen to you, you faggot pussy", etc., etc. Allaback has chased
me up the stairs to my room on, literally, a dozen occasions, and at times has punched or
slammed into my door a fi'action of second after T ran into it and closed it, and while trying to
secure a lock, my pressing up against the door, my absorbing the force of his strike to the door on
the door's other side. The door is not perforated and or has a hole punched through it all the way,
the locking portion connected to the door t"j'ame has been busted out entirely, and the door is
separating from the door fi'ame at its hinges. C. Allaback has previously thrown hot coffee (an
another time he threw the pale of their dogs water) on me (an it stained a very large section of the
wall behind me as well) and I have been hit with shards or chunks of an ashtray he' threw at me
(which left a I inch square chunk divot in the wall behind me) when it exploded upon making
contact with the wall.
(b) An assault.
C. Allaback and Foreshee have continually. ti'om approximately December 27th, 20 II through the present
placed me in very real fear for my lire and salety, on a daily basis. This has included throwing objects at me
(Foreshee has thrown toys at me, Allaback has thrown ashtrays, threatened to throw what looks like a steel toe
workboot at my head. made punching movements at my head (ie, try to make on llinch rake punch attempts in close
proximity to my race). One time Allaback chase me up the stairs to my room while menacingly wielding a 8 to 10
inch kitchen/butcher knife (ie.the largest knife most people have in their home kitchens) while saying he would kill
me. Christopher Allaback's 17 year old daughter, Stephanie, and her tl'iend (of approximately the
same age) moved back in to 1422 E. 9th St. approximately one week ago, into the second upstairs
bedroom. Stephanie displayed menacing behavior towards me immediately and, for no apparent
reason, told me she would kick me in the face. C. Allaback and Foreshee have further made
threats to defame and or frame me for false crimes or possession of ill ic it items, and on numerous
- 1 -
TPO Application Supplementary Declaration
V4.1336
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
occasions between December 26. 20 II and the present day expressly indicated an intent to soon
cause me death and or substantial bodily harm, whether through their own actions or those of
their "homies".
ic) Compelling the other by force or threat of rorce to perform an act from which he has the l"ight to I'cfrain or
to refrain from an act which he has the right to perfol'm,
Allaback and Foreshee locked me out of my residence, admitting verbally to doing so on
approximately 111112 at midnight, when the temperature was fi'eezing. bragging that they had
changed the deadbolt. r was forced to secure alternate lodging for the night with very little
money to my name. They have denied me access to the laundry washer and dryer r paid for the
use of. The continually. in menacing and hostile tones and actions try to force me to only be in
my room, contrary to the shared living arrangements that were agreed to with respect to the living
room, kitchen, back patio, and washer and dryer. They have denied me access to my mailbox.
Both Allaback and Foreshee have, pretty much on a daily basis, shut off the electricity to my area
of the townhome, many times while r was there, and often while r leave, r have pleaded with
them not to do this, indicating that there are important reasons why r need the electricity to
remain on (off site access to my computer's files, etc). When T go to the fusebox to turn the
power back on they menacingly lung at me and threaten me with imminent bodily harm,
indicating they will "fuck you up", etc., etc. They have both done the same with the thermostat
and the heat to the building.
(d) A sexual assault.
C. Allaback has mcnacingly indicated to mc that hc was going to "kiss" me.
(e) A Imowing. purposeful or recldess course of conduct intended to hal'ass the othel', Such conduct may
15 include. but is not limited to:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(1) Stalking.
(2) AI'son.
(3) Trespassing.
C. Allaback has chased me up to my room and attempted to bull his way in while I pushed bacl,
against the door from the inside of the room,
(4) Larcenv,
Sc\'eral items ha\'e gonc missing. including a light socket to plug ouLiet adapter that I implemented because
C. Allaback and foreshee continually shut 01'1' the clectricity to the one ouLlet in the shared upstairs bathroom. The
premium dimmer CFL bulb I placcd in thc bathroom recenLly went missing. It has now returned.
(5) Destr'uction of pl"ivate p,'opel'ty,
Further Allaback, within the last 14 hours, has thrown my ottoman chair out in the parking lot in hont of the
rcsidence. Laura Foreshee slashed two tires on my vehicle on approximately January 5th, 20 II (date
may be ott some). My license plate was stolen from my vehicle on approximately January 12, 2012.
Foreshee had previously taunted me about receiving a tow truck company's warning sticker on my
winshield when parked in fi'ont of 1422 E. 9th St. #2 in relation to some previously unannounced
policy of the Park Terrace Townhome's that all car's there parked must have a current registration
sticker on a vehicle's license plate. My sticker was still packed with my belongings. T retrieved it
and soon thereafter my plate was stolen. Allaback ruined my $500 HTC G2 smart phone when he
threw hot coffee on it and me, along with he verbal admission that he did so throw hot coffee on me
and the phone and that he meant to do so and was glad to have done so. The lock and door to my
room has been damaged extensively.
- 2 -
V4.1337
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Further. prior to moving in C. Allaback and Foreshee agree that I could do somethign to
improve the appearance of the living room carpet. which was horrible, to say the least, including,
laying newer, nicer carpet over top fo the old carpet like a rug. I went to the trouble to cut such
carpet and do so. They indicated it looked great at first, but soon through that carpet out in the street
and in the dirt behind the back fenced in patio.
(7) Injuring 01' Idlling an animal.
Christopher Allaback's 17 year old daughter, Stephanie, and her friend (of approximately
the same age) moved back in to 1422 E. 9th st. approximately one week ago, into the second
upstairs bedroom, Stephanie displayed menacing behavior towards me immediately and, for no
apparent reason, told me she would kick me in the face. T asked Stephanie and her fi'iend to avoid
letting my three year old Pekingnese dog exit the door to the residence, as he has a reputation for
attempting to run away and I feared for his safety should he get loose. Previously, I have taken
care of Allaback and Foreshee's two dogs, responding to their text message requests to let their
dogs inside from the back porch and to feed them, I have always been kind and considerate
towards their dogs.
Upon returning to the residence on January 14th, 2011, I discovered my dog was missing. I asked
Stephanie (whom was home alone with my dog and her friend a couple hour prior) about the
disappearance of my dog. She smirked and laughed maniacally, telling me "its not my f&cking
problem if your dog is dead" and "I don't give a fliock about your stupid dog", Laura Foreshee
behaved and responded similarly to my questions about my dog. I believe they put chewing gum in
my dog's coat.
ID A false imprisonment.
Besides locking Ille out all night in li'eezing temperatures (by changing the deadbolts to the front and back
doors) on New Years Day at approximately II :45 pm (c. Allaback fC1110wcd behind Ille after r wentlo my car to
retrievc sOlllcthing and menacingly invited me to "have fun gelling inside now that r have changed the deadbolts".
Further. nnc ofthe times C. Allaback chased me up to my room, and while r \vas pushing back against the door from
the inside, he called down to his daughter Stephanie and Foreshee to bring him a padlock, and announced his
intcntion to try to lock me in thc room by utilizing the chain that r had affixed to the door handle and pl:eviously been
padlocking to a nearby steel railing, in a makeshift atteillpt to be able to lock my room's door when r leave.
(g) Unlawful entl'Y of the other's I'esidence, 01' fOl'cible entrv against the othel"s will if thel'e is a I'easonably
foreseeable !'is\{ of harm to the othel' fl'om the entry,
My housemates at 1422 E, 9th St, #2 are Christoperh Ervin "Erin" Allaback, 37 of Reno,
Nevada and someone whom I believe is named Laura Foreshee, 22, also of Reno, possibly formerly
of Redding, California (further her last name may have been Petrone or Harrison at some point),
We live together and have shared living quarters, including a living room, and kitchen, downstairs
restroom. Recently I have been expected to share the upstairs full bathroom with Allaback's 17 year
old daughter Stephanie and her 17 year old friend and the assortment of friends they have sleep
over, despite an Angela Garska being owed child support by Mr. Allaback, apparently, to the extent
that a Contempt Order has issued in CV-Ol078. (Tn that matter, the minutes read "The Obligor is
found in Contempt and is given 25 days in Jail. Obligor will serve 10 days in Jail unless $500 is
paid by 12/2/11 at 4:00 pm: otherwise the Obligor must turn himself in to the Jail on 12/2/11 at 5:00
pm to serve the 10 days. If the Obligor fails to pay and then to turn himself in to the Jail, then a
$2500, cash only, Bench Warrant will issue for his arrest. The remaining 15 days in Jail are hereby
suspended so long as the Obligor makes 12 consecutive monthly payments", ).
The docket for Allaback's UrFSA(CV-OI078) case reads, most recently:
- 3 -
V4.1338
1 17-NOV-20 II 02:32 PM Order .,. Entry: CONTEMPT ORDER ADDENDUM -
17-NOV-2011 02:48 PM ProoforElectronic Service
2
..,
-'
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 I-NOV-20 I I 09:04 AM Notice of Entry orOrd Hallahan, Esq .. Susan D .
21-NOV-2011 09:06 AM ProoforElcctronic Sen'icc
12-DEC-lOII 10:09 AM Judgment and Orc!
I 2-DEC-20 I I 10:19 AM ProorofElectronic Service
13-DEC-2011 02:43 PM ***Minutes Entry: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11/16/11
13-DEC-20 II 02:48 PM Proof or Electronic Service
23-DEC-20 II 08: 15 AM Notice of Entry oj' Orc! Hallahan. Esq .. Susan D.
23-DEC-20 II 08: 16 AM Proof or Electronic Service
Tn the shared kitchen there has been a pill bottle on top ofthe microwave for weeks that bares
the name Laura Harrison, a prescription for Depakote (divlaproex) written by Dr. Abdollah Assad.
An internet web site, http://www.whosarrested.com. indicates the following arrests and charge
information for Allaback and Foreshee: "Inmate Name: Christopher Allaback Inmate #: POO I 08291
Last Arrest Date: 12/03/20 II Sex: Unknown Race: Unknown Age/DOB: 37
Misd - Misdemeanor Charges Resulting from Arrest on 12/03/20 II Detention Facility: WCDC I.
Drive On Susp/revoke Counts: I Bond: $1,137.002. Failure To Appear Tr Counts: I Bond: $735.00
3. Criminal Contempt Counts: I Bond: $692.00 4. Display OfLic Plate Counts: I Bond: $192.00
Charges Resulting ti'om Arrest on 10/22/20 I 0 Detention Facility: WCDC I. Contempt Of Court
Counts: I Bond: $575.00 2. Suspended/Revoked L Counts: I Bond: $790.003. Traffic Light Re
Counts: I Bond: $230.004. Criminal Contemp Counts: I Bond: $495.00"
The same website lists the following for a Laura Harrison, 22 years old (the pill bottle in the kitchen
for Depakote is for a Laura Harrison and Laura Foreshee is 22 years old as well)
"Laura Harrison was last arrested in Reno, NV on A pri I 21, 20 II . Inmate Name: Harrison, Laura
Inmate #: P00049 I 18 Last Arrest Date: 12/03/20 II Sex: Unknown Race: Unknown Age/DOB: 22
Misd - Misdemeanor Charges Resulting J'j'om Arrest on 12/03/20 II Detention Facility: WCDC I.
Contempt Of Court Counts: I Bond: $490.00 Charges Resulting from Arrest on 04/2112011
Detention Facility: WCDC I. Failure To Obey Not Counts: I Bond: $0.00"
Dated and Executed this:
/s/ Zach Couuhlil
Zach Coughlin
TPO/EPO Applicant
- 4 -
V4.1339
Parties: ________ _
Parties: ________ _
Parties: ________ _
Parties: ________ _
Parties: ________ _
DYes
o No
~
Interpreter Needed: __ Applicant __ Adverse Party Language: __________ _
*******************************************************************************************************************
TPO:
o Granted 0 Denied
Basis:
NOTES:
JUO-39 (Rev. 07/10) - Court Administration
V4.1340
F I LED
r-- ,JAN 2 3 012
Lfl)t
f\
/ . DEPUTY CLERK Ii
6 IN THE FAMILY DIVISiON-
7 OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
9 ZACHARY COUGHLIN
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Applicant,
vs.
________ ,
Adverse Party.
________________________
Case No: FV12-00187
Dept. No: DM1
Date Issued: 01/23/12
Date Expires: 05/23/12
EXTENDED PROTECTION ORDER AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
17 VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER IS A CRIME
18 YOU, THE ADVERSE PARTY. ARE NOTIFIED THAT YOU CAN BE ARRESTED even if the
person who obtained this Order invites or allows you to contact him or her. You have the sole responsibility to
19 avoid or refrain from violating the terms ofthis Order. Only the Court can change this Order upon written
application.
20
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF YOU ARE ARRESTED FOR VIOLATING THIS
21 ORDER, you will not be admitted to bail soonerthan 12 hours after your arrest if: (I) the arresting officer
detennines that the violation is accompanied by a direct or indirect threat ofhann; or (2) you have previously
22 violated a temponary or extended order for protection ofthe type for which you have been arrested; or (3) at the
time ofthe violation or within 2 hours after the violation, you have: (a) a concentration ofakohol of 0.08 or
23 more in your blood or breath; or (b) an amount of a prohibited substance in your blood or urine that is equal to
or greater than the amount set forth in subsection 3 ofNRS 484.379.
24
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that child stealinglkidnapping is a felony.
25
THIS ORDER is valid and enforceable throughout the State of Nevada. This Order meets all Full
26 Faith and Credit provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, and is enforceable in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and Indian Nations. All other courts and law enforcement
27 agencies with jurisdiction within the United States and all Indian Nations shall give full faith and credit
to this Order pursuant to 18 U.S.c. 2265.
28
PRO: 161552
V4.1341
Possession, shipment, transportation, or receipt of a firearm or ammunition while this Order is in
effect may constitnte a felony under federal law 18 USC 922(g)(8), and is punishable by a fine of np to
2 $250,000 and/or a prison sentence of np to ten (10) years. Further, if prohibited by this Order,
possession, custody, or control of a firearm while tbis Order is in effect is a gross misdemeanor under
3 NRS Chapter 33.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The Court having considered the filings, testimony and any evidence presented
at hearing, and the Court having found that the above-named Adverse Party
received actual notice of hearing at which such person had an opportunity to
participate, and the Adverse Party was present, PRO PER - IN CUSTODY, and
the above-named Applicant was present, PRO PER, and the Court having
jurisdiction over the parties and this matter pursuant to NRS 33.010, et seq., and it
appearing to the satisfaction of the Court from specific facts shown that an act of
domestic violence has occurred, there exists a threat of domestic violence, andlor
you represent a credible threat to the physical safety of the Applicant or the minor
child(ren), the Court enters this Order, and as a result:
YOU ARE PROHIBITED, either directly or through an agent, from threatening, physically injuring or
harassing the Applicant and/or the minor child(ren).YOU ARE FURTHER PROHIBITED from selling,
damaging, destroying, giving away, or otherwise disposing of, or tampenng with, any property owned
by the Applicant, or in which Applicant has an interest;
YOU ARE PROHIBITED from any contact whatsoever with the Applicant, including but not limited
to, in person, by telephone, through the mail, through electronic mail (e-mail), facsimile or through
another
21
1. X OU ARE EXCLUDED AND ORDERED to stay at least 100 yards away from
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Applicant's residence located in WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, 0 CONFIDENTIAL, at Il9 1422
E.9TH STREET RENO or any other place that Applicant may reside, YOU shall not interfere with
Applicant's possession and use of residence, including utilities, phones, leases and other related
residential services;
2. N/A The Court, having jurisdiction under and meeting the requirements of Chapter 125A
of the Nevada Revised Statutes (UCCJEA), grants to the Applicant temporary custody of the following
minor child(ren) of the parties: __ __ ; YOU ARE PROHIBITED from
PRO: 161552
V4.1342
interfering with the Applicant's custody of the minor child(ren) named in this paragraph. It IS in the best
2 interest of the child(ren) that no negative, insulting, or disparaging comments be made by one party
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
against the other party in the presence of the minor child(ren);
3. N/A YOU ARE GRANTED visitation with the minor child(ren): __ --"NccOccT
APPLICABLE , under the following terms and conditions: NOT APPLICABLE
4. N/A YOU ARE ORDERED to pay support and maintenance of the minor child(ren) as
set forth in the attached Child Support addendum.
5. N/A YOU ARE ORDERED to pay the rent or make payments on a mortgage on the
Applicant's place of residence or pay towards the support and maintenance of the Applicant, as follows:
NOT APPLICABLE
=='--"".-=-="'-"""""--- -
6. N/A Custody, visitation, and support of the minor child(ren) of the parties shall remain as
ordered in the Decree of Divorce/Order entered between the parties in Case Number NOT
APPLICABLE ,in the NOT APPLICABLE Court of the State of Nevada;
7. N/A YOU ARE EXCLUDED AND ORDERED to stay at least 100 yards away from the
minor child(ren)'s school(s), or day care, including, but not limited to the places listed below and
located in 0 CONFIDENTIAL, at Not Applicable ,
8. YOU ARE EXCLUDED AND ORDERED to stay at least 100 yards away from
these place(s) of employment or any other place that Applicant may be employed, located In WASHOE
COUNTY, NEVADA, NOT APPLICABLE, at ,. YOU ARE PROHIBITED from any contact
whatsoever with these place(s) of employment, in person, by telephone, by mail, or any other means of
communication;
9. N/A YOU ARE EXCLUDED AND ORDERED to stay at least 100 yards away from the
following places frequented regularly by Applicant and/or minor child(ren):, located in 0
CONFIDENTIAL, at Not Applicable .
PRO: 161552
V4.1343
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
10. (a) ~ ARE PROHIBITED, either directly or through an agent, from physically injuring
or threatening to injure any animal that is owned or kept by the Applicant, the minor child(ren), or YOU.
(b) J(!u ARE PROHIBITED, either directly or through an agent, from taking possession of
any animal owned or kept by the Applicant or the minor child(ren).
(c) 0 The arrangements for the possession and care of any animal(s) referenced:
11. 0 YOU ARE ORDERED to comply with the attached Firearms Addendum.
12. rzJ t{foliOWing provisions and exceptions are made a part of this Order:
A. Adverse Party waived any objection to the 45 day rule,
THIS ORDER WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL 11:59 P.M. ON THE DATE SET FORTH ON PAGE
1, UNLESS THIS COURT ORDERS OTHERWISE.
o The Adverse Party is ordered to pay all previously deferred court costs and fees of
$ ____ payable to ______ by _____ (date).
Pursuant to NRS 33.030(2) the Adverse Party is ordered to pay in the amount of $ and payable
17 to by (date).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRO: 161552
V4.1344
ORDER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
2
(A) Any law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe a violation of any
3 provision of this Order has occurred is ordered to arrest the Adverse Party. Such party is to be
4 charged with a criminal violation of this Order in addition to any other criminal charges which may
5 be justified.
6
(8) If such law enforcement officer cannot verify that the Adverse Party was served
7 with a copy of the Application and Order, the officer shall inform the Adverse Party of the following
8 (1) the specific terms of this Order, (2) that the Adverse Party now has notice of the provisions of
9 this Order, (3) that a violation of this Order will result in the Adverse Party's arrest, and (4) the
10 location of the Court that issued the original Order and the hours during which the Adverse Party
11 can obtain a copy of the Order. The law enforcement officer shall then provide written proof of
12 notice to the officer's agency and to the Court.
13
14
15
16
17
Dated January 23, 2012
~ ~ F ' /
Sue Edmondson, Court Masler
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRO: 161552
V4.1345
Objections/Appeals are governed by WDCR 24 & 32. You have ten (10) days for receipt
of this Recommendation and ORDER within which to file an objection or an appeal to
2 the District Court.
3
Acknowledgement of Receipt of ORDER:
4
5
6
__ DATE:tt L. ______ DATE: __ _
Applicant's Attorney
7
8 ________ DATE: ___________ DATE: ___ _
9
Adverse Party Adverse Party's Attorney
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRO: 161552
V4.1346
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES
2 YOU ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP THE COURT INFORMED OF YOUR CURRENT ADDRESS AT ALL TIMES
3 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS ACTION. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN A FINDING THAT YOU HAVE
4 VIOLATED AN EXTENDED ORDER FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, EVEN THOUGH YOU
5 MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE THAT AN EXTENDED ORDER WAS ISSUED. ALL ADDRESS
6 CHANGES MUST BE REPORTED TO THE COURT IN WRITING ON A CHANGE OF ADDRESS INFORMATION
7 FORM, WHICH MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT CLERK.
8 APPLICANTS MAY KEEP THEIR ADDRESS CONFIDENTIAL BY REPORT ANY CHANGES TO THE TPO
9 ADVOCATES OFFICE.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRO; 161552
V4.1347
NOTICES TO THE ADVERSE PARTY
2 THIS ORDER IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF NEVADA.
3 PURSUANT TO THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, 18 U.S.C. 2265, THE EXTENDED ORDER
FOR PROTECTION OF THE COURT SHALL BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN ANY OTHER STATE
4 OR TRIBAL LAND AND SHALL BE ENFORCED AS IF IT WERE AN ORDER ISSUED IN THAT STATE OR
TRIBAL LAND.
5
IF YOU ARE SUBJECT TO AN EXTENDED ORDER FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC
6 VIOLENCE AND YOU POSSESS, SHIP OR TRANSPORT ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, OR YOU RECEIVE ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION WHICH HAS BEEN SHIPPED OR
7 TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, YOU MAY BE CONVICTED OF COMMITIING
A FEDERAL OFFENSE. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8).
8
IF ANY PERSON SELLS OR OTHERWISE DISPOSES OF ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION TO YOU,
9 KNOWING OR HAVING REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE SUBJECT TO AN ORDER FOR
PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THAT PERSON MAY BE CONVICTED OF COMMITIING A
10 FEDERAL OFFENSE. 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(8).
11 IF YOU TRAVEL ACROSS STATE OR FEDERAL LAND LINES WITH THE INTENT TO VIOLATE THE
EXTENDED ORDER FOR PROTECTION AND SUBSEQUENTLY VIOLATE SUCH ORDER, YOU MAY BE
12 CONVICTED OF COMMITIING A FEDERAL OFFENSE UNDER THE VAWA, 18 U.S.C. 2262(a)(1). YOU
MAY ALSO BE CONVICTED OF COMMITIING A FEDERAL OFFENSE IF YOU CAUSE THE APPLICANT TO
13 CROSS STATE OR TRIBAL LAND LINES FOR THIS PURPOSE. 18 U.S.C. 2262(a)(2).
14 IF YOU TRAVEL ACROSS STATE OR TRIBAL LAND LINES WITH THE INTENT TO INJURE THE
APPLICANT AND THEN INTENTIONALLY COMMIT A CRIME OF VIOLENCE CAUSING BODILY INJURY TO
15 THE APPLICANT, YOU MAY BE CONVICTED OF COMMITIING A FEDERAL OFFENSE UNDER THE VAWA,
18 U.S.C. 2261(a)(1). YOU MAY ALSO BE CONVICTED OF COMMITIING A FEDERAL OFFENSE IF YOU
16 CAUSE THE APPLICANT TO CROSS STATE OR TRIBAL LAND LINES FOR THIS PURPOSE. 18 U.S.C.
2261 (a)(2).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRO: 161552
V4.1348
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ORDER AND NOTICE
In accordance with Washoe County District Court Rule 31.5, as approved by the
Nevada Supreme Court, Orders for Protection, whether temporary, extended, modified or
other, are effective as of the date of issuance by a Court Master. These Orders do not
require the signature of a District Court Judge to become effective
9 A party against whom a Temporary Order of Protection (TPO) has been issued by a
10
11
12
Court Master may file a motion to contest the TPO by filing a contest motion with the
Court Clerk.
13 Any party may file an Objection to an Extended Order of Protection issued by a Court
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Master within 10 days of service of the Extended Order of Protection.
A party may request a stay of an Order by filing a motion with the Court Clerk.
Forms for Motions and Objections are available at the Court Clerk's Office, Room 131,75
Court Street, Reno, Nevada 89501.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
25
26
27

28 District Court Judge
PRO: 161552

CASE NO. FV12-00187
Date, J udge, Officers
of Court Present
J anuary 23, 2012
The HONORABLE
S. EDMONDSON
COURT MASTER
Dept. No. DM1
J . MCKAY,
Clerk
Reporter-J AVS
G. MAIR,
Bailiff
Completed By:
J. MCKAY 01-31-12
F I L E D
Electronically
01-31-2012:11:32:10 AM
Clerk of the Court
ZACHARY COUGHLIN VS. CHRISTOPHER ALLABACK
APPEARANCES/HEARING .
HEARING- TO ISSUE
Applicant was present pro per. Adverse Party was present pro per and in
custody. Both parties were sworn to testify. Upon inquiry by the Court, Adverse
Party testified he was not in custody for anything related to Applicant. Adverse
Party was cautioned about making any statements possibly incriminating himself in
any pending criminal matter. The Court explained the nature of proceedings. Upon
inquiry by the Court, Applicant reaffirmed his application and testified in support of
an extension. Applicant confirmed Adverse Party is physically aggressive towards
him and is afraid he might be injured by him. Upon inquiry by the Court, Adverse
Party testified he opposed the order. Adverse Party testified Applicant tries to push
his buttons and further denied the specific allegations read by the Court. Adverse
Party admitted to throwing hot coffee and water from his dogs bowls on Applicant.
Upon inquiry by the Court, Adverse Party waived any objection to the 45 day rule.
Upon testimony, the Court granted an extension for 4 months, reviewed the terms
with the parties, and entered the following:
COURT ORDERED:
YOU ARE PROHIBITED, either directly or through an agent, from threatening, physically
injuring or harassing the Applicant and/or the minor child(ren).YOU ARE FURTHER
PROHIBITED from selling, damaging, destroying, giving away, or otherwise disposing of,
or tampering with, any property owned by the Applicant, or in which Applicant has an
interest; YOU ARE PROHIBITED from any contact whatsoever with the Applicant,
including but not limited to, in person, by telephone, through the mail, through electronic
mail (e-mail), facsimile or through another person; 1. YOU ARE EXCLUDED AND
ORDERED to stay at least 100 yards away from Applicants residence located in
WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, CONFIDENTIAL, at 1422 E.9TH STREET
RENO or any other place that Applicant may reside. YOU shall not interfere with
Applicants possession and use of residence, including utilities, phones, leases and other
related residential services; 10. YOU ARE PROHIBITED, either directly or through an
agent, from physically injuring or threatening to injure any animal that is owned or kept by
the Applicant, the minor child(ren), or YOU. (b) 1 YOU ARE PROHIBITED, either directly
or through an agent, from taking possession of any animal owned or kept by the Applicant or
the minor child(ren). The following provisions and exceptions are made a part of this Order:
A. Adverse Party waived any objection to the 45 day rule. THIS ORDER WILL REMAIN
IN EFFECT UNTIL 11:59 P.M. ON THE DATE SET FORTH ON PAGE 1, UNLESS
THIS COURT ORDERS OTHERWISE.
V4.1349

Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=77...
RE: request for electricity Please, Mr. Jones
From: Jones, Ron (RonJones@nvenergy.com)
Sent: Thu 2/09/12 8:52 AM
To: 'zachcoughlin@hotmail.com' (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Zach,thanksforsendingthedocumentaon. Yourpointistaken. However,intalkingtothesupervisorsinthe
CallCenter,weusuallydontacceptanysortoforalagreement. Havingsaidthat,wewould,inthiscase,ifwe
couldverifytheorigin,acceptanoralvericaonfromthepropertyownerormanager,butnotthetenant,as
toactualand/orlegaloccupaonofthedwelling. SueKingdidtellmethatyouaretheonlyresidentinthe
home,however,shealsoadvisedthattherewasaneviconinprocessandalsothattherewasnooralor
wrienrentalagreementbetweenyouandtheownerormanageroftheproperty. She addedthatthemaer
wasscheduledforahearingonMonday,February13. TPOsandcourtordersaside,Ihaveplacedacalltothe
PUCNtoasktheirdireconinthismaer. IwilladviseassoonasIhearfromthem. Thanksforyourpaence
andunderstandinginthismaer.
Ron J ones
Sr. Investigator
NV Energy
Corporate Security
ronjones@nvenergy.com
775-834-3926
775-834-4064 fax
775-527-2937 cell
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:34 PM
To: J ones, Ron
Subject: request for electricity Please, Mr. J ones
Dear Mr. Jones,
Please find attached a copy of my drivers license, which is current and valid
and from the State of Nevada. I have a TPO against Laura Foreshee
1 of 10 2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1350

(formerly Laura Harrison, she apparently got divorced somewhat
recently....). She is about 22 years old. I know the protectdion order says her
name is Foreshee, but a pill bottle she left in the shared kitchen for weeks
said "Laura Harrison" and the following page shows she was arrest on
December 3rd, 2011, which is also a day Christoperh Allaback was listed as
arrested (probably arrested together...) http://www.whosarrested.com/nevada/washoe-county
/reno/wcdc/318412-laura-harrison
A 37 year old man name Christopher Ervin "Erin" Allaback (her boyfriend) I got an EPO (Extended Protection
Order) against in FV12-00187 in Washoe District Court...
My instinct is that NV Energy can pretty much do whatever it wants in Nevada. However, for whatever it is
worth, this is really screwing up my life and job. And if I dont' do my job (like most people) things get crappy
for me real quick. I appreciate any help you can offer in getting power restored. I dont' have a problem
paying some upfront, etc....
http://www.jailbase.com/en/arrested/nv-wcso/2012-01-19/christopher-allaback-1201078
http://www.jailbase.com/en/search/?s=1&last_name=ALLABACK&first_name=CHRISTOPHER&location=nv-wcso
NRS 118A.160 Rental agreement defined. Rental agreement means any oral or written agreement for
the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit or premises.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-040.html#NRS040Sec2512 That is the
"unlawful detainer" chapter (well, pretty much the middle section deals with
this situation)....
It would be a huge help to me if you would approve me getting electricity on at 1422 E. 9th St #2. My power
has been out since last Friday.
My cell is 775 229 6737 but email is usually the best way to reach me.
I am attaching an American Law Report article on "landlord's supplying electricity as subject to regulation" just
for the heck of it, not sure how hat it has much of anything to do with this scenario, though
As for who is the owner of the property, the Washoe County Recorder's online portal reveals this for 1422 E. 9th
St. #2:
click on a link below to view detailed property information in a new window.
Download Search Results Data NOTE: The download file only contains the
primary situs address for each parcel.
Last
APN Card Situs Owner Name Mailing Address Transaction
2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1351
2 of 10

Date
008-435-09 1
1422 E 9TH
ST
REDI
PROPERTIES
LLC
PO BOX 12351
RENO NV 89510
01/10/2011
008-435-10 1
1422 E 9TH
ST
PARK TERRACE
TOWNHOMES
ASSN
C/O GAYLE A KERN LTD
5421 KIETZKE LN STE 200
RENO NV 89511
02/07/2011
008-435-11 1
1422 E 9TH
ST
ACUNA FAMILY
TRUST
10355 SCENIC DR
FORESTVILLE CA 95436
12/02/2010
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may
contain confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking
of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message
in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any
copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work
*****************************************************************************
NOTI CE: The i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t hi s el ect r oni c t r ansmi ssi on i s
i nt ended onl y f or t he use of t he i ndi vi dual or ent i t y named above. ANY
DI STRI BUTI ON OR COPYI NG OF THI S MESSAGE I S PROHI BI TED, except by t he i nt ended
r eci pi ent ( s) . At t empt s t o i nt er cept t hi s message ar e i n vi ol at i on of 18
3 of 10 2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1352

U. S. C. 2511( 1) of t he El ect r oni c Communi cat i ons Pr i vacy Act , whi ch subj ect s
t he i nt er cept or t o f i nes, i mpr i sonment and/ or ci vi l damages. I f you ar e not
t he i nt ended r eci pi ent ( s) , pl ease del et e i t and not i f y me.
*****************************************************************************
RE: request for electricity Please, Mr. Jones
Sent: Thu 2/09/12 3:23 PM
Zach,IsllhaventheardbackfromthePUCN,sorightorwrong,Ivemadeanexecuvedecision. Ihave
iniatedaserviceorderthatwillrestoreelectricserviceto1422E.9
th
St.,Reno,tomorrow. Idontknowwhen
itwillbedone,butitwillbedone. IfIgetadecisionbackfromthePUCNthatiscontrarytomineorifthe
eviconorderisgrantedtothepropertymanagementcompany,Illneedtorevisitthisissue. Iwillinformyou
shouldthissituaonorthependingstatusofyourelectricservicechange. Thanksforyourcooperaonand
paenceinthismaer.
Ron J ones
Sr. Investigator
NV Energy
Corporate Security
775-834-3926
775-834-4064 fax
775-527-2937 cell
To:J ones, Ron; sue@westernnv.com; gaylekern@kernltd.com; info@westernnv.com
Subject: RE: request for electricity Please, Mr. J ones
4 of 10 2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1353

Dear Mr. J ones,
Thank you for your response and the work you are doing on this. The thing is, when a
counter clerk at a hotel takes cash from a customer, but puts it in their pocket rather than the
register, and the customer goes up to their room, but is kicked out later that night for not
paying....something called respondeat superior typically makes the hotel liable for the acts
of its acts, employees, etc.
Under Nevada law, whether an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment for the purposes
of respondeat superior liability generally is a question of fact. Evans v. Southwest Gas Corp., 108 Nev. 1002, 842
P.2d 719, 721 (1992), overruled on other grounds by GES, Inc. v. Corbitt, 117 Nev. 265, 21 F.3d 11 (2001).
"However, where undisputed evidence exists concerning the employee's status at the time of the tortious act,
the issue may be resolved as a matter of law." Id. In Nevada, an employer is not liable for its employee's
intentional conduct if the employee's conduct: (a) Was a truly independent venture of the employee; (b) Was
not committed in the course of the very task assigned to the employee; and (c) Was not reasonably foreseeable
under the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature and scope of his employment.
Nev.Rev.Stat. 41.745(1). An employee's intentional act is reasonably foreseeable "if a person of ordinary
intelligence and prudence could have reasonably anticipated the conduct and the probability of injury." Id.
So, do NV Energy's records for the most recent responsible party on the account show that whoever that is
(probably a person with the last name Harrison) was there or at least maintaining service for about 8 months?
It will be kind of hard for Ms. King and Ms Kern to argue they didn't know about that. Further, how did Harrison
get service connected. Did Harrison not have to show a least, or verify point of origin and get the owner's
okay? What were Harrison and Allaback doing there. Why did Ms. King of Western Nevada Management
allegedly fire an employee named Robin Bataldo in connection with the multiple distrubances between
Allaback/Harrison and myself? Did Batalado receive approval from the HOA to allow Allaback/Harrison to live
there? Was there something in it for the HOA or Western Nevada Management. You and I discussed the
possibilities regarding a lower insurance premium compared to an empty unit, someone keeping the electricity
on would help prevent pipes breaking, and Allaback is a carpenter who had done numerous repairs/projects at
1422 E. 9th St. #2 while living there. This, on top of any other "rent" or "consideration" any manager or owner
of the property received.
What about these pre-paid energy plans. I gather they are something people buy where maybe they lack
credit, or owe something to NV Energy. Obviously, I do not want ot commit any fraud, but can you tell me
about any options that might be available so I can turn my desktop on and take a shower at home?
Also, with respect to retaliation liability for Ms. King et al...prior to any J anuary 10, 2012 "J ohn Doe" eviction
Notice King says was "served" (whether Ms. King is aware of NRS 118A.280 seems dubious, as is her
understanding of most aspects of Nevada's Landlord Tenant law, including, whether she can just "retake
posession of the premises" upon thirty days expriration after any J anuary 10th, 2012 eviction notice, or whether
NRS 118A.253 requires her to then serve a 5 day Unlawful Detainer Notice, for which a Tenant's Answer filed
before the expiration thereof will guarantee that tenant a right to a hearing under Lippis. Further, under
Glazier, it may well be the case that the summary eviction procedures found under NRS 40.253 are not even
available to Ms. King et al....which means the longer, slower, more expensive plenary Unlawful Detainer Trial
(including service of a Summons and Complaint, my right to conduct discovery, my right to a jurty trial(actually,
I will be demanding a jury trial even in a Summary Eviction and the revocation of J CRCP 106 and decisional
5 of 10 2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1354

authority by the US Supreme Court grants me that right). But, what do I know, right?
As for NV Energy's retaliation exposure...well, I have complained in writing that an NV Energy employee shut off
my electricity, again, unnoticed at a different location in the last year, and that the back gate was left open
upon that employee leaving, and an expensive red Gary Fisher Mountain Bike was gone too (and that a loud
disturband accompanied the NV Energy entering the back gate and that the NV Energy employee sped off
extremely quickly thereafter). Further, I have complained in writing (and even filed a lawsuit that got hung up
in the IFP phase) against NV Energy relative to various invasions of privacy or (what I perceived to be) improper
attempts by NV Energy to find privity of contract where there is none or otherwise demand confidential
information to which they have no right, particularly where they are operating as a monopoly.
Additionaly, Ms. King needs to explain the actions of an employee that either quit right about the time Ms. King
says she served and eviction Notice (J anuary 10th, 2012....but Ms. King does not seem to have that much
knowledge concerning evictions. There is not currently an eviction in progress. An eviction, under Nevada law,
does not begin until either a Tenant files a Tenant's Answer of Affidavit or until a Landlord files something.
Nobody has "filed" anything yet other than the Verified Comlaint for Interruption of Essential Services that I filed
on Monday, February 6th. 2011
This brings up retaliation. Which applies to both Ms. King et al and, potentially to NV Energy. I know you guys
don't intimidate well. But I also know you guys didn't get where you are by being dumb. You make smart
decisions. You don't let ego force you into taking on risks for which there is incredibly small reward by
comparision, I would imagine. What is your risk here turning the power on for, lets says a month. A couple
hundred bucks? But, I said I would pay up front if I had to (it would suck for me, but, hey, what doesn't right
now....). Any other risks? What about the fact that I, as a licensed attorney practicing in Nevada, am being
prejudiced and prevented from performing my job as well and efficiently as I would were my power not shut off
without notice on Friday, February 3rd, 2011. Does NV Energy have an liability there? Is NV Energy exposing
itself to some liability, or at least a PR disaster (or a PR fender bender, dont' need to be so dramatic)
(www.ShameOnNVEnergy.com) by causing one of my client's houses to go on the chopping block of a Trustee
Sale because I missed some deadline due to complications from the unnoticed shut off? What if someone was
on life support inside the building when the unnoticed shut off occurred? NV Energy may have a lot of immunity
and legal protections as a public utility/monopoly under color of law, but it just doesn't seem like the wisest play
here to refuse interim power under these murky legal issues get sorted out. Simply put, you guys gain very
little by doing so and will lose more in 10 minutes of litigating these issues in attorney's fees and costs that you
would be saving.
I appreciate your attention to these matters.
BUT, PLEASE BE AWARE, EACH OF YOU ARE COSTING ME A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY EVERYDAY AND
PREJ UDICING/DAMAGING/DESTROYING MY CLIENT'S CASES AS WE SPEAK, SOMETHING FOR WHICH YOU
MIGHT, AT SOME POINT, FACE SOME LIABILITY.
http://www.babelation.com/content/want-your-reno-hoa-be-screwed This is found on the internet and relates
to Gayle Kern, LTD. Who knows if it is fair or accurate. Honestly, I do not know what the hang up is here. I
would prefer to have me there than those two (Allaback/Harrison). I made Kern and King a very reasonable
settlement offer (my experience is the more reasonable a settlement offer I make the less chance of having it
accepted, curiously). I have lost thousands of dollars in connection with this terrible experience, and I will have
to live in fear somewhat for a very, very long time. I don't see the HOA renting this place out or selling it
anytime soon, and the pipes will freeze, and their insurance will go up. What's the big delay in resolving this?
6 of 10 2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1355

Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Tel: 775 229 6736
Fax: 949 667 7402
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
RE: "Utilities not payable by the Resident will be paid by
the Management."
Sent: Thu 2/09/12 5:36 PM
Actually,Zach, itwillbeplacedintoyournameunlessyouhaveanagreementthatthepropertyownerwillpay
thebill. Ifthisgetsanymoreconvoluted,Icantakeittoourlegaldepartmentandsuspendservicepursuantto
theTarisunltheissueisdecided. Ifyouwanttheserviceonandagreetoberesponsibleforthebill,Ican
arrangethataswell. AsIstated,mygoalistoprotecttheassetsofthiscompany,notplaygameswith
manufacturedlegalissuesthatdontpertaintotheissueathand. NeitherwillIdevoteaninordinateamountof
mymetothisissuetothedetrimentofmyothercasesandcustomersissues. Itsyourcall. Doyouwantto
signupforserviceandberesponsibleforthebilljustlikeanyothercustomerormakethingsdicultjust
becauseyoucan? IfIdonthearfromyoubynoontomorrow,Iwillpresumethatyoudonotwanttosignupfor
serviceandberesponsibleforthebillandIwillcanceltheserviceordertostartyourserviceatthe9
th
St.,
locaon.
7 of 10 2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1356

Ron J ones
Sr. Investigator
NV Energy
Corporate Security
775-834-3926
775-834-4064 fax
775-527-2937 cell
http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=77...
To:J ones, Ron; cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
Subject: "Utilities not payable by the Resident will be paid by the Management."
Dear Mr. J ones,
Thank you for your response. I did not see anything in your response indicating whom the services name would
be restored in, so I imagine it would revert to the owners? On the point we discussed on the phone, with
respect to a situation where the privacy laws or policies of NV Energy will not allow someone like me to just call
up and pay somebody else's bill, I have a question. You may remember I expressed being interested to hear
that confirmed, as that was my understanding previously, and was so confirmed by your statement.
In a former Lease Agreement, in a matter still being litigated, there was a provision that read:
"Utilities not payable by the Resident will be paid by the Management."
So, from my understanding of what you told me on the phone, and please correct me if I am wrong, if upon my
former cotenant at 121 River Rock St. Reno, NV 89501, Melissa Ulloa moving out, there was a standing order in
placed that reverted the bill for electric service to the property's owner, Californian neurosurgeon Matt Merliss
(whom would rather spend $40,000 litigating an impermissible summary eviction from a home law office base
on a No Cause Eviction notice (ie, one cannot summarily evict a commercial tenant unless non payment of rent
is alleged under NRS 40.253). As such, the bill being in Dr. Merliss's name, it a situatation where the bill was
not "payable by the tenant" due to the policies of NV Energy considering the following section of the Lease
Agreement: ""Utilities not payable by the Resident will be paid by the Management."
And Dr. Merliss benefited from such an arrangement because he was able to have the power shut off on
October 4th, 2011, just hour before he sent his attorney and his videographer over to due an impermissible
"inspection" of my home law office, just one day before my Tenant's Affidavit or Answer was due before the
8 of 10 2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1357

Reno J ustice Court. So, he wants to have it both ways, ie, he controls the bill and supply, shuts it off with bad
faith timing to the benefit of himself and his attorney, but then he wants to bill me for the electricity, even
though, it was "not payable by the Resident" and the Lease Agreement requires that such a bill "will be paid by
the Management."
As such, law office of Richard G. Hill and Casey Baker, Esq.s please refrain from violating the FDCPA in failing to
return my security deposit, failing to provide an itemized statement of what you did with the $700 deposit, etc.,
etc., and refrain from violating NRCP 11 in alleging that I owe Merliss any amounts he was billed for utilities.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may
contain confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking
of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message
in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any
copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work
*****************************************************************************
2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1358
9 of 10

*****************************************************************************
10 of 10 2/13/2012 7:54 AM
V4.1359
F I L E D
Electronically
03-08-2012:03:27:39 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1360
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cJ

11
d

'"
08
12
<:6'-<

'" ".-<
13
NC/)o--o

14 8 0<')
o

>t::.-
15

z:i6

16
0
j
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2010
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WLS employee. )
)

Defendants.

/1/
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANT CARYN STERN LICHT'S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
V4.1361
1 DEFENDANT CARYN STERN LICHT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
2 Defendant Caryn Stern licht, individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney
3 ("Defendant" or "Sternlicht"), by and through her attorneys of record, Lipson, Neilson, Cole,
4 Seltzer & Garin, P.C., move this Court for an Order awarding them attorney's fees incurred in
5 this case as the prevailing party. This Motion is made pursuant to NRS 18.010 and NRS
6 7.085, together with the attached Affidavit of Joseph P. Garin, Esq., the pleadings and papers
7 on file herein, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, and any oral argument this
8 Court permits.
9 DATED this 8
th
day of March, 2012.
10
By:
17
18 /II
19 /II
20 /II
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn
Sternlicht
- 2 -
V4.1362
2 1. Introduction
3 Plaintiff Coughlin was formerly employed as an attorney for Washoe Legal Services
4 ("WLS"). Coughlin filed two lawsuits against WLS, including Caryn Stern licht, attempting to
5 assert claims for wrongful termination:
6
7
8
9
10
Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Lega/ Services, et. a/.
Hon. Brent Adams
Filed: June 27, 2011
and
Zachary Coughlin v Washoe Lega/ Services, et. a/.
Filed: June 30, 2011
11 Docket Reports, attached hereto as Exhibit "1." As of January 16, 2012, Plaintiff did not
12 properly serve Sternlicht, leading Sternlicht to seek a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
13 pursuant to NRCP 4 and NRCP 12(b)(4). This Court ordered dismissal of the case as to
14 Sternlicht on February 8,2012. Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "2."
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
/II
Defendant is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as the prevailing party in this
matter pursuant to NRS 18.010.
NRS 18.010 states, in pertinent part:
1. The compensation of an attorney and counselor for his or her services is
governed by agreement, express or implied, which is not restrained by law.
2. In addition to the cases where an allowance is authorized by specific statute,
the court may make an allowance of attorney's fees to a prevailing party:
(a) When the prevailing party has not recovered more than $20,000; or
(b) Without regard to the recovery sought, when the court finds that the
claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint or defense of the
opposing party was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to
harass the prevailing party. The court shall liberally construe the provisions
of this paragraph in favor of awarding attorney's fees in all appropriate
situations. It is the intent of the Legislature that the court award attorney's
fees pursuant to this paragraph and impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11
of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure in all appropriate situations to
punish for and deter frivolous or vexatious claims and defenses because
such claims and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the
timely resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging
in business and providing profeSSional services to the public.
- 3 -
V4.1363
This Court granted Stern licht's Motion based on non-service of process. Sternlicht did
2 not recover more than $20,0000. Accordingly, as the prevailing party, Sternlicht is entitled to
3 receive her reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this action pursuant to NRS 18.01 O(2)(a).
4 Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to timely and properly oppose Sternlicht's Motion to
5 Dismiss. As this Court stated in the Order granting Sternlicht's Motion to Dismiss,
6 "On February 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Opposition to Sternlicht's or Whoevers' Motion to Dismiss; however, such motion
7 is not an opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss. Failure of the opposing party
to serve and file his written opposition may be construed as an admission that the
8 motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the same. OCR 13."
9 Indeed, Plaintiff's failure to dispute the law or facts underlying the Motion to Dismiss and his
10 decision to file a bewildering and unsubstantiated Motion for Extension of Time, served only
11 to overburden limited judicial resources and hinder timely resolution of meritorious claims. In
12 sum, Sternlicht is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as the prevailing party in this matter
13 pursuant to NRS 18.010.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
III
Defendant is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in this matter pursuant to
NRS 7.085
NRS 7.085 provides:
1. If a court finds that an attorney has:
(a) Filed, maintained or defended a civil action or proceeding in any court in
this State and such action or defense is not well-grounded in fact or is not
warranted by existing law or by an argument for changing the existing law
that is made in good faith; or
(b) Unreasonably and vexatiously extended a civil action or proceeding
before any court in this State, the court shall require the attorney personally
to pay the additional costs, expenses and attorney's fees reasonably
incurred because of such conduct.
2. The court shall liberally construe the provisions of this section in favor of
awarding costs, expenses and attorney's fees in all appropriate situations. It is the
intent of the Legislature that the court award costs, expenses and attorney's fees
pursuant to this section and impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Nevada
Rules of Civil Procedure in all appropriate situations to punish for and deter frivolous
or vexatious claims and defenses because such claims and defenses overburden
limited judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of meritorious claims and
increase the costs of engaging in business and providing professional services to
the public.
- 4 -
V4.1364
As discussed above, Plaintiff failed to provide any true explanation for failing to properly
2 serve Sternlicht. Instead, Plaintiff opted for confusing and inapplicable arguments that failed
3 to address the issue before this Court in requesting an extension to oppose Sternlicht's
4 motion. Plaintiff not only requested an extension that was groundless as evidenced by this
5 Court's Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but unreasonably and vexatiously
6 continued this proceeding, creating unnecessary litigation costs to Defendant. Therefore,
7 pursuant to NRS 7.085 (a) and (b), this Court should award Defendants their attorney's fees
8 and costs.
9 4. The attorney's fees and costs incurred by Sternlicht are reasonable.
10
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer, & Garin, P.C., counsel for Defendant Caryn Sternlicht,
11 spent 0.8 hours defending against Plaintiff's Complaint. The total amount of attorney's fees
12 is $120.00. Attorney's Fees, attached hereto as Exhibit "1-A." The attorney's fees incurred for
13 legal services, including the preparation of the motion to dismiss, were reasonable and
14 necessary in both amount and time spent.
1
The Court should award Sternlicht the full amount
15 incurred in reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $120.00.
16 II /
17 II /
18 II /
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 1 The following factors should be considered in assessing the reasonableness of attorney's fees: (1) the
28
qualities of the advocate, (2) the character of the work to be done, (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer,
and (4) the result. Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat'l Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349-50,455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969).
- 5 -
V4.1365
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0

11
.
'" 08
12
id-
"'00 ....... "i"" 0) ;:l _
13
NU'J",o
-::: "'00 0
0)"0 '"

N
8 14
o
"H

15

16
0
j
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defendant Caryn Sternlicht respectfully requests thatthe Court
enter an award in her favor and against Plaintiff for the legal fees incurred in the amount of
$120.00.
DATED this 8
th
day of March, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Melissa Mangiaracina,
Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
(Pursuant to NRS 2398.030)
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, DEFENDANT
CARYN STERN LICHT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, filed in Case No. CV11-01896,
does not contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 8
th
day of March, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Melissa Mangiaracina,
Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
- 6 -
V4.1366
0

c-
c
oj
08

"'00 0
Q) -0 '"
o '
N
8
o

V)
:-::: ..:3

0
J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
th
Defendant Caryn Sternlicht's Motion for Attorney's Fees, upon the following parties, via
first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
-7-
V4.1367
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
2 STATE OF NEVADA
3 COUNTY OF CLARK
ss:
4 JOSEPH P. GARIN, being first duly sworn deposes and says:
5
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada, and am a
6 partner with the law firm of LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C., counsel of
7 record for Defendants, in the above-captioned matter.
8 2. I make this Affidavit in support of Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees. I have
9 personal knowledge of the information contained in this Affidavit and would qualify as a
10 competent witness if called upon to testify to the facts contained herein.
11
3. I personally reviewed the firm's billing invoices in this matter and the rates charged
12 for the duration of this case were $180 for Partners and $150 for Associates and Paralegals.
13 These rates are reasonable for defending this action.
4. To date, I charged Defendant Caryn Sternlicht 0.8 hours which equals a total billed
15 amount of $120.00. A copy of the relevant bills have been redacted to preserve privilege and
16 eliminate charges related to other Defendants and/or the other pending action. The relevant
17 bills are attached as Exhibit "1-A."
18
5. In my opinion, all the aforementioned fees were reasonable and necessary to
19 defend Defendant in this matter.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Further, this affiant sayeth naught.
. 26
27
28
O S ~ ~
- 8 -
V4.1368
1
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
3
No.1 Docket Reports on 2 pages
CV11-01955 and
CV11-01896
4
No.1-A Relevant Bills 2 pages
5
No.2 Order 3 pages
6
7
8
9
10
c..5
p..;
11
.
'" c..?8
12
i,d'-<
l'loo
H .....

13 "'00 0
v""O '"
V)
N
8 14
<5

15

a
g
16
0
1l
;.::j
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 9 -
F I L E D
Electronically
03-08-2012:03:27:39PM
EXHIBIT1
JoeyOrdunaHastings
ClerkoftheCourt
Transaction#2813540
EXHIBIT1
V4.1369
V4.1370
CaselD: CV11-01896
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case oescriptipn
Filing
Date:
SERVICES ETAL.(06)
Related Cases
Case Eyent SchedYle
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
Expn
Type ID
Date
1 Judge J2Q
Name'
ADAMS,
HONORABLE
BRENT
HOme
.

V4.1371
Case 10: CV11-01955
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case Description
SRVC, ET AL(D10)
Date:
Relgted Cases
Case Event Schedyle
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
1

Expn
Type
Date
Judge

,.,'EyOOrSbtieaullt
10
D10
M3ooO'ilSweCtjOil'
.
Name
ELLIOTT,
HONORABLE
STEVEN P.
.
.
F I L E D
Electronically
03-08-2012:03:27:39 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1372
E I I "- " ---
E I I "- "
V4.1373
01/13/2012. CH
01/16/2012 CH
TELEPHONE CALL FROM CARYN STERNUCHT 0.30 hrs 150.00 Ihr
DRAFT CARYN STERNLICHTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 0.30 hrs 150.00 Ihr
NONSERVICE OF PROCESS, IN CASE NO. 01896
REDACTED
45.00
45.00
V4.1374
01/17/2012 CH, EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE - 0.20 hrs 150.00 Ihr 30.00
01118/2012 CH REVISE/FINALIZE CARYN STERNUCHT'S MTD IN CASE 0.20 hrs 150.00 Ihr 30.00
NO. 01896
REDACTED
F I L E D
Electronically
03-08-2012:03:27:39 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1375
I I ""
HI I ""
V4.1376
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Code 3370
FI LE D
Electronically
02-08-2012:03:24:48 PM
Clerk of the Court
Plaintiff, Dept. No.6
v.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES
s
et ai,
Defendants.
__________________________
ORDER
Defendant Caryn Sternlicht ("Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Zacha
Coughlin's (JPlaintiff') complaint for non-service of process. No opposition was filed.
1
[lif a service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a
Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 27,2011. Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 40), Plaintiffwouf
have 120 days to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant or until October 25,
2011. Plaintiff failed to serve Defendant within the mandated time period. In addition,
1 On February 7) 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Sterlicht's 0
27 Whoevers) Motion to Dismiss; however, such motion is not an opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Failure of the opposing party to serve and file his written opposition may be construed as a
28 admission that the motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the same. OCR 13.
-1-
V4.1377
Plaintiff failed to file a motion to enlarge time for service or show good cause as to wh
2 service was not made within the statutory period.
3
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendanfs motion to dismiss.
4
DATED: This ~ d y of February, 2012.
5
6
DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
V4.1378
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
that on the ~ a y of FebruaryJ 2012, 1 electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
13 And, I deposited in the County mailing system for postage and mailing with the
14 United States Postal Service in Reno
t
Nevada, a true and correct copy of the attached
15 document addressed as follows:
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judicial Assistant
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-08-2012:15:27:39
03-08-2012:15:52:59
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
MtnforAttorney'sFee
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
V4.1379
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1380
F I L E D
Electronically
03-08-2012:04:29:02 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1381
CODE:
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Individually and in her capacity as Board President
of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, Individually and in
his capacity as WLS, Board Member, PAUL
ELCANO, Individually and in his capacity as
Executive Director of WLS, DOES 1-100,
Individually and in their capacity as members of
the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT, Individually
and in her capacity as WLS attorney, JON SASSER,
Individually and in his capacity as WLS agent,
KAREN SABO, Individually and in her capacity as
WLS attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA LOPEZ;
Individually and in her capacity as WLS employee;
Defendants.
---------------------------1
Case No.
Dept. No.
CV11-01896
6
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
This Court has reviewed Zach Coughlin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
attached affidavit in support of the motion. "Any person who desires to prosecute or
defend a civil action may file an affidavit with the court setting forth with particular facts
concerning his income, property and other resources which establish that he is unable to
V4.1382
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prosecute or defend the action because he is unable to pay the costs of so doing." NRS
12.015(1).
This Court finds Mr. Coughlin has provided insufficient financial information to
grant the motion at this time. Mr. Coughlin is a licensed member of the Nevada State Bar.
In his financial declaration, Mr. Coughlin refers to his employment as "jack of all trades,"
yet he does not reveal the extent of his business affairs. Mr. Coughlin shall support any
future motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a profit/loss statement, balance sheet,
and sworn affidavit showing the financial nature of his business affairs. Mr. Coughlin
shall also supplement his affidavit with his 2010 and 2011 tax returns. Alternatively, Mr.
Coughlin may pay the requisite fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February ZC{, 2012.
2
David A. Hardy
Chief District Court J
V4.1383
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. CVll-01896
I certify that I am an employee of the Second Judicial District Court; that on the 8
th
day of March, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court system
which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
Further, I certify that I deposited in the county mailing system for postage and
mailing with the U.S. Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true copy of the foregoing
addressed to:
LlPON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.
Shannon Nordstrom, Esq.
9080 West Post Road, #100
1
r, ~ ;\ I
\
. ( , ) I .
~ (L L 1 ~ < f L" .- ,C; ( i.,-' L v, c', v ~
Department 15 Administrative Assistant
3
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-08-2012:16:29:02
03-08-2012:16:29:52
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OrdDenyingMotion
MaryBethStackhouse
COUGHLIN
V4.1384
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1385
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-08-2012:00:22:15
03-08-2012:10:41:38
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
CaseAppealStatement
COUGHLIN
V4.1386
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1387
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
F I L E D
Electronically
03-08-2012:12:22:15 AM
Document Code: Clerk of the Court
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
4!! E. 9th "t. #!
$eno, N% &9'!
(ele: 77')33&)&&
*a+: 949),,7)74-!
ZachCoughlin.hotmail.com
/ttorne0 1or 2ro "e /ttorne0 /33ellant
4N (5E "EC6ND 78D4C4/9 D4"($4C( C68$( 6* (5E "(/(E 6* NE%/D/
4N /ND *6$ (5E C68N(: 6* ;/"56E
Z/C5/$: C68<594N= >
>
/33ellant, >
C/"E N6: C%)-&9,
>
vs. >
>
DE2(: D,
>
;9" et al >
>
$es3ondent. >
>
>
>
CASE APPEAL STATEMENT OR, PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES IN APPEAL PAPERS
C6?E" N6;, 3art0 designated as re3resented, @0 and through attorne0, Z/C5/$:
B/$AE$ C68<594N, E"B., and 1iles the a@ove named document and moves this Court 1or the
relie1 requested herein. (his 1iling is 1urther @ased u3on the 3a3ers and 3leadings on 1ile herein and
the ?emorandum o1 2oints and /uthorities su@mitted hereCith and an0 oral argument this Court ma0
desire.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
- 1
C/"E /22E/9 "(/(E?EN( 6$, 29ED 4N (5E /9(E$N/(4%E, ?6(46N *6$ ED(EN"46N 6* (4?E (6 C6$$EC(
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1388
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
(here is a 3arallel criminal 3roceeding in $?C C$ !,4-' Chich is to go to (rial 1airl0 soon, @ut not 3rior to
the 6rder (o "hoC Cause 5earing in this matter.
II. ARGUMENT:
The Tenant's A!"a#!t $%e" !t &as a h'(e %a& '!)e, !e a )'((e*)!a% %ease, the Lease A+*ee(ent e,$%!)!%t-
a%%'&e" '* s.)h, the %an"%'*" 'n%- se*#e" a n' )a.se e#!)t!'n n't!)e, the Lease ha" n't e,$!*e" /- !ts te*(s,
*e+a*"%ess... .s.((a*- e#!)t!'n &as !na$$*'$*!ate a$$*'a)h as a (atte* ' %a&, $e*!'". In)'*$'*ate /- *ee*en)e
a%% $a$e*s 'n !%e !n th!s (atte* an" the (atte* !n the t*!a% )'.*t, et).
A+a!nst a $a*t- &h' ta0es the F!th. Gene*a%%-, the "e)!s!'n !n a )!#!% )ase &hethe* t' a"(!t 'ne's
!n#')at!'n ' the F!th A(en"(ent !nt' e#!"en)e !s !n the "!st*!)t )'.*t's "!s)*et!'n. Fa*a)e #. In"e$. F!*e Ins. C'.,
122 F.3" 345, 364 78th C!*.629:;. The*e !s n' )'nst!t.t!'na% /a* t' the a"(!ss!'n ' th!s e#!"en)e, an" !t (a- /e
a"(!tte" ! !t !s *e%e#ant an" n't 'the*&!se $*'h!/!te" /- the *.%es ' e#!"en)e. <a,te* #. Pa%(!+!an', 538 U.S. :49,
:61 762=1;. Un"e* R.%e 54: ' the Fe"e*a% R.%es ' E#!"en)e, the e#!"en)e &!%% /e e,)%."e" ! !ts $*'/at!#e #a%.e !s
s./stant!a%%- '.t&e!+he" /- the "an+e* ' .na!* $*e>."!)e. See Fa*a)e, 122 F.3" at 342?66 7e**'* t' a"(!t that
$%a!nt!t''0 the F!th !n a )*!(!na% !n#est!+at!'n: $*e>."!)!a% ee)t '.t&e!+he" the $*'/at!#e #a%.e ' that
e#!"en)e, &h!)h sh'.%" ha#e /een e,)%."e";. I a &!tness &h' ta0es the F!th at an ea*%- $*')ee"!n+ /.t %ate*
)han+es h!s $'s!t!'n an" test!!es, then h!s '*!+!na% !n#')at!'n ' the F!th sh'.%" n't /e .se" a+a!nst h!(. Ha**e%%
#. DCS E@.!$(ent Leas!n+ C'*$., 286 F.3" 658:, 6515 78th C!*.6223;A Fa*a)e, 122 F.3" at 342?66. 3. A+a!nst the
&!tness' e($%'-e*B The sa(e *.%es ' e#!"en)e +'#e*n &hethe* t' a"(!t an e($%'-ee's !n#')at!'n ' the F!th !n a
s.!t a+a!nst that &!tness' e($%'-e*. See C.*t!s #. MCS Pet*'%e.(, In)., 6=5 F.:" 116 78th C!*. 6222; G.*-
!nst*.)te" that !t (a- )'ns!"e* )'*$'*ate *e$*esentat!#e's !n#')at!'n ' !th a+a!nst the )'*$'*at!'n;. The F!th
C!*).!t '/se*#e" !n C.*t!s that, /e)a.se a )'*$'*at!'n %a)0s a $*!#!%e+e a+a!nst se%?!n)*!(!nat!'n, DE.F$'n /e!n+
se*#e" &!th "!s)'#e*- *e@.ests, a )'*$'*at!'n (.st a$$'!nt a+ents &h' )an, &!th'.t ea* ' se%?!n)*!(!nat!'n,
.*n!sh *e%e#ant !n'*(at!'n a#a!%a/%e t' the )'*$'*at!'n.D I". at 1=5. The C'.*t the*e'*e )'n)%."e" that !t &as
n't .n".%- $*e>."!)!a% t' a )'*$'*ate "een"ant t' a%%'& an a"#e*se !ne*en)e /ase" 'n a "es!+nate" )'*$'*ate
*e$*esentat!#e's !n#')at!'n ' h!s F!th A(en"(ent *!+hts at a "e$'s!t!'n /e)a.se a )'nt*a*- )'n)%.s!'n D&'.%"
ee)t!#e%- $e*(!t the )'*$'*at!'n t' asse*t 'n !ts '&n /eha% the $e*s'na% $*!#!%e+e ' !ts !n"!#!".a% a+entsD an"
D)!*).(#entEF the S.$*e(e C'.*t $*e)e"ent that = Cha$te* 36 )'*$'*ate ent!t!es (a- n't asse*t a F!th
- 2
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1389
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
A(en"(ent $*!#!%e+e.D I". 7!nte*na% @.'tat!'n (a*0s an" )!tat!'ns '(!tte";. III. Sta- ' C!#!% P*')ee"!n+ Pen"!n+
C*!(!na% Ghen a )!#!% "een"ant a)es *e%ate" )*!(!na% $*'se).t!'n, he !s $.t t' a DH'/s'n's Ch'!)eD% /et&een 76;
test!-!n+ t' "een" h!s )!#!% $*')ee"!n+, &h!)h (!+ht !n)*!(!nate h!( !n h!s )*!(!na% $*')ee"!n+, '* 73; ta0!n+ the
F!th, &h!)h (!+ht '*e!t h!s "eense t' the )!#!% $*')ee"!n+.H C'.*ts ha#e *e)'+n!Ie" a s'%.t!'n: t' sta- the )!#!%
)ase .nt!% the )*!(!na% )ase !s *es'%#e". A. Ghen Can a Sta- /e S'.+htB I the )!#!% &!tnessJ"een"ant has a%*ea"-
/een !n"!)te", then the *!s0 ' )*!(!na% $*'se).t!'n 7an" the nee" '* the sta-; !s )%ea*. I the )!#!%
&!tnessJ"een"ant has n't /een !n"!)te", he &!%% ha#e t' )'n#!n)e a s'(et!(es s0e$t!)a% >."+e that the *!s0 !s *ea%
an" !((!nent. The DH'/s'n's Ch'!)e,D h'&e#e*, e,!sts /e'*e '* ate* !n"!)t(ent, as an- test!('n- +!#en !n a )!#!%
)ase /e'*e !n"!)t(ent (a- /e .se" /- $*'se).t'*s. In the %ea"!n+ )ase ' Geh%!n+ #. C'%.(/!a <*'a")ast!n+ S-s.,
149 F.3" 6495 78th C!*. 62=2;, the F!th C!*).!t '*"e*e" a sta- e#en /e'*e !n"!)t(ent. I"., at 6491?92 7*e#e*s!n+
"en!a% ' sta-, /a%an)!n+ the !nte*ests !n#'%#e", &hen ('#ant ha" a$$ea*e" /e'*e a +*an" >.*- !#e t!(es, h!s
%a&-e* /e%!e#e" he &as a Dta*+et, an" )'($an- &as )''$e*at!n+ &!th the +'#e*n(ent !n the )*!(!na% !n#est!+at!'n:
Den-!n+ a sta- &'.%" *e@.!*e the $%a!nt! Dt' )h''se /et&een h!s s!%en)e an" h!s %a&s.!tD;A see a%s' K(a*t C'*$.
#. A*'n"s, C!#. N'. H? 21?6363 7S.D. Te,. De). 66, 6221;. N'ta/%-, the $a*t- '/ta!n!n+ the sta- !n Geh%!n+ &as a
$%a!nt!!n the )!#!% s.!t. Ghethe* t' +*ant a sta- )'nst!t.tes a "!s)*et!'na*- )a%% /- the t*!a% )'.*t. C'.*ts ha#e
he%" that the '%%'&!n+ a)t'*s a*e *e%e#ant t' the "ete*(!nat!'n ' &hethe* t' +*ant a sta-: D6; the e,tent t' &h!)h
the !ss.es !n the )*!(!na% an" )!#!% )ases '#e*%a$A 3; the stat.s ' the )ase, !n)%."!n+ &hethe* the "een"ants ha#e
/een !n"!)te"A :; the $%a!nt!'s !nte*est !n $*')ee"!n+ e,$e"!t!'.s%- &e!+he" a+a!nst the $*e>."!)e t' $%a!nt!
)a.se" /- a "e%a-A 5; the $*!#ate !nte*ests ' an" /.*"en 'n "een"antsA 8; the !nte*ests ' the )'.*tA an" 1; the
$./%!) !nte*est.D Ga%sh Se).*!t!es, In). #. C*!st' P*'$e*t- Mana+e(ent, Lt"., = F.S.$$.3" 83:, 831?3=
7D.N.L.6229;. <. Gh' see0s the sta-B As !n Geh%!n+, the )!#!% %!t!+ant )an see0 a sta- $en"!n+ "e#e%'$(ents !n h!s
)*!(!na% !n#est!+at!'n '* )ase, t' $*e#ent ha#!n+ Dt' )h''se /et&een h!s s!%en)e an" h!s %a&s.!t.D H'&e#e*, the
$*'se).t!'n a%s' )an see0 a sta- ' a )!#!% )ase, t' $*e#ent the .se ' )!#!% "!s)'#e*- ? n't a#a!%a/%e !n )*!(!na% %a& ?
that &'.%" a!" the "eense '* e,$'se the +'#e*n(ent's )ase. C*!(!na% $*')ee"!n+s 7e,)e$t !n s'(e states; %a)0
"e$'s!t!'ns, !nte**'+at'*!es, *e@.ests '* a"(!ss!'n an" 'the* "!s)'#e*- t''%s that a*e a#a!%a/%e !n )!#!% )ases. In
a)t, .n"e* the s'?)a%%e" e"e*a% Len)0s A)t, the $*'se).t!'n nee" n't e#en *e#ea% the !"ent!t- ' !ts &!tnesses '*
the!* $*!'* state(ents '* test!('n- .nt!% t*!a%. The*e a*e (an- *eas'ns '* these %!(!ts 'n "!s)'#e*-, !n)%."!n+ that
the De$a*t(ent ' L.st!)e ha" a han" !n &*!t!n+ the(. A )!#!% "een"ant a)!n+ )*!(!na% )ha*+es (!+ht /e
- 3
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1390
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
$e*e)t%- &!%%!n+ t' ta0e the F!th an" s.e* an a"#e*se !ne*en)e !n h!s )!#!% t*!a% ! he a%s' then +'t t' "!s)'#e* an"
"e$'se the +'#e*n(ent's &!tnesses /e'*e the )*!(!na% t*!a%. In that )!*).(stan)e, $*'se).t'*s (!+ht ('#e t' sta-
the )!#!% )ase, an" s.)h *e@.ests a*e 'ten +*ante". Cha$te* 36 In +*ant!n+ a sta-, the )'.*t !s /a%an)!n+ the )!#!%
&!tnessJ"een"ant's *!+ht t' "een" h!s )!#!% )ase &!th h!s *!+ht n't t' !n)*!(!nate h!(se%. <.t a sta- a%s' "e%a-s the
'$$'s!n+ )!#!% $a*t- !ts "a- !n )'.*t. A )*!(!na% "een"ant a)es >e'$a*"- th*'.+h the en" ' h!s t*!a%, th*'.+h h!s
senten)!n+, an" e#en th*'.+h h!s a$$ea%. De$en"!n+ 'n the a)ts, the )'.*t has "!s)*et!'n &hethe* t' '*"e* a sta-
th*'.+h'.t a$$ea%. E. See atta)he" M't!'n '* Sta- an" O*"e* !n Un!te" States #. Fast'& &he*e the C'.*t sta-e"
Deen"ant's '/%!+at!'ns t' !%e an Ans&e* '* *es$'n" t' "!s)'#e*- ".*!n+ the $en"en)- ' )*!(!na% $*')ee"!n+s.
IV. C'*$'*ate C''$e*at!'nJGa!#e* ' P*!#!%e+eJTh*'&!n+ E($%'-ees O#e*/'a*" O.* )*!(!na% %a& !s n't s.$$'se"
t' $.n!sh "een"ants '* e,e*)!s!n+ the!* *!+ht t' t*!a%, /.t !t (a- 7an" "'es; *e&a*" "een"ants &h' a))e$t
*es$'ns!/!%!t- '* the!* )*!(es, )''$e*ate &!th +'#e*n(enta% a.th'*!t!es, an" sh'& *e('*se an" *eha/!%!tat!'n. In
the %ast "e)a"e, $.n!sh(ents '* e"e*a% )*!(e ha#e !n)*ease" "*a(at!)a%%-. Man- )a**- %!e !n $*!s'n 7s.)h as '*
a th!*" na*)'t!)s 'ense '* '* a se).*!t!es *a." ae)t!n+ a (a>'* $./%!) )'($an-;. As the +a$ !n $.n!sh(ent
/et&een %'s!n+ a t*!a% an" $%ea"!n+ +.!%t- &!"ens, the "!st!n)t!'n /et&een *e&a*"!n+ )''$e*at!'n an" $.n!sh!n+
"een"ants '* e,e*)!s!n+ the!* *!+ht t' t*!a% e#a$'*ates, an" !nn')ent as &e%% as +.!%t- $e'$%e &!%% "e)!"e the- (.st
+!#e .$ the!* *!+ht t' t*!a%. Man- )'*$'*at!'ns ea* that (e*e%- /e!n+ !n"!)te" &!%% e,$'se the( t' !nt'%e*a/%e )'sts,
&h!)h the- &!%% ta0e e,t*e(e a)t!'n t' a#'!". The ea* ' e,)ess!#e $.n!sh(ent, $%.s the (eth'"s ' )''$e*at!'n,
a*e e*'"!n+ t*a"!t!'na% n't!'ns ' the a"#e*sa*!a% s-ste(. C. Ghat !s sta-e": the &h'%e )ase '* *athe* a $a*t ' A.
"!s)'#e*-B In 6222, an" a+a!n !n 344:, the De$a*t(ent ' L.st!)e !ss.e" (e('*an"a "es)*!/!n+ a)t'*s !t &'.%"
)'ns!"e* !n "e)!"!n+ &hethe* t' $*'se).te The )'.*t has "!s)*et!'n t' sta- an ent!*e )!#!% a )'*$'*at!'n that ha"
)'((!tte" a )*!(e. )ase, !n)%."!n+ e#en the '/%!+at!'n t' !%e an ans&e*, '* 'n%- a $a*t ' "!s)'#e*-, ! a ('*e
%!(!te" sta- &!%% se*#e the *e@.!*e" $.*$'ses. D. H'& %'n+ "'es sta- %astB
I ha#e +'ne th*'.+h a #e*-, #e*- *'.+h $at)h *e)ent%-. In L.ne 3466 (- $a*tne* ' 8 -ea*s %et (e an"
('#e" '.t ' '.* sha*e" h'(e %a& '!)e. Un'*t.nate%-, .n0n'&n t' (e at the t!(e, she ha" s')0e" a&a- t&'
('nths ' *ent that I &as .n"e* the !($*ess!'n she &as '*&a*"!n+ 'n t' the %an"%'*", as &as a%&a-s '.*
a**an+e(ent !n the $*e#!'.s -ea*s. I )an't *ea%%- sa- th!s &'(an, Me%!ssa U%%'a, Dst'%eD the ('ne- *'( (e '*
an-th!n+ %!0e that. As I a( s.*e -'. 0n'&, %!#!n+ &!th a "'(est!) $a*tne* '* 8 -ea*s enta!%s a +*eat "ea% ' (!,e"
!nan)es, h'&e#e*, !t &as a )'($%ete s.*$*!se t' (e !n ea*%- A.+.st, 3466 '* s' (- %an"%'*" )'nta)te" (e a/'.t
- 4
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1391
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
the (!ss!n+ *ent. An" ' )'.*se !t &as "e#astat!n+ t' ha#e a 8 -ea* %!#e !n *e%at!'nsh!$ that (ean s' (.)h t' (e
en", $a*t!).%a*%- ate* I ha" sa)*!!)e" t' (.)h '#e* that t!(e t' he%$ Ms. U%%'a /e)'(e the !*st $e*s'n !n he*
a(!%- t' +*a".ate *'( )'%%e+e. She "!", *'( UNR &!th a "e+*ee !n >'.*na%!s(, !n Ma- 3466. He* athe* ('#e"
he*e *'( Ma)ate)as, Me,!)' an" has &'*0e" as a sh'*t '*"e* )''0 '* '#e* 34 -ea*s, s' I &as en'*('.s%- ('#!n+
t' &at)h Me%!ssa +*a".ate %ast -ea*, 0n'&!n+ &hat %'n+ '""s s.)h a $*'$'s!t!'n a)e", an" h'& (an- sha*e"
sa)*!!)es &he*e !n#'%#e".
4 got arrested on /ugust !-th, !- incident to a ver0 unusual situation Chere a hi330 1ound a 3hone in the sEate
3arE, held it alo1t, and announced he Could FthroC it in the riverF i1 some@od0 didnGt claim it immediatel0. "ome
sEate@oarders angril0 accosted me some time therea1ter, and 1rightened and alCa0s aCECard Cith the 3olice, m0 res3onse
turned the situation into something much more damaging to me than it 3ro@a@l0 should have @een. ;hile in Hail 1or si+
da0s incident to that charge, 4 could not get ahold o1 an0@od0 to @ail me out, or sign the @ail sheet, and 4 donGt @elieve 4
have the 1ull @ail required 1or the then 1elon0 grand larcen0 charge)the charge Cas soon therea1ter reduced to 3ett0
larcen0. ;hile in Hail, a No Cause "ummar0 Eviction 1rom m0 then home laC o11ice Cas instituted Iand argua@l0, a
9ease /greement liEe the one involved, Chich alloCed 1or commercial uses o1 the 3ro3ert0, made im3ermissi@le the uses
o1 the summar0 eviction 3rocedures 1ound in N$" 4-.!'3>, and that resulted in a ver0 3rolonged legal @attle Cith $ichard
<. 5ill, Esq. 4 have res3ect 1or ?r. 5ill and Cish him no harm and Hust Cant these situations to de1use as much as
3ossi@le and ho3e1ull0, result, in m0 retaining m0 laC license and having an o33ortunit0 to 3icE u3 the 3ieces o1 m0 li1e,
maEe m0 mea cul3as and a3ologies, and @egin to re@uild m0 re3utation in our legal communit0 and amongst the 7udges.
?0 2u@lic De1ender in the /ugust !-th, !- 3ett0 larcen0 arrest 1or the the1t or F3ossession o1 lost, mislaid 3ro3ert0
Cith intent to de3riveF is 7oe <oodnight.
(he $7C required me to de3osit all the mone0 4 had in the Corld as a Frent escroC de3ositF to reserve m0 right to
litigate ha@ita@ilit0 issues, some J!,!7'. (his mone0 Cas retained @0 the $7C even a1ter 7udge "1erraKKa granted the
6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction. 4 @elieve retaining such an amount, 3articularl0 given that onl0 J!'- Could @e required 1or
a su3ersedeas @ond and sta0 o1 such an eviction Chere m0 rent Cas less than J,---, necessaril0 should have accorded
me a sta0 o1 eviction in connection Cith the 6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction that 1olloCed the 6cto@er !'th, !- 5earing or
F(rialF in that matter. *urther, ?r. 5illGs o11ice did send me a F@illF dated Novem@er -th, !- Cherein a demand or @ill
1or the various charges Cas asserted. ;hat is odd is that, des3ite 3roceeding Cith the summar0 eviction 3roceeding @ased
- 5
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1392
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
onl0 u3on a No Cause Eviction Notice Iie, the non)3a0ment o1 rent Cas not alleged @0 the landlord or his counsel,
$ichard <. 5ill, Esq.>, the landlordGs counsel then, over - da0s a1ter Cinning an 6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction, sends a F'
Da0 Notice o1 8nlaC1ul Detainer 1or Non)2a0ment o1 $entF. 4n that letter o1 L-L the landlordGs counsels Crites that
F0ou Cill 1ind a co30 o1 an a11idavit @0 Dr. ?erliss, veri10ing and u3dating the 3rinci3al amount o1 0our underl0ing de@t
to him as o1 6cto@er 7, !-. /dditional late 1ees and charges 1or 0our electricit0 use have attached since that date. 4n
addition to the sums identi1ied @0 Dr. ?erliss in his a11idavit, 0our de@t noC also includes 1ees 1or storage o1 0our
3ersonal 3ossessions le1t at the 3ro3ert0, Chich accrue dail0 at the a!* *enta% #a%.e ' the $*'$e*t-. :our de@t 1urther
includes actual costs 1or inventor0ing and moving 0our 3ossessions 1rom the 3ro3ert0. "ee N$" &/.4,-. (hose sums
Cill @e 3rovided to 0ou once the0 have @een 1i+ed.
N$" &/.!- F$ental agreements: 2a0ment o1 rent= term o1 tenanc0. . $ent is 3a0a@le
Cithout demand or notice at the time and 3lace agreed u3on @0 the 3arties. !. 8nless the
rental agreement esta@lishes a de1inite term, the tenanc0 is 1rom CeeE to CeeE in the case
o1 a tenant Cho 3a0s CeeEl0 rent and in all other cases the tenanc0 is 1rom month to month.
3. 4n the a@sence o1 an agreement, either Critten or oral: Ia> $ent is 3a0a@le at the
@eginning o1 the tenanc0= and I@> $ent 1or the use and occu3anc0 o1 a dCelling is the 1air
rental value 1or the use and occu3anc0F
4 EnoC 7udge 5oCard and 7udge Nash 5olmes are liEel0 ver0 u3set Cith me. 4 have a great deal o1 res3ect 1or
@oth o1 those 7udges and ho3e to earn their res3ect ultimatel0. Both recentl0 sentenced me to several da0s o1
incarceration 3ursuant to a "ummar0 Contem3t Committed in the CourtGs 2resence 1inding. *urther, 7udge 5olmes has
a33arentl0 had m0 tCo cell 3hones and 3erha3s some other materials con1iscated 3ursuant to the search incident to arrest
in connection Cith m0 summar0 contem3t incarceration incident to the recent (rial in $?C tra11ic citation matter tr
!,&-- IticEet num@er '44!&> Chich occurred at 3m *e@. !7th, !- @e1ore 7udge 5olmes, Cherein $eno Cit0
/ttorne0 6rmaas Cas re3resenting the Cit0 o1 $eno.
(he Hail did not give me @acE m0 tCo cell 3hones or a micro sd card...the0 said the $eno ?unici3al Court
I$?C> con1iscated those items on !L!&L!, though the0 indicated that the0 did not require the $?C Iactuall0 the $eno
?arshalGs division> to shoC a court order or Carrant 3rior to so con1iscating those items. /33arentl0 the0 are holding
these items 3ursuant to F3ro@a@le causeF, o1 Chat 4 do not EnoC. 7udge Nash 5olmes questioned me in o3en court as to
Chether 4 Cas recording the 3roceeding. (he 3roceedings are recorded as a matter o1 laC @0 the court, and the
- 6
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1393
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
3roceeding is an o3en hearing, 3art o1 the 3u@lic record, so...4 am not sure Chat she Cas getting at, @ut...(he $eno
?arshalGs ?arshal 5a0ne0 Ior 5ine0, not sure> and the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas Cere seen Chis3ering in each otherGs
ears during the hearing I4 noted that ver@all0 into the record> and a1ter the hearing, Chile ?arshal 5a0ne0 Cas searching
me 3ursuant to m0 @eing arrested IChich Cas odd given 4 Cas in the 3rocess o1 attem3ting to 3a0 the alternate disci3line
7udge 5olmes had o11ered, J'--, Chich Cas su33osed to ena@le me to avoid serving the ' da0s Hail time>, he 1ound m0
3hone and a micro sd card Cas on the 1loor ne+t to m0 1oot. 5e immediatel0 started accusing me o1 FrecordingF and told
the other ?arshalGs to re3ort that 4 had @een doing so to the 7udge, 7udge Nash 5olmes.
4t seemed that the Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas Cas a1raid 4 had a recording o1 her telling me she did not care a@out an0
re3orts o1 @ri@er0 @0 $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. in relation to m0 charge o1 $2D "argent (arter retaliating against me Cith
three tra11ic citations shortl0 a1ter 4 re3orted to him that $2D 611icer Chris Carter admitted to me on Novem@er !th,
!- Iduring m0 arrest 1or tres3ass as m0 1ormer home laC o11ice at ! $iver $ocE "t.> that he acce3ts @ri@es 1rom
$ichard 5ill, Esq. Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas seemed to @ecome 1ear1ul o1 this a1ter it @ecame a33arent in court that Chether
or not 4 Could @e 3ermitted to enter an0 such evidence in su33ort o1 that contention Could @e de3endent u3on Chether 4
had 3reviousl0 attem3ted to 3rovide an0 such evidence to the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0. 4 @elieve m0 testimon0 IChich should
@e ca3tured @0 the audio recording the $?C maEes o1 all hearings, i1 it doesnGt m0steriousl0 disa33ear or get FdamagedF>
includes m0 stating that 4 had attem3ted to 3rovide such 3roo1 to not onl0 $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas, @ut also the
3revious $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 on the case, Dan ;ong, and that the0 had @oth told me the0 didnGt care to hear a@out such
@ri@er0 allegations involving the $eno 2D and $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. 4 seem to recall 7udge Nash 5olmes demanding to
EnoC Chether 4 had an0 3roo1 o1 m0 so attem3ting to @ring these @ri@er0 allegations to the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0Gs ;ong
and 6rmaas, and 4 might have said something liEe FCeGll seeF, Chich, o1 course, u3set the 7udge Iits hard in o3en court,
ever0thing ha33ens ver0 1ast and the rules seem to onl0 @e used against those Cho are not 3art o1 the s0stem>.
(he case num@er in this $?C tra11ic citation matter is tr !,&-- $?C IticEet num@er '44!&> and the (rial or
5earing occurred at 3m *e@. !7th @e1ore 7udge 5olmes
/@out - da0s ago 4 1iled an a33lication 1or a tem3orar0 3rotection order against a $eno 7ustice Court Baili11
named $e0es. Baili11 $e0es had, on 3ro@a@l0 Novem@er !&, !- or so, told me he Cas going to F3ut his 1oot u3 0our
- 7
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1394
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
assF. 5e continued to @e menacing and aggressive to me and 1inall0 4 1iled a 3rotection order a@out - da0s ago. (o m0
EnoCledge, no decision or hearing has @een held on that 3rotection order, and Aaren "tancil, Chie1 Civil ClerE Cith the
$7C in1ormed me it Cas @eing trans1erred to "3arEs 7ustice Court I4 @elieve> do to the $7C having a con1lict. /lso, 4
re3orted to $7C Court /dministrator (uttle another incident Cherein Chie1 Baili11 ?ichael "e+ton has made menacing
commentar0 to me regarding m0 FassF as Cell, tCice during (hanEsgiving CeeE in the Civil Division *iling 611ice.
4 am telling 0ou this @ecause 4 donGt EnoC Chat to do, or Chat is going to ha33en. 4 am tr0ing to de1use the
situation as @est as 3ossi@le....(o clari10, the $?C is the $eno ?unici3al Court and the0 em3lo0 ?arshals to @e the
muscle in court. (he $7C is the $eno 7ustice Court and the0 em3lo0 Baili11s to do the same.
A""!t!'na% Le+a% P'!nts t' C'ns!"e*:
N$" &/.39- 8nlaC1ul removal or e+clusion o1 tenant or Cill1ul interru3tion o1 essential items or services=
3rocedure 1or e+3edited relie1. . 41 the landlord unlaC1ull0 removes the tenant 1rom the 3remises or e+cludes the tenant
@0 @locEing or attem3ting to @locE the tenantMs entr0 u3on the 3remises, Cill1ull0 interru3ts or causes or 3ermits the
interru3tion o1 an0 essential item or service required @0 the rental agreement or this cha3ter or otherCise recovers
3ossession o1 the dCelling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-, the tenant ma0 recover immediate 3ossession 3ursuant to
su@section 4, 3roceed under N$" &/.3&- or terminate the rental agreement and, in addition to an0 other remed0,
recover the tenantMs actual damages, receive an amount not greater than J!,'-- to @e 1i+ed @0 the court, or @oth. !. 4n
determining the amount, i1 an0, to @e aCarded under su@section , the court shall consider: Ia> ;hether the landlord acted
in good 1aith= I@> (he course o1 conduct @etCeen the landlord and the tenant= and Ic> (he degree o1 harm to the tenant
caused @0 the landlordMs conduct. 3. 41 the rental agreement is terminated 3ursuant to su@section , the landlord shall
return all 3re3aid rent and securit0 recovera@le under this cha3ter. 4. E+ce3t as otherCise 3rovided in su@section ', the
tenant ma0 recover immediate 3ossession o1 the 3remises 1rom the landlord @0 1iling a veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited
relie1 1or the unlaC1ul removal or e+clusion o1 the tenant 1rom the 3remises, the Cill1ul interru3tion o1 an0 essential item
or service or the recover0 o1 3ossession o1 the dCelling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-. '. / veri1ied com3laint 1or
e+3edited relie1: Ia> ?ust @e 1iled Cith the court Cithin ' Hudicial da0s a1ter the date o1 the unlaC1ul act @0 the landlord,
and the veri1ied com3laint must @e dismissed i1 it is not timel0 1iled. 41 the veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1 is
- 8
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1395
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
dismissed 3ursuant to this 3aragra3h, the tenant retains the right to 3ursue all other availa@le remedies against the
landlord. I@> ?a0 not @e 1iled Cith the court i1 an action 1or summar0 eviction or unlaC1ul detainer is alread0 3ending
@etCeen the landlord and tenant, @ut the tenant ma0 seeE similar relie1 @e1ore the Hudge 3residing over the 3ending action.
,. (he court shall conduct a hearing on the veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1 not later than 3 Hudicial da0s a1ter the
1iling o1 the veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. Be1ore or at the scheduled hearing, the tenant must 3rovide 3roo1 that
the landlord has @een 3ro3erl0 served Cith a co30 o1 the veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. 83on the hearing, i1 it is
determined that the landlord has violated an0 o1 the 3rovisions o1 su@section , the court ma0: Ia> 6rder the landlord to
restore to the tenant the 3remises or essential items or services, or @oth= I@> /Card damages 3ursuant to su@section = and
Ic> EnHoin the landlord 1rom violating the 3rovisions o1 su@section and, i1 the circumstances so Carrant, hold the
landlord in contem3t o1 court. 7. (he 3a0ment o1 all costs and o11icial 1ees must @e de1erred 1or an0 tenant Cho 1iles a
veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. /1ter an0 hearing and not later than 1inal dis3osition o1 the 1iling or order, the
court shall assess the costs and 1ees against the 3art0 that does not 3revail, e+ce3t that the court ma0 reduce them or Caive
them, as Hustice ma0 require.
NRS 669A.:24 Un%a&.% *e('#a% '* e,)%.s!'n ' tenant '* &!%%.% !nte**.$t!'n '
essent!a% !te(s '* se*#!)esA $*')e".*e '* e,$e"!te" *e%!e. F. 41 the landlord unlaC1ull0
removes the tenant 1rom the 3remises or e+cludes the tenant @0 @locEing or attem3ting to
@locE the tenantMs entr0 u3on the 3remises, Cill1ull0 interru3ts or causes or 3ermits the
interru3tion o1 an0 essential item or service required @0 the rental agreement or this cha3ter
or otherCise recovers 3ossession o1 the dCelling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-, the
tenant ma0 recover immediate 3ossession 3ursuant to su@section 4, 3roceed under N$"
&/.3&-...4. E+ce3t as otherCise 3rovided in su@section ', the tenant ma0 recover
immediate 3ossession o1 the 3remises 1rom the landlord @0 1iling a veri1ied com3laint 1or
e+3edited relie1 1or the unlaC1ul removal or e+clusion o1 the tenant 1rom the 3remises, the
Cill1ul interru3tion o1 an0 essential item or service or the recover0 o1 3ossession o1 the
dCelling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-. '. / veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1:
Ia> ?ust @e 1iled Cith the court Cithin ' Hudicial da0s a1ter the date o1 the unlaC1ul act @0
the landlord, and the veri1ied com3laint must @e dismissed i1 it is not timel0 1iled. 41 the
veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1 is dismissed 3ursuant to this 3aragra3h, the tenant
retains the right to 3ursue all other availa@le remedies against the landlord. I@> ?a0 not @e
1iled Cith the court i1 an action 1or summar0 eviction or unlaC1ul detainer is alread0
3ending @etCeen the landlord and tenant, @ut the tenant ma0 seeE similar relie1 @e1ore the
Hudge 3residing over the 3ending action. ,. (he court shall conduct a hearing on the
veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1 not later than 3 Hudicial da0s a1ter the 1iling o1 the
veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. Be1ore or at the scheduled hearing, the tenant must
3rovide 3roo1 that the landlord has @een 3ro3erl0 served Cith a co30 o1 the veri1ied
com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. 83on the hearing, i1 it is determined that the landlord has
violated an0 o1 the 3rovisions o1 su@section , the court ma0: Ia> 6rder the landlord to
restore to the tenant the 3remises or essential items or services, or @oth= I@> /Card damages
3ursuant to su@section = and Ic> EnHoin the landlord 1rom violating the 3rovisions o1
su@section and, i1 the circumstances so Carrant, hold the landlord in contem3t o1 court. F
- 9
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1396
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
*urther, NRS 669A.594 Lan"%'*"Ns *e)'#e*- ' $'ssess!'n ' "&e%%!n+ .n!t: F(he
landlord shall not recover or taEe 3ossession o1 the dCelling unit @0 action or otherCise,
including Cill1ul diminution or interru3tion or causing or 3ermitting the diminution or
interru3tion o1 an0 essential item or service required @0 the rental agreement or this
cha3ter, e+ce3t: . B0 an action 1or 3ossession or other civil action or summar0 3roceeding
in Chich the issue o1 right o1 3ossession is determined= !. ;hen the tenant has surrendered
3ossession o1 the dCelling unit to the landlord= or 3. ;hen the tenant has a@andoned the
dCelling unit as 3rovided in N$" &/.4'-F
N$" &/.4&- comes into 3la0 i1 the landlord did taEe Frecover0 o1 3ossessionF o1 m0 1ormer home laC o11ice
at ! $iver $ocE "t. 3rior to @eing legall0 alloCed to do so. (o anal0Ke this, one must EnoC Chat t03e o1 service o1
the 6rder o1 "ummar0 Eviction is required. (his @eing a civil matter, the Frendition o1 Hudgment or orderF or
FrenderedF language one 1inds in criminal statutes liEe N$" &9.-- ICherein the deadline 1or 1iling a Notice o1
/33eal 1rom a criminal conviction is set 1orth> is ina33lica@le. (hat @eing said, and as e+3licitl0 set 1orth in N$"
/ letter 1rom the ;ashoe Count0 "heri11Gs 611ice I;C"6> Civil DivisionGs 9iK "tuchell 3rovides some insight as to
Chether the locEout that tooE 3lace on Novem@er , !- in this case Cas 3ermissi@le.
F"u@Hect: $E: ;C"6 De3ut0 ?achemGs F3ersonall0 servedF /11idavit o1 LL!-
Date: (ue, 7 *e@ !-! :4-:39 )-&--
*rom: 9"tuchell.Cashoecount0.us
(o: Kachcoughlin.hotmail.com
CC: mEandaras.da.Cashoecount0.us
?r. Coughlin,
6ur records indicate that the eviction conducted on that da0 Cas 3ersonall0
served @0 De3ut0 ?achen @0 3osting a co30 o1 the 6rder to the residence. (he residence
Cas unoccu3ied at the time.
9iK "tuchell, "u3ervisor ;C"6 Civil "ectionF
2ut sim3l0, the Novem@er , !- locEout, 1or Chich ;C"6 De3ut0 ?achem indicates he F3ersonall0 servedF
the 6rder o1 "ummar0 Eviction, Cas not laC1ull0 conducted, and as such is ine11ective and invoEes the 3rovision o1
N$" &/.4&-. ;hen considering that the tenant did 1ile such a com3laint 1or illegal locEout, and the 1act that the
$7C 1ailed to rule on tenants 1iling Iand a good deal o1 other such 1ilings @0 the tenant have languished in the $7C
unruled on des3ite requests 1or su@mission @eing su@mitted...>, the current criminal tres3ass 3roceeding in the $?C in
C$ !,4-' and the 5earing on the 6rder to "hoC Cause currentl0 set 1or ?arch !3rd at :-- am in De3artment 7 in
C%)-3,!&, the a33eal 1rom the eviction matter involving $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. in $7C $ev!-)--7-&.
(his Chole @usiness a@out N(he court ma0 thereu3on issue an order directing the sheri11 or consta@le o1 the
count0 to remove the tenant Cithin !4 hours a1ter recei3t o1 the order...O is ina33lica@le to this situation, Chere an
- 10
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1397
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
6rder <ranting "ummar0 Eviction Cas signed @0 6cto@er !7th, !-. (hat language is onl0 1ound in situations
ina33lica@le to the current one. N$" 4-.!'3I3>I@>I!>, and N$" 4-.!'3I'>Ia> are the onl0 sections o1 N$" 4- Chere this
NCithin !4 hoursO language occurs, and those situations onl0 a33l0 Chere, in:
4-.!'3I3>I@>I!>: N 3. / notice served 3ursuant to su@section or ! must: ...I@> /dvise the tenant: P. I!> (hat i1 the court
determines that the tenant is guilt0 o1 an unlaC1ul detainer, the court ma0 issue a summar0 order 1or removal o1 the tenant
or an order 3roviding 1or the nonadmittance o1 the tenant, directing the sheri11 or consta@le o1 the count0 to remove the
tenant Cithin !4 hours a1ter recei3t o1 the orderO
and,
4-.!'3I'>Ia>: N'. 83on noncom3liance Cith the notice: Ia> (he landlord or the landlordMs agent ma0 a33l0 @0 a11idavit o1
com3laint 1or eviction to the Hustice court o1 the toCnshi3 in Chich the dCelling, a3artment, mo@ile home or commercial
3remises are located or to the district court o1 the count0 in Chich the dCelling, a3artment, mo@ile home or commercial
3remises are located, Chichever has Hurisdiction over the matter. (he court ma0 thereu3on issue an order directing the
sheri11 or consta@le o1 the count0 to remove the tenant Cithin !4 hours a1ter recei3t o1 the order.O (he Ca0 these summar0
eviction 3roceedings are @eing carried out in $eno 7ustice Court 3resentl0 shocEs the conscience and violates Nevada
laC. (here is not @asis 1or e11ectuating a locEout the Ca0 ;C"6Gs De3ut0 ?achem did in this case. (he a@ove tCo
sections containing the NCithin !4 hours o1 recei3tO language are ina33lica@le, as those situations do not invoEe the
3resent circumstances, Chere the (enant did 1ile an /11idavit and did contest this matter to a degree not o1ten seen. (o
require NevadaGs tenants to get u3 and get out NCithin !4 hoursO o1 Nrecei3t o1 the orderO IChat does that even meanQ (he
use o1 terms liEe NrenditionO, NrenderedO, Nnotice o1 entr0O, N3ronouncedO, is a@sent here, and this Nrecei3t o1 the orderO
language is something rarel0 1ound elseChere in Nevada laC)see attached D?% statutor0 citations, and in em3lo0ment
laC litigations Chere one must 1ile a Com3laint Cithin 9- da0s o1 Nrecei3tO o1 a $ight (o "ue 9etter, a situation Chich
1olloCs N$C2 'I@>, and N$C2 ,Ie> in im3uting recei3t o1 such a letter, Chen actual recei3t is not shoCn, @0 a33l0ing a
Nconstructive noticeO standard that relies u3on the da0s 1or mailing e+tension o1 time 1or items served in the mailing,
etc.>. 4n /@raham v. ;oods 5ole 6ceanogra3hic 4nstitute, ''3 *.3d 4 Ist Cir. !--9>, the record did not re1lect Chen
the 3lainti11 received his right)to)sue letter. (he letter Cas issued on Novem@er !4, !--,. (he court calculated that the 9-)
- 11
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1398
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
da0 3eriod commenced on Novem@er 3-, !--,, @ased on three da0s 1or mailing a1ter e+cluding "aturda0s and "unda0s.
4n order to @ring a claim under either (itle %44 or the /D/, a 3lainti11 must e+haust administrative remedies and sue
Cithin 9- da0s o1 recei3t o1 a right to sue letter. "ee 4! 8.".C. R !---e)'I1>I>. "ee BaldCin Count0 ;elcome Center v.
BroCn, 4,, 8.". 47, 4& n., -4 ".Ct. 7!3, &- 9.Ed.!d 9, I9&4>Igranting 3lainti11 an additional three da0s 1or
mailing 3ursuant to $ule ,>....O ...<UT GCSO DEPUTY MACHEM STILL HASN'T LEARNED HIS LESSON, AS
LUST ON FE<RUARY 3=TH, 3463 7AN IN THE AFFIDAVIT MACHEM AND THE GCSO FILED TODAY,
HE AGAIN EOUATES PPERSONALLY SERVEDQ GITH CIRCUMSTANCES FAR AFIELD FROM THE
MEANING OF THAT PHRASE, AS MACHEM DID NOT SERV E THE UNDERSIGNED ANYTHING,
MARSHAL HYLIN MAKE GANT TO ARGUE HE DID s'(eth!n+ FOR MACHEM, <UT MACHEM DID NOT
PERSONALLY SERVED THE UNDERSIGNED ANYTHING. GHY DOES MACHEM AND THE GCSO,
RMC, RMC PU<LIC DEFENDERS, RLC, HILL, NV ENERGY, ETC, ETC. GET TO CUT ALL THESE
CORNERS AND NOT GO TO LAILB GHY DO THEY SEEMINGLY HAVE A FREE PASS TO PLAY
AGGRESIVELY IN GREY AREAS GHERE THE UNDERSIGNED GETS HAULED OFF TO THE SLAMMER
EVERY TIME HE MAKES EYE CONTACT GITH COURT SECURTY 7GELL, CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF
THE FINE MEN AND GOMEN ON THE VARIOSU SECURITY STAFFS, <UT....;
htt3:LLen.CiEi3edia.orgLCiEiL"erviceSo1S3rocess
F"u@stituted service: ;hen an individual 3art0 to @e served is unavaila@le 1or 3ersonal
service, man0 Hurisdictions alloC 1or su@stituted service. "u@stituted service alloCs the
3rocess server to leave service documents Cith another res3onsi@le individual, called a
3erson o1 suita@le age and discretion, such as a coha@iting adult or a teenager. 8nder
the *ederal $ules, su@stituted service ma0 onl0 @e made at the a@ode or dCelling o1 the
de1endant.T4U Cali1ornia, NeC :orE,T'U 4llinois, and man0 other 8nited "tates
Hurisdictions require that in addition to su@stituted service, the documents @e mailed to
the reci3ient.T'U "u@stituted service o1ten requires a serving 3art0 shoC that ordinar0
service is im3ractica@le, that due diligence has @een made to attem3t to maEe 3ersonal
service @0 deliver0, and that su@stituted service Cill reach the 3art0 and e11ect notice.
T'UF
4 am 3rett0 sure F3ersonall0 servedF means 0ou served the 3erson in 3erson, not that a 3erson Ior ;C"6
De3utee> Cent and 3osted a notice on a door, 3ersonall0 himsel1. "ee, 4 thinE the ;C"6 are thinEing o1 the F3ersonF in
the Cord 3ersonall0 as a33l0ing to the server, Chen in all instances 4 have ever seen it used in the laC, the F3ersonF 3art
o1 F3ersonall0F a33lies to the 3erson @eing served. *urther adding con1usion here is the 1act that some, including those
in the $7C Civil Division *iling 611ice seem to @elieve that the NCithin !4 hoursO o1 Nrecei3t o1 the orderO mentioned
1or serving an 6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction Ionl0 Chere the tenant did not 1ile a (enantGs /nsCer, so...not liEe in the
- 12
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1399
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
instant case> requires the ;C"6 to e11ect the locEout Cithin !4 hours o1 the ;C"6 receiving the locEout
6rder...otherCise such an 6rder Could @ecome staleQ
5oCever, to those Cho Could Hudge or assert some Fs3ecial treatmentF is @eing sought, asE 0oursel1 Chether
0ou @rought home Cith 0ou over the last 3- 0ears ever0oneGs overdosing on methadone, or CalEing out o1 oneGs o11ice
a1ter maEing ever0 assurance that suicide Cas not at all a 3ossi@ilit0 onl0 to reveal that, indeed it Cas, or have countless
CeeEends and vacations involve 3hone calls concerning Chether a 3atient is F1ull codeF or Fno codeF...:ou @ring that
home Cith 0ou 1or 3- 0ears and tell me Chat sort o1 com3ensation is a33ro3riate and then com3are it to the managed
care era 1amil0 3h0sicianGs and then Ce can discuss Fs3ecial treatmentF. /nd 0ou do that Cithout a drinE in 3- 0ears
and then 0ou can talE. But all this Fs3ecial treatmentF discussion seems a @it strained Chen discussing Chether $ichard
<. 5ill com1ort level necessitates e+acting even more mone0 out o1 me Chen it ought @e 1airl0 o@vious that 4 am doing
ever0thing 4 3ossi@l0 can to, @ucEet @0 @ucEet, remove the Cater 3ooling at the @ottom o1 m0 tin0, one 3erson canoe.
/nd Chere this involves a rugged, tall, !3 0ear veteran "argent o1 the $eno 2D Cith 3ale @lue e0es Cho has dou@tless
earned the com3ensation he noC garners, 3erha3s the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 Could @e Cise to Hust let the tra11ic ticEet go.
6r, 3erha3s, not, given the econom0 Ce are all struggling Cith e+acts its 1orces u3on the Hudgment o1 the $eno Cit0
/ttorne0Gs 611ice as Cell, and the0 didnGt get Chere the0 are @0 @eing lightCeights or lacEing in discretion or valor.
?a0@e the @est thing Could @e to Hust hit the 3ause @utton 1or a Chile and see Chether the 3erson o1 inquir0 continues
to suit u3 and shoC u3 and do their @est to 1unction as a legal 3ro1essional an earn an honest living.
N$" 4-.4-- $ules o1 3ractice. (he 3rovisions o1 N$", Nevada $ules o1 Civil 2rocedure and
Nevada $ules o1 /33ellate 2rocedure relative to civil actions, a33eals and neC trials, so 1ar as
the0 are not inconsistent Cith the 3rovisions o1 N$" 4-.!!- to 4-.4!-, inclusive, a33l0 to the
3roceedings mentioned in those sections.
N$" 4-.39- /33ellate court not to dismiss or quash 3roceedings 1or Cant o1 1orm. 4n all
cases o1 a33eal under N$" 4-.!!- to 4-.4!-, inclusive, the a33ellate court shall not dismiss or
quash the 3roceedings 1or Cant o1 1orm, 3rovided the 3roceedings have @een conducted
su@stantiall0 according to the 3rovisions o1 N$" 4-.!!- to 4-.4!-, inclusive= and amendments
to the com3laint, ansCer or summons, in matters o1 1orm onl0, ma0 @e alloCed @0 the court at
an0 time @e1ore 1inal Hudgment u3on such terms as ma0 @e Hust= and all matters o1 e+cuse,
Husti1ication or avoidance o1 the allegations in the com3laint ma0 @e given in evidence under
the ansCer.
*urther 3ro@lematic Cith 7udge "1erraKKaGs a33roach in $7C $ev!-)--7-& is that, Chile his inter3retation
o1 N$" 4-.!'3 alloCed an eviction @ased onl0 on a No Cause Eviction Notice to somehoC require a rent escroC
de3osit o1 J!,!7' 1or a litigant Cith nothing to s3are, such an a33roach did not alloC 1or that tenant to assert
- 13
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1400
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
counterclaims, des3ite the e+3licit authorit0 1or the tenant doing so u3on a court a33l0ing NRS 669A.524 A)t!'ns
/ase" .$'n n'n$a-(ent ' *ent: C'.nte*)%a!( /- tenantA "e$'s!t ' *ent &!th )'.*tA >."+(ent '* e#!)t!'n.
4ndeed, the undersigned tenant in that matter did attem3t to assert such counterclaims, hoCever his right to do so Cas
denied. "im3l0 3ut, the landlord Cas a@le to have it his Ca0 in so man0 di11erent Ca0s in this eviction matter. 5e Cas
a@le to 3roceed under a no cause summar0 eviction notice Cherein the non3a0ment o1 rent Cas not alleged Chile at the
same time @ene1iting 1rom the court 1orcing the tenant to de3osit a rent escroC amount o1 J!,!7'. (his a33roach is
1urther underscored @0 the 1act that onl0 - da0s or so a1ter receiving the summar0 eviction order the landlordGs counsel
su@mitted to the tenant a landlordGs a11idavit 1or summar0 eviction @ased on the non3a0ment o1 rent. 4t Could seem
onl0 1air and indeed required @0 N$" &/.49- alloC the tenant to assert counterclaims Chere the tenant is so 1orced
to maEe a rent escroC de3osit. /nd, Chile the 9ease /greement 3rovided that the landlord shall @e, at su@section !&:
39. LIA<ILITY: management shall not @e lia@le 1or an0 damage or inHur0 to $esident or
an0 other 3erson or to an0 3ro3ert0 occurring on the 3remises or an0 3art thereo1, or in
common ares thereo1, .n%ess s.)h %!a/!%!t- !s /ase" 'n the ne+%!+ent a)ts '* '(!ss!'n '
(ana+e(ent, h!s a+ent, '* e($%'-ee...F
7udge "1erraKKa summaril0 ruled that <reen /ction 9aCn "ervice Cas an Finde3endent contractorF and, as
such, "u@section !& o1 the 9ease /greement did not a11ord the tenant an o33ortunit0 to assert counterclaims under N$"
&/.4&-. 5oCever, even i1 the /33ellate District Court revieCing $7C $ev!-)--7& in C%)-3,!& 1inds this so,
the 1act that the revieC is a Fde novoF revieC 3ermits the a33ellate court to consider Chether, even it Cere the case that
the landlordGs landsca3ers Cere Finde3endent contractorsF, that "u@section !& Could still alloC 1or lia@ilit0 1or their acts
to @e accorded to the landlord. $egardless, 7udge "1erraKKaGs ruling on Chether or not lia@ilit0 e+ists or Chether tenant
Cas alloCed to litigate counterclaims in the trial court are sim3l0 not matters Cell suited to summar0 Hudgment, and,
regardless, tenant met his @urden in that regard su11icient to 3reclude such a summar0 dis3osition o1 those matters.
;hile 7udge "1erraKKa ruled that the damage done @0 the landlordGs <reen /ction 9aCn "ervice did not 3resent
an o33ortunit0 1or the tenant to assert counterclaims Ieven though su@section !& o1 the 9ease /greement 3rovides so>,
the tenant should have @een a11orded such an o33ortunit0 to so assert such counterclaims, 3articularl0 Chere such a rent
escroC de3osit Cas not onl0 required, @ut then retained @0 the court 1or at least - da0s a1ter signing the 6rder 1or
"ummar0 Eviction. *urther, it is 3recisel0 these t03es o1 am@iguous 3oints o1 contractual inter3retation that are ill)
suited to dis3osal on summar0 Hudgment: (he @urden o1 3roo1 a33lica@le to a "ummar0 Eviction 2roceeding under N$"
- 14
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1401
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
4-.!'3 dictates that, the court Cill alloC @oth 3arties to s3eaE and 3resent evidence on their @ehal1 a1ter Chich the court
Cill determine Chether there is Na genuine dis3ute o1 material 1acts.O I"ee /nvui, 99C v. <.9. Dragon, 99C in Chich
the Nevada "u3reme Court held that summar0 eviction cases should @e evaluated liEe motions 1or summar0 Hudgment.
in /nvui, 99C v. <.9. Dragon, 99C, !3 Nev. !!, ,3 2.3d 4-' I!--7>, the Nevada "u3reme Court ruled that its
revieC o1 an order granting summar0 eviction under N$" 4-.!'3I,> is Nde novoO @ecause those 3roceedings are
analogous to an order granting summar0 Hudgment under N$C2 ',. 4d. at !', ,3 2.3d at 4-7. Burden o1 3roo1 o1
movant, hearing and determination 2art0 moving 1or summar0 Hudgment has @urden o1 3roving that no tria@le issues
remain. Nevada $ules Civ.2roc., $ule ',. 5arr0 v. "mith, 99', &93 2.!d 37!, Nev. '!&. 4n order to 3revail on his
motion 1or summar0 Hudgment, general 3artner Cas required to demonstrate 1rom record, a11idavits, or other evidence,
a@sence or conclusive 1alsit0 o1 limited 3artnersG claims o1 1raud or misre3resentation in connection Cith dissolution o1
3artnershi3 agreement= although he Cas not required to su@mit a11idavits in su33ort o1 his motion, he Cas required to
3rove Nother indiciaO o1 none+istence o1 1raud. $ules Civ.2roc., $ule ',. ?aine v. "teCart, 993, &'7 2.!d 7'', -9
Nev. 7!, rehearing denied. Burden o1 3roving a@sence o1 tria@le 1acts alloCing entr0 o1 summar0 Hudgment is u3on
3art0 moving 1or summar0 Hudgment. $ules Civ.2roc., $ule ',Ia>. Butler v. Bogdanovich, 9&', 7-' 2.!d ,,!, - Nev.
449, rehearing denied. 4n suit against oCner o1 service station 1or death o1 em3lo0ee o1 contractor engaged in alterations
at service station, de1endant Chich moved 1or summar0 Hudgment had @urden o1 esta@lishing that de1endantGs
relationshi3 to deceased Cas tantamount to that o1 em3lo0er so that 3lainti11Gs e+clusive remed0 Cas the 4ndustrial
4nsurance /ct. N$C2 ',I@, c>= N.$.". ,,.-- et seq., ,,.-&'. ;eaver v. "hell 6il Co., 97', '3' 2.!d 7&7, 9 Nev.
3!4. (he @urden o1 esta@lishing the lacE o1 tria@le issue o1 1act is u3on the 3art0 moving 1or summar0 Hudgment.
5idden ;ells $anch, 4nc. v. "tri3 $ealt0, 4nc., 9,7, 4!' 2.!d '99, &3 Nev. 43.
"ee, <omeK v. 4nde3endence ?anagement o1 DelaCare, 4nc., 9,7 /.!d !7, ID.C. !--9>: F1n 9. ;e have said
in another conte+t that a claim o1 Na retaliator0 motive is a question o1 1act 1or the Hur0 Ior the Hudge in a non)Hur0 trial>,
and, liEe other t03es o1 claims in Chich motive or intent is in issue, is not Cell suited to dis3osition on a motion 1or
summar0 Hudgment.O /rthur :oung V Co. v. "utherland, ,3 /.!d 3'4, 3,& ID.C.993> Ire1erring to a claim o1
retaliator0 action under the DC5$/>= see EdCards, su3ra note &, 3- 8.". /33. D.C. at 4, 397 *.!d at 7-! IN(he
question o1 3ermissi@le or im3ermissi@le 3ur3ose is one o1 1act 1or the court or Hur0WO>. ;e have said the same thing
a@out claims o1 discrimination, see, e.g., 5ollins v. *ederal National ?ortgage /ssGn, 7,- /.!d ',3, '79)&- ID.C.!--->,
@ut Ce have, on occasion, u3held a trial court grant o1 summar0 Hudgment in 1avor o1 a de1endant accused o1
- 15
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1402
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
discrimination. "ee, e.g., 5amilton v. 5oCard 8niversit0, 9,- /.!d 3-&, 3'), ID.C.!--&>= ;allace v. "Eadden, /r3s,
"late, ?eagher V *lom 992, 799 /.!d 3&, 3&, ID.C.!--!>= 5ollins, 7,- /.!d at '7. ;e there1ore do not 1oreclose
the 3ossi@ilit0 that, on a 3ro3erl0 su33orted record, the trial court ma0 dis3ose o1 a de1ense o1 retaliator0 eviction at the
summar0 Hudgment stage. ;hen the statutor0 3resum3tion o1 retaliator0 action has @een triggered, hoCever, the record
Could have to esta@lish, under the standards that govern summar0 Hudgment, that the landlord has re@utted it @0 clear
and convincing evidence.F
4ndeed, this is true Chen considering that a tough choice 1aces the landlord in this matter. 41 the tenant Cas a
commercial tenant, then N$" 4-.!'3 1or@ids 3roceeding under the summar0 eviction 3rocedure 1ound therein Chere
onl0 a No Cause Eviction Notice Cas served Iie, the non)3a0ment o1 rent Cas not alleged>, as Cas the case in that
matter. 5oCever, to the e+tent the landlord Cishes to argue the tenant Cas not a commercial tenant Ides3ite the 9ease
/greement e+3licitl0 alloCing 1or such use as Cell as local Koning laCs> then the dictates o1 N$" 4-.3&' a33l0, and the
tenant must @e accorded a sta0 o1 eviction u3on de3ositing Cith the court the 3altr0 some o1 J!'-, much less the J!,!7'
Frent escroC de3osit required to 3reserve the right to litigate ha@ita@ilit0 issuesF the $7C continued to hold a1ter the
6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction Cas signed, and 1or Chich the $7C classi1ied it as the F@ond to cover the costs on a33ealF.
4ndeed, NRS 54.:98 Sta- ' e,e).t!'n .$'n a$$ea%A ".t- ' tenant &h'
*eta!ns $'ssess!'n ' $*e(!ses t' $a- *ent ".*!n+ sta-. 83on an a33eal 1rom an order
entered 3ursuant to N$" 4-.!'3: . E+ce3t as otherCise 3rovided in this su@section, a
sta0 o1 e+ecution ma0 @e o@tained @0 1iling Cith the trial court a @ond in the amount o1
J!'- to cover the e+3ected costs on a33eal. / suret0 u3on the @ond su@mits to the
Hurisdiction o1 the a33ellate court and irrevoca@l0 a33oints the clerE o1 that court as the
suret0Ms agent u3on Chom 3a3ers a11ecting the suret0Ms lia@ilit0 u3on the @ond ma0 @e
served. 9ia@ilit0 o1 a suret0 ma0 @e en1orced, or the @ond ma0 @e released, on motion in
the a33ellate court Cithout inde3endent action.
5oCever, 3lease donGt misunderstand, the undersigned is quite 1ond o1 the e+tremel0 intelligent and charismatic
7udge "1erraKKa and does not mean this Fhindsight)quasi)!-L!- vieC3ointF and overl0 critical tone to indicate a lacE or
- 16
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1403

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
res3ect 1or the Court or 7udge "1erraKKa, 3articularl0 Chere $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. and his venera@le associate Case0
BaEer, Esq. do such a 1ine Ho@ o1 3resenting their 3ositions, almost machine liEe in their e11icienc0 and clarit0 o1
3resentation... and NevadaGs 9andlord (enant 9aC is so hard to understand that a National ?erit *inalist could s3end ,
months stud0ing it night and da0 and still @arel0 understand it...to sa0 nothing o1 Chat is asEed o1 the $eno 7ustice
Court 7udges, Chom must gras3 such a varied cross section o1 the laC on a dail0 @asis, that it literall0 @oggles the mind
the tasE 1aced @0 these mem@ers o1 the 7udiciar0. 4t is certainl0 not a 3osition the undersigned could 1athom 1illing
an0time soon, and most liEel0 never.
NRS 669A.524 A)t!'ns /ase" .$'n n'n$a-(ent ' *ent: C'.nte*)%a!( /- tenantA
"e$'s!t ' *ent &!th )'.*tA >."+(ent '* e#!)t!'n. . 4n an action 1or 3ossession @ased
u3on non3a0ment o1 rent or in an action 1or rent Chere the tenant is in 3ossession, the
tenant (a- "een" an" )'.nte*)%a!( '* an- a('.nt &h!)h the tenant (a- *e)'#e*
.n"e* the *enta% a+*ee(ent, th!s )ha$te*, '* 'the* a$$%!)a/%e %a&. F
$ichard 5ill got me arrested 1or !- hours 1or Ha0CalEing on L!L!, signing the criminal com3laint Chich
resulted in the currentl0 3ending criminal case in $?C cr!,4-'...4 Cas 1ilming 1rom a 3u@lic s3ot his contractors
3utting lots o1 m0 3osessions I1ormer, 4 guess, @ut "1erraKKaGs !L!L F6rder $esolving ?otion to Contest 2Ersonal
2ro3ert0 9ienF ma0@e @e vulnera@le to a ,-@ voidness set aside as the $7C 1ailed to com3l0 Cith N$" 4-.!'3I7> and I&>Gs
dictates that the $7C set a hearing Cithin - da0s and have the sheri11 served notice thereo1....the $7C seems to onl0
1olloC N$" dictates Chen the0 @ene1it landlords or those Cith @ig mone0 attorne0s is Chat some 3eo3le sa0, 4 hear, not
that 4 Could sa0 an0 shit liEe that, no3e....(hen $ichard 5ill 1iled 1or a stalEingLharassment 6$der against me on ! !
Chile 4 Cas in the squad car at the scene at 43m. 7udge "chroeder got a signed (26 1iled Cithin 4' minutes....the
e+tension hearing Cas 0esterda0, 5ill shoCed u3 said FiGve seen neither hide nor hair o1 him, so 4 am moving to CithdraC
itF...(his a@use o1 3rocess and e+tremel0 du@iousl0 1iled (26 @0 $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. Hust ha33ened to inter1ere Cith m0
a@ilit0 to collect evidence 1or the Crong1ul eviction suit, so 5ill @ought himsel1 an a@use o1 3rocess suit or something....its
Hust @usiness to me, i am not mad at him, @ut he is costing me mone0 and time and energ0. 4 tried to 3ut some o@Hections
on the record at the (26 e+tension hearing IChich last ' seconds> and $7C 7udge "chroeder, snarled Fdo 0ou Cant to go
to HailXF, 4 said Fno sir, 0our honorF and 3acEed u3 m0 stu11 and le1t...4 am not messinG Cith 7udge "hroeder.
I (!+ht +et s.s$en"e" *'( the $*a)t!)e ' %a& '#e* s'(e ' th!s '* 'the*&!se ha#e t' *e$'*t th!n+s t' the
state /a* .n"e* SCR 666 7)'n#!)t!'n ' Dse*!'.s )*!(esD; !n)!"ent t' /e!n+ a**este" '* t*es$ass at (- '*(e* %a&
'!)ethen the RLC see(s t' !+.*e '.t that thats a n'?n' an" h.**!es .$ t' +et (e se*#e" '* a hea*!n+ 7&hethe* I
- 17
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1404
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
%!0e !t '* n't '* &hethe* !t )'($%!es &!th n*)$ 1 '* se*#!)eJn't!)e *.%es; t' +et (e /a)0 the R3:44...s' the RLC
"!"n't nee" (- $e*(!ss!'n t' set that hea*!n+, /.t then the- )%a!( the )'.%"n't )'($%- &!th the D(an"at'*- h'%"
hea*!n+ 'n M't!'n t' C'ntest Pe*s'na% P*'$e*t- L!en &!th!n 64 "a-s an" ha#e n't!)e ' !t se*#e" /- the She*!
.$'n Lan"%'*"D '.n" !n NRS 54.38:7=; an" 79; /e)a.se D-'. "!"n't +!#e .s $e*(!ss!'n t' set the hea*!n+D 7the
M't!'n t' C'ntest PE*s'na% P*'$e*t- L!en &as !%e" 66J6=J66, an" the- e(a!%e" (e an" H!%% )a%%e" sa-!n+ a
hea*!n+ &as 'n '* 66 33 66...I sh'&e" .$ '* !t /.t !t &as #a)ate" '* )an)e%%e" /e)a.se I D"!"n't +!#e the(
$e*(!ss!'n t' set !t '* +' '*&a*" &!th !tD '* s'(eth!n+....s' I "!"n't +et a hea*!n+ 'n the L!en .n"t!%
63J34J66...&he*e.$'n Se**aIIa e,)ee"e" h!s >.*!s"!)t!'n .n"e* NRS 54.38:7=;, 79; *ese*#!n+ a%% th!s >.*s!"!)t!'ns,
*.%!n+ 'n th!n+s he &asn't +!#en a.th'*!t- t', et)., et)...The )ase !s 'n a$$ea% *!+ht n'& an" I a( !n nee" ' he%$
&!th !t....<.t the*e !s st!%% a )han)e 7n' )%a!( $*e)%.s!'n; t' !%e a &*'n+.% e#!)t!'n %a&s.!t 7! &as n't e#en
$e*(!tte" t' asse*t )'.nte*)%a!(s !n the s.((a*- e#!)t!'n $*')ess...an" /e)a.se the- 'n%- $.*s.e" that .n"e* a
N' Ca.se E#!)t!'n N't!)e, /e)a.se the- 0ne& a%%e+!n+ n'n $a-(ent &'.%" '$en $an"'*a's /',, the- #!'%ate" NRS
54.38:'s "!)tate that s.((a*- e#!)t!'n $*')ee"!n+s a*e !($e*(!ss!/%e a+a!nst )'((e*)!a% tenants .n%ess n'n
$a-(ent ' *ent !s a%%e+e". The- )an $*'/a/%- sh'& !t &as (- h'(e an" %a& '!)e, /.t...I sa- (!,e" .se" '* e#en
!n)!"enta% .se @.a%!!es (e as a )'((e*)!a% tenant. The Lease A+*ee(ent sa-s I )an .se the $*'$e*t- '* an-
$.*$'se an" !t &as a ".! )'.nse%!n+ s)h''% $*e#!'.s t' (- tenan)-, s' !t !s I'ne '* )'((e*)!a% .se, es$e)!a%%-
$*'ess!'na% '!)e .se, et)....
The*e !s a%% s'*ts ' )%a!(s a+a!nst H!%% he*e, a/.se ' $*')ess 7the $h'n- TPO, RPD O!)e* Ca*te* a"(!tt!n+ H!%%
$a-s h!( ('ne- t' a**est $e'$%e 7the- &!%% sa- !ts &as a >'0e, /.t !ts n't a >'0!n+ s!t.at!'n &hen -'. a*e a**est!n+
an att'*ne- '* t*es$ass ate* H!%% sen"s a /!%% '* the .%% *enta% #a%.e ' the $*'$e*t- 7n't >.st *eas'na/%e st'*a+e
('#!n+ an" e,$enses .n"*e NRS 669a.514; R244 '* N'#e(/e*, $%.s HI%% has th!s )'nt*a)t'* na(e" Ph!% &h'
0ee$s s./(!tt!n+ these >a)0e" .$ /!%%s 7R6484 t' /'a*" .$ the $'*)h as D*eas'na/%e st'*a+e, ('#!n+ an"
!n#ent'*-!n+D "es$!te h!s n't ta0!n+ an .nse).*e" &!n"'& .n!t a) '.t ' the &!n"'&...an" the $%a)e &as
/.*%+a*!Ie" 'n 63J63J66 '* a/'.t R9,444 '* s' ' $e*s'na% $*'$e*t-;...$%.s &!thhe%" (- )%!ent's !%es '* 1 &ee0s,
(- "*!#e*s %!)ense '* = "a-s...FDCPA #!'%at!'ns...the- st!%% ha#en't *et.*ne" the R=44 se).*!t- "e$'s!t...h!s
De)%a*at!'ns a*e .%% ' $e*>.*-,!n (- '$!n!'n, as a*e h!s )'nt*a)t'*s...
- 18
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1405
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
NoC, shortl0 a1ter 4 have @een adHudge a victim o1 domestic violence and granted tCo
di11erent 6rders 1or 2rotection @0 ?aster Edmundson Ithis Court re1used to hear an0thing a@out this
in summaril0 den0ing m0 e+cusa@le neglect arguments vis a vis the deadlines 1or 3re)trial
motions...0et 6rmaas and "argent (arter are alloCed to call time out right @e1ore the (rial and
com3are their 3ositions or Fcon1erFQ>. NoC, aside 1rom having m0 alread0 sEint @anE account
3racticall0 em3tied 3a0ign a J3-- toCing @ill 1or m0 car incurred during this summar0 incarceration,
and having several clientGs cases @adl0 damaged ICh0 this 3unishment could not have @een dela0ed
even a da0 is not clear to me, rather, it is distur@ing...and the e+cuse the lacE o1 concern 1or these
clients @0 shi1ting @lame to the undersigned 1or Kealousl0 advocating on @ehal1 o1 the accused misses
the 3oint and 1urther engages in a FKero sum gameF mindset that $eno and its citiKens do not need
right noC>. 4n his oCn testimon0 "argent (arter admitted to a retaliator0 motive 1or the citation here.
*urther he o3ened the door to several matters this Court clearl0 did not Cant to have see the light o1
da0. (hese include, the 1act that "argent (arter told the accused he EneC he Cas going to turn le1t on
*orrest "t. and head @acE toCards 5illGs laC o11ice, and that is Ch0 he 3ulled the accused over, in
addition to the 1act that the accused, allegedl0 Fdid not come to a com3lete sto3 !n *'nt o1 the Chite
line, @ut onl0 a1ter the Chite lineF. (his FinchingF into the intersection Cas necessar0 to gain a vieC
o1 Chether an0 cars mgith @e coming even cars going the Crong Ca0 doCn a one Ca0 street liEe
*orrest IdrunE or craK0 drivers do not cease to e+ist, as "argent (arter im3lied, merel0 @ecause a
street is designated as a Fone Ca0F. 4ts ironic, @ecasue the accused and "argent (arter argued a@out
Chether the rationale "argent (arter 3ro1erred 1or 3ulling the accused over made an0 sense, as,
according to the accused, turning le1t on *orrest to get @acE to 5illGs o11iceC at ,'! *orrest "t Chile
the accused Cas heading east on "t. 9aurence Could have required goign doCn the FCrong Ca0F o1 a
Fone Ca0 street, *orrestF...it Cas at a@out that time that "argent (arter decided he could hear no more
- 19
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1406
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1rom the accused. $egardless, (arter Cas tailing the accused, the accused Cas aCare o1 it, and the
accused care1ull0 o@e0ed all laC o1 tra11ic as he sus3ected (arter Could tr0 to Crite some 3hon0
tra11ic ticEet. (his clearl0 contradicts (arters assertion that he Cas 3arEed and not tailing the
accused, nor had he @egun to, until a1ter Citnessing the alleged F1ailure to come to a com3lete sto3F
violation, Chich included (arterGs highl0 sus3ect testimon0 Chich seemed to de10 the laCs o1 3h0sics
and o3tics, in addition to other laCs.
De1endant 1iles this Ionl0 to the e+tent it is even necessar0 and some alternate resolution
cannot @e had...@arring that, 3lease treat this as a Notice o1 /33eal as Cell, though treating this as a
Ftolling motionF, N$C2 '!, N$C2 '9Ia>,Ie>, etc. ma0 also @e a nice a33roach 3reventing the 1ast
3ace a33eals 3roceed at an or o@viating the need 1or me to 1ile such a Notice o1 /33eal> as he Cas
denied his "i+th /mendment $ight (o Counsel I I this "i+th /mendment $ight to Counsel is
mentioned clearl0 in the !--& 9imited 7urisdiction CourtGs Bench BooE 1or Nevada 7udges, along
Cith the !-- "u33lement thereto, and Chile a ver0 learned 7udge liEe 7udge 5oCard ma0 cite to
"cott v. 4llinois 1or su33ort that no such right e+ists Chere incarceration is not actuall0 e11ectuated, it
clearl0 Cas here, 1ive da0s Corth, com3lete Cith a J3-- @ill 1or the undersignedGs car @eing toCed>,
and 1iles this ?otion (o "et /side 7udge Nash 5olmes *e@ruar0 !7th, !-! "ummar0 Contem3t
6rder and also to move 1or a continuance Cith res3ect to the ne+t (rial date that Cas mentioned Chile
the undersigned Cas in custod0. "ee E+hi@it .
LEGAL ARGUMENT
/33ellant argues that @0 den0ing his request to cross)e+amine Citnesses a@out their 3otential
@ias, the trial court a@ridged his "i+th /mendment right to con1ront the Citnesses against him. Bias
e+ists NChen a Citness has a general Cillingness or motivation to testi10 1alsel0 on the stand.O $ose v.
8nited "tates, &79 /.!d 9&,, 99' ID.C.!--'>. NBias cross)e+amination o1 a main government Citness
- 20
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1407
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
is alCa0s a 3ro3er area o1 cross)e+amination and is relevant in assessing the CitnessG credi@ilit0 and
evaluating the Ceight o1 the evidence.O Blunt v. 8nited "tates, &,3 /.!d &!&, &33 ID.C.!--4>=
accord, "cull v. 8nited "tates, ',4 /.!d ,, ,' ID.C.9&9> INBias is alCa0s a 3ro3er su@Hect o1
cross)e+amination . and the alleged @ias or unrelia@ilit0 o1 a Citness is never a collateral issueO
Icitations omitted>>. 6n the other hand, although the No33ortunit0 to cross)e+amine adverse Citnesses
is an inherent com3onent o1 the de1endantGs "i+th /mendment right o1 con1rontation . that right is
su@Hect to reasona@le limits im3osed at the discretion o1 the trial Hudge . to 3revent harassment,
3reHudice, con1usion o1 the issues, or re3etitive, cumulative, or onl0 marginall0 relevant questioning.O
4d. at ,4 Icitations omitted>. / N3ro3er 1oundationO is required 1or cross)e+amination to esta@lish
@ias, including a 3ro11er o1 1acts su11icient to ena@le the court Nto evaluate Chether the 3ro3osed
question is 3ro@ative o1 @ias.O 7ones v. 8nited "tates, ', /.!d '3, '7 ID.C.9&,>. (he 3ro11er
must include N Ysome 1acts Chich su33ort a genuine @elie1M that the Citness is @iased in the manner
asserted,O id. Icitation omitted>, or at least Na YCell)reasoned sus3icionM rather than Yan im3ro@a@le
1light o1 1anc0M to su33ort the 3ro3osed cross)e+amination.O "cull, ',4 /.!d at ,4 Iquoting 8nited
"tates v. 2ugh, 4 8."./33. D.C. ,&, 7, 43, *.!d !!!, !!' I97->>. (his standard is a 1airl0 lenient
one, and an0 decision a@out the adequac0 o1 the 3ro11er lies Cithin the sound discretion o1 the trial
court. BroCn v. 8nited "tates, ,&3 /.!d &, !4)!' ID.C.99,>. *inall0, Chen challenging an
adverse ruling on a 3ro11er o1 Citness @ias, an a33ellant must shoC Nthat he Cas 3rohi@ited 1rom
engaging in otherCise a33ro3riate cross)e+amination designed to shoC a 3rotot03ical 1orm o1 @ias on
the 3art o1 the Citness, and there@0 Yto e+3ose to the Hur0 the 1acts 1rom Chich Hurors . could
a33ro3riatel0 draC in1erences relating to the relia@ilit0 o1 the Citness.M O DelaCare v. %an /rsdall,
47' 8.". ,73, ,&-, -, ".Ct. 43, &9 9.Ed.!d ,74 I9&,> Icitation omitted>. /33ellant argues that
he Cas not a@le to 3resent to the Hur0 his theor0 o1 de1ense, Chich Cas that the 3olice 3lanted the
- 21
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1408
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
evidence allegedl0 1ound on or near him in retaliation 1or his 3ending civil suit, @ecause the trial
court limited his a@ilit0 to cross)e+amine the governmentGs Citnesses. Be1ore the trial @egan, de1ense
counsel 3ro11ered to the court evidence a@out Chich he Cished to cross)e+amine some o1 the
government Citnesses regarding @ias. Counsel e+3lained to the court, a1ter the 3rosecutor o@Hected,
that in an earlier incident 611icers ?ason and Branch, Cho Cere also 3art o1 the search Carrant team,
came to a33ellantGs home and @roEe his arm, and that as a result a33ellant 1iled suit.4 De1ense counsel
stated: TBUased on all o1 those 1actors, Chether or not the0 sa0 the0 EneC the o11icers or not, Chether
or not the0 talEed TtoU the o11icers or not, it seems to us that a @ias issue e+ists, and the Court should
3ermit this and let the Hur0 decide. T(Uhe Hur0 can sort out Chether or not this in1ormation somehoC
got to 3eo3le Cho Cere 3art o1 the arrest TteamU, and arrested the de1endant. ' (he court ruled: 4n this
case there is no relevance at all @ecause the o11icers that are testi10ing)each one o1 them noC has told
us that the0 had no idea a@out the 3rior incident, the notice or the laCsuit, on the da0 o1 the arrest o1
?r. 5oCard in this case. (o alloC testimon0 a@out that se3arate incident that these o11icers didnGt
even EnoC a@out Could @e con1using, misleading, and 3reHudicial, and 4Gm not going to alloC it., 4t
a33ears to us that the court mistaEenl0 a33lied a 3re)trial credi@ilit0 1inding, on Chich it had relied to
decide the issue o1 3ro@a@le cause, to the se3arate determination o1 the trial)related issue o1 Chether
the de1endant had 3ro11ered su11icient 1acts to Carrant cross)e+amination on 3otential @ias. /t the
su33ression hearing, the court had concluded that 611icer $andol3h, Cho 3re3ared the search Carrant
a33lication, did not EnoC o1 the 3ending civil suit and had not @een directed @0 611icer Branch or
611icer ?ason to get a search Carrant 1or a33ellantGs home, so the Carrant Cas valid. (his 1inding,
hoCever, did not 1oreclose the de1ense trial theor0 that the o11icers at the scene Cere @iased @ecause
o1 the laCsuit or ma0 have @een im3ro3erl0 in1luenced @0 611icer Branch ICho Cas in the room
Chen the drugs Cere 1ound on a33ellant> or 611icer ?ason ICho Cas 3art o1 the search team>, and
- 22
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1409
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
intentionall0 im3licated a33ellant even though Iaccording to the de1ense> no drugs Cere actuall0
1ound on his 3erson. C1. "ullivan v. 8nited "tates, 4-4 /.!d '3, ,- ID.C.979> INTgUreat latitude is
a33ro3riatel0 e+tended to a shoCing o1 a com3laining CitnessG @ias @0 means o1 cross)e+amination
concerning that CitnessG 3ending laCsuit versus the de1endant against Chom he has testi1iedO @ecause
the laCsuit is Nrelevant to a shoCing o1 . his ill)Cill toCard the de1endantO Icitations omitted>>.
/lthough the trial court 1ound, at the su33ression hearing, that 611icer $andol3h Cas credi@le and did
not EnoC o1 the laCsuit at the time he o@tained the search Carrant or the at the time o1 its e+ecution,
and thus concluded that the Carrant Cas valid, it Cas not u3 to the court to determine the credi@ilit0
o1 Citnesses at trial regarding their 3otential @ias. "ee NeCman v. 8nited "tates, 7-' /.!d !4,, !'9
ID.C.997> IN4n evaluating the relia@ilit0 o1 the 3ro11er . the court must not seeE to evaluate the
relia@ilit0 o1 the CitnessO>. Des3ite the courtGs assessment o1 the o11icersG credi@ilit0 in ruling on the
validit0 o1 the Carrant at the su33ression hearing, it Cas error to rel0 on that credi@ilit0 determination
to 3reclude @ias cross)e+amination at trial @ecause NTcUonditioning @ias cross)e+amination on the
courtGs a@ilit0 to assess the credi@ilit0 o1 the source o1 the alleged motive runs too close to usur3ing
the Hur0Gs 1unction.O BroCn v. 8nited "tates, 74- /.!d '33, '37 ID.C.999>. /t trial, de1ense counsel
sought to cross)e+amine some o1 the 3olice Citnesses a@out their EnoCledge o1 the civil suit against
the 3olice de3artment and to asE them Chether that EnoCledge in1luenced the e+ecution o1 the search
Carrant. Counsel 3ro11ered 1acts Chich suggested that the Citnesses might @e @iased in the manner
asserted: that 611icers Branch and ?ason had 3reviousl0 @een involved in an incident in Chich
a33ellantGs arm Cas @roEen, that the same o11icers I1rom the "i+th District> Cere 3resent at the
e+ecution o1 the search Carrant Chich resulted in a33ellantGs arrest, and that a33ellant had 1iled a civil
suit against the 3olice de3artment, as Cell as 611icers Branch and ?ason. (hese 1acts su33orted at
least Na Cell)reasoned sus3icionO that the o11icers involved in the e+ecution o1 the search Carrant, all
- 23
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1410
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1rom the "i+th District, ma0 have had a motive to testi10 1alsel0, or at least to stretch the truth,
regarding the seiKure o1 drugs 1rom a33ellant. "ince "ergeant <aine0, 611icer $andol3h, and 611icer
BracEett Cere all 3resent Chen some or all o1 those drugs Cere recovered, the court should have
alloCed counsel to cross)e+amine the government Citnesses @e1ore the Hur0 to e+3lore Chat the0
EneC a@out the laCsuit and Chether the0 Cere, during the search, in1luenced in an0 Ca0 in1luenced
@0 that EnoCledge. 6nce counsel made his 3ro11er, the credi@ilit0 o1 the Citnesses Cas 1or the Hur0 to
decide, and cross)e+amination a@out the laCsuit Cas a33ro3riate. /s the "u3reme Court has said: ;e
cannot s3eculate as to Chether the Hur0, as sole Hudge o1 the credi@ilit0 o1 a Citness, Could have
acce3ted this line o1 reasoning had counsel @een 3ermitted to 1ull0 3resent it. But Ce do conclude that
the Hurors Cere entitled to have the @ene1it o1 the de1ense theor0 @e1ore them so that the0 could maEe
an in1ormed Hudgment as to the Ceight to 3lace on Tthe CitnessGU testimon0 Chich 3rovided Na crucial
linE in the 3roo1 . o1 3etitionerGs act.O Davis v. /lasEa, 4' 8.". 3-&, 37, 94 ".Ct. -', 39 9.Ed.!d
347 I974> Icitation omitted>. (he trial courtGs concern in this case a@out 3ossi@le Hur0 con1usion Cas
mis3laced @ecause NTaUn0 3otentialit0 o1 con1usion to the Hur0 ma0 @e eliminated @0 3ro3er
instructions.O "cull, ',4 /.!d at ,' I1ootnote omitted>. /33ellant has NstateTdU a violation o1 the
Con1rontation Clause @0 shoCing that he Cas 3rohi@ited 1rom engaging in otherCise a33ro3riate
cross)e+amination designed to shoC a 3rotot03ical 1orm o1 @ias on the 3art o1 the CitnessTesU, and
there@0 Yto e+3ose to the Hur0 the 1acts 1rom Cich Hurors . could a33ro3riatel0 draC in1erences relating
to the relia@ilit0 o1 the Citness TesU.M O %an /rsdall, 47' 8.". at ,&-, -, ".Ct. 43. (he trial court
erred @0 con1using the search Carrant determination Cith the adequac0 o1 the @ias 3ro11er instead o1
considering the 3ro11er se3aratel0, and thus im3ro3erl0 3recluded relevant cross)e+amination as to
@ias. Because the trial courtGs ruling 3revented a33ellant 1rom 3resenting his main de1ense theor0, Ce
cannot 1ind harmless error under Cha3man v. Cali1ornia, 3&, 8.". &, !4, &7 ".Ct. &!4, 7 9.Ed.!d
- 24
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1411
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
7-' I9,7>. "ee %an /rsdall, 47' 8.". at ,&4, -, ".Ct. 43 Ithe denial o1 a de1endantGs o33ortunit0
to im3each a Citness 1or @ias is su@Hect to Cha3man harmless error anal0sis>. (he 1act that the
de1ense Cas alloCed to 3resent testimon0 @0 9ester 5oCard that he did not see an0 drugs recovered
1rom a33ellant and that he and a33ellant Cere a@used @0 the 3olice does not alleviate the harm o1
3rohi@iting the relevant and distinct @ias testimon0 a@out the CitnessesG EnoCledge o1 the laCsuit. ;e
reached a similar conclusion in "cull, in Chich Ce held that it Cas not harmless error 1or the trial
court to 3reclude the cross)e+amination o1 Citnesses as to relevant @ias I1ear o1 their oCn
3rosecution> even though it alloCed other cross)e+amination o1 the same Citnesses as to @ias
stemming 1rom a di11erent motivation. N"ince the issue o1 this 3ro3osed cross)e+amination Cas
entirel0 distinct 1rom that alloCed @0 the trial court, central to the Hur0Gs evaluation o1 the credi@ilit0
o1 Ee0 Citnesses, and admissi@le, its e+clusion Cas constitutional error.O ',4 /.!d at ,,. "ee also
Davis, 4' 8.". at 3&, 94 ".Ct. -' IN;hile counsel Cas 3ermitted to asE Tthe CitnessU Chether he
Cas @iased, counsel Cas una@le to maEe a record 1rom Chich to argue Ch0 Tthe CitnessU might have
@een @iased or otherCise lacEed that degree o1 im3artialit0 e+3ected o1 a Citness at trialO>. (here1ore,
the error cannot @e deemed harmless @e0ond a reasona@le dou@t. 444 /33ellant also argues that the
trial court should not have 3ermitted "ergeant <aine0 to testi10 a@out the results o1 the internal 3olice
investigation a@out the use o1 1orce against 9ester 5oCard. 5e maintains that the admission o1 this
testimon0 denied him a 1air trial @ecause he could not cross)e+amine the Citnesses at the 3olice
de3artment hearing.7 6n this 3oint Ce 1ind no error. ;hile cross)e+amining "ergeant <aine0,
de1ense counsel elicited the 1act that the 3olice de3artment had conducted an internal investigation o1
the earlier incident= the government res3onded on redirect @0 clari10ing that the use o1 1orce Cas
ultimatel0 1ound to have @een Husti1ied. "uch remedial e11orts are alloCed under the doctrine o1
curative admissi@ilit0. "ee <oines v. 8nited "tates, 9-' /.!d 79', &-- ID.C.!--,>. (hat doctrine
- 25
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1412
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
N3rovides that in certain circumstances the 3rosecution ma0 inquire into evidence otherCise
inadmissi@le, @ut onl0 a1ter the de1ense has Yo3ened the doorM Cith regard to this evidence.O ?ercer
v. 8nited "tates, 7!4 /.!d 7,, 9! ID.C.999>. (he doctrine is limited, hoCever, and 3ermits
remedial evidence Nonl0 to the e+tent necessar0 to remove an0 un1air 3reHudice Chich might
otherCise have ensued 1rom the original evidence.O 4d. Icitation omitted>. Because de1ense counsel
o3ened the door to evidence a@out the internal 3olice investigation, it Cas not an a@use o1 discretion
1or the trial court to alloC the government to asE 1urther questions on redirect. (hrough its
questioning, the government re1uted the im3lication that "ergeant <aine0 might @e @iased @ecause o1
the investigation. <aine0Gs testimon0 on redirect Cas limited to clari10ing that the 3olice de3artment
routinel0 conducted such investigations Chen 1orce Cas used @0 its o11icers, that he Cas not 1ear1ul o1
@eing im3licated in an0 Crongdoing, and that the investigation concluded that the use o1 1orce in this
instance Cas Husti1ied. ;hen the government elicits testimon0 on a su@Hect during redirect
e+amination that the de1ense @rought u3 during cross)e+amination, the de1endant Ncannot Cell
com3lain o1 @eing 3reHudiced @0 a situation Chich TheU created,O 9ane0 v. 8nited "tates, '4 /33.
D.C. ',, ,-, !94 *. 4!, 4, I9!3>, @ecause Nthe error that occurred, i1 an0, Cas invited @0 de1ense
counsel.O <onKaleK v. 8nited "tates, ,97 /.!d &9, &!, ID.C.997>= see 2arEer v. 8nited "tates, 7'7
/.!d !&-, !&,)!&7 ID.C.!---> Iciting <onKaleK and 9ane0 >. Because de1ense counsel elicited
testimon0 on the su@Hect in the 1irst instance during his cross)e+amination o1 "ergeant <aine0, the
government Cas entitled on redirect to dis3el an0 3otential 3reHudice and to re1ute, i1 it could, an0
im3lication o1 @ias.O 56;/$D, v. 8N4(ED "(/(E", /33ellee. No. -&)C*)73. /rgued ?a0 ,,
!--9. )) /ugust !7, !--9
Court 1inds 3olice chie1 and o11icers investigated man 1or retaliator0 reasons= damages aCarded, hoCever, Cere
e+cessive $aEovich v. ;ade, &9 *.!d 393 I7th Cir. 9&7>.
- 26
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1413
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
*ederal a33eals court reverses decision holding 3olice chie1 and o11icers lia@le 1or alleged retaliator0 investigation
$aEovich v. ;ade, &'- *.!d &- I7th Cir. 9&&>.
2rocedural: Evidence
(rial HudgeGs re1usal to alloC a 3lainti11 in an e+cessive 1orce laCsuit to cross e+amine the
de1endant o11icer regarding his 3rior disci3line and conduct, Chich allegedl0 Could have shoCn that
he Cas ha@ituall0 dishonest in his Ho@, resulting in his resignation, Cas an a@use o1 discretion,
requiring a neC trial on claims against the o11icer. (he e+cessive 1orce claim against him revolved
around an issue o1 his credi@ilit0, so that @arring this evidence Cas not harmless. /s 1or claims
against the cit0, alleged negligent monitoring o1 an o11icer cannot @e the @asis o1 a 1ederal civil rights
claim, and the 3lainti11 1ailed to esta@lish an0 inadequate training @0 the cit0 on use o1 1orce or
3roviding required medical care. 5inoHosa v. Butler, No. -7)'-',,, !--& 8.". /33. 9e+is !!!&! I'th
Cir.>.
;hen a trial HudgeGs instructions a@out the legal standard 1or e+cessive use o1 1orce Cere correct,
the HudgeGs error concerning instructions a@out the 3ro3er use o1 a 3olice investigatorGs re3ort
concerning the shooting o1 a sus3ect Cere harmless. (he re3ort, containing statements the shooting
o11icer made to a su3ervisor a1ter the shooting, Chile Fhearsa0 Cithin hearsa0F could have 3ro3erl0
@een considered as admissions @0 a 3art0)o33onent in the laCsuit. (he trial court had, hoCever,
alloCed the re3ort to @e entered into evidence, and the statements in the re3ort Cere mostl0 use1ul 1or
3ur3oses o1 im3eachment. /s the 3lainti11Gs attorne0 used the statements 1or that 3ur3ose, an0 error in
instructions concerning the use o1 the re3ort Cere harmless. /licea v. $alston, No. -,)4'!, !--&
8.". /33. 9e+is -73, I8n3u@. 3rd Cir.>.
2ortions o1 a re3ort @0 a 3olice de3artmentGs 4nternal 4nvestigations "ection Chich concluded that
o11icers detaining a man did so Cithout reasona@le sus3icion or 3ro@a@le cause, used e+cessive 1orce,
- 27
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1414
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
and Cithheld medical treatment Cas relevant evidence under *ed. $. Evidence 4-, and 3ortions o1
the re3ort Cere admissi@le as an investigative re3ort under *ed. $. Evid. &-3I&>IC>. (he court,
hoCever, granted the cit0Gs motion to e+clude 3ortions o1 the re3ort consisting o1 intervieCs o1 1our
e0eCitnesses IChich it 1ound constituted Fdou@le hearsa0F>, and the legal conclusion o1 the cit0Gs
chie1 laC0er. NoCell v. Cit0 o1 Cincinnati, No. :-3cv&'9, !--, 8.". Dist. 9e+is ,&&! I".D. 6hio>.
TNL$U
4n arresteeGs laCsuit against state troo3er 1or alleged e+cessive 1orce used against him during the
arrest, evidence that the troo3er had 1ailed a 3ol0gra3h test given on unrelated criminal charges
@rought against him Cas not admissi@le as evidence, and evidence o1 those unrelated criminal charges
Cere also not relevant to the issue o1 Chether the troo3er had used e+cessive 1orce. 7ur0 verdict in
1avor o1 troo3er u3held on a33eal. CooE v. "tate De3t. o1 2u@lic "a1et0, No. !--' C/ -47', 9!& "o.
!d '&9 I9a. /33. !--,>. TNL$U
4n a laCsuit @0 an arrestee claiming that o11icers used e+cessive 1orce against him, even i1 the
de3artmentGs rules esta@lishing 3rocedures 1or res3onding to domestic violence calls Cas relevant in
some sense, the trial Hudge did not a@use his discretion in e+cluded it 1rom evidence, @ecause it had
the 3otential to con1use or mislead the Hur0 concerning the issues in the case. $u11in v. Cit0 o1
Boston, No. -3)!-!, 4, *ed. /33+. '- Ist Cir. !--'>. TNL$U
Evidence o1 threats that an arrestee allegedl0 made @e1ore his arrest, Chich Cere rela0ed to the
o11icers Cho arrived on the scene Cere admissi@le in e+cessive 1orce laCsuit to shoC o11icersG reason
1or entering a house Cith their Cea3ons draCn and immediatel0 rolling him 1rom the so1a to the 1loor
to handcu11 him. <allagher v. Cit0 o1 ;est Covina, No. -3)''39, 4 *ed. /33+. '77 I9th Cir.
!--'>. TNL$U
- 28
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1415
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
*ederal a33eals court overturns Hur0 verdict in 1avor o1 laC en1orcement de1endants Cho allegedl0
inter1ered Cith the e11orts o1 3rivate 3ersons to rescue a man Cho Hum3ed into a river, and 1ailed to
o11er a reasona@le alternative rescue service. Court holds that Fcumulative)errorF doctrine should
a33l0 to civil cases, and that a neC trial Cas required @ecause o1 a num@er o1 evidentiar0 errors made
@0 the trial court. BecE v. 5aiE, No. -)!7!3 !--4 8.". /33. 9e+is ''9- I,th Cir.>. T!--4 9$ "e3U
4n a laCsuit against a toCn 1or the death o1 a motorist Chose vehicle Cas strucE @0 an o11icerGs car,
the nature o1 the call that the o11icer Cas res3onding to at the time Cas relevant to determining
Chether the o11icer acted in recEless disregard o1 the sa1et0 o1 others, and there1ore Cas admissi@le.
/llen v. (oCn o1 /mherst, 77& N.:.".!d '9& I/.D. 4th De3t. !--4>. TNL$U
2lainti11 Cho Cas shot @0 3olice o11icer could not Cithhold his medical records in a 1ederal civil
rights laCsuit against the cit0 and o11icer on the @asis o1 doctor)3atient 3rivilege or medical records
3rivilege, nor could he assert the right o1 3rivac0 @ased on a 3rovision o1 the Cali1ornia state
constitution to 3revent the disclosure o1 those records. (he 3lainti11, Cho claimed that he Cas shot in
the @acE @ecause the o11icer Cas in 3oor 3h0sical condition and Cas there1ore una@le to 3ursue him
on 1oot, Cas also entitled in the case to the disclosure o1 the o11icerGs medical records, including those
in a CorEersG com3ensation 1ile. 5utton v. Cit0 o1 ?artineK, !9 *.$.D. ,4 IN.D. Cal. !--3>. TNL$U
/rrestee could not success1ull0 seeE damages @ased merel0 on a custodial interrogation Cithout
?irada Carnings Chen none o1 her elicited statements Cere ever used against her at trial. *ederal
a33eals court also overturns J&-,--- malicious 3rosecution aCard to arrestee, Cho claimed that
o11icers 1iled 1alse charges against her and maliciousl0 3ursued them in order to assist her o11icer
@o01riend, Cho she accused o1 domestic a@use. 2lainti11Gs o3ening statement at trial 3ut the question
o1 the de1endant o11icerGs truth1ul character into issue, so it Cas 3reHudicial error to e+clude evidence
o1 that character. $enda v. Aing, #-)!4!, 347 *.3d ''- I3rd Cir. !--3>. T!--4 9$ *e@U
- 29
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1416
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
4n case Chere elderl0 cou3le challenged the validit0 o1 search Carrant 1or their home, de1endants
could @e required to either 3roduce a con1idential in1ormant 1or an Fin cham@ersF de3osition, to
reveal his identit0, or to convince the court that, 1or reasons o1 sa1et0, his identit0 need not @e
revealed. 4n the alternative, the de1endants could @e @arred 1rom 3resenting an0 evidence at trial
@ased on the alleged e+istence o1 the in1ormant. "mith v. Cit0 o1 Detroit, No. -)7-74-, !! *.$.D.
'-7 IE.D. ?ich. !--3>. T!--3 9$ /ugU
/dmission into evidence o1 a videota3e shoCing the 3lainti11 conducting her dail0 activities
during a trial o1 her claim that she had su11ered serious inHuries 1rom the e+cessive use o1 1orce @0 a
3olice o11icer Cas not im3ro3er and did not constitute Fun1air sur3riseF Chen the 3lainti11Gs attorne0
Cas 1urnished Cith a co30 and given a chance to vieC it 3rior to its admission. ?eiselman v. B0rom,
!-7 *. "u33. !d 4- IE.D.N.:. !--!>. TNL$U
/dmission into evidence o1 an audiota3e o1 an arresteeGs conversation Cith a 3olice dis3atcher Cas
not an a@use o1 discretion in a 1ederal civil rights case in Chich the arrestee claimed that she had @een
im3ro3erl0 arrested 1or 3u@lic into+ication. (he audiota3eGs re3roduction o1 the arresteeGs Fh0sterical
conversationF Cith the dis3atcher Cas Fno more 3reHudicialF than the arresting o11icerGs account o1
Fher drunEen @ehavior,F so that the court could not sa0 that its admission Cas so 3reHudicial that it
violated the 3lainti11Gs Fsu@stantial rights.F Diamond v. 5oCd, #--),3!3, !&& *.3d 93! I,th Cir.
!--!>. TNL$U
7ur0 Cas 3resumed to have 1olloCed trial HudgeGs instructions that laC0ersG statements and
arguments Cere not evidence, so that alleged misconduct @0 de1endant 3olice o11icersG laC0er in
giving in1erence to the Hur0 a@out items not in evidence during closing arguments Cas insu11icient to
su33ort a reversal o1 the Hur0Gs verdict 1or the de1endants in a homeoCnerGs 1ederal civil rights laCsuit
- 30
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1417
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
over alleged unreasona@le search o1 her house under a Carrant. 7ones v. ;illiams, #--)',9!9, 3'
*ed. /33+. 4!4 I9th Cir. !--!>. TNL$U
"tate troo3ers destro0ed ta3es relating to an incident in good 1aith 3ursuant to normal 3ractices
@e1ore an0 litigation Cas 3ending, and additionall0, the 3lainti11s received transcri3ts o1 the ta3es, so
that there could @e no adverse in1erence as to Fs3oilation o1 evidenceF in an arresteeGs claim 1or
inHuries. /rrestee could not collect damages 1or his 1all and cracEed sEull Chile restrained at the
3olice station 1olloCing his arrest 1or driving Chile into+icated, @ased on testimon0 @0 3lainti11Gs oCn
e+3ert Citness that he Cas 3ro3erl0 restrained, and that, Chile there Cere alternative restraining
methods, the0 3osed their oCn risEs. $a0mond v. "tate, 74- N.:.".!d 743 I/.D. !--!>. TNL$U
2lainti11 arresteeGs 3rior histor0 o1 drinEing ha@its, oCnershi3 o1 guns, and use o1 3rescri3tion
drugs Cas 3ro3erl0 admitted into evidence Chen the 3lainti11 ansCered questions on those issues on
cross)e+amination Cithout o@Hections. (rial HudgeGs comments a@out arrestee acting as his oCn
laC0er in 1alse arrest laCsuit did not require a neC trial. 6GBrien v. 7ohnson, &-- "o. !d ,4 I9a. /33.
4th Cir. !-->. TNL$U
34':4- *iling o1 Crong1ul death claim !& da0s a1ter arrestee died gave count0 and sheri11Gs
de3artment actual notice that it should not destro0 audio ta3es o1 9 calls and radio transmissions
concerning incident= Cali1ornia a33eals court orders 1urther hearings to determine Chether sanctions
against de1endants in laCsuit are a33ro3riate. Nelson v. "u3erior Court, #B47,-7, -7 Cal. $3tr. !d
4,9 ICal. /33. !-->.
34':4 Evidence that sus3ect, a 3arolee, 3ossessed a gun at the time o11icers tried to detain him
on sus3icion o1 auto the1t, Cas admissi@le in his laCsuit against o11icers 1or shooting and Counding
him= it Cas relevant as tending to su33ort the o11icersG version o1 the incident that he used his vehicle
- 31
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1418
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
as a Cea3on to endanger them in his des3eration to esca3e, Husti10ing their use o1 deadl0 1orce.
"tevenson v. D.C. ?etro3olitan 2olice De3t., !4& *.3d &7 ID.C. Cir. !-->.
343:-' 4ntroduction o1 evidence o1 arresteeGs later second arrest 1or domestic violence Cas no
@asis, in the a@sence o1 3ro3er o@Hection, 1or setting aside Hur0Gs verdict in 1avor o1 arresting o11icers
on his 1alse arrestLe+cessive 1orce claims. 8dem@a v. Nicoli, #--)!4,, !37 *.3d & Ist Cir. !-->.
TNL$U Evidence su33orted Hur0Gs verdict in 1avor o1 o11icers on 1alse arrest claim. Even i1 o11icer
Cas tres3assing on arresteeGs @usiness 3ro3ert0, the 3lainti11Gs action in slamming the door on the
o11icerGs hand Cas an unreasona@le use o1 1orce Chich could su33ort his arrest 1or @atter0. (rial court
erroneousl0 denied de1endantGs request 1or J!7,--- in costs 1or com3uteriKed evidence used 1or
3resentation to Hur0, 1urther hearings on reasona@leness required. Ce1alu v. %illage o1 ElE <rove, No.
9&)!7-&, ! *.3d 4, I7th Cir. !--->.
343:-' *ederal trial court @ars evidence o1 3rior unrelated de3artmental disci3linar0 actions
against o11icer accused @0 arrestee o1 e+cessive use o1 1orce, as Cell as evidence a@out the e+istence
o1 lia@ilit0 insurance= testimon0 a@out Chether the arrestee actuall0 hit his Ci1e @e1ore the 3olice
arrived Cas not relevant to Chether the o11icer used im3ro3er 1orce. ?unle0 v. Carlson, !' *. "u33.
!d 7 IN.D. 4ll. !--->.
34:7' /udio ta3e o1 3olice radio, including sound o1 siren in unmarEed car @eing activated, Cas
3ro3erl0 admitted into evidence and shi1ted the @urden to the motorist 3lainti11 to shoC the
inauthenticit0 o1 the ta3e= his mere assertion that he had heard no siren did not create a genuine issue
o1 1act in his laCsuit over the sto3 and search o1 his vehicle. "mith v. Cit0 o1 Chicago, No. 99)!9,',
!4! *.3d 737 I7th Cir. !-->.
3!9:74 Evidence that occu3ants o1 a motor vehicle CorEed in the Fadult entertainment industr0F
and that one o1 them Cas a 3rostitute Cho had CorEed in a legal @rothel Cas irrelevant to issues in
- 32
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1419
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1ederal civil rights laCsuit over o11icerGs detention o1 them 1olloCing a vehicle sto3 and search o1
their 3ossessions= introduction o1 evidence Could also @e 3reHudicial= state laC emotional distress
claim did not alter result. "Eultin v. Bushnell, &! *."u33. !d !'& ID. 8tah !--->.
334:'- *ederal a33eals court u3holds Hur0 verdict in 1avor o1 o11icer Cho used 3olice dog to
su@due an auto the1t sus3ect= 3lainti11Gs tCo 3rior 1elon0 convictions, @ased on no contest 3leas, Cere
3ro3erl0 used to im3each his testimon0= 3lainti11 Cas not entitled to an e+3licit Hur0 instruction
concerning Falternative courses o1 actionF availa@le to the o11icer or the o11icerGs alleged FlacE o1
3ro@a@le causeF to @elieve that the 3lainti11 Cas armed. BreCer v. Cit0 o1 Na3a, #9&),4,-, !- *.3d
-93 I9th Cir. !--->.
TNL$U E+clusion o1 non3art0 3olice o11icersG testimon0 Chich Cas consistent Cith 3lainti11Gs
version o1 incident in Chich he Cas mistaEenl0 a33rehended @0 de1endant o11icers in grocer0 store
Cas not harmless, Chen detaineeGs 3rinci3al e0eCitness could @e vieCed as un3ersuasive @ecause o1
her alleged @ias against 3olice. ;asserman v. BartholomeC, No. ")&!3&, 9&7 2. !d 74& I/lasEa
999>.
3!7:39 611icer Cas legall0 Husti1ied in shooting and Eilling a man advancing toCards tCo o11icers
Cith a Eni1e held to his oCn throat Cho had 3reviousl0 sta@@ing his @rother= the 1act that he 3osed a
threat to the o11icers rendered irrelevant an0 evidence o1 3ossi@le alternate strategies o11icers might
have used 3rior to that 3oint, or evidence concerning the o11icerGs 3ast disci3linar0 records or cit0 use
o1 1orce 3olic0. :elloC@acE v. Cit0 o1 "iou+ *alls, #!-79, ,-- N.;.!d ''4 I".D. 999>.
3!7:43 /33eals court u3holds Hur0 verdict in 1avor o1 3olice o11icers in laCsuit over alleged
3ositional as3h0+ia in case Chere the0 used Eneeling CristlocE on distur@ed man to taEe him into
3rotective custod0= use o1 courtroom demonstration o1 Eneeling CristlocE technique Cas 3ro3erl0
admitted into evidence. 7ones v. $alls, #9&)3'4, &7 *.3d &4& I&th Cir. 999>.
- 33
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1420
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
33-:&3 De3ut0 3ro3erl0 used deadl0 1orce against man advancing on him Cith a 3iece o1 concrete
in his hand= sheri11Gs 1ailure to train de3uties in the use o1 deadl0 1orce against FcraK0F 3eo3le Cas no
@asis 1or lia@ilit0 Chen general 3olic0 on use o1 deadl0 1orce Cas correct and no shoCing o1 a 3rior
3ro@lem in this area Cas shoCn= @asis 1or e+clusion o1 e+3ert Citness Cas erroneous, @ut Hur0 did not
need e+3ert hel3 to conclude that de3ut0 acted reasona@l0. 2ena v. 9eom@runi, No. 99)43', !--
*.3d -3 I7th Cir. 999>.
33-:&4 7ur0 3ro3erl0 heard evidence o1 alleged a11air @etCeen ma0or and arresteeGs Ci1e, and trial
court 3ro3erl0 declined to instruct Hur0 that arrestee had a dut0 to su@mit to an arrest Cithout
resistance even i1 it Cas unHusti1ied= a33eals court u3holds aCards totaling J4,--- against 3olice
chie1 and ma0or in laCsuit claiming that im3ro3er arrest Cas made Cith e+cessive 1orce @ased on a
3urel0 3ersonal dis3ute @etCeen ma0or and arrestee. <o11 v. Bise, # 9&)!&49, 73 *.3d -,& I&th Cir.
999>.
33:-& 611icerGs unsigned and unsCorn memorandum, 3re3ared 1or 3olice de3artmentGs legal
section, Cas inadmissi@le hearsa0 Chich Cas im3ro3erl0 relied on @0 trial Hudge in granting summar0
Hudgment in malicious 3rosecution case @rought @0 a mem@er o1 a communit0 3olice monitoring
organiKation Cho Cas issued a citation 1or 1olloCing a 3olice vehicle in Chich tCo mem@ers o1 her
grou3 Cere @eing trans3orted 1olloCing their arrest. "iEora v. <i@@s, No. 9&/2),'', 7!, N.E.!d '4-
I6hio /33. 999>.
3!!:' 2lainti11 in civil rights laCsuit concerning his arrest did not im3liedl0 Caive thera3ist)
3atient 3rivilege @0 including a claim 1or emotional distress= medical records during 3lainti11Gs tCo)
0ear con1inement in mental health center a1ter incident not discovera@le. 5ucEo v. Cit0 o1 6aE
*orest, &' *.$.D. '!, IN.D. 4ll. 999>. EditorGs Note: 6ther cases on this issue include: %ander@ilt
v. (oCn o1 ChilmarE, 74 *.$.D. !!' ID. ?ass. 997> Imere assertion o1 emotional damage claim
- 34
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1421
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
does not constitute a Caiver o1 thera3ist)3atient 3rivilege>= and three cases in Chich an im3lied
Caiver Cas 1ound, *o+ v. (he <ates Cor3., 79 *.$.D. 3-3 ID. Col. 99&>, %asconcells v. C0@e+,
9,! *."u33. 7- ID. ?d. 997>, and "arEo v. 2enn)Del Director0 Co., 7- *.$.D. !7 IE.D. 2a.
997>.
ZNL$[ *ederal trial Hudge im3ro3erl0 determined that he did not have discretion to consider
additional evidence Chen deciding Chether or not to u3hold a magistrateGs recommendation in an
arresteeGs laCsuit against investigating o11icers= he could 3ro3erl0 receive and consider neC evidence
to determine Chether there Cere genuine issues o1 1act that Could de1eat a motion 1or summar0
Hudgment. *reeman v. Count0 o1 Be+ar, #9')'-&& 4! *.3d &4& I'th Cir. 99&>.
3-':77 Convicted ro@@er could not 1ile suit o@Hecting to the disclosure o1 medical records at his
criminal trial Chen he did not contend that he and the 3erson treated 1or gunshot Counds at hos3ital
Cere the same 3erson. <reen v. Coo3er ?edical 5os3ital, 9,& *."u33. !49 IE.D. 2a. 997>.
3-7:-9 611icers Cere entitled to good 1aith immunit0 1or seiKure o1 trucE Cith missing %ehicle
4denti1ication Num@er= evidence uncovered @0 their Carrantless search o1 trucE Cas admissi@le
evidence in esta@lishing their de1ense even i1 search Cas illegal= 1ederal a33eals court rules that
e+clusionar0 rule does not a33l0 in 1ederal civil rights laCsuits= o11icers also entitled to o11icial
immunit0 on (e+as state laC claims. ;ren v. (oCe, 3- *.3d '4 I'th Cir. 997>.
3-9:4- Evidence o1 arresteeGs outstanding 3arole Carrant and 3rior drug distri@ution conviction
Cas admissi@le in arresteeGs e+cessive 1orce laCsuit against o11icers= evidence o1 3rior misdemeanor
convictions and other convictions Chich Cere more than ten 0ears old Cas not. Daniels v. 9oiKKo,
9&, *."u33. !4' I".D.N.:. 997>.
3-:'' ?an arrested 1or murder and then con1ined, 1or ten 0ears, in 3s0chiatric 1acilit0 Chile
incom3etent 1or trial, entitled to neC trial in civil rights laCsuit against o11icers alleging 1alse
- 35
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1422
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
im3risonment and malicious 3rosecution= suit claimed that con1ession to 3olice Cas 3rocured through
3rior ta3ed conversations Cith minister Cho allegedl0 F1edF sus3ect details o1 crime= e+clusion o1
ta3es 1rom evidence Cas reversi@le error. "utEieCicK v. ?onroe Count0 "heri11, - *.3d 3'! I,th
Cir. 997>.
3-:', 2lainti11 in e+cessive 1orce case against 3olice involving F3ositional as3h0+iaF could not
com3el de3osition o1 de1endantsG laC0er regarding his 3ersonal EnoCledge o1 the dangers o1
F3ositional as3h0+iaF Chen 3lainti11 1ailed to shoC that in1ormation Cas uno@taina@le through other
means, relevant and non)3rivileged, and crucial to 3re3aration o1 the case. 7ones v. Bd. o1 2olice
ComGrs o1 Aansas Cit0, ?o., 7, *.$.D. ,!' I;.D. ?o. 997>.
!9,:!4 4n suit over o11)dut0 o11icerGs shooting o1 3assenger in sto33ed vehicle, trial court did not
err in e+cluding evidence o1 3rior incident in Chich same o11icer shot a sus3ect 1rom another sto33ed
vehicle or in e+cluding evidence o1 4/C2 FmodelF 3olicies concerning tra11ic sto3s @0 o11)dut0
o11icers, Chen issue Cas not Chether sto3 Cas 3ro3er, @ut Chether use o1 1orce against 3assenger
once sto3 Cas made Cas e+cessive "oller v. ?oore, &4 *.3d 9,4 I7th Cir. 99,>.
!&7:7! 611icer Cas im3ro3erl0 @arred 1rom testi10ing as e+3ert Citness as to Chether sheri11Gs
alleged 1ailure to train de3uties on 3ro3er retrieval and use o1 shotguns stored in locEed trunEs o1
cruisers created unsa1e CorEing conditions= summar0 Hudgment 1or de1endant sheri11 and count0
overturned in suit @rought @0 de3ut0 shot @0 assailant Chile attem3ting to retrieve shotgun 1rom trunE
<entr0 v. ?angum, 4,, ".E.!d 7 I;.%a. 99'>.
!&':37 Cit0 and mental health agenc0 Cas not lia@le 1or o11icerGs shooting o1 3aranoid
schiKo3hrenic as he e+ited his @edroom, allegedl0 advancing on o11icer Cith hatchet raised=
de1endants adequatel0 e+3lained reasons 1or striEing tCo @lacE Hurors, and trial Hudge correctl0
- 36
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1423
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
e+cluded evidence Chich Cas not relevant to the case at hand ?cAeel v. Cit0 o1 2ine Blu11, 73 *.3d
!-7 I&th Cir, 99,>.
!79:3& E+3ert Citness testimon0 on Fhedonic damagesF Ithe enHo0ment value o1 human li1e>.
@arred @0 trial court in laCsuit over 3olice shooting o1 individual /0ers v. $o@inson, &&7 *."u33.
-49 IN.D.4ll. 99'>.
!&!:&4 Drug evidence 1rom house e+cluded at criminal trial @ecause o1 illegalit0 o1 search Cas
3ro3erl0 introduced into evidence in civil de1amation laCsuit @rought @0 resident against 3olice chie1
Cho allegedl0 told his em3lo0er he Cas a Fdrug dealerF= NeC 5am3shire "u3reme Court declines to
a33l0 e+clusionar0 rule in civil de1amation suit "im3Eins v. (oCn o1 Bartlett, ,, /.!d 77! IN5
99'>.
!&,:47 8.". "u3reme Court ado3ts thera3ist)3atient 3rivilege 3rotecting disclosures during
thera30 sessions 1rom com3elled disclosure in court= a11irms ordering o1 neC trial in Chich Hur0
aCarded J'4',--- in 3olice shooting case Chere Hur0 Cas told it could 3resume Cithheld thera30
records Could @e un1avora@le to o11icer 7a11ee v. /llen, , ".Ct. 9!3 I99,>.
ZNL$[ "tatement on 9 ta3e Chich allegedl0 descri@ed o11icerGs @eating o1 3lainti11 Cas not
admissi@le into evidence in a@sence o1 an0 shoCing that the 3erson maEing the descri3tion had a 1irst
hand EnoCledge o1 Chat he descri@ed Bemis v. EdCards, 4' *.3d 3,9 I9th Cir. 99'>.
ZNL$[ 4t Cas not an a@use o1 discretion to re1use to alloC Citnesses Cho Cere not disclosed in
3lainti11Gs 3retrial list o1 Citnesses to testi10= cit0 3olice de3artment Critten 3olicies Cere not relevant
in 3roving arresteeGs claims against cit0 ?arti v. Cit0 o1 ?a3leCood, ?o, '7 *.3d ,&- I&th Cir.
99'>.
!,9:,7 (a3e recording o1 arrest and alleged @eating o1 arrestee Chich revealed that o11icer
directed a racial e3ithet at arrestee should have @een admitted into evidence as it Cas relevant to the
- 37
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1424
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Hur0Gs tasE o1 deciding Chether 1orce used Cas reasona@le under the circumstances= a33eals court
rules that e+clusion o1 this 3ortion o1 ta3e Cas an a@use o1 discretion requiring a neC trial in civil
rights suit @rought @0 arrestee BroCn v. Cit0 o1 5ialeah, 3- *.3d 433 Ith Cir. 994>.
!,9:74 Evidence o1 3lainti11Gs 3rior criminal convictions Cas 3ro3erl0 admitted into evidence
during his cross)e+amination Chen his direct testimon0 o3ened the door to the evidence Duncan v.
;ells, !3 *.3d 3!! I&th Cir. 994>.
!7!:! De1endant 3olice o11icers had the right, in arresteeGs 1ederal civil rights e+cessive 1orce
suit against them, to cross)e+amine arrestee regarding his 3rior 1elon0 convictions during 3ast ten
0ears= cross)e+amination regarding 1elon0 convictions older than ten 0ears @arred as undul0
3reHudicial Charles v. Cotter, &,7 *."u33. ,4& IN.D.4ll. 994>.
Erroneous admission o1 narcotics in1ormerGs hearsa0 statements into evidence Cas not harmless
and required reversal o1 Hur0 verdict in 1avor o1 arrestee in civil rights suit against narcotics agent
9i33a0 v. Christos, 99, *.!d 49- I3rd Cir. 993>.
(rial court 3ro3erl0 admitted certi1ied records o1 3lainti11Gs ro@@er0 and 3ossession o1 concealed
Cea3ons convictions into evidence, as Cell as evidence o1 his conviction o1 2C2 drug to im3each his
statements, including statments that he had never used 2C2 <ee v. 2ride, 99! *.!d '9 I&th Cir.
993>.
?otorist inHured in collision Cith 3olice vehicle could 3resent evidence, in suit against cit0, that
o11icer allegedl0 attem3ted to inter1ere Cith @0stander attem3ts to aid him 1olloCing the accident=
evidence Cas relevant to issue o1 motoristGs emotional inHuries Creed v. Cit0 o1 Colum@ia, 4!, ".E.!d
7&' I"C 993>.
/rrestee suing o11icers 1or alleged 3rete+tual arrest should have @een alloCed to introduce
evidence o1 3rior incidents Chich Cere too long ago to @e the @asis 1or a suit, @ut Chich still could @e
- 38
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1425
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
used to shoC o11icersG alleged retaliator0 motive 1or arresting him $o@@ins v. Cit0 o1 ?iami Beach,
,3 "o.!d '&- I*la /33. 993>.
Buestions concerning 3lainti11Gs 3rior 1elon0 convictions Cere clearl0 3ro3er 1or 3ur3oses o1
im3eaching his truth1ulness as a Citness= questions concerning his current incarceration, Chile
generall0 inadmissi@le 1or im3eachment 3ur3oses, Cere alloCa@le 1or the 3ur3ose o1 re1uting his
claim that it Cas the de1endant o11icersG actions that led to his Fnegative 3erce3tionF o1 laC
en1orcement <ora v. Costa, 97 *.!d 3!' I7th Cir. 99!>.
(rial court 3ro3erl0 admitted evidence o1 medical records o1 3lainti11 in suit over 1ight Cith 3olice
o11icer= issue o1 Chether 3lainti11 had the a@ilit0 to control his anger and initiated 1ight made
admission to hos3ital EnoCn as treatment center 1or 3s0chiatric 3ro@lems relevant 7ones v. ;il@ur,
,-4 /.!d 779 I$4 99!>.
Evidence o1 charges and conviction o1 ra3e and Eidna33ing Chich Cere reason 1or arrest Cere
admissi@le in civil rights laCsuit @rought @0 arrestee 1or alleged e+cessive 1orce 5ernandeK v.
Ce3eda, &,- *.!d !,- I7th Cir. 9&&>.
2lainti11 sues o11icers 1or e+cessive use o1 1orce in arresting him= no error to admit evidence o1 his
3rior convictions 1or ro@@er0, ra3e and 1orci@le sodom0 7ones v. Bd o1 2olice Commissioners, &44
*.!d '-- I&th Cir. 9&&>. Congressional re3ort on 3olice misconduct inadmissi@le /nderson v. Cit0
o1 NeC :orE, ,'7 *."u33. '7 I".D.N: 9&7>.
"tate trial HudgeGs testimon0 a@out o11icersG credi@ilit0 inadmissi@le in arresteeGs civil rights
laCsuit= o11icers granted neC trial "chultK v. (homas, &3! *.!d -& I7th Cir. 9&7>.
/rrestee aCarded J',,&- 1or alleged assault @0 o11icers= admission into evidence o1 dismissal o1
charges Cas error @ut cured @0 Hur0 instructions 7ared v. Cit0 o1 NeC :orE, '9 N.:.".!d 77 I/.D.
9&7>.
- 39
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1426
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
4n @rutalit0 suit against o11icer, 5aCaii su3reme court admits evidence o1 other Crongs he
committed and character evidence shoCing 3ro3ensit0 1or violence ?e0er v. Cit0 and Count0 o1
5onolulu, 73 2.!d 49 I5aCaii 9&,>.
/rgersinger v. 5amlin I4-7 8.". !'> esta@lishes that the right to the assistance o1 counsel,
Chether retained or court a33ointed, is required in all 3rosecutions Chich ma0 result in
im3risonment, unless a com3lete *aretta canvas has @een com3leted and the request 1or Caiving
counsel is granted.
;hile there is a time and 3lace, 3erha3s 1or 6rders 1inding "ummar0 Contem3t under N$"
!!.-3-...3erha3s, the greatest strength a Hudge can demonstrate is the a@ilit0 to shoC a little CeaEness,
to demonstrate something other than ruling Cith an iron hand, to do something other than crush an0
voice o1 dissent in her court. (o strangle out o1 litigants the 1reedom to Kealousl0 adovocate on their
oCn or anotherGs @ehal1 Iin the case o1 licensed attorne0s> is 3erha3s the most heinous, sad, and ugl0
thing a Hudge could do. / Hudge Chom demonstrates an a@ilit0 to oversee that Chich maEes her less
than com1orta@le in her courtroom, that Chich she does not necessaril0 agree Cith, is a Hudge secure
in hher a@ilities and aCare o1 the 3remium on restraint and 3atience called 1or in order 1or a Hudge and
court to transcend 1rom mere de@t collector 1or the Cit0 /ttorne0 to im3artial ar@iter o1 1act and laC.
(o demonstrate otherCise ma0 create an atmos3here Chere court em3lo0ees overste3 their @ounds
and @egin to @ull0 and harass those seeEing to access Hustice, a true violation o1 the trust in Chich the
3u@lic endoCs such 3u@lic servants. Even 3erha3s, Chere ?arshals are a@le to Chis3er into 6rmasGs
ear, in o3en court, then Chere the undersigned needs to use the restroom, the Court 6rders him to
leave his note3ad in the courtroom, then the udnersigned is summaril0 interrogated @0 the Court 1rom
the Bench in some Ca0 a@out FdevicesF liEe he is a ma1ia in1ormant @eing rundoCn @0 the Don, then
the undersigned is arrested, stri3 searched, has his 3ro3ert0 con1iscated. /nd its im3ortant 3ro3ert0,
- 40
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1427
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
including, @ut not limited to tCo di11erent cell 3hoens. 5oC is the undersigned su33osed to
communicate Cith clientsQ *urther, the undersigned is a recent victim o1 domestic violence I*%!)
--&7 and *%!)--&&>, and rendering him more vulnera@le through conversion o1 his means o1
emergenc0 communictions, his cell 3hones, is not Husti1ied here.
N
;heres De1endant Cent to great lengths to demonstrate to 7udge 5oCard and the $?C that
he is indigent, he, a33arentl0, is not NalloCedO to @e so, so much so that this Court Cent against the
Nevada Court o1 9imited 7urisdiction Bench BooE o1 !--& and its !-- "u33lement in den0ing the
undersigned the his "i+th /mendment $ight (o Counsel, set 1orth e+3licitl0 in several locations in
the Bench BooE and mandator0 authorit0 in the8nited "tates. /rgersinger v. 5amlin, I4-7 8.". !'>.
/ 2etition to 2roceed in 4*2 and receive a co30 o1 the audio recording o1 an0 3roceedings in this
matter is su@mitted along Cith this instant 1iling.
Nevada N$C2 ,-I@>I3> alloCs a 3art0 to move 1or relie1 1rom a Hudgment Chich is void, and
Chile motions made under N$C2 ,-I@> are generall0 required to F@e made Cithin a reasona@le timeF
and to @e adHudicated according to the district courtGs discretion, this is not true in the case o1 a void
Hudgment. Necessaril0 a motion under this 3art o1 the rule di11ers marEedl0 1rom motions under the
other clauses o1 $ule ,-I@>. (here is no question o1 discretion on the 3art o1 the court Chen a motion
is made under Tthis 3ortion o1 the $uleU. Nor is there an0 requirement, as there usuall0 is Chen
de1ault Hudgments are attacEed under $ule ,-I@>, that the moving 3art0 shoC that he has a
meritorious de1ense. Either a Hudgment is void or it is valid. Determining Chich it is ma0 Cell 3resent
a di11icult question, @ut Chen that question is resolved, the court must act accordingl0. B0 the same
toEen, there is no time limit on an attacE on a Hudgment as void. . . . TEUven the requirement that the
motion @e made Cithin a Freasona@le time,F Chich seems literl0 to a33l0 . . . cannot @e en1orced Cith
- 41
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1428
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
regard to this class o1 motion. 8nderstanda@l0, the 3arties Cere not attuned to our recent 7aco@s
decision during oral argument. /ccordingl0, it Cas determined at that time to alloC the 3arties to
su33lement their @rie1s in order to determine Cith certaint0 Chether, in 1act, no de1ault had @een
entered against <arcia 3rior to the entr0 o1 the de1ault Hudgment. <arciaGs su33lemental material
su33lied additional evidence that no de1ault Cas ever entered, including an a11idavit @0 ClarE Count0
Court ClerE 9oretta BoCman attesting that no such 1iling e+ists in the case 1ile. $es3ondents also
acEnoCledged that no de1ault Cas ever entered @ut argue in their su33lemental @rie1 that 7aco@s
should not @e a33lied retroactivel0, noting that the de1ault Hudgment at issue herein Cas entered 3rior
to our 7aco@s decision. (his argument is Cithout merit. (he court in 7aco@s determined, consistent
Cith laC 1rom other Hurisdictions, that the de1ault Hudgment entered in 7aco@s Cas void. ;e
accordingl0 ordered the district court to grant relie1 1rom the void Hudgment, des3ite the 1act that the
ruling in 7aco@s Cas, o1 course, 3receded @0 entr0 o1 the de1ault Hudgment against 7aco@s. 41 this case,
rather than 7aco@s, Cere @e1ore us as a case o1 1irst im3ression, Ce Could have reached the same
conclusion. / void Hudgment is void 1or all 3ur3oses and ma0 not @e given li1e under a theor0 @ased
u3on lacE o1 legal 3recedent. <arcia v. 4deal "u33l0 Co., - Nev. 493, &74 2.!d 7'! INev.
'L9L994>. (he de1ective service rendered the district courtGs 3ersonal Hurisdiction over <assett
invalid and the Hudgment against her void. *or a Hudgment to @e void, there must @e a de1ect in the
courtGs authorit0 to enter Hudgment through either lacE o1 3ersonal Hurisdiction or Hurisdiction over
su@Hect matter in the suit. 2u3hal v. 2u3hal, ,,9 2.!d 9 I4daho 9&3>. 4n 2rice v. Dunn, -, Nev.
--, 7&7 2.!d 7&' I99->. ;e noC hold that the 1iling o1 a motion to set aside a void Hudgment
3reviousl0 entered against the movant shall not constitute a general a33earance. "ee, e.g., Do@son v.
Do@son, -& Nev. 34,, 349, &3- 2.!d 33,, 33& I99!>. Nonetheless, since the order Cas void, a
Hudgment @ased thereon Could liEeCise @e void.. Nelson v. "ierra Constr. Cor3., 77 Nev. 334, 3,4
- 42
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1429
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
2.!d 4-!. 8nder N$C2 ,-I@> a motion to set aside a void Hudgment is not restricted to the si+ monthsG
3eriod s3eci1ied in the rule. N$C2 '4Ia> 3rovides that the Cord FHudgmentF as used in these rules
includes an0 order 1rom Chich an a33eal lies. (here1ore there is no merit to a33ellantsG contention
that the motion to vacate the Hudgment Cas not timel0 made. *oster v. 9eCis, 7& Nev. 33-, 37! 2.!d
,79 INev. ,L9L9,!>. / void Hudgment is su@Hect to collateral attacE= a Hudgment is void i1 the
issuing court lacEed 3ersonal Hurisdiction or su@Hect matter Hurisdiction= "ee 49 C.7.". 7udgments R
4-, at 79! I947 V su33. 99>= 4, /m.7ur.!d 7udgments RR ,!)', I9,9 V su33. 99>.
$eno Cit0 /ttorne0Gs ;ong and 6rmaas shoCed a distur@ing lacE o1 concern Cith regard to
the re3orts that an $2D had admitted to taEign @ri@es 1rom $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. *urther, this Corut
e+3loded at the undersigned at one 3oitn in the (rial, threatening to FthroC 0ou in Hail i1 0ou sa0 the
name $ichard 5ill one more timeXF. (his (ra11ic citations Cas issued minutes a1ter the undersigned
Cas told to leave $ichard <. 5illGs laC o11ice @0 $2D "argent (arter ICho didnGt even Crite the ticEet
here, and as such the ,th /mendment right to con1ront the accuser Cas violated @0 the other o11icerG,
the material Citness, not @eing 3resent 1or the (rial. he CasnGt 3resent 1or the FCali1ornia $ollF
either, so its unclear Ch0 its oEa0 1or "argent (arter to have him Crite the ticEet 1or "argent (arter,
Chom admitted he had onl0 Critten one such ticEet in the entire 0ear 3receding his involvment in this
L'L incident. "hortl0 @e1ore "argetn (arter told the undersigned to leave 5illGs laC o11ice
IChere the udnersigned Cent shortl0 a1ter @eing released 1rom a lovel0 3 da0 sta0 in Hail 3ursuant to
5illGs signign a criminal tres3ass Com3laint in cr !,4-' IChere $?C a33ointed de1ender tooE on
re3resentation des3ite a clear con1lict, then (aitel agree to a continuance @ecause 5ill Cas goign to @e
on vacation 1or a month, all Cithout consulting the undersigned client, etc...S>?r. ;ong did e+3ress a
com3lete lacE o1 concern to the undersigned Chen it Cas re3orted to him that a $2D 611icer, Chris
Carter, had admitted to the undersigned that the o33osing counsel in $7C $E%!-)--7-&
- 43
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1430
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
summar0 eviction 1rom a commercial tenanc0 laC o11ice Chere non 3a0ment o1 rent Cas not alleged
Iin violation o1 N$" 4-.!'3Gs e+3ress dictate against such actions> had 3aid mone0 to $2D 611icer
Carter to arrest the undersigned Ia @ri@e>. ?r. ;ong indicated a com3lete lacE o1 consternation in
this regard and e+3ressed that he intended to conduct Kero 1olloC u3 Cith res3ect to that trou@ling
@reach o1 the 3u@lic trust, even though, as a $eno Cit0 /ttorne0, ?r. ;ong liEel0 has a dut0 to do so
and his 1ailure to Cill augur strongl0 toCard a 1inding that the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 is lia@le 1or an0
$2D misconduct on a negligent hiring, training, and su3ervision claim and that the $eno Cit0
/ttorne0 is aCare o1 and, in 1act, rati1ies or endorses such @ri@e taEing @0 the $2D 1rom $ichard <.
5ill, Esq, o33osing counsel in that $7C eviction matter.
8nder 1ederal laC, as Cell as the laC o1 some states, the mis@ehavior that 3ermits summar0
action must in addition 3resent an imminent threat to the administration o1 Hustice= it must
immediatel0 im3eril the Hudge in the 3er1ormance o1 his or her Hudicial dut0 or constitute an actual
o@struction o1 Hustice. 8.". v. (urner, &! *.!d ''! Ith Cir. 9&7> Iattorne0Gs 3osing o1 single
question to Citness a@out race o1 certain individuals, though in clear violation o1 ver@al court order,
did not so o@struct Hustice as to ena@le court to resort to summar0 3rocedure 1or contem3t under
*ederal $ule o1 Criminal 2rocedure 4!I@>>= 4n re 5olloCa0, 99' *.!d -&- ID.C. Cir. 993> Iattorne0
3ursued lines o1 questioning ruled out @0 Hudge>.;itnessGs re1usal to ansCer questions the court
orders him to ansCer is contumacious conduct Chich ma0 su@Hect Citness to summar0 3unishment
1or criminal contem3t under Direct contem3t Husti10ing summar0 dis3osition is con1ined to
e+ce3tional circumstances involving acts threatening the Hudge, disru3ting the hearing, or o@structing
court 3roceedings. $ule 4!. 4n re Bo0den, ,7' *.!d ,43 I'th Cir. 9&!>. Because summar0 contem3t
3rocedure 1ills a need 1or the immediate 3enal vindication o1 the dignit0 o1 the court, its a33lication is
con1ined to unusual situations Chere the courtGs instant action is necessar0 to 3rotect the Hudicial
- 44
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1431
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
institution itsel1. 4n re <usta1son, ,9 *.!d 3'4, '& /.9.$. *ed. I9th Cir. 9&->, on rehGg, ,'- *.!d
-7 I9th Cir. 9&>.
N$" !!. -3-. "ummar0 3unishment o1 contem3t committed in immediate vieC and
3resence o1 court= a11idavit or statement to @e 1iled Chen contem3t committed outside
immediate vieC and 3resence o1 court= disquali1ication o1 Hudge:
N. 41 a contem3t is committed in the immediate vieC and 3resence o1 the court or Hudge at
cham@ers, the contem3t ma0 @e 3unished summaril0. 41 the court or Hudge summaril0 3unishes
a 3erson 1or a contem3t 3ursuant to this su@section, the court or Hudge shall enter an order
that:
Ia> $ecites the 1acts constituting the contem3t in the immediate vieC and 3resence o1 the court
or Hudge=
I@> *inds the 3erson guilt0 o1 the contem3t= and
Ic> 2rescri@es the 3unishment 1or the contem3t...O
'4 /9$ !!7, Necessit0 and "u11icienc0 o1 ?aEing and $ecording "u@sidiar0 or Detailed
*indings "u33orting /dHudication o1 Direct Contem3t.
"tatute 3roviding that in all cases o1 contem3t arising Cithout immediate vieC and 3resence o1
court, Hudge o1 court in Chose contem3t de1endant is alleged to @e, shall not 3reside at such
trial over o@Hection o1 de1endant, is constitutional. N.C.9.9!9, R &943. ?cCormicE v. "i+th
7udicial Dist. Court in and 1or 5um@oldt Count0, 9'-, !& 2.!d 939, ,7 Nev. 3&. Contem3t
*or 3ur3oses o1 statute governing summar0 contem3t 3roceedings 1or direct contem3t committed
in HudgeGs 3resence, Chich requires court to Nenter an order,O Chile a trial courtGs oral
contem3t order is immediatel0 en1orcea@le, a Critten order including the statuteGs required elements
must @e 3rom3tl0 entered. 5ouston v. Eighth 7udicial Dist. Court e+ rel. Count0 o1
ClarE, !--,, 3' 2.3d !,9, !! Nev. '44.
/33ro3riate remed0 1or attorne0 Cho had @een 1ound in direct contem3t o1 court in divorce
3roceeding in Chich he re3resented Ci1e, Chere contem3t order had @een 1ound to @e insu11icient
@0 "u3reme Court, in that it did not contain a su11icient statement concerning Chat conduct
Cas held to @e contem3tuous, Cas to 3ermit trial court to enter amended order, given that
"u3reme CourtGs o3inion addressed issue o1 1irst im3ression and announced standard 1or contents
- 45
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1432
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
o1 Critten contem3t order. 5ouston v. Eighth 7udicial Dist. Court e+ rel. Count0 o1
ClarE, !--,, 3' 2.3d !,9, !! Nev. '44.
III. CONCLUSION
29E/"E EN764N $7C /ND $?C ?/$"5/9" /ND B/494**" ;C"6, N% ENE$<:, E(C. *$6?
B96;4N< ?E 68( 94AE / D/?N C/ND9E 4N (5E ;4ND. 4n accordance Cith the 1oregoing, it is res3ect1ull0
requested that this Court enter its 6rder den0ing all relie1 requested @0 the o33osing 3art0 and granting all relie1 requested
@0 the undersigned, in addition to an0 other relie1 this Court deems a33ro3riate, including either setting aside the 6rder
1or 5earing on ?otion to "hoC Cause and or 3ending or vacating such hearing during the 3endenc0 o1 the criminal
tres3ass 3roceeding stemming 1orm the same ne+us o1 1acts in $?C C$ !,4-', es3eciall0 considering a conviction
ma0 require re3orting to the "tate Bar o1 Nevada under "C$ ..
MOTION TO RETURN CELL PHONESA MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUMMARY
CONTEMPT ORDERA AND NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SUMMARY CONTEMPT ORDER
C6?E" N6;, De1endant, Zach Coughlin, @0 and through himsel1 and 1iles the a@ove title
document on his oCn @ehal1. 4 am not messinG Cith 7'. (o @e 7' meant one had to @e -- times
@etter than oneGs 1elloC male attorne0s seeEing admission to the Nevada Bar at the time. 4 Cas
1ortunate enough to CorE around Aaren D. Dennison, Esq. 1or a ver0, ver0 short time, so 4 EnoC Chat
incredi@le talent and 1ortitude those 1irst -- 3ossess. htt3:LLnsla.nevadaculture.orgLinde+.3h3Q
o3tion\comScontentVtasE\vieCVid\744V4temid\4&
2ersonall0, 4 hate to even @egin to argue against an0thing 7' might lean toCards. 5oCever,
Fm0 @acE is to the Call, 4 gotta @raClF, so 4 do that. ;hen 4 o@viouls0 have to, Chich is not clear to
me at this 3oint. 2erha3s 4 can use Chat little intelligence and even less charm that 4 3ossess to 3lead
m0 case. 4 certainl0 donGt Cant it Cith De3ut0 Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmas, as clearl0 4 am outclassed
against her she Cill onl0 mo3 u3 the courtroom Cith me, that is o@vious.
as he Cas denied his "i+th /mendment $ight (o Counsel Ieven i1 De1endant didnGt 3reserve this 1or
the record its onl0 1air to 3rovide him counsel once this Court mentioned that a "ummar0 Contem3t
- 46
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1433
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
$uling Cas a distinct 3ossi@ilit0 and De1endant cannot @e 3reHudiced 1or an0 1ailure to so move as he
is terri1ied o1 7udge Nash 5olmes and its Hust not 1air to e+3ect him to 1unction in 5er 5onorGs
3resence consdidering the enormous amounts o1 gravitas she @rings to the @ench... I this "i+th
/mendment $ight to Counsel is mentioned clearl0 in the !--& 9imited 7urisdiction CourtGs Bench
BooE 1or Nevada 7udges, along Cith the !-- "u33lement thereto, and Chile a ver0 learned 7udge
liEe 7udge 5oCard ma0 cite to "cott v. 4llinois 1or su33ort that no such right e+ists Chere
incarceration is not actuall0 e11ectuated, it clearl0 Cas here, 1ive da0s Corth, com3lete Cith a J3--
@ill 1or the undersignedGs car @eing toCed>, and 1iles this ?otion (o "et /side 7udge Nash 5olmes
*e@ruar0 !7th, !-! "ummar0 Contem3t 6rder and also to move 1or a continuance Cith res3ect to
the ne+t (rial date that Cas mentioned Chile the undersigned Cas in custod0.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
/rgersinger v. 5amlin I4-7 8.". !'> esta@lishes that the right to the assistance o1 counsel,
Chether retained or court a33ointed, is required in all 3rosecutions Chich ma0 result in
im3risonment, unless a com3lete *aretta canvas has @een com3leted and the request 1or Caiving
counsel is granted.
;hile there is a time and 3lace, 3erha3s 1or 6rders 1inding "ummar0 Contem3t under N$"
!!.-3-...3erha3s, the greatest strength a Hudge can demonstrate is the a@ilit0 to shoC a little CeaEness,
to demonstrate something other than ruling Cith an iron hand, to do something other than crush an0
voice o1 dissent in his court room liEe ?iEe "ingletar0 I1ormer line@acEer 1or the Chicago Bears in
the 9&-Gs> Could crush a running @acE going through the N/ ga3O. (o strangle out o1 litigants the
1reedom to Kealousl0 adovocate on their oCn or anotherGs @ehal1 Iin the case o1 licensed attorne0s> is
3erha3s the most heinous, sad, and ugl0 thing a Hudge could do. / Hudge Chom demonstrates an
a@ilit0 to oversee that Chich maEes him less than com1orta@le in his courtroom, that Chich he does
- 47
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1434

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
not necessaril0 agree Cith, is a Hudge secure in his a@ilities and aCare o1 the 3remium on restraint and
3atience called 1or in order 1or a Hudge and court to transcend 1rom mere de@t collector 1or the Cit0
/ttorne0 to im3artial ar@iter o1 1act and laC. (o demonstrate otherCise ma0 create an atmos3here
Chere court em3lo0ees overste3 their @ounds and @egin to @ull0 and harass those seeEing to access
Hustice, a true violation o1 the trust in Chich the 3u@lic endoCs such 3u@lic servants.
NoC, a33arentl0, 4nterim Court /dministrator Cassandra 7acEson is seeEing to im3art orders
u3on litigants carr0ing color o1 laC @0 emailing them Cith her inter3retation o1 Chat an 6rder
3ur3orts to require, even Chere that 6rder rules on matters @e0ond the Hurisdiction o1 the 7udge and
or Court maEing the 6rder. (hat is the case here. ?s. 7acEson sent the undersigned an email on or
a@out 7anuar0 -
th
, !-! that im3ermissi@l0 seeEs to im3ose u3on a litigant, and an attorne0, a
restriction that Could violate the 4
th
/mendmentGs Equal 2rotection class and 1urther maEe undul0
@urdensome u3on the undersigned the right to 1ile 3a3ers Cith the $eno ?unici3al Court. (he
undersigned should not @e assigned a di11erent set o1 rules 1or 1iling documents than the 1ar @etter
1unded $eno Cit0 /ttorne0Gs 611ice is.
$?C$ $ule 3: /uthoriKation to $e3resent /ttorne0s re3resenting de1endants shall
3rom3tl0 serve Critten notice o1 their a33earance Cith the Cit0 /ttorne0 and 1ile the
same Cith the Court. /n attorne0 desiring to CithdraC 1rom a case shall 1ile a motion
Cith the court and serve the Cit0 /ttorne0 Cith the same. (he court ma0 rule on the
motion or set a hearing. $?C$ $ule ': ?otions @0 *acsimile /. /ll rules and
3rocedures that a33l0 to motions 1iled in 3erson at the court shall also a33l0 to motions
1iled @0 1acsimile, e+ce3t as otherCise s3eci1ied in this rule. B. /ll 3ersons are eligi@le
to use motion)@0)1acsimile 3rocedures. C. /ll motions 1iled @0 1acsimile must @e
accom3anied @0 a cover sheet Chich must include the 3ersonMs name, address, 1a+
num@er and tele3hone num@er. D. /ll 1acsimile motions 1iled @0 an attorne0 must
include the attorne0Gs name, the 1irmMs name, address, 1a+ num@er and tele3hone
num@er. 4n addition, the attorne0Ms state @ar num@er must @e cons3icuousl0 dis3la0ed
on the cover sheet. E. /ll motions 1iled @0 1acsimile must @e accom3anied @0 3roo1 o1
service.
;heres De1endant Cent to great lengths to demonstrate to 7udge 5oCard and the $?C that
he is indigent, he, a33arentl0, is not NalloCedO to @e so, so much so that this Court Cent against the
- 48
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1435
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Nevada Court o1 9imited 7urisdiction Bench BooE o1 !--& and its !-- "u33lement in den0ing the
undersigned the his "i+th /mendment $ight (o Counsel, set 1orth e+3licitl0 in several locations in
the Bench BooE and mandator0 authorit0 in the 8nited "tates. /rgersinger v. 5amlin, I4-7 8.". !'>.
Nevada N$C2 ,-I@>I3> alloCs a 3art0 to move 1or relie1 1rom a Hudgment Chich is void, and
Chile motions made under N$C2 ,-I@> are generall0 required to F@e made Cithin a reasona@le timeF
and to @e adHudicated according to the district courtGs discretion, this is not true in the case o1 a void
Hudgment. Necessaril0 a motion under this 3art o1 the rule di11ers marEedl0 1rom motions under the
other clauses o1 $ule ,-I@>. (here is no question o1 discretion on the 3art o1 the court Chen a motion
is made under Tthis 3ortion o1 the $uleU. Nor is there an0 requirement, as there usuall0 is Chen
de1ault Hudgments are attacEed under $ule ,-I@>, that the moving 3art0 shoC that he has a
meritorious de1ense. Either a Hudgment is void or it is valid. Determining Chich it is ma0 Cell 3resent
a di11icult question, @ut Chen that question is resolved, the court must act accordingl0. B0 the same
toEen, there is no time limit on an attacE on a Hudgment as void. . . . TEUven the requirement that the
motion @e made Cithin a Freasona@le time,F Chich seems literall0 to a33l0 . . . cannot @e en1orced
Cith regard to this class o1 motion. 8nderstanda@l0, the 3arties Cere not attuned to our recent 7aco@s
decision during oral argument. /ccordingl0, it Cas determined at that time to alloC the 3arties to
su33lement their @rie1s in order to determine Cith certaint0 Chether, in 1act, no de1ault had @een
entered against <arcia 3rior to the entr0 o1 the de1ault Hudgment. <arciaGs su33lemental material
su33lied additional evidence that no de1ault Cas ever entered, including an a11idavit @0 ClarE Count0
Court ClerE 9oretta BoCman attesting that no such 1iling e+ists in the case 1ile. $es3ondents also
acEnoCledged that no de1ault Cas ever entered @ut argue in their su33lemental @rie1 that 7aco@s
should not @e a33lied retroactivel0, noting that the de1ault Hudgment at issue herein Cas entered 3rior
to our 7aco@s decision. (his argument is Cithout merit. (he court in 7aco@s determined, consistent
- 49
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1436
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Cith laC 1rom other Hurisdictions, that the de1ault Hudgment entered in 7aco@s Cas void. ;e
accordingl0 ordered the district court to grant relie1 1rom the void Hudgment, des3ite the 1act that the
ruling in 7aco@s Cas, o1 course, 3receded @0 entr0 o1 the de1ault Hudgment against 7aco@s. 41 this case,
rather than 7aco@s, Cere @e1ore us as a case o1 1irst im3ression, Ce Could have reached the same
conclusion. / void Hudgment is void 1or all 3ur3oses and ma0 not @e given li1e under a theor0 @ased
u3on lacE o1 legal 3recedent. <arcia v. 4deal "u33l0 Co., - Nev. 493, &74 2.!d 7'! INev.
'L9L994>. (he de1ective service rendered the district courtGs 3ersonal Hurisdiction over <assett
invalid and the Hudgment against her void. *or a Hudgment to @e void, there must @e a de1ect in the
courtGs authorit0 to enter Hudgment through either lacE o1 3ersonal Hurisdiction or Hurisdiction over
su@Hect matter in the suit. 2u3hal v. 2u3hal, ,,9 2.!d 9 I4daho 9&3>. 4n 2rice v. Dunn, -, Nev.
--, 7&7 2.!d 7&' I99->. ;e noC hold that the 1iling o1 a motion to set aside a void Hudgment
3reviousl0 entered against the movant shall not constitute a general a33earance. "ee, e.g., Do@son v.
Do@son, -& Nev. 34,, 349, &3- 2.!d 33,, 33& I99!>. Nonetheless, since the order Cas void, a
Hudgment @ased thereon Could liEeCise @e void.. Nelson v. "ierra Constr. Cor3., 77 Nev. 334, 3,4
2.!d 4-!. 8nder N$C2 ,-I@> a motion to set aside a void Hudgment is not restricted to the si+ monthsG
3eriod s3eci1ied in the rule. N$C2 '4Ia> 3rovides that the Cord FHudgmentF as used in these rules
includes an0 order 1rom Chich an a33eal lies. (here1ore there is no merit to a33ellantsG contention
that the motion to vacate the Hudgment Cas not timel0 made. *oster v. 9eCis, 7& Nev. 33-, 37! 2.!d
,79 INev. ,L9L9,!>. / void Hudgment is su@Hect to collateral attacE= a Hudgment is void i1 the
issuing court lacEed 3ersonal Hurisdiction or su@Hect matter Hurisdiction= "ee 49 C.7.". 7udgments R
4-, at 79! I947 V su33. 99>= 4, /m.7ur.!d 7udgments RR ,!)', I9,9 V su33. 99>.
7udge 5oCards Decem@er ,
th
, !- 6rder rules on matters outside 7udge 5oCards
Hurisdiction and is there1ore void 1or lacE o1 Hurisdiction. *urther, it is im3ermissi@le 1or the $?CGs
- 50
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1437
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Cassandra 7acEson to attem3t to reCrite $?C $ules Iand it is not clear Chethe she is doing this on
her oCn accord or i1 she has @een instructed to do so as 7udge <ardnerGs /dministrative /ssistant or
as the 4nterim Court /dministrator, or in some other ca3acit0>. *urther, it is ina33ro3riate 1or
7acEson to @e co30ing $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 Iand ver0 recent 1ormer coCorEer o1 $?CGs 7udge
<ardner> and $o@ert 2uentes ICho recentl0 asEed to @e granted a ?otion to ;ithdraC 1rom
re3resenting the undersigned @ecause doing so actuall0 required him to do some legal CorE, and that
Cas NhardO 1or him> on her corres3ondence, Chich related to a 1iling in a tra11ic citation 1or Chich
?$. 2uentes has a@solutel0 no connection and Chere ?r. ;ong had not 0et made an a33earance.
?r. ;ong did e+3ress a com3lete lacE o1 concern to the undersigned Chen it Cas re3orted to him that
a $2D 611icer, Chris Carter, had admitted to the undersigned that the o33osing counsel in $7C
$E%!-)--7-& summar0 eviction 1rom a commercial tenanc0 laC o11ice Chere non 3a0ment o1
rent Cas not alleged Iin violation o1 N$" 4-.!'3Gs e+3ress dictate against such actions> had 3aid
mone0 to $2D 611icer Carter to arrest the undersigned Ia @ri@e>. ?r. ;ong indicated a com3lete
lacE o1 consternation in this regard and e+3ressed that he intended to conduct Kero 1olloC u3 Cith
res3ect to that trou@ling @reach o1 the 3u@lic trust, even though, as a $eno Cit0 /ttorne0, ?r. ;ong
liEel0 has a dut0 to do so and his 1ailure to Cill augur strongl0 toCard a 1inding that the $eno Cit0
/ttorne0 is lia@le 1or an0 $2D misconduct on a negligent hiring, training, and su3ervision claim and
that the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 is aCare o1 and, in 1act, rati1ies or endorses such @ri@e taEing @0 the $2D
1rom $ichard <. 5ill, Esq, o33osing counsel in that $7C eviction matter.
8nder 1ederal laC, as Cell as the laC o1 some states, the mis@ehavior that 3ermits summar0
action must in addition 3resent an imminent threat to the administration o1 Hustice= it must
immediatel0 im3eril the Hudge in the 3er1ormance o1 his or her Hudicial dut0 or constitute an actual
o@struction o1 Hustice. 8.". v. (urner, &! *.!d ''! Ith Cir. 9&7> Iattorne0Gs 3osing o1 single
- 51
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1438
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
question to Citness a@out race o1 certain individuals, though in clear violation o1 ver@al court order,
did not so o@struct Hustice as to ena@le court to resort to summar0 3rocedure 1or contem3t under
*ederal $ule o1 Criminal 2rocedure 4!I@>>= 4n re 5olloCa0, 99' *.!d -&- ID.C. Cir. 993> Iattorne0
3ursued lines o1 questioning ruled out @0 Hudge>.;itnessGs re1usal to ansCer questions the court
orders him to ansCer is contumacious conduct Chich ma0 su@Hect Citness to summar0 3unishment
1or criminal contem3t under Direct contem3t Husti10ing summar0 dis3osition is con1ined to
e+ce3tional circumstances involving acts threatening the Hudge, disru3ting the hearing, or o@structing
court 3roceedings. $ule 4!. 4n re Bo0den, ,7' *.!d ,43 I'th Cir. 9&!>. Because summar0 contem3t
3rocedure 1ills a need 1or the immediate 3enal vindication o1 the dignit0 o1 the court, its a33lication is
con1ined to unusual situations Chere the courtGs instant action is necessar0 to 3rotect the Hudicial
institution itsel1. 4n re <usta1son, ,9 *.!d 3'4, '& /.9.$. *ed. I9th Cir. 9&->, on rehGg, ,'- *.!d
-7 I9th Cir. 9&>.
N$" !!. -3-. "ummar0 3unishment o1 contem3t committed in immediate vieC and
3resence o1 court= a11idavit or statement to @e 1iled Chen contem3t committed outside
immediate vieC and 3resence o1 court= disquali1ication o1 Hudge:
N. 41 a contem3t is committed in the immediate vieC and 3resence o1 the court or Hudge at
cham@ers, the contem3t ma0 @e 3unished summaril0. 41 the court or Hudge summaril0 3unishes
a 3erson 1or a contem3t 3ursuant to this su@section, the court or Hudge shall enter an order
that:
Ia> $ecites the 1acts constituting the contem3t in the immediate vieC and 3resence o1 the court
or Hudge=
I@> *inds the 3erson guilt0 o1 the contem3t= and
Ic> 2rescri@es the 3unishment 1or the contem3t...O
'4 /9$ !!7, Necessit0 and "u11icienc0 o1 ?aEing and $ecording "u@sidiar0 or Detailed
*indings "u33orting /dHudication o1 Direct Contem3t.
"tatute 3roviding that in all cases o1 contem3t arising Cithout immediate vieC and 3resence o1
court, Hudge o1 court in Chose contem3t de1endant is alleged to @e, shall not 3reside at such
trial over o@Hection o1 de1endant, is constitutional. N.C.9.9!9, R &943. ?cCormicE v. "i+th
7udicial Dist. Court in and 1or 5um@oldt Count0, 9'-, !& 2.!d 939, ,7 Nev. 3&. Contem3t
- 52
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1439
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
*or 3ur3oses o1 statute governing summar0 contem3t 3roceedings 1or direct contem3t committed
in HudgeGs 3resence, Chich requires court to Nenter an order,O Chile a trial courtGs oral
contem3t order is immediatel0 en1orcea@le, a Critten order including the statuteGs required elements
must @e 3rom3tl0 entered. 5ouston v. Eighth 7udicial Dist. Court e+ rel. Count0 o1
ClarE, !--,, 3' 2.3d !,9, !! Nev. '44.
/33ro3riate remed0 1or attorne0 Cho had @een 1ound in direct contem3t o1 court in divorce
3roceeding in Chich he re3resented Ci1e, Chere contem3t order had @een 1ound to @e insu11icient
@0 "u3reme Court, in that it did not contain a su11icient statement concerning Chat conduct
Cas held to @e contem3tuous, Cas to 3ermit trial court to enter amended order, given that
"u3reme CourtGs o3inion addressed issue o1 1irst im3ression and announced standard 1or contents
o1 Critten contem3t order. 5ouston v. Eighth 7udicial Dist. Court e+ rel. Count0 o1
ClarE, !--,, 3' 2.3d !,9, !! Nev. '44.
7udge 5oCard "ummar0 Contem3t 6rder relies in 3art on Fcontinuing lines o1 inquir0 a1ter
told @0 the Court not to do so...F hoCever an0 such alleged instances o1 this are e+3lained aCa0 @0
the 1act that an0 such questions Chere not 3osed to 3rove the truth o1 the matter asserted @ut rather
1or other 3ermissi@le 3ur3oses Iand this Cas 3ointed out to the Court at trial>. *urther, 1or 7udge
5oCard to rule that it is not relevant Chether ;al)?artGs /sset 2rotection team had ver@all0
threatened the accused or otherCise indicated the0 Could retaliate against him 1or 1ilming a
documentar0 related to ;al)?artGs continual 3ractice o1 l0ing to customers a@out their $eturn 2olic0
and selectivel0 en1orcing it, des3ite its terms @eing 3art o1 a contract @etCeen the retailer and
consumers, it 3lain error.
/ Critten summar0 contem3t order, issued 3ursuant to statute governing summar0 contem3t
3roceedings 1or direct contem3t committed in HudgeGs 3resence, must set 1orth s3eci1ic 1acts
- 53
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1440

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
concerning the conduct 1ound to @e contem3tuous. 5ouston v. Eighth 7udicial Dist. Court e+ rel.
Count0 o1 ClarE, !--,, 3' 2.3d !,9, !! Nev. '44. 7udge 5oCards 6rder is o1 the FchecE the @o+F
variet0, on a 3re3rinted 1orm, seemingl0 taEen 1rom the Bench BooE, containing mere conclusor0 and
circular statements a@out the 3ur3orted contem3t and in no Ca0 satis1ies the a@ove standard. 4ndeed,
7udge 5oCard does not s3eci10 Chat Flines o1 inquir0F Cere continued, nor is it clear hoC a 3ro se
de1endant denied his "i+th /mendment $ight (o Counsel could reasona@l0 EnoC Chat is required o1
him to com3l0 Cith 7udge 5oCards vague and menacing contem3t 3ronoucements Chile also
Kealousl0 advocating on the de1endantGs @ehal1.
;ritten summar0 contem3t order 1inding attorne0 1or Ci1e in divorce 3roceeding in direct
contem3t o1 court 1ailed to indicate Chat 3articular comments @0 attorne0 Cere held to @e
contem3tuous, and, thus, order Cas insu11icient, under statute governing summar0 contem3t
3roceedings 1or direct contem3t committed in HudgeGs 3resence. 5ouston v. Eighth 7udicial Dist.
Court e+ rel. Count0 o1 ClarE, !--,, 3' 2.3d !,9, !! Nev. '44.
6ther than indicating the de1endant said N;oCO, 7udge 5oCardGs 6rder does little to com3l0
Cith the a@ove standard. *urther, 7udge 5oCard maEes allegations o1 NlaughterO, hoCever, and this
goes to the Nevident im3artialit0L?otion 1or $ecusalO, 7udge 5oCard seemed to go to great lengths to
striEe 1rom the record the 1act that (homas *rontino, ;al)?art /sset 2rotection /ssociate and
Citness 1or the Cit0 o1 $eno, Cas continuall0 smirEing and laughing on the stand, 3articularl0 Chile
he Cas committing 3erHur0. 7udge 5oCard maEes no s3eci1ic indication as to Chat the undersigned
su33osedl0 laughed a@out, or at Chat time o1 the 3roceeding Ithe audio o1 Chich is recorded and
3reserved @0 the $?CGs *or (he $ecord s0stem>. Even i1 NlaughterO Cas 3resent, it is not 3er se
contem3tuous and 7udge 5oCard does not maEe clear hoC his attem3t to 3rohi@it such alloCs 1or a
de1endant to Kealousl0 advocate on his oCn @ehal1, or Chether it is ever 3ermissi@le, or even a sEill1ul
- 54
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1441

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
trial tactic, 1or a litigant to engage in NlaughterO. $eall0, Chat 7udge 5oCard seems to Cant the most
is 1or those de1endants that he Cishes to 1ind guilt0 to la0 doCn and die a death o1 sorts in his
courtroom, and to thanE the $?C 1or its Cise cr03t)Eee3ing.
$egardless, Cith res3ect to 7udge 5oCardGs, Decem@er ,, !- 6rder, it attem3ts to rule on
matters 1ar @e0ond the Hurisdiction accorded to 7udge 5oCard. (he email address
Nrenomunirecords.reno.govO is held out to the 3u@lic in a num@er o1 instances. "ee, E+hi@it :
7anuar0 -
th
, !-! email 1rom $?C 4nterim Court /dministrator Cassandra 7acEson Cith /ttached
Decem@er ,
th
, !- 6rder o1 7udge 5oCard. (he 6rder reads: NDe1endant Coughlin 1orCarded a
communication to 7udge 5oCardGs 3ersonal electronic mail account. De1endant Coughlin is Carned
that he must ccase and desist 1urthcr e)mail communication Cith 7udge 5oCard, his stal(or an0 other
em3lo0ee o1 the $eno ?unici3al Court.O 5oCever, it is not clear at all that that email address is a
N3ersonalO email address. (he email address gateCa0 is that o1 one @elonging to the Cit0 o1 $eno,
not to a 3rivate citiKen, and there1ore it can hardl0 @e said to @e a N3ersonalO email address, liEe
5otmail, or <mail address. 4t is an email address 3rovided to a 3u@lic servant, an elected or
a33ointed o11icial, to @e used in the course o1 o11icial @usiness and held out to the 3u@lic as a valid
means 1or contacting that o11icial. 5oC an email is an0 di11erent than a 1a+ is something not at all
clear. Both means o1 corres3ondence convert the communication to a series o1 Gs and -Gs 1or the
3ur3ose o1 transmitting date in a digital 1orm. (o hold these means o1 communication are
1undamentall0 di11erent, is a distinction Cithout a di11erence and ar@itar0 and ca3ricious. (o required
litigants to acce3t such 3ronouncements Chere the0 are not su33orted @0 sound rationale or 3olic0 is
to engage in t0rann0, something 1or Chich the /merican 3u@lic has never had much o1 a taste.
(he Decem@er ,
th
, !- 6rder goes on to hold that: N4( 4" 5E$EB: 6$DE$ED that
De1endant Coughlin shall not communicate via email Cith 7udge 5oCard, his sta11 or an0 other
- 55
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1442
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
em3lo0ee o1 the $eno ?unici3al Court.O *irst, 4t is not clear Chether a transcri3tionist recommended
or required @0 the $?C is a N$?C em3lo0eeO. 4t is not clear is ?arshal $o3er is an $?C
em3lo0ee, or an em3lo0ee o1 ;ashoe Count0, or the Cit0 o1 $eno. (o @e a valid 6rder such that a
Contem3t 6rder ma0 issue 1rom a violation o1 it requires that the 6rder @e su11icientl0 detailed and
clear such that one could @e reasona@l0 said to have an understanding o1 Chat is required o1 him to
com3l0 Cith it. (he undersigned seeEs clari1ication o1 the 6rder in this regard. *urther, the 6rder
does not contain an0 language 3ur3orting to maEe ina33lica@le to the undersigned the right enHo0ed
@0 all other litigants @e1ore the $?C, ie, that contained in $?C$ ':
$?C$ $ule ': ?otions @0 *acsimile /. /ll rules and 3rocedures that a33l0 to
motions 1iled in 3erson at the court shall also a33l0 to motions 1iled @0 1acsimile,
e+ce3t as otherCise s3eci1ied in this rule. B. /ll 3ersons are eligi@le to use motion)
@0)1acsimile 3rocedures. C. /ll motions 1iled @0 1acsimile must @e accom3anied @0
a cover sheet Chich must include the 3ersonMs name, address, 1a+ num@er and
tele3hone num@er. D. /ll 1acsimile motions 1iled @0 an attorne0 must include the
attorne0Gs name, the 1irmMs name, address, 1a+ num@er and tele3hone num@er. 4n
addition, the attorne0Ms state @ar num@er must @e cons3icuousl0 dis3la0ed on the
cover sheet. E. /ll motions 1iled @0 1acsimile must @e accom3anied @0 3roo1 o1
service.
(he undersigned is indigent. (hat might @e hard 1or a 3u@lic o11icial maEing J&-,--- a 0ear
a1ter @ene1its to conce3tualiKe, @ut Chat it means it that requiring him to taEe an hour out o1 his CorE
da0 ever0 time he Cants to 1ile something Cith the $?C is undul0 @urdensome, 3articularl0 Chere
the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 acting as o33osing counsel is not under a similar directive Iand Chere that
$eno Cit0 /ttorne0 maEing Cell over J--,--- a1ter @ene1its are considered as Cell>. 4t seems the
Court understands this, and that is Ch0 onl0 email Cas e+3ressl0 3rohi@ited in the 6rder. *urther, the
6rder Could seem to @e Cisel0 curtailed to onl0 matters relating to the case in Chich is Cas rendered.
:et, ?s. 7acEsonGs email seems to ca3itulate and e+tend u3on 7udge 5oCardGs 6rder @0 including the
dicate that the undersigned cease 3artaEing in the 1iling @0 1acsimile e+3ressl0 alloCed @0 $?C$ ',
- 56
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1443

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
and 1urther, $?C 4nterim Court /dministrator 7acEson seeEs to add to the 6rder and e+tend its
alread0 over@road reach. 4n doing so, 7acEson is engaging in im3ermissi@le conduct similar to that
e+hi@ited earlier in this matter @0 7udge 5oCardGs 7udicial /ssistant %eronica 9o3eK. ?s. 9o3eK
re1used to 3rovide a co30 o1 the 7udgement and 6rder o1 Conviction in C$ !!7, to Coughlin
Iactuall0 she lied to Coughlin sa0ing she Could 1a+ him a co30 o1 it Ithough she never did> a1ter
@erating Coughlin 1or Nlosing him chance to get a co30O at the conclusion o1 the L3-L (rial Chen
$?C ?arshals demanded the undersigned sign some documents 3rior to having a chance to revieC
them, Chereu3on these ?arshals angril0 tooE aCa0 the documents, smirEing a@out hoC the0 Could
NHust 3ut that 0ou re1usedO to acce3t the service thereo1. 5oCever, u3on @eing release 1rom Chat ma0
Cell @e the one and onl0 time Iho3e1ull0 ever, 3ast or 1uture> that an attorne0 in this state, or an0
other, Cas summaril0 1orced to s3end three da0s in incarceration is is clear 1rom Hail 3ro3ert0 records
that Coughlin Cas not 3rovided an0 co30 o1 an0 7udgement o1 Conviction or 6rder 1rom the
Novem@er 3-
th
, !- (rial in the $?C. Clearl0, i1 the undersigned is in handcu11s, it is not 1or the
undersigned to decide Chether or not a 3iece o1 3a3er Cill travel Cith him to Hail and @e there Chen
he is released. (he $?CGs conduct in su@sequentl0 re1using to 3rovide or otherCise served a co30 o1
that 6rder is e+tremel0 trou@ling and re1lects 3oorl0 u3on the $?C. (he same can @e said 1or the
some e+tremel0 long time it tooE the $?C to 3rovide the undersigned Cith an audio co30 o1 the
recording o1 the (rial and the indications $?C 1iling o11ice sta11 gave the undersigned at 1irst that he
Could not @e a11oreded an0 access to such an recording, @ut rather, that he could 3a0 some e+or@inant
some to have one 3articular court re3orter or transcri3tionist 1avored @0 the $?C I2am 9ongioni> to
transcri@e the recordings. ?s. 9ongioni, Chile driving and talEing on the 3hone, actuall0 hung u3 on
the undersigned Chen his ansCers to her attem3ts to cross e+amine him Cith regard to Chen he 1iled
his Notice o1 /33eal and Chen he Cas served this or that Cere not met Cith her a33roval. 9ongioni
- 57
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1444
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
su@sequentl0 1ailed to return an0 3hone calls or Critten corres3ondence 1rom the udnersigned.
During this three da0 incarceration Cas denied a single 3hone call or tier time @0 "heri11Gs
De3uties, resulting in much 3reHudice to his clientGs cases, 1or Chich 7udge 5oCard indicated he Cas
NsaddenedO, though he 1ailed to alloC 1or an0 measures to @e taEen to avoid such 3reHudice occurring
to those Cho vote on Chether or not he Cill @e reelected, should he run o33osed ne+t time, in contrast
to his last election> 1or sa0ing N;oCO amidst sa0ing N:es, "ir,O and N:our 5onorO a@out 1our
hundred times throughout the course o1 a si+ hour trial, the denouement o1 Chich Cas a33arentl0
im3ortant enough to Eee3 u3Cards o1 si+ court em3lo0ees CorEing until a33ro+imatel0 9 3m at night,
receiving overtime Cages in the 3rocess as a time in Chich the econom0 o1 $eno is marEedl0
challenged and the @udget o1 the $eno ?unici3al court is such that it has taEen to la0ing o11 Court
sta11 and cutting their 3a0 Ithough elected o11icials are e+em3t 1rom such measures> in addition to
curtailing the hours the Court is o3en to the 3u@lic on *rida0s to hal1 a da0.
4t is instructive to com3are 7acEsonGs inter3retation o1 the 7udge 5oCardGs 6rder, and to
consider to e+tent to Chich she ma0 @e acting in a Hudicial ca3acit0 Iunless this Court Cill 3rovide
some indication o1 Chether 7acEsonGs email Cas done at the @ehest o1 an0 o1 the $?C 7udges>.
;hereas 7udge 5oCards !L,L 6rder holds: N4( 4" 5E$EB: 6$DE$ED that Deen"ant
Coughlin shall not )'((.n!)ate via cmail Cith 7udge 5oCard, his sta11 or an0 other em3lo0ee o1
the $eno ?unici3al CourtO, 7acEsonGs L-L! email to Coughlin e+tends the reach o1 that 6rder,
directing Coughlin thus: F4 have @een in1ormed that 0ou continue to contact $eno ?unici3al Court
sta11 and attem3t to !%e documents via e)mail. (his is in violation o1 the 6rder issued @0 7udge
5oCard on Decem@er ,, !-, &h!)h $*'h!/!ts -'. *'( contacting $eno ?unici3al Court sta11
via e)mail Isee attached>. An- )'**es$'n"en)e -'. &!sh the )'.*t t' )'ns!"e* an" any documents
- 58
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1445

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
that you wish to file &!th the )'.*t (.st /e !%e" th*'.+h the Ren' M.n!)!$a% C'.*t C%e*0's
O!)e, #!a U.S. (a!%, (essen+e* se*#!)e '* !n $e*s'n.O
*irst, 7udge 5oCardGs 6rder indicates that it a33lies to NDe1endant CoughlinO, not citiKen
Coughlin. (hus, it does not a33l0 to actions taEen @0 Coughlin not Cithin the sco3e o1 his
a33earance as NDe1endant CoughlinO Cithin that one 3articular matter C$ !!7,. 41 citiKen
Coughlin Cants to 1ile something related to a tra11ic citation, 7udge 5oCardGs Decem@er ,, !-
6rder has not a33lication. *or 7acEson to NruleO otherCise indicates she lacEs an a33reciation 1or the
Hudicial sEill and tem3erance 7udge 5oCard has develo3ed since taEing the @ench in 99&. ;hile
someone Cithout 7udge 5oCardGs acumen and e+3ertise ma0 3ur3ort to rule on matters 1ar a1ield
1rom the Hurisdiction the laC has vested them Cith, 7udge 5oCard Could not, 4 @elieve, as he taEes
the trust the citiKens o1 Nevada have @estoCed u3on him 1ar to seriousl0 to so recElessl0 e+ceed the
sco3e o1 that Hurisdiction. (he em3lo0ees o1 the $?C Iincluding ?arshal ?entKel, %eronica 9o3eK,
and Cassandra 7acEson> need to sto3 em@arrassing the $?C 7udges, Cith the a@usive, overreaching
a33roach the0 taEe to carr0ing out their duties and in relating to the 3u@lic. ;hile their @ehavior ma0
@e com3letel0 acce3ta@le in the 3rivate sector, the0 have a hire calling in @eing 3u@lic servants
CorEing in a court o1 laC, Chere the equal and measured dis3ensation o1 Hustice must @e delivered in
a manner that, at all times, com3orts Cith traditional notices o1 due 3rocess and su@stantial Hustice.
(he undersigned Cas given e+3ress 3ermission @0 $?C *iling 611icer "u3ervisor Donna
Ballard to 1ile documents @0 email (his Cas requested in light o1 the undersigned @elie1 that 1iling @0
1a+ ma0 unnecessaril0 ta+ the $?CGs 1a+ machine and or line. *urther, 7udge 5oCards !L,L
6rder onl0 3ur3orts to rule on the 3ro3riet0 o1 CoughlinGs attem3ts to N)'((.n!)ate via cmail Cith
7udge 5oCard, his sta11 or an0 other em3lo0ee o1 the $eno ?unici3al CourtO. 4t does not Ias
7acEsonGs email 3ur3orts to inter3et that 6rder to rule> that Nany documents that you wish to file &!th
- 59
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1446

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
the )'.*t (.st /e !%e" th*'.+h the Ren' M.n!)!$a% C'.*t C%e*0's O!)e, #!a U.S. (a!%,
(essen+e* se*#!)e '* !n $e*s'n.O /n attem3t to communicate is di11erent 1rom an attem3t to file a
document Cith the court. *urther, communicating Cith N7udge 5oCard, his sta11 or an0 other
em3lo0ee o1 the $eno ?unici3al CourtO is di11erent than communicating something to or 1iling
something Cith a general email address, $eno?uni$ecords.$eno.gov, that is not attached
s3eci1icall0 to N7udge 5oCard, his sta11, or an0 other em3lo0eeO Iin the Ca0 7udge 5oCard mentions
his oCn email address as his N3ersonalO email address>, Chich is held out to the 3u@lic in numerous
settings as the Ca0 to contact the $eno ?unici3al Court or Cit0 o1 $eno Iincluded amongst these is
the method 1or requesting records 1rom the Cit0 o1 $eno, and the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0Gs 611ice, not
Hust the $eno ?unici3al Court>. 4n so attem3ting to e+tend 7udge 5oCardGs 6rder, 7acEson
im3ermissi@l0 attem3ts to assert an unequal a33lication o1 $?C$ ' u3on Coughlin, a de3rivation o1
equal 3rotection and due 3rocess under the laC that could argua@l0 get the $?C and 7acEson hersel1
held 3ersonall0 lia@le 1or violations o1 the undersignedGs civil rights. 5oCever, the Cit0 o1 $eno Cill
@e lia@le i1 there is a custom and 3olic0 in 3lace that encourages constitutional violations and that
3olic0 is the standard o3erating 3rocedure o1 the $eno ?unici3al Court or Chere the $?C had
EnoCledge o1 7acEsonGs de3rivation o1 CoughlinGs civil rights or otherCise engaged in negligent
hiring, training, and su3ervision o1 em3lo0ees such a 7acEson Cith res3ect to such de3rviations.
9iEeCise, Cith the ;ashoe Count0 "heri11Gs 611ice and the Count0. "ee <illette v. Delmore, 979 *.!s
34!, 347 I9th Cir.99!>.
?otivational ins3iration 1or the $?C and ?entKel, 9o3eK, and 7acEson can @e 1ound in
9i33is v. 2eters, ! Nev. --&, 9! 2.!d !4& I99,>:
N(he Hudgment aCarding 1ees in this case im3oses u3on tCo HusticesG courts and seven
Hustices o1 the 3eace an o@ligation to 3a0 to the tenantsG attorne0s the sum o1
- 60
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1447
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
J&,,93.'-. (his Hudgment does 3resent a 3ro@lem Chen Ce start to thinE a@out hoC
these 3u@lic o11icials and tCo courts o1 laC might go a@out allocating the o@ligation o1
J&,,93.'-. 4t Could not a33ear that the courts themselves are su@Hect to e+ecution
3rocess= and, there1ore, the 1ee, i1 it Cere going to @e 3aid, Could have to @e 3aid @0
the individual Hustices, Cho Could have to 3a0, i1 the matter Cere handled 1airl0,
J!,,7-.'- each. (he HusticesG Hudgment o@ligation to 3a0 attorne0sG 1ees is @ased I> on
their having 1olloCed a 3rocedural rule I7C$C2 -,> enacted @0 this court and I!> on
their having made several erroneous Hudicial decisions. ;e hesitate to get into the
thorn0 3ro@lems 3resented @0 this Hudgment, 3ro@lems relating to e+ecution u3on
3u@lic 3ro3ert0, relating to o11icial immunit0 and Hudicial immunit0 and some other
similar 3ro@lems that attend the en1orcement o1 such a Hudgment...O 9i33is v. 2eters,
! Nev. --&, 9! 2.!d !4& I99,>: N4n their action challenging Hustice courtsG
3ractice o1 den0ing a33eals to district court in summar0 eviction actions, tenants did
not allege that the0 Cere de3rived o1 1ederal rights, and there1ore the0 could not claim
attorne0 1ees under 1ederal civil rights statute. 4! 8.".C./. RR 9&3, 9&&.O
De1endant ma0 ultimatel0 @e 1orced to @e so alleging such a de3rivation and or claim such
attorne0Gs 1ees= See, also, Cheung v. Eighth 7udicial Dist. Court e+ rel. Count0 o1 ClarE, !4 2.3d
''-, ''!, ! Nev. &,7, &,9 I!--'>= "chneider v. ElEo Count0 "heri11Gs De3t., 7 *."u33.!d ,!,
,' I99&>= <.C. ;allace, 4nc. v. Eighth 7udicial Dist. Court o1 "tate, e+ rel. Count0 o1 ClarE, !,!
2.3d 3', 4-], !7 Nev. /dv. 63. ,4, ,4] I!->.
?s. Ballard actuall0 agreed Cith this assessment and thanEed the undersigned 1or the
consideration demonstrated. (o the e+tent 7udge 5oCard does not Cish 1or the undersigned to 1ile
Ias o33osed to Hust communicate> @0 email Iand its not clear that the 6rder 3ur3orts to rule on
situations outside o1 the case in Chich it Cas made, des3ite the im3licationGs o1 7acEsonGs email>, the
undersigned Cill, o1 course, res3ect1ull0 com3l0 Cith that dictate, es3eciall0 to the e+tent that it is not
e+3ressl0 3ermitted @0 $?C $ules Ithough the distinction @etCeen 1acsimile and email is not alCa0s
the clearest and Chere 1acsimile seems to disadvantage those Cithout the @udget to have a se3arate
3hone line to run a 1a+ machine, etc.>. 5oCever, the $ecord on /33eal in this matter is de1icient in
several res3ects and the undersigned asEs that it @e corrected. (o Cit, 3rior to such time as the
e+3ress 3ermission to so 1ile @0 email could reasona@l0 @e said to have @een CithdraCn, the
- 61
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1448
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
undersigned 1ile numerous documents Cith the $?C. 5oCever, not all o1 those are re1lected in the
$ecord on /33eal *urther, in that $ecord, the N1our 3ages 3er 3ageO attachments to the !L3L
1iling are illegi@le, though the undersigned 1ile a com3letel0 legi@le one 3age 3er 3age version via
email Cith the $?C and 1eels that that legi@le version should @e included in the $ecord on /33eal.
(he N1our 3age 3er 3ageO version Cas 1iled in hard co30 Ion to3 o1 the same @eing 1iled the night
@e1ore via email> in an a@undance o1 caution given the im3ortance o1 the 1iling Ia, 3erha3s,
Hurisdictional Notice o1 /33eal, and should the 3ermission to 1ile @0 email not @e honored, the
undersigned Could have @een severel0 3reHudiced....> (he undersigned 1iled the N1our 3age 3er 3ageO
version o1 the E+hi@its to that !L!L 1iling in that 1orm @ecause he lacE the mone0 to @u0 the 3a3er
and inE necessar0 to 3rint those voluminous attachments out in the one 3age 3er 3age st0le that Could
have @een 3re1era@le. E+hi@it ': /ll emails 1rom ZachCoughlin.hotmail.com to
$eno?uni$ecords.$eno.gov 1rom -L4L to 3resent= citing to attached 3d1 1ilings that should @e
included in the $ecord on /33eal, 0et are not in some instances.
/33eala@ilit0 o1 contem3t adHudication or conviction. 33 /.9.$.3d 44& I6riginall0 3u@lished in
97->= R !TaU <enerall0^$ule o1 a33eala@ilit0 TCumulative "u33lementU Contem3t 3roceedings
not characteriKed as criminal or civil have 1requentl0 @een held or recogniKed to @e a33eala@le in the
a@sence o1 statutes other than those generall0 maEing 1inal decisions a33eala@le.8" 4n re $0an, '3&
*.!d 43', 7, ! 8.". (a+ Cas. ICC5> 2 9'&, 3& /.*.(.$.!d '4'! ID.C. Cir. 97,> /la 8hls v 8hls
I9&9, /la /33> '' "o !d -,' E+ 3arte Bo0Ein I994, /la Civ /33> ,', "o !d &! /lasEa
<illette v Co11er I9!> 4 /lasEa ,!! IrecogniKing rule> Cal 9aBella v Aaiser *oundation 5ealth
2lan, 4nc. I977> 7! Cal /33 3d 499, 3& Cal $3tr !! *or Cali1ornia cases, see R ,, in1ra Colo 5ill
v Boatright I994, Colo /33> &9- 2!d &-, reh den I"e3 ', 994> and cert gr I*e@ !-, 99'> DC 33
/.9.$.3d 44& 2age 7& 33 /.9.$.3d 44& I6riginall0 3u@lished in 97-> *or District o1 Colum@ia
- 62
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1449
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
cases, see R 3TaU, su3ra *la "tate e+ rel. 2earson v 7ohnson I*la /33> 334 "o !d '4 *or *lorida cases,
see R ,TaU, su3ra <a ?anning v ?NC Consumer Discount Co. I994> !! <a /33 &!4, 44! "E!d
99, 94 *ulton Count0 D $ 44! *or <eorgia cases, see R ', in1ra 4ll 2eo3le e+ rel. 5incEle0 v
2ir1en@rinE I&79> 9, 4ll ,& IrecogniKing rule> E+ 3arte "mith I&&,> 7 4ll ,3, 7 NE ,&3
IrecogniKing rule> 9ester v BerEoCitK I&&&> !' 4ll 3-7, 7 NE 7-, IrecogniKing rule> 2eo3le v
<il@ert I97> !& 4ll ,9, & NE 9, 5ill v (homas B. 7e11er0 Co. I9!-> !9! 4ll 49-, !7 NE !4
2eo3le e+ rel. /ndreCs v 5assaEis I9''> , 4ll !d 4,3, !9 NE!d 9 But see 2eo3le e+ rel. <eneral
?otors Cor3. v Bua I9,7> 37 4ll !d &-, !!, NE!d ,, in1ra. /nd see 4llinois cases limiting revieC to
question o1 a@use o1 discretion, R 3, in1ra. ;aste ?anagement, 4nc. v 4nternational "ur3lus 9ines
4ns. Co. I99> 44 4ll !d 7&, , 4ll Dec 774, '79 NE!d 3!! /lmgren v $ush_2res@0terian_"t.
9uEeGs ?edical Ctr. I994> ,! 4ll !d !-', !-' 4ll Dec 47, ,4! NE!d !,4, mod and reh den INov
', 994> $o@inson v 2eo3le I9-,> !9 4ll /33 '!7 Aell0 v Chicago, B. V B. $. Co. I99> !3 4ll
/33 !9, IrecogniKing rule> 2eo3le e+ rel. $usch v Airgis I93,> !&7 4ll /33 37&, 4 NE!d &94
(egtme0er v (egtme0er I937> !9! 4ll /33 434, NE!d ,'7 IrecogniKing rule> 2eo3le e+ rel.
$usch v *erro I94!> 33 4ll /33 !-!, 39 NE!d 7-7 Aemen0 v "Eorch I9'9> !! 4ll /33 !d ,-, '9
NE!d 4&9 ?a0Cood v 7acEson I9,3> 4! 4ll /33 !d !9, 9- NE!d '93 Aoch v ?ettler I9,4> 49 4ll
/33 !d !', 99 NE!d 47 $e 6cto@er 9&' <rand 7ur0 I9&7, st Dist> '4 4ll /33 3d !&&, -7 4ll
Dec 34!, '-7 33 /.9.$.3d 44& 2age 79 33 /.9.$.3d 44& I6riginall0 3u@lished in 97-> NE!d ,,
a33 gr I4ll> 3 4ll Dec 3-4, '' NE!d 3 and vacated on other grounds I9&&> !4 4ll !d 4,,, !'
4ll Dec !9', '3- NE!d 4'3 $e ?arriage o1 $0an I9&9, !d Dist> && 4ll /33 3d ,79, 3, 4ll Dec ,
'44 NE!d 4'4 (estin v Dre0er ?edical Clinic I99!> !3& 4ll /33 3d &&3, 79 4ll Dec ',, ,-' NE!d
-7-, a33 gr 49 4ll !d ,,, &3 4ll Dec &7!, ,! NE!d '!4 4n re ?arriage o1 Dieter I99', st Dist>
!7 4ll /33 3d &, !-7 4ll Dec &4&, ,4& NE!d 3-4 2eo3le e+ rel. 5aCthorne v 5amilton, 9 4ll /33
- 63
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1450
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
3d '', !9! NE!d ',3 ?d Drone0 v Drone0 I99'> -! ?d /33 ,7!, ,' /!d 4' ?ich 2eo3le e+
rel. 2ort 5uron V <. $. Co. v 7ones I&7,> 33 ?ich 3-3 5aines v 5aines I&7,> 3' ?ich 3& $e
Bissell I&79> 4- ?ich ,3 IrecogniKing rule> $oss v $oss I&&> 47 ?ich &', - N; 93 "ee
2eo3le v Den 80l I949> 3!3 ?ich 49-, 3' N;!d 4,7. But see ?ichigan cases limiting revieC to
question o1 a@use o1 discretion, R 3, in1ra. ?inn *or ?innesota cases, see R &TaU, su3ra ?iss *or
?ississi33i cases, see R ', in1ra ?o *or ?issouri cases, see R 3T@U, su3ra Ne@ Dunning v (allman
I993> !44 Ne@ , '-4 N;!d &' N: ;atrous v Aearne0 I&&-> 79 N: 49, IrecogniKing rule>
"trong v ;estern <as V *uel Co. I9-4> 77 N: 4--, ,9 NE 7! IrecogniKing rule> Aing v /shle0
I9-4> 79 N: !&, 7! NE -, $e 5a0Card I&99> 44 /33 Div !,', ,- N:" ,3, IrecogniKing rule>
?oore v ?oore I9-> 4 /33 Div '3!, !, N:" 4! $e BaEer I&''> 5oC 2r 4&
IrecogniKing rule>= $e 2erc0 I&,&> ! Dal0 '3- IrecogniKing rule>= $ichie v Bedell I&&', "u3> !!
N: ;eeE Dig ',3= *incE v ?annering I&&7> 4, 5un 3!3= $e /non0mous I&&7> & /@@ NC !,
IrecogniKing rule>= 33 /.9.$.3d 44& 2age &- 33 /.9.$.3d 44& I6riginall0 3u@lished in 97->
2eo3le e+ rel. 2ost v <rant I&&&> 3 N: Civ 2roc 3-', revd on merits '- 5un !43, 3 N:" 4!
IrecogniKing rule>= Boon v ?c<ucEen I&93> ,7 5un !', !! N:" 4!4= $e De 9ong I&9,> !' Civ
2roc 3,3, 4 N:" !-= "iegel v "olomon I9-', "u3 /33 (> 9! N:" !3& IrecogniKing rule>.
?cCredie v "enior I&34> 4 2aige 37& But see ?itchellGs Case I&,> ! /@@ 2r !49. ND "tate v.
Zahn, 997 ND ,', ',! N.;.!d 737 IN.D. 997> 6hio *or 6hio cases, see R ', in1ra 2a "cranton v
2eo3leGs Coal Co. I9!!> !74 2a ,3, 7 / ,73 "tate <rand 9odge v ?orrison I9!3> !77 2a 4, !-
/ 7,9 IrecogniKing rule> $e /ungst I9,3> 4 2a '9', 9! /!d 7!3 IrecogniKing rule> $e ?0ers V
Brei I9!4> &3 2a "u3er 3&3 /33eal o1 $ea3 I9!,> && 2a "u3er 47 IrecogniKing rule>
CommonCealth v ?orrise0 I94!> '- 2a "u3er !-!, !7 /!d 44, De?asi v De?asi I99, 2a
"u3er> '97 /!d - CommonCealth e+ rel. Ziccardi v 5endricEs I9,4> 33 2a D V C!d 49
- 64
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1451
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
IrecogniKing rule> But see 2enns0lvania cases limiting revieC to question o1 a@use o1 discretion, R 3,
in1ra. "C *or "outh Carolina cases, see R 3, in1ra 8tah "mith v Aim@all I93-> 7, 8tah 3'-, !&9 2
'&&, 7- /9$ - IrecogniKing rule> %t But see %ilas v Burton I&'4> !7 %t ',. $e Consolidated
$endering Co. I9-7> &- %t '', ,, / 79-, a11d !-7 8" '4, '! 9 Ed 3!7, !& " Ct 7& Ia33arentl0
recogniKing rule> Cutting v Cutting I9!&> - %t 3&, 43 / ,7, IrecogniKing rule> "ocon0 ?o@ile
6il Co. v ?assena 4ron V ?etal Co. I9,,> !' %t 4-3, !7 /!d ', %a "treet v. "treet, !4 %a. /33.
4, 4&- ".E.!d & I997> 33 /.9.$.3d 44& 2age & 33 /.9.$.3d 44& I6riginall0 3u@lished in
97-> *or %irginia cases, see R ', in1ra / Hudgment o1 contem3t 1or 3u@lishing in a neCs3a3er an
article critical o1 the Hudge in a 3ending case Cas held revieCa@le @0 Crit o1 error, in 2eo3le v <il@ert
I97> !& 4ll ,9, & NE 9,. (he court said that Chile the court against Chich the alleged
contem3tuous matter is 3u@lished 3asses on the question Chether or not the 3u@lished matter is
actuall0 contem3tuous, 0et the decision o1 that court is not conclusive: a Crit o1 error ma0 @e sued out
to revieC the Hudgment o1 the loCer court. /n order o1 commitment 1or contem3t o1 court 1or
re1using to give a de3osition Cas held to @e a 1inal, a33eala@le order, in 5ill v (homas B. 7e11er0 Co.
I9!-> !9! 4ll 49-, !7 NE !4. (he court said that the order o1 commitment @0 the su3erior court
Cas a 1inal Hudgment in the ancillar0 3roceeding that Cas @rought to en1orce the interlocutor0 order
directing the 3lainti11 to a33ear and testi10. ;hile the 3ur3ose o1 that 3roceeding Cas connected Cith
and had its 1oundation in the main case, reasoned the court, it Cas a se3arate case 3rosecuted
inde3endentl0 to en1orce a com3liance Cith the order o1 the court. (he court said that Chether that
order to testi10 Cas interlocutor0 or 1inal Cas immaterial: i1 it Cas laC1ull0 made it Cas the 3lainti11Gs
dut0 to o@e0 it, and a Hudgment either that he Cas guilt0 o1 contem3t or that he Cas not Cas a 1inal
Hudgment. "ee, hoCever, 2eo3le e+ rel. <eneral ?otors Cor3. v Bua I9,7> 37 4ll !d &-, !!, NE!d
,, Chere the court said that Chile ordinaril0 a contem3t adHudication is a 1inal and a33eala@le order,
- 65
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1452
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
this rule Could not @e 1olloCed Chere, instead o1 the traditional 1ine or im3risonment as 3unishment
1or contem3t, the de1endant held in contem3t Cas 3unished @0 having its ansCer to the amended
com3laint stricEen and Hudgment entered against it. (he contem3t Cas adHudged 1or 1ailure to com3l0
Cith 3retrial discover0 orders, and Chile the court determined that the striEing o1 3leadings and the
entr0 o1 a de1ault Hudgment Cas 3ermissi@le as a sanction 1or the non3roduction o1 documents under a
court rule authoriKed @0 the legislature, the court held that this could not @e used to render an
interlocutor0 order 1inal and a33eala@le @0 the use o1 contem3t language. (he im3osition o1 a 1ine or
im3risonment as a sanction 1or contem3t is 1inal and a33eala@le @ecause it is an original s3ecial
3roceeding, collateral to and inde3endent o1 the case in Chich the contem3t arises, e+3lained the
court, @ut the sanction im3osed in this case did not directl0 a11ect the outcome o1 the 3rinci3al action.
(here1ore the court concluded that since the contem3t order, in e11ect, determined lia@ilit0 Cithout a
determination o1 damages, it Cas not 0et 1inal and a33eala@le. ;hile recogniKing the right to a33eal,
the court in 2eo3le v Den 80l I949> 3!3 ?ich 49-, 3' N;!d 4,7, in considering an a33eal 1rom
one con1ined 1or contem3t in re1using to ansCer certain questions @e1ore an e+amining magistrate,
ruled that the dismissal o1 the 3rinci3al case I@ecause the 3rosecution could not 3roceed Cithout the
CitnessG testimon0> a@ated the contem3t 3roceeding and required the dismissal o1 the a33eal. (he
court, hoCever, in the order dismissing the a33eal, also dismissed the Carrant o1 commitment under
Chich the Citness Cas con1ined. / chancer0 decree adHudging a cor3oration to @e in contem3t o1
court 1or diso@e0ing a court order Cas held a33eala@le in "ocon0 ?o@il 6il Co. v ?assena 4ron V
?etal Co. I9,,> !' %t 4-3, !7 /!d ',, on the authorit0 o1 an earlier caseT!U that di11ered 1rom the
case at @ar onl0 @ecause it originated in the Count0 Court rather than the Court o1 Chancer0, and that
Cas held to @e 3ro3erl0 trans1erred to the "u3reme Court @0 Ca0 o1 a @ill o1 e+ce3tions. /n) 33
- 66
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1453
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
/.9.$.3d 44& 2age &! 33 /.9.$.3d 44& I6riginall0 3u@lished in 97-> other case,T3U Chich held
that an a33eal Could not lie 1rom the decree o1 the
chancellor in matters o1 contem3t, Cas relied u3on to su33ort a motion to dismiss the a33eal, @ut the
court, 3ointing out that a 94 statute 3rovided that causes heard in chancer0 3ass to the "u3reme
Court in the same manner as a33eals 1rom Count0 Court, said that the e11ect o1 this legislation Cas to
a@olish a33eals in chancer0 as the0 3reviousl0 e+isted, and to su@stitute the statutes a33lica@le to
o@tain revieC o1 Count0 Court 3roceedings. (here1ore, concluded the court, the %ilas Case 3resented
no o@stacle to the 3ending a33eal. C8?89/(4%E "8229E?EN( Cases: (o o@tain a33ellate
revieC, su@3oenaed 3art0 must de10 district courtGs en1orcement order, @e held in contem3t, and then
a33eal contem3t order, Chich is regarded as 1inal. D0neg0 ?idstream "ervices v. (rammochem, 4'
*.3d &9 I!d Cir. !--,>. ;here securities trading cor3oration Cas adHudged in contem3t 1or 1ailing to
turn over ta3e recording as ordered @0 court, court had Hurisdiction to revieC contem3t order even
though im3osition o1 sanctions Cas sta0ed and no sanctions Cere 1ormulated 3rior to entr0 o1 sta0. $e
(hree <rand 7ur0 "u@3oenas I9&&, C/! N:> &47 *!d -!4. / district courtGs ruling on an
a33lication 1or a contem3t order is revieCed 1or a@use o1 discretion. *rontier)Aem3er Constructors,
4nc. v. /merican $ocE "alt Co., !!4 *. "u33. !d '!- I;.D. N.:. !--!>. 2ost)Hudgment orders o1
contem3t are Cithin an a33ellate courtGs Hurisdiction as revieCa@le F1inal orders.F !& 8.".C./. R !9.
Berne Cor3. v. <overnment o1 (he %irgin 4slands, '7- *.3d 3- I3d Cir. !--9>. Court o1 /33eals
had Hurisdiction o1 de1endantGs a33eal o1 contem3t order, although contem3t order o1 itsel1 did not
constitute a 1inal order that could @e a33ealed, Chere 3ortion o1 order that included contem3t 1inding
Cas com3lete and 1inal. ? V C Cor3. v. ErCin Behr <m@5 V Co., !&9 *ed. /33+. 9!7 I,th Cir.
!--&>. ;hen the diso@e0ed order Could @e inde3endentl0 a33eala@le under an e+ce3tion to the 1inal)
decision rule, then the contem3t citation also ma0 @e a33eala@le. ".E.C. v. ?cNamee, 4& *.3d 4',
- 67
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1454
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
*ed. "ec. 9. $e3. ICC5> 2 947! I7th Cir. !--7>. <rant or denial o1 contem3t order is revieCed 1or
a@use o1 discretion, @ut order o1 contem3t is revieCed more searchingl0. 8.". v. (ee3le, !&, *.3d
-47, &9 /.*.(.$.!d !--!)!-! I&th Cir. !--!>. Contem3t adHudication issued in 3ostHudgment 3hase
o1 civil action Cas a33eala@le Chether contem3t Cas considered to @e civil or criminal, since
adHudication 3ossessed attri@utes o1 o3erativeness and consequence necessar0 to a33eala@ilit0.
Consumers <as V 6il, 4nc. v. *armland 4ndustries, 4nc., &4 *.3d 3,7, 34 *ed. $. "erv. 3d ''- I-th
Cir. 99,>. Denial o1 motion 1or order to shoC cause Ch0 3art0 should not @e held in contem3t is
1inal, a33eala@le order. (homas v. Blue Cross and Blue "hield /ssGn, '94 *.3d &4 Ith Cir. !-->.
/ contem3t order is 1inal and a33eala@le Chen the o33ortunit0 to 3urge the contem3t has 3assed and
the 3osition o1 the 3arties has @een a11ected @0 the contem3t order. "eiEo E3son Cor3. v. Nu_Aote
4ntern., 4nc., 9- *.3d 3,-, '! 8.".2.B.!d IBN/> - I*ed. Cir. 999>, rehGg denied, in @anc
suggestion declined, I6ct. 9, 999>. 33 /.9.$.3d 44& 2age &3 33 /.9.$.3d 44& I6riginall0
3u@lished in 97-> / contem3t order is a 1inal, a33eala@le order. (helman v. "tate, 37' /rE. ,, !&9
".;.3d 7, I!--&>. Contem3t Hudgment is revieCa@le 1inal order. C.<."./. R '_33. "tate v. Brescia,
!3 Conn. /33. 34!, /.3d 4' I!-->. /33ellate Court Cill reverse a 1inding o1 contem3t onl0 i1
the Court concludes the trial court a@used its discretion. DoCd v. DoCd, 9, Conn. /33. 7', &99 /.!d
7, I!--,>. Even i1 adHudication o1 contem3t Cas considered 1inal Hudgment, court Cas Cithout
Hurisdiction Chere notice o1 a33eal Cas 1iled more than a month @e1ore sentencing. ;est v 8nited
"tates IDist Col /33> 34, /!d '-4. 6rder o1 1amil0 court in matrimonial action determining custod0
o1 children demanding su33ort 3a0ments, alloting 3ersonal 3ro3ert0 and 1inding 3art0 in contem3t 1or
violation o1 3rior order Cas 1inal and a33eala@le, notCithstanding continuing Hurisdiction o1 1amil0
court to modi10 order. Cleveland v Cleveland I977, 5aCaii> ''9 2!d 744. / contem3t order is
a33eala@le under the same circumstances as an0 other order or Hudgment entered in a civil or criminal
- 68
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1455
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
action. Callaghan v. Callaghan, 4! 4daho &', !' 2.3d -, I!--'>. 8nder rule that revieC o1
alread0 issued contem3t order must @e @0 Crit o1 revieC or @0 a33eal, Crit o1 3rohi@ition Cas not
3ro3er remed0 @0 Chich to contest order 1inding divorced Ci1e in contem3t 1or 1ailure to grant
visitation rights to divorced hus@and. De0 v Cunningham, 93 4daho ,&4, 47 2!d 7. 6rdinaril0,
adHudication in contem3t 3roceeding is 1inal and a33eala@le @ecause it is original s3ecial 3roceeding,
collateral to, and inde3endent o1, case in Chich contem3t arises, Chere im3osition o1 sanction does
not directl0 a11ect outcome o1 3rinci3al action, even though such adHudication does not dis3ose o1 all
issues in litigation. Earles v. Earles, !&7 4ll. Dec. 4--, &' N.E.!d !-3 I/33. Ct. 3d Dist. !--4>. 4t is
a33ro3riate 1or a 3art0 to request that a contem3t order @e entered against it so that 3art0 ma0 seeE
immediate a33eal o1 a trial courtGs discover0 order. ;e@@ v. ?ount "inai 5os3. and ?edical Center
o1 Chicago, 4nc., !&3 4ll. Dec. &', &-7 N.E.!d -!, I/33. Ct. st Dist. !--4>. ;hen an individual
a33eals 1rom a contem3t sanction im3osed 1or violating, or threatening to violate, a discover0 order,
the contem3t 1inding is 1inal and a33eala@le and 3resents to the revieCing court the 3ro3riet0 o1 that
discover0 order. $eda v. /dvocate 5ealth Care, 99 4ll. !d 47, !,! 4ll. Dec. 394, 7,' N.E.!d --!
I!--!>. 7udgment o1 contem3t against laC 1irm 1or violating order to CithdraC a33earance a1ter 1irm
Cas disquali1ied 1rom re3resenting de1endant constituted 1inal and a33eala@le Hudgment and
3resented to court 1or revieC 3ro3riet0 o1 courtGs order, even though suggestion that laC 1irm re1use
to CithdraC came 1rom trial Hudge and underl0ing controvers0 Cas not certi1ied 1or revieC. 4nde+
*utures <rou3, 4nc. v "treet I9&7, st Dist> ,3 4ll /33 3d ,'4, 4 4ll Dec 73', ', NE!d &9-. (he
Court o1 /33eals Cill reverse a trial courtGs 1inding o1 contem3t onl0 Chere there is no evidence or
in1erences 1rom the record to su33ort it. Deel v. Deel, 9-9 N.E.!d -!& I4nd. Ct. /33. !--9>.
Contem3t Hudgment 1or violation o1 an order o1 the court regarding child visitation Cas 1inal and
there1ore a33eala@le. (hi@odeau+ v. (hi@odeau+, 74& "o. !d &- I9a. Ct. /33. 'th Cir. 999>. 33
- 69
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1456
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
/.9.$.3d 44& 2age &4 33 /.9.$.3d 44& I6riginall0 3u@lished in 97-> 4nterlocutor0 Hudgment
1inding e+_Ci1e in contem3t and ordering her to 3a0 a 1ine and attorne0 1ees threatened irre3ara@le
inHur0, and thus, direct a33eal could @e taEen. DucEsCorth v. DucEsCorth, 7!7 "o. !d !'4 I9a. Ct.
/33. 4th Cir. 999>. / 3art0 1ound in contem3t has a right to a33eal 1rom that decision even though
the merits o1 the litigation in Chich the contem3t order Cas entered have not 0et @een resolved.
?orris v. ;alden, &', "o. !d 7-' I?iss. Ct. /33. !--3>. /33ellate court Cill not reverse a contem3t
citation Chere the chancellorGs 1indings are su33orted @0 su@stantial credi@le evidence. <oodson v.
<oodson, &, "o. !d 4!- I?iss. Ct. /33. !--!>. /lthough se3arate issues o1 main 3etition and
contem3t Cere addressed Cithin same Hudgment, each 3ortion o1 Hudgment Cas se3aratel0 a33eala@le.
"(9 Ca3ital ?anagement, 99C v. Brda, !-7 ".;.3d ,49 I?o. Ct. /33. E.D. !--,>. ;hile contem3t
orders generall0 are 1inal and not a33eala@le, e+ce3tion e+ists 1or 1amil0_ laC cases, in Chich a33eals
are 3ermitted. 5eath v 5eath I99', ?ont> 9- 2!d '9-. /lthough contem3t_o1_court orders issued
@0 District Court are 1inal and usuall0 unrevieCa@le e+ce3t @0 Ca0 o1 Crit o1 certiorari or revieC,
e+ce3tion e+ists 1or contem3t orders made in dissolution_o1_marriage 3roceedings. 4n re ?arriage o1
BoharsEi I993> !'7 ?ont 7, &47 2!d 7-9. /n a33ellate court, revieCing a 1inal Hudgment or order
in a contem3t 3roceeding, revieCs 1or errors a33earing on the record. Douglas Count0 e+ rel.
Douglas Count0 /ssessorGs 611ice v. AoCal, !7- Ne@. 9&!, 7-& N.;.!d ,,& I!--,>. /33ellate court,
revieCing 1inal Hudgment or order in contem3t 3roceeding, revieCs 1or errors a33earing on record.
Alinginsmith v. ;ichmann, !'! Ne@. &&9, ',7 N.;.!d 7! I997>. / contem3t order im3osing a
3unitive sanction is a 1inal order and is revieCa@le on a33eal. ?cDermott v. ?cDermott, & Ne@. /33.
&,-, ,-! N.;.!d ,7, I999>. ;hether the trial court adhered to the requisite 3rocedures in a criminal
contem3t 3roceeding is a question o1 laC, Chich is revieCed de novo. ?ortgage "3ecialists, 4nc. v.
Dave0, 9-4 /.!d ,'! IN.5. !--,>. / 1inding o1 contem3t, com@ined Cith a sanction 1or contem3t,
- 70
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1457
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1orms a 1inal a33eala@le order. "tate v. /dams, '3 6hio /33. 3d 34, !--3)6hio)3-&,, 79 N.E.!d
-4' I7th Dist. 5arrison Count0 !--3>. / contem3t 3roceeding, even though it groCs out o1 another
3roceeding, is ordinaril0 regarded as a collateral or se3arate action 1rom the underl0ing case and is
se3aratel0 a33eala@le, Cith a33ellate revieC limited to the contem3t order itsel1. 9erma v. ;al)?art
"tores, 4nc., !--, 6A &4, 4& 2.3d &&- I6Ela. !--,>. 6rder o1 contem3t is 1inal and a33eala@le Chen
the order contains a 3resent 1inding o1 contem3t and im3oses sanctions. 4n re C.;., !--& 2/ "u3er
!'4, 9,- /.!d 4'& I!--&>. / contem3t order is a33eala@le Chere the order constitutes a 1inal one that
im3oses sanctions u3on the o11ending 3art0. (aEosE0 v. 5enning, !--, 2/ "u3er !37, 9-, /.!d
!'' I!--,>. "u3erior Court Cill reverse trial courtGs determination as to contem3t conviction onl0
Chen there has @een 3lain a@use o1 discretion. Com. v. 5aigh, !--' 2/ "u3er 39, &74 /.!d 74
I!--'>, reargument denied, I7une 7, !--'>. Contem3t order 3reventing neigh@ors
1rom using 3ro3ert0 oCnersG 3ond Cas immediatel0 a33eala@le= it im3osed cost o1 @ond on
neigh@ors, and this sanction could not @e 3urged. 33 /.9.$.3d 44& 2age &' 33 /.9.$.3d 44&
I6riginall0 3u@lished in 97-> ;olanin v. 5ashagen, !--3 2/ "u3er !'&, &!9 /.!d 33 I!--3>. 4n a
case o1 contem3t, the trial court ma0 1ind a 3art0 in contem3t and that 3art0 ma0 a33eal the 1inding o1
contem3t, @ut the 3art0 asEing 1or the contem3t ma0 not, as it is not aggrieved. Borough o1 "latington
v. Ziegler, &9- /.!d & I2a. CommC. Ct. !--'>. "ince a contem3t order is 1inal in nature, an order
com3elling discover0 ma0 @e a33ealed onl0 a1ter a trial court holds a 3art0 in contem3t. (ucEer v.
5onda o1 "outh Carolina ?1g., 4nc., '&! ".E.!d 4-' I".C. !--3>. (he 1inding o1 contem3t is
immediatel0 a33eala@le. E+ 3arte Cannon, ,&' ".E.!d &4 I".C. Ct. /33. !--9>. Circuit courtGs
remed0 or 3unishment 1or contem3t o1 court is revieCed under the a@use o1 discretion standard.
"aKama v. "tate e+ rel. ?uilen@erg, !--7 "D 7, 7!9 N.;.!d 33' I".D. !--7>. / trial courtGs 1inding
o1 contem3t is revieCed 1or a@use o1 discretion. "tate e+ rel. *loCers v. (ennessee (rucEing /ssGn
- 71
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1458

5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
"el1 4ns. <rou3 (rust, !-9 ".;.3d ,-! I(enn. Ct. /33. !--,>, a33eal denied, I6ct. 3-, !--,>. / trial
courtGs sentence 1or contem3t, liEe the e+ercise o1 its contem3t 3oCer, is revieCa@le 1or a@use o1
discretion. "tate v. ClarE, !--' 8( 7', !4 2.3d !3' I8tah !--'>. (rial courts have discretion to
issue contem3t orders, and reversal o1 a contem3t Hudgment is a33ro3riate onl0 i1 the trial courtGs
discretion Cas either totall0 Cithheld or e+ercised on grounds clearl0 untena@le or unreasona@le. 4n re
DucEman, &9& /.!d 734 I%t. !--,>. /n adHudication o1 contem3t is a33eala@le i1 it is a 1inal order or
Hudgment= i.e., the contumac0, the 3art0Gs Cill1ul resistance to the contem3t order, is esta@lished, and
the sanction is a coercive one designed to com3el com3liance Cith the courtGs order. $/2 !.!Ia>. 4n re
Estates o1 "maldino, !! 2.3d '79 I;ash. Ct. /33. Div. !--9>. /33eals 1rom contem3t orders are
one)Hudge a33eals. ;."./. 7'!.3I!>Ih>. 4n re ;ashington, !--, ;4 /33 99, 7, N.;.!d 7, I;is.
Ct. /33. !--,>.
CONCLUSION
Based u3on the 1oregoing the undersigned res3ect1ull0 requests that this Court set aside its
6rder o1 Decem@er ,
th
, !-, "et /side the "ummar0 Contem3t 6rder> and an0 other relie1 this
Court deems Hust. /33ellant Declares under
AFFIRMATION P.*s.ant t' NRS 3:2<.4:4
(he undersigned does here@0 a11irm that the 3receding document does not contain the social
securit0 num@er o1 an0 3erson.
D/(ED this ?arch 7, !-!
LsL Zach Coughlin, signed electronicall0
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
/33ellant
- 72
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1459
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
- 73
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1460
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
4, Zach Coughlin, declare:
6n this date, 4, ?r. Zach Coughlin served the 1oregoing document @0 1a+ing and
serving u3on registered e1ilers via electronicall0 1iling:
$ichard <. 5ill, Esq. and
Case0 BaEer, Esq.
,'! *orest "t.
$eno, N% &9'-3
/ttorne0s 1or $es3ondent ?att ?erliss, ?D
D/(ED this ?arch 7, !-!.
LsL Zach Coughlin, signed electronicall0
Zach Coughlin, Esq., /33ellant
Q
- 74
DE*4C4ENC4E" 4N /22E/9 2/2E$"
V4.1461

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
26
27
28

F I L E D
Electronically
03-09-2012:01:08:40 PM
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Sup. Ct. Case No. 60302
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV11-01896
vs.
Dept. No. 6
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et al,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________/
CERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND TRANSMITTAL
Nevada, County of Washoe. On the 9th day of March, 2012, I electronically filed to the
Supreme Court the Case Appeal Statement or, Pled in the Alternative, Motion for
Extension of Time to Correct Deficiencies in the Appeal Papers filed on March 8, 2012 and
the Order Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis filed March 8, 2012
The Order is transmitted pursuant to NRAP 3(g)(1)(B).
I further certify that the transmitted record is a copy of the original pleadings on file
with the Second J udicial District Court.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2012.
CLERK OF THE COURT
By /s/Lori Matheus
Lori Matheus
Deputy Clerk
V4.1462
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-09-2012:13:08:40
03-09-2012:13:09:02
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
CertificateofClerk
LoriMatheus
COUGHLIN
V4.1463
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1464
F I L E D
Electronically
03-12-2012:04:34:28 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1465
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
11
p;
c"
c

12 c'?8

lj.::; v
13
N v:; ;; 0

14
'0 ",A<""'l
U 0
nP-< cu 0
g t1>t:-
15

ziii
16
c" "'
0
"
.9-
17
H
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2540
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Jon Sasser, and Marc Ashley
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WLS employee, )
Defendants.

DEPT. NO.: 6
V4.1466
2 NOTICE is hereby given that an Order Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
3 was entered on March 8, 2012, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
4 Dated this 12th day of March, 2012.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
By:
& GARIN}.'..C
r / C e ~
(702) 382-1500
AFFIRMATION
16
17
Number of any person.
18
Dated this 12th day of March, 2012.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:
& GARIN}.'..C
r / C e ~
(702) 382-1500
-2-
V4.1467
Li
p.;

(j6
011-
Boo

'0 t; <"")
U a
0) a
g t:; t::-

v ....:i
z&5
0"" c
0..
,..,
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I certify that on the 12'h day of March, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Notice
3 of Entry of Order, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
V4.1468
1
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
3
No.1 Order Denying Motion to 3 pages
Proceed in Forma Pauperis
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cj
11
p.;

12
08
.s-
Eoo
...... - ""'"
13 " '-

"-0
C/J<Il>_
z
14
o ",<'"1
U 0 !fA'
." 0

15 o u "

z1i:
16 c ..
g
0

.e-
17
H
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
EXHI BI T 1
EXHI BI T 1
V4.1469
F I L E D
Electronically
03-08-2012:04:29:02 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1470
CODE:
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Individually and in her capacity as Board President
of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, Individually and in
his capacity as WLS, Board Member, PAUL
ELCANO, Individually and in his capacity as
Executive Director of WLS, DOES 1-100,
Individually and in their capacity as members of
the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT, Individually
and in her capacity as WLS attorney, JON SASSER,
Individually and in his capacity as WLS agent,
KAREN SABO, Individually and in her capacity as
WLS attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA LOPEZ;
Individually and in her capacity as WLS employee;
Defendants.
---------------------------1
Case No.
Dept. No.
CV11-01896
6
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
This Court has reviewed Zach Coughlin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
attached affidavit in support of the motion. "Any person who desires to prosecute or
defend a civil action may file an affidavit with the court setting forth with particular facts
concerning his income, property and other resources which establish that he is unable to
V4.1471
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prosecute or defend the action because he is unable to pay the costs of so doing." NRS
12.015(1).
This Court finds Mr. Coughlin has provided insufficient financial information to
grant the motion at this time. Mr. Coughlin is a licensed member of the Nevada State Bar.
In his financial declaration, Mr. Coughlin refers to his employment as "jack of all trades,"
yet he does not reveal the extent of his business affairs. Mr. Coughlin shall support any
future motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a profit/loss statement, balance sheet,
and sworn affidavit showing the financial nature of his business affairs. Mr. Coughlin
shall also supplement his affidavit with his 2010 and 2011 tax returns. Alternatively, Mr.
Coughlin may pay the requisite fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February ZC{, 2012.
2
David A. Hardy
Chief District Court J
V4.1472
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. CVll-01896
I certify that I am an employee of the Second Judicial District Court; that on the 8
th
day of March, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court system
which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
Further, I certify that I deposited in the county mailing system for postage and
mailing with the U.S. Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true copy of the foregoing
addressed to:
LlPON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.
Shannon Nordstrom, Esq.
9080 West Post Road, #100
1
r, ~ ;\ I
\
. ( , ) I .
~ (L L 1 ~ < f L" .- ,C; ( i.,-' L v, c', v ~
Department 15 Administrative Assistant
3
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-12-2012:16:34:28
03-12-2012:16:35:18
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
NoticeofEntryofOrd
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
V4.1473
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1474
F I L E D
Electronically
03-13-2012:11:53:18 AM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1475
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Code 3370
Plaintiff, Dept. NO.6
v.
Defendants.
----------------------------,/
ORDER
There are currently four motions pending before this Court: (1) Defendants Pau
Elcano ("Elcano"), Todd Torvinen ("Torvinen"), Jon Sasser ("Sasser"), Marc Ashle
("Ashley"), Karen Sabo ("Sabo"), Kathy Breckenridge ("Breckenridge"), Washoe Lega
Services ("WLS") and Caryn Sternlicht's ("Sternlicht") motion for attorneys' fees; (2) Plainti
Zachary Coughlin's ("Plaintiff') motion to set aside the order entered January 11, 2012; (3
Plaintiff's motion to retax costs; and (4) Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, 0
in the alternative, to issue a Nunc Pro Tunc Order.1
I. Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees Is Granted.
Defendants seek an award of $1,473,00 in attorneys' fees. (Mot. for Fees, Jan. 30,
2012), Because the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to effectuate prope
28 1 Crisis Intervention Services ("CIS") opposed Plaintiffs motion(s) on the grounds that it did not receive proper service
To that extent, and for the reasons set forth in this order, Plaintiffs motions are either denied and/or rendered moot as t
Defendant CIS.
-1-
V4.1476
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
service of process, the Court did not address the merits of Plaintiff's complaint in the orde
entered January 11, 2012.
However, after reviewing the record, including the complaint filed August 11, 2011, i
is clear that the complaint was brought or maintained without reasonable grounds or t
harass Defendants. See N.R.S. 18.010(2)(b).
Plaintiff filed a similar but much more detailed complaint in CV11-01955.
complaints include essentially the same Defendants and allege the same causes of actio
against those Defendants. However, the complaint filed in the present action fails t
include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
See N.R.C.P. 8(a). Instead, Plaintiff's complaint and the majority of his subsequen
pleadings, include citations to irrelevant case law, extended prose and rambling account
of how Plaintiff's life seems to be spiraling out of control.
Plaintiff, a disgruntled employee, brought both complaints within days of each other.
The complaint filed in this action was brought and/or maintained to harass Defendants.
Consequently, Defenda,nts are entitled to attorneys' fees. See N.R.S. 18.010(2)(b).
The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied N.R.C.P. 54(d)(2)(8) as to thei
motion for attorneys' fees. (Mot. for Fees, Jan. 30,2012).
In awarding attorney fees, the Court has discretion to determine what amount i
reasonable:
[I]n determining the amount of fees to award, the court is not
limited to one specific approach; its analysis may begin with any
method rationally designed to calculate a reasonable amount,
including those based on a 'lodestar' amount or a contingency
fee. We emphasize that, whichever method is chosen as a
starting point, however, the court must continue its analysis by
considering the requested amount in light of the factors
enumerated by this court in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National
Bank . .. [the advocate's] professional qualities, the nature of
the litigation, the work performed, and the result. In this manner,
whichever method the court ultimately uses, the result will prove
reasonable as long as the court provides sufficient reasoning
and findings in support of its ultimate determination.
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 121 Nev. 837,864-865, 124 P.3d 530, 548-54
(2005) (internal citations omitted).
-2-
V4.1477
2
3
4
5
6
7
The Court has carefully weighed the Brunzell factors based upon a lodestar analysi
and finds that an award of $1,473.00 in attorneys' fees is reasonable. See Shuette, 121
Nev. at 864-865.
Accordingly, Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees is granted.
II. Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside the Order Entered January 11, 2012 I
Denied.
The evidence advanced by Plaintiff does not meet the standard for setting aside 0
vacating the Court's dismissal order entered January 11,2012. See N.R.C.P. 60.
Essentially, Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the dismissal order. Plaintiff ha
not demonstrated that the order was clearly erroneous. Masonry and Tile Contractor.
Ass'n ofS. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd., 113 Nev. 737,741,941 P.2d 486, 489 (1997).
10
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff's complaint was received on June 27, 2011 and filed on August 11, 2011.
Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 4(i) Plaintiff had 120 days, until December 9, 2011, to serve th
summons and complaint on Defendants. Therefore, the Court had to determine whethe
Plaintiff served Defendants Elcano, Torvinen, Sasser, Ashley, Sabo, Breckenridge, WL
and CIS within the mandated time period.
The Court found that Plaintiff had not timely served Defendants. However, becaus
Plaintiff submitted an application for in forma pauperis status, the one-hundred and twent
(120) days began to run on August 11, 2011.
On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Elcano by leaving
process under a mat on Defendant Elcano's front porch. Although timely, Plaintiff'
attempted service is insufficient. Leaving process under someone's mat is not an approve
method of service of process. See N.R.C.P. 4(d)(6).
On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Torvinen with thirty-fiv
(35) pages worth of documents relating to the instant case.
N.R.C.P. 4(d) provides:
The summons and complaint shall be served together. The
plaintiff shall furnish the person making service with such copies
as are necessary. Service shall be made by delivering a copy
of the summons attached to a copy of the complaint ...
-3-
V4.1478
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Process was insufficient since the "copy" of the summons and the complaint wer
illegible.
2
As a result, Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper process on Defendant Torvine
and the complaint against him is dismissed pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).3
On November 16, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Sabo with
summons. Once again, Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper process on Defendant Sabo b
failing to serve her with a copy of the summons and complaint. See N.R.C.P. 4(d).
Accordingly, the complaint against her is dismissed pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).
On November 15, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Breckenridge b
serving eighty-nine (89) pages worth of documents, some related to the present lawsuit and
others related to CV11-01955. Although a copy of the summons was attached to th
complaint, once again, the complaint was illegible. As a result, Plaintiff failed to effectuat
proper process on Defendant Breckenridge by failing to serve her with a "copy" of th
complaint. See N.R.C.P. 4(d). The complaint against Defendant Breckenridge is dismisse
pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).
Plaintiff made no attempt to serve Defendants Sasser and Ashley with a copy of th
summons and complaint by December 9, 2011. Plaintiff did not show good cause for hi
failure to serve Defendants Sasser and Ashley. Because Plaintiff failed to serve both
Defendants within one-hundred and twenty (120) days after filing the complaint, Plaintiff'
complaint against Defendants Sasser and Ashley are dismissed. See N.R.C.P.4(i).
On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant WLS via its registered
agent, Defendant Elcano. Although timely, Plaintiff failed to comply with N.R.C.P. 4(g) b
not filing an affidavit with the Court to evidence proper service of process. Accordingly, th
complaint against WLS is dismissed.
Plaintiff's motion to set aside the order entered January 11,2012 is denied.
III. Plaintiff's Motion to Retax Costs Is Moot.
27 2 The Nevada Supreme Court has held that notice of a litigation is not a substitute for proper service 0
process. G.H.A. Venture v. G.G. Wallace Consulting Engineers, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707, 70
28 ~ 1 9 9 0 .
The complaint against CIS is also dismissed pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3) for failing to serve a "copy" 0
the summons and complaint.
-4-
V4.1479
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on January 11, 2012.4 (Or., Jan.
11, 2012). Defendants filed a notice of entry of order on January 12, 2012. Defendant
filed their verified memorandum of costs on January 23, 2012.
Defendants had five (5) days after the entry of judgment to file a verifie
memorandum of costs. See N.R.S. 18.110(1). Defendants failed to file their memorandu
of costs within the mandated time period.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to retax costs is moot.
IV. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, Or in the Alternative
a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order is Denied.
Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to N.R.C.P. 59, or in
the alternative, requested a Nunc Pro Tunc Order.
A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than ten (10) day
after service of a written notice of entry of judgment. N.R.C.P. 59(e). The ten (10) day tim
limit for the service of a motion to alter or amend the judgment is extended by three day
where the notice of the entry of judgment is served by mail. N.R.C.P. 6(b).
Entry of judgment was filed on January 12, 2012. Plaintiff had until January 25,
2012 to file a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Plaintiff filed his motion on Februa
1,2012. Plaintiff's and is, therefore, denied.
5
DATED: This I I}t1' of March, 2012. /'
/::

DISTRICT"JUDGE
4 Judgment was entered on January 11, 2012. (Or., Jan. 11, 2012). N.R.C.P. 54(a) defmes judgment as "a decree an
28 any order from which an appeal lies."
5 Although the Court denies Plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the judgment, the merits of Plaintiffs arguments ar
addressed in section II of this order.
-5-
V4.1480
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
26
27
28
that on the ~ d y of March, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
the Court system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
Judicial Assistant
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-13-2012:11:53:18
03-13-2012:11:54:50
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
Order...
HeidiBoe
COUGHLIN
V4.1481
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1482
F I L E D
Electronically
03-14-2012:02:03:53 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1483
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
11
,;
c"
."
08
12

"<:t
13
o 0
Nct:lo.O
..=: co 0

.SPo:: Z &l
14
o i"l
U a "" N'
ff10
gt::>C
15
'" $

Zoo
16
0;" a;:
0
!
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2540
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada )
Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually )
WLS employee, )
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
V4.1484
u
0;
c"
'0

08
1-
Eoo
..... -""'"

........ <XI 0
v"D
if.l8>'7

-0 t; ' "'"
U 0
0) 0
t; ;> t:-
<r.:$. i:l

Zoo

0
0..

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NOTICE is hereby given that an Order, granting Defendant's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, denying Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside the Order entered January 1, 2012, finding
Plaintiffs Motion to Retax Costs moot, and denying Plaintiff Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment, or in the Alternative, a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order, was entered on March 13,
2012, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
Dated this 14'h day of March, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
18
19
20 Number of any person.
21 Dated this 14'h day of March, 2012.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:

(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 2-
V4.1485
u
"
0"
'Q
0

........ V
" 0
lju:lC'\O

U1@;>"7'
o.rp;:: z
15 'Ii::
U 0
<JJ 0
O .... >l-
s;; ----

ZOO
cf :
a
j
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I certify that on the 14th day of March, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Notice
3 of Entry of Order, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
lsi Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
V4.1486
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
No.1 Order 6 pages
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
'-'
11
p;
c"
."

12
"8

..... v
13
v, _

V)C5>"7

14
-0 If':o:<)
U 0
II.> 0
srl>t:-
15

":is
Zo
16
0
3-
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4-
F I L E D
Electronically
03-14-2012:02:03:53 PM
Clerk of the Court
V4.1487
EXHIBIT "1"
EXHIBIT "1"
V4.1488
2
3
4
5
6
Code 3370
F I LED
Electronically
03-13-2012: 11 :53: 18 AM
Clerk of the Court
7
8
9
\0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff, Dept. No.6
v.
Defendants.
______________________
ORDER
There are currently four motions pending before this Court: (1) Defendants Pau
Elcano ("Elcano"), Todd Torvinen ("Torvinen"), Jon Sasser ("Sasser"), Marc Ashle
("Ashley"), Karen Sabo ("Sabo"), Kathy Breckenridge ("Breckenridge"), Washoe Lega
Services ('WLS") and Caryn Stern licht's ("Sternlicht") motion for attorneys' fees; (2) Plainti
Zachary Coughlin's ("Plaintiff') motion to set aside the order entered January 11, 2012; (3
Plaintiff's motion to retax costs; and (4) Plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the judgment, 0
in the alternative, to issue a Nunc Pro Tunc Order.
1
I. Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees Is Granted.
Defendants seek an award of $1,473.00 in attorneys' fees. (Mot. for Fees, Jan. 30
2012). Because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint for failure to effectuate prope
28 1 Crisis Intervention Services ("CIS") opposed Plaintiffs motion(s) on the grounds that it did not receive proper service
To that extent, and for the reasons set forth in this order. Plaintiffs motions are either denied andlor rendered moot as t
Defendant CIS.
-1-
V4.1489
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
service of process, the Court did not address the merits of Plaintiffs complaint in the orde
entered January 11, 2012.
However, after reviewing the record, including the complaint filed August 11, 2011, i
is clear that the complaint was brought or maintained without reasonable grounds or t
harass Defendants. See N.R.S. 18.010(2)(b)_
Plaintiff filed a similar but much more detailed complaint in CV11-01955. Bot
complaints include essentially the same Defendants and allege the same causes of actio
against those Defendants_ However, the complaint filed in the present action fails t
include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief
See N.R.C.P. 8(a). Instead, Plaintiffs complaint and the majority of his subsequen
pleadings, include citations to irrelevant case law, extended prose and rambling accoun
of how Plaintiffs life seems to be spiraling out of control.
Plaintiff, a disgruntled employee, brought both complaints within days of each other.
The complaint filed in this action was brought andlor maintained to harass Defendants.
Consequently, Defendants are entitled to attorneys' fees. See N.R.S. 18.010(2)(b).
The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied N.R.C.P. 54(d)(2)(B) as to thei
motion for attorneys' fees. (Mot. for Fees, Jan. 30, 2012).
In awarding attorney fees, the Court has discretion to determine what amount i
reasonable:
[I]n determining the amount of fees to award, the court is not
limited to one specific approach; its analysis may begin with any
method rationally designed to calculate a reasonable amount,
including those based on a 'lodestar' amount or a contingency
fee. We emphasize that, whichever method is chosen as a
starting point, however, the court must continue its analysis by
considering the requested amount in light of the factors
enumerated by this court in Brunzel/ v. Golden Gate National
Bank . . _ [the advocate's] professional qualities, the nature of
the litigation, the work performed, and the result. In this manner,
whichever method the court ultimately uses, the result will prove
reasonable as long as the court provides sufficient reasoning
and findings in support of its ultimate determination.
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 121 Nev. 837, 864-865, 124 P.3d 530, 548--54
(2005) (internal citations omitted).
-2-
V4.1490
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
The Court has carefully weighed the Brunzel/ factors based upon a lodestar analysi
and finds that an award of $1,473.00 in attorneys' fees is reasonable. See Shuette, 121
Nev. at 864-865.
Accordingly, Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees is granted.
II. Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside the Order Entered January 11, 2012 I
Denied.
The evidence advanced by Plaintiff does not meet the standard for setting aside 0
vacating the Court's dismissal order entered January 11, 2012. See N.R.C.P. 60.
Essentially, Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the dismissal order. Plaintiff ha
not demonstrated that the order was clearly erroneous. Masonry and Tile Contracto
Ass'n of S. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd., 113 Nev. 737, 741, 941 P.2d 486, 489 (1997).
10
II
12
IJ
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2J
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs complaint was received on June 27, 2011 and filed on August 11, 2011
Pursuant to NRC.P. 4(i) Plaintiff had 120 days, until December 9, 2011, to serve th
summons and complaint on Defendants. Therefore, the Court had to determine whethe
Plaintiff served Defendants Elcano, Torvinen, Sasser, Ashley, Sabo, Breckenridge, WL
and CIS within the mandated time period.
The Court found that Plaintiff had not timely served Defendants. However, becaus
Plaintiff submitted an application for in forma pauperis status, the one-hundred and twen
(120) days began to run on August 11, 2011.
On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Elcano by leavin
process under a mat on Defendant Elcano's front porch. Although timely, Plaintiff
attempted service is insufficient. Leaving process under someone's mat is not an approve
method of service of process. See N.R.C.P. 4(d)(6).
On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Torvinen with thirty-fiv
(35) pages worth of documents relating to the instant case.
NRC.P. 4(d) provides:
The summons and complaint shall be served together. The
plaintiff shall furnish the person making service with such copies
as are necessary. Service shall be made by delivering a copy
of the summons attached to a copy of the complaint ...
.J.
V4.1491
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Process was insufficient since the "copy" of the summons and the complaint wer
iIIegible.
2
As a result, Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper process on Defendant Torvine
and the complaint against him is dismissed pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).3
On November 16, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Sabo with
summons. Once again, Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper process on Defendant Sabo b
failing to serve her with a copy of the summons and complaint. See N.R.C.P. 4(d).
Accordingly, the complaint against her is dismissed pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).
On November 15, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Breckenridge b
serving eighty-nine (89) pages worth of documents, some related to the present lawsuit an
others related to CV11-01955. Although a copy of the summons was attached to th
complaint, once again, the complaint was illegible. As a result, Plaintiff failed to effectuat
proper process on Defendant Breckenridge by failing to serve her with a "copy" of th
complaint. See N.R.C.P. 4(d). The complaint against Defendant Breckenridge is dismisse
pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).
Plaintiff made no attempt to serve Defendants Sasser and Ashley with a copy of th
summons and complaint by December 9, 2011. Plaintiff did not show good cause for hi
failure to serve Defendants Sasser and Ashley. Because Plaintiff failed to serve bot
Defendants within one-hundred and twenty (120) days after filing the complaint, Plaintiff
complaint against Defendants Sasser and Ashley are dismissed. See N.R.C.P.4(i).
On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant WLS via its registere
agent, Defendant Elcano. Although timely, Plaintiff failed to comply with N.R.C.P. 4(g) b
not filing an affidavit with the Court to evidence proper service of process. Accordingly, th
complaint against WLS is dismissed.
Plaintiffs motion to set aside the order entered January 11,2012 is denied.
III. Plaintiff's Motion to Retax Costs Is Moot.
27 2 The Nevada Supreme Court has held that notice of a litigation is not a substitute for proper service 0
process. C.H.A. Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Engineers, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707, 70
28 ~ 1 9 9 0 .
The complaint against CIS is also dismissed pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3) for failing to serve a "copy" 0
the summons and complaint.
-4-
V4.1492
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on January 11, 2012.4 (Or., Jan.
11, 2012). Defendants filed a notice of entry of order on January 12, 2012. Defendan
filed their verified memorandum of costs on January 23,2012.
Defendants had five (5) days after the entry of judgment to file a verifie
memorandum of costs. See N.R.S. 18.110(1). Defendants failed to file their memorandu
of costs within the mandated time period.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to retax costs is moot.
IV. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, Or in the Alternative
a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order is Denied.
Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the jUdgment pursuant to N.R.C.P. 59, or i
the alternative, requested a Nunc Pro Tunc Order.
A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than ten (10) day
after service of a written notice of entry of judgment. N.R.C.P.59(e). The ten (10) day tim
limit for the service of a motion to alter or amend the judgment is extended by three day
where the notice of the entry of judgment is served by mail. N.R.C.P. 6(b).
Entry of judgment was filed on January 12, 2012. Plaintiff had until January 25,
2012 to file a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Plaintiff filed his motion on Februa
1,2012. Plaintiffs and is, therefore, denied.
5
DATED: This /'7t1'aay of March, 2012.
_--,,/-,-:JU:..,.7-:/_, __ --I,-
12
..c-::::..c>--.J:::;...--
DISTRICT JUDGE
4 Judgment was entered on Januruy 11,2012. (Or., Jan. 11,2012). N.R.C.P. 54(a) defmesjudgment as "a decree an
28 any order from which an appeal lies."
, Although the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, the merits of Plaintiff's argrunents ar
addressed in section n of this order.
5
V4.1493
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
26
27
28
that on the d y of March, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
the Court system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
Judicial Assistant
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-14-2012:14:03:53
03-14-2012:14:04:49
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
NoticeofEntryofOrd
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
COUGHLIN
V4.1494
ZANDRALOPEZ
V4.1495

9 18 12 4 of 5 ROA 60302 Coughlin V Washoe Legal Services, Elcano Appeal of CV11-01896

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 18 12 4 of 5 ROA 60302 Coughlin V Washoe Legal Services, Elcano Appeal of CV11-01896

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

FilingIDClient# CourtCase# DateSubmitted DocumentType Status

CV11-01955 01-26-2012:12:50:41AM **Continuation Rejected

CV11-01896 12-16-2011:10:24:24PM OppositiontoMtn Rejected

You might also like