Two officials tied to the LVCVA gift card case were subpoenaed for a hearing next week. [RJ]
A senior District Judge presiding over the 7th Judicial District reaffirmed a decision to deny a water pipeline to SNWA. [TNI]
Attorney Jerry Gillock says Las Vegas is not enforcing the homeless ordinance and demands $144,000 in sanitation costs. [News3LV]
Tracking how coronavirus is affecting Las Vegas’ economy from closing buffets to cancelled conferences (and maybe even the NFL Draft via @LasVegasLocally) [TNI]
One of our commenters said someone is already asking the Supreme Court of Nevada to move a hearing light of coronavirus concerns. What do you expect to happen?
And it is seeming more relevant these days, Judge Bridget Robb in the Second Judicial District Court talked about Nevada’s mandatory quarantine law. [KOLO]
I expect that the NVSCT will likely have to put out a general order permitting optional, no-fault extensions of all deadlines across the state–all of them: close of discovery, trial dates, dispositive motions, responsive pleadings, your dumb reply brief, depositions, mediations, rebuttal experts, everything, whetever–on a rolling month to month basis.
I highly doubt this. Do your work. Submit it. Perhaps things get ruled on without oral argument. I was in court yesterday when an attorney had evidence that Defendants are under a 2 week quarantine/isolation and the Court continued the hearing one week and ordered them to appear by telephone. The wheels of justice are not going to stop.
Yes, the wheels of justice will grind to a halt. Look at the order from Western Washington https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/03-06-20General%20Order01-20.pdf the other day. They continued everything and even said that the public interest outweighs the right to a speedy trial. Sure, it's federal court, but it can happen.
12:02 and 12:26– let me clarify on the "sloppy high five"…. The Nevada Supreme Court grants extensions on a case-by-case basis all of the time. In fact there are rules for extensions on a case-by-case basis (e.g. NRAP 3(c)(i), NRAP 11(d), NRAP 14(d), NRAP 26(b)). What the Nevada Supreme Court is not going to do is issue a general, across-the-board, suspension of all deadlines in all cases in all courts. That you anecdotally got a few month extension in one case is probably true (and was probably true last year and in 2018 and in 2015). It does not make the likelihood of a General Order any greater.
The Western Washington Order appears entirely consistent with what 11:58 said. Matters to be handled on brief/pleading will continue forward. Things get ruled on without oral argument.
Guest
Anonymous
March 11, 2020 7:10 pm
As to that attorney on Clark and Fourth, not sure how it cost him $144,000 to sanitize the drive way and walk way to his business. I would sure like to take a gander at that itemized statement.
But when he demands the $144,000.he spent to be reimbursed by the city, I would hope he realizes that will never occur(at least not without expensive and protracted litigation where he proves his damages plus a causal connection).
I assume he is instead trying to make a point, attract some publicity for the issue, and hope that the publicity generates some action by the city.
But if he instead does eventually sue, how would he prove the casual connection? Would he need to establish that the City, by adopting the policy, caused homeless people not to fester near city buildings, but to instead move to area near downtown offices?
Would he need to prove something far more specific, such as there are specific homeless people who shit and slept near his building, and they never would have had it not been for the policy?
So, what would in fact be the burdens of proof and what he would need to factually establish in such a case?
And does this all include him proving that downtown offices(specifically, his office) had no homeless problem till the policy was adopted? If so, I wish him good luck because that area has always had its share of this problem, and for decades prior to the city adopting this policy.
So, I can't see how a law suit would be successful, as much as I admire the skills and aggressiveness of the attorney in question. Again, he may just be trying to shine light on a problem and get some enforcement action.
This person would have to prove that the City owed a duty to him, and violated that duty. IMO, the City does not owe a duty to any given citizen to enforce the Homeless Ordinance.
And by his own admission, the complainant rejected the police offer to "trespass" the homeless on his property.
As a taxpayer, I hope that if this person files a suit, he gets hit with the City's fees and costs.
Isn't the same guy who dropped some human poop on the front steps on the City Hall? Obviously just an attention seeker/squeaky wheel, yada yada yada.
Guest
Anonymous
March 11, 2020 7:50 pm
#FreeWeinstein
I don't know if he is guilty or not and neither do you. Any convictions based on testimony that old has got to be suspicious. I Pray no one's fate ever rests on the testimony of an old girlfriend/boyfriend. Those of us in Family Law know it is the most unreliable product on earth. You would get more just if the Court just disbelieved everything out of their mouth and took the opposite as truth.
I don't know if he did it. I do know that he was found guilty. Convictions based on specious, unreliable, biased testimony? You will excuse the jaundiced nature of this response by those involved with the criminal justice system but: yeah that is the nature of the Russian Roulette than it is the criminal justice system. With that said, there are an awful lot of people who tell an awfully similar story about Weinstein's conduct.
Guest
Anonymous
March 11, 2020 7:51 pm
* get more justice
Guest
Anonymous
March 11, 2020 11:30 pm
12:50 here
3:28 thank you for your thoughtful response
2:41 I guess it is semantical ambiguity as I mean morally, he did it in actuality, guilty; you are using the term as guilty from a Jury – but I suspect you knew that and are, as we used to say, pulling my leg
Honest question – why #freeweinstein? Do you think he should have been found not guilty? Was there evidence to support that? Admittedly I haven't followed the trial so I'm not particularly well informed.
Coronavirus Cluster of 50 traced to one attorney.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/us/new-rochelle-attorney-containment-area/index.html
Typhoid Mary!
Using computer analysis to evaluate legal language.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/big-data-second-amendment/607186/
I expect that the NVSCT will likely have to put out a general order permitting optional, no-fault extensions of all deadlines across the state–all of them: close of discovery, trial dates, dispositive motions, responsive pleadings, your dumb reply brief, depositions, mediations, rebuttal experts, everything, whetever–on a rolling month to month basis.
I highly doubt this. Do your work. Submit it. Perhaps things get ruled on without oral argument. I was in court yesterday when an attorney had evidence that Defendants are under a 2 week quarantine/isolation and the Court continued the hearing one week and ordered them to appear by telephone. The wheels of justice are not going to stop.
My friend was able to get a few months extension from NSC to file response. It happens.
Yes, actually, they are. But sloppy high five to you, 11:58, you go get em based on what you saw yesterday in court.
Yes, the wheels of justice will grind to a halt. Look at the order from Western Washington https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/03-06-20General%20Order01-20.pdf the other day. They continued everything and even said that the public interest outweighs the right to a speedy trial. Sure, it's federal court, but it can happen.
12:02 and 12:26– let me clarify on the "sloppy high five"…. The Nevada Supreme Court grants extensions on a case-by-case basis all of the time. In fact there are rules for extensions on a case-by-case basis (e.g. NRAP 3(c)(i), NRAP 11(d), NRAP 14(d), NRAP 26(b)). What the Nevada Supreme Court is not going to do is issue a general, across-the-board, suspension of all deadlines in all cases in all courts. That you anecdotally got a few month extension in one case is probably true (and was probably true last year and in 2018 and in 2015). It does not make the likelihood of a General Order any greater.
The Western Washington Order appears entirely consistent with what 11:58 said. Matters to be handled on brief/pleading will continue forward. Things get ruled on without oral argument.
As to that attorney on Clark and Fourth, not sure how it cost him $144,000 to sanitize the drive way and walk way to his business. I would sure like to take a gander at that itemized statement.
But when he demands the $144,000.he spent to be reimbursed by the city, I would hope he realizes that will never occur(at least not without expensive and protracted litigation where he proves his damages plus a causal connection).
I assume he is instead trying to make a point, attract some publicity for the issue, and hope that the publicity generates some action by the city.
But if he instead does eventually sue, how would he prove the casual connection? Would he need to establish that the City, by adopting the policy, caused homeless people not to fester near city buildings, but to instead move to area near downtown offices?
Would he need to prove something far more specific, such as there are specific homeless people who shit and slept near his building, and they never would have had it not been for the policy?
So, what would in fact be the burdens of proof and what he would need to factually establish in such a case?
And does this all include him proving that downtown offices(specifically, his office) had no homeless problem till the policy was adopted? If so, I wish him good luck because that area has always had its share of this problem, and for decades prior to the city adopting this policy.
So, I can't see how a law suit would be successful, as much as I admire the skills and aggressiveness of the attorney in question. Again, he may just be trying to shine light on a problem and get some enforcement action.
This person would have to prove that the City owed a duty to him, and violated that duty. IMO, the City does not owe a duty to any given citizen to enforce the Homeless Ordinance.
And by his own admission, the complainant rejected the police offer to "trespass" the homeless on his property.
As a taxpayer, I hope that if this person files a suit, he gets hit with the City's fees and costs.
The lawsuit would go nowhere fast. This is all just a media ploy directed at the electeds, which might be effective. Probably not, but it might.
Isn't the same guy who dropped some human poop on the front steps on the City Hall? Obviously just an attention seeker/squeaky wheel, yada yada yada.
#FreeWeinstein
I don't know if he is guilty or not and neither do you. Any convictions based on testimony that old has got to be suspicious. I Pray no one's fate ever rests on the testimony of an old girlfriend/boyfriend. Those of us in Family Law know it is the most unreliable product on earth. You would get more just if the Court just disbelieved everything out of their mouth and took the opposite as truth.
>I don't know if he is guilty or not and neither do you.
I do, actually. Because a jury decided he is guilty.
I don't know if he did it. I do know that he was found guilty. Convictions based on specious, unreliable, biased testimony? You will excuse the jaundiced nature of this response by those involved with the criminal justice system but: yeah that is the nature of the Russian Roulette than it is the criminal justice system. With that said, there are an awful lot of people who tell an awfully similar story about Weinstein's conduct.
* get more justice
12:50 here
3:28 thank you for your thoughtful response
2:41 I guess it is semantical ambiguity as I mean morally, he did it in actuality, guilty; you are using the term as guilty from a Jury – but I suspect you knew that and are, as we used to say, pulling my leg
2:41 here, I'll admit I was being snarky.
Honest question – why #freeweinstein? Do you think he should have been found not guilty? Was there evidence to support that? Admittedly I haven't followed the trial so I'm not particularly well informed.
Are any law firms closed right now?
kolesar leatham
No, I mean from corona.
Pretty sure my firm will be making workers work from home soon. I give it a week. We received 3 emails about the corona virus yesterday.
I heard Wood Smith Henning was instructing attorneys to work from home but support staff were expected to come in. Any truth?
NSC is allowing remote videoconference for arguments.
https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/News/Participating_Remotely_in_Oral_Argument/