There is no reason that civil law and motion calendars should not remain virtual. The types of family cases mentioned in the article should most likely be in person, although I don't practice in that area. But there is absolutely no reason to put on pants, drive to the courthouse, park, and ride up on the elevator with a bunch of out of custody defendants, all for a two minute status check or a motion that does not require an evidentiary hearing.
@10:21 I partially agree with you. Some of those hearings are 10 minutes and don't involve some parties at all. There really isn't a reason to make people take the day off work to drive down to Pecos and sit there just so the judge can see their faces. In evidentiary hearings, I agree it is important. But dependency cases can involve months of status checks and there can be a whole cast of characters, many of which are low income and cannot afford to miss a day of work.
Absolutely agree. Sitting in the court room for close to an hour waiting for what is to be 2 minute status check is ridiculous. While some hearings may need to be in person, the vast majority do not. This has brought efficiency to the practice of law and is advancing an industry that moves at a snail's pace.
We don't talk about billing, no no no. We don't talk about billings, but:
It was the month's last day
It was the month's last day
I was getting ready,
And there wasn't 0.1 in the Time
(No time was entered by I)
Partner walks in with a mischievous grin
(You telling this story or am I?)
Partner says: Gotta make it rain
What did I bill for?
Emails and a few BlueJeans
Gotta make it 2.4
Billing like a hurricane
What a crappy day but anyway
In person or BlueJeans?
"Prepare for and attend hearing on ____________. 1.5"
Nothing has changed for me.
Guest
Anonymous
January 24, 2022 6:23 pm
That opinion article is a painful read. I'm not the hugest fan of Ford, but the analytical leaps and presumptions of the author are painful. "Presumably, Ford was smart enough not to overtly break any laws or violate ethics standards. But it’s hard to know the whole story and not feel that taxpayers got ripped off." Did nobody explain traditional contingency rates to the author before this was published?
I don't agree with him most of the time, but there is a legitimate question why Eglet is getting paid so much. He didn't do anything the AG's office shouldn't have been able to do. We're getting a decent amount, but was it worth paying Bob? I don't know. Compare other states here https://www.opioidsettlementtracker.com/globalsettlementtracker
Guest
Anonymous
January 24, 2022 7:30 pm
So I'll conclude my Alpine Village dip reminiscing today. I used the recipe someone posted last week. I had a little difficulty finding the Accent Seasoning but finally located. Made it with careful attention to instructions. At first it tasted very good but I'd guess about 90% of what I remembered. Then, magically, (I have zero education or training in food prep) I left in refrigerator overnight and bang! it was 100% of the old days! I loved it! Thanks again friends for letting me walk down memory lane.
11:46 I live in Southern Utah and had to go to Lin's (not in Vegas) but I did see you can order it online. Let us know what you think. My next mission is to find the chicken soup recipe.
Accent is MSG. Smiths carries it. And you are absolutely correct, it gets better with age. The caraway seeds and other seasonings need time to work their magic.
True story: I have rickrolled on this site. Hahahaha.
I look forward to having a life changing experience with this cottage cheese recipe. Maybe I'll even take it with me to the movies.
Guest
Anonymous
January 24, 2022 7:50 pm
"Somehow a young Black man was held in jail for six days on a warrant for an older white man with the same name."
Was he held for being Black, or because his name matched that on the warrant? The latter of course.
If we want to be a color blind society, the black/white thing has no relevance. However, the media always looks for and promotes anything that bleeds or can be made into a controversy. We can do better.
As we seek this mythical "color-blind society," we should ask ourselves if an older white man with the same name as a young black man would have been held in jail for a week.
11:50 – did you read the article? The arrested man is 25 years old, black male with brown eyes and black hair with a common name. The warrant was for a 49-year-old white male with blue eyes and brown hair with a common name. The arrested man repeatedly stated it was not him, and not a single person throughout 6 days thought "hmm, this guy looks great for pushing 50"??
We CAN do better, and it starts by acknowledging there is a real problem and disparity in how POC are treated every single day and then working to remedy that.
At first I was happy to give law enforcement (having repped them in many 1983 cases) the benefit of the doubt. This is a common name, i have seen mishaps with common name misidentifications and know they can be difficult at the 'ground level' to straighten out sometimes.
BUT, six days IN CUSTODY and not a similar piece of identifying information is beyond the pale. Just at intake it should have been well beyond obvious that he didn't match the warrant in any sort of way. So yes, perhaps "the media" does look for race controversy,,, but here it is really the heart of the issue and absolutely should be the focus of coverage.
11:50– I am a law and order Republican but come on. The way you keep order is by meticulously following the law and not violating peoples' rights. They had innumerable opportunities to figure out from their own computer that they had the wrong guy. His color is relevant (as was his age, his height, his eye color, etc) because they were obvious evidence that they had the wrong guy. They did not care if this guy rotted wrongfully or not. Hard to follow and respect the law and system when those allegedly upholding the law have so little respect for you or the system.
Yes, his color is relevant only in the sense that it makes it painfully obvious they had the wrong guy. So what if the young guy was white? Given the utter lack of attention to detail, it's probable the hypothetical white guy would also have spent 6 days in jail, maybe even longer. Not everything having a racial factual component is driven by racism.
If you think that a white man would have been held for 6 days with the obvious difference in physical description, I have a bridge to sell you. Racism doesn't go away by covering our ears and eyes to it. Racism goes away when we acknowledge there is a problem and work to fix it.
This guy had warrants and the white guy had (worse) warrants in then neighboring jurisdiction. You should get arrested for your warrants; but not detained for other people's.
We have a blatant violation of human rights in a system that has been shown over and over again to treat POC differently. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system are acknowledged and discussed in a variety of forums (except maybe Fox news) with a basic google search.
Your desire to be "color blind" and refusal to acknowledge the impact of racism in our criminal justice system perpetuates these types of abuses.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
We have basic civil rights being violated every day by the judiciary in this state. Please wake me when the media and the ACLU start doing their damn job. Wait, Roe v. Wade, where is the ACLU?
Guest
Anonymous
January 24, 2022 10:42 pm
Quick procedural question on something that's new to me…
Plaintiff filed a complaint but never served it or even attempted to do so. My client knows about it but doesn't want to waive service. The court has sua sponte ordered Plaintiff to explain why he's not doing what he needs to do. I'm going to be at the hearing, mainly to monitor but also to speak up if necessary. Do I need to make a special appearance of some kind? If I do "appear," does that risk waiving any of my client's rights? Any other advice you can give?
NRCP 4(c) requires service "unless Defendant voluntarily appears"
The last thing you want is to make an appearance, and now your client has appeared, and Plaintiff doesn't have to serve the Complaint and now you just fixed Plaintiff's problem.
OP here. I understood that we could make special appearances without waiving service. However, I get what you're saying — the risks could be substantial. Thanks for the food for thought.
1/24/22-2:42–Service of process issue.
What happened to the special appearance to contest service?
A special appearance is entered when a person comes into court to test the court's jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service." Milton v. Gesler, 107 Nev. 767, 769, 819 P. 2d 245, 247 (1991).
Special appearances had been abrogated under Fritz Hansen A/S v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 650, 6 P.3d 982 (2000).
Are we thinking with the addition of the "unless Defendant voluntarily appears" language in NRCP 4(c)(1) and 4(d) that we've actually gone backwards and readopted the general vs. special appearance distinction that had previously been abrogated.
The "unless Defendant voluntarily appears" language is new from the 2019 revision of NRCP, doesn't appear in the FRCP, and seems to possibly reintroduce the appearance trap that had previously been abrogated. That seems significant, and nothing relevant is contained in the advisory committee notes. Seems like a big thing to change without drawing any attention to it.
Why bother with that added language? FRCP doesn't embrace that language. Waiver of service is already expressly embraced, and personal jurisdiction and service of process based defenses are disfavored defenses that under NRCP 12(h) must be raised in a pre-answer motion to dismiss or the first responsive pleading, or does something to forfeit the benefit of the early defenses, or else they are waived. (Compare FRCP 12(h).) Adding "unless Defendant voluntarily appears" introduces an ambiguity in my mind, since you a defendant can "voluntarily appear" through express waiver of service or waiver of service by operation of rule under Rule 12(h) (which I guess you could consider to be a species of an implied waiver) by appearing and filing a motion to dismiss or an answer without including any personal jurisdiction or process based defenses. This is a potential ambiguity that isn't helpful.
The new language has to be doing some work beyond what the interrelated rules already did without expressly saying "unless Defendant voluntarily appears." The fact that the federal rules don't embrace that language could point toward an interpretation that Nevada intended a contrary construction. Federal courts are expressly clear that service of process is required, even when a defendant has actual notice, unless the defendant expressly waives service under FRCP 4(d) or fails to timely assert the personal jurisdiction of process based defenses and thus is deemed to have waived them under FRCP 12(h). In other words, merely filing a notice of appearance in federal court is meaningless until the plaintiff proves service or a proper waiver.
I (and at least one other practitioner commenting here) am now no longer sure if the same result will obtain in Nevada under the revised NRCP. That's not good. And in those circumstances, the best advice is stay away until you know there has been good service of process.
This is a confusing/conflicting area. How do you challenge service when there has been no service. Can't one still make special appearance especially after the time to service abated by filing a Motion to Quash/Dismiss?
Guest
Anonymous
January 25, 2022 2:46 am
I thought ambush service merely by appearing was no longer a thing, for quite a long, long time.
Guest
Anonymous
January 25, 2022 6:11 pm
Joe Hong showed up today for a Calendar Call in a dude rag (before he shut off his camera). Love seeing who some of you are when you are not putting on a polished appearance.
Guest
Anonymous
January 25, 2022 6:33 pm
Where can I donate for the Defense? Why is this illegal?
OP back. I've been licensed for 23 years and understand the right to a lawyer and all that and I don't want to seem virtue signaling and morally indignant but the POS molested a 9 year old. How can one represent that POS? I just don't get it and don't judge those that do but my blood is boiling right now. I do probably the most boring area of law there is – franchise agreements – and today I am Thankful for that.
The 9 y/o mother could be charged with abuse and neglect, if she failed to protect the child. It is hard to work on child sex abuse cases. I will pray for the little girl; she never has to see her abuser again. In the hierarchy of morals, raping a 9 y/o is worse than killing the rapist that raped the 9 y/o. Three young men delivered a just, swift, verdict, and sentence.
There is no reason that civil law and motion calendars should not remain virtual. The types of family cases mentioned in the article should most likely be in person, although I don't practice in that area. But there is absolutely no reason to put on pants, drive to the courthouse, park, and ride up on the elevator with a bunch of out of custody defendants, all for a two minute status check or a motion that does not require an evidentiary hearing.
@10:21 I partially agree with you. Some of those hearings are 10 minutes and don't involve some parties at all. There really isn't a reason to make people take the day off work to drive down to Pecos and sit there just so the judge can see their faces. In evidentiary hearings, I agree it is important. But dependency cases can involve months of status checks and there can be a whole cast of characters, many of which are low income and cannot afford to miss a day of work.
Absolutely agree. Sitting in the court room for close to an hour waiting for what is to be 2 minute status check is ridiculous. While some hearings may need to be in person, the vast majority do not. This has brought efficiency to the practice of law and is advancing an industry that moves at a snail's pace.
We don't need to make justice more efficient. We need to work about Billings!
We don't talk about billing, no no no. We don't talk about billings, but:
It was the month's last day
It was the month's last day
I was getting ready,
And there wasn't 0.1 in the Time
(No time was entered by I)
Partner walks in with a mischievous grin
(You telling this story or am I?)
Partner says: Gotta make it rain
What did I bill for?
Emails and a few BlueJeans
Gotta make it 2.4
Billing like a hurricane
What a crappy day but anyway
3:22 wins the comment of the day award
In person or BlueJeans?
"Prepare for and attend hearing on ____________. 1.5"
Nothing has changed for me.
That opinion article is a painful read. I'm not the hugest fan of Ford, but the analytical leaps and presumptions of the author are painful. "Presumably, Ford was smart enough not to overtly break any laws or violate ethics standards. But it’s hard to know the whole story and not feel that taxpayers got ripped off." Did nobody explain traditional contingency rates to the author before this was published?
I don't agree with him most of the time, but there is a legitimate question why Eglet is getting paid so much. He didn't do anything the AG's office shouldn't have been able to do. We're getting a decent amount, but was it worth paying Bob? I don't know. Compare other states here https://www.opioidsettlementtracker.com/globalsettlementtracker
So I'll conclude my Alpine Village dip reminiscing today. I used the recipe someone posted last week. I had a little difficulty finding the Accent Seasoning but finally located. Made it with careful attention to instructions. At first it tasted very good but I'd guess about 90% of what I remembered. Then, magically, (I have zero education or training in food prep) I left in refrigerator overnight and bang! it was 100% of the old days! I loved it! Thanks again friends for letting me walk down memory lane.
I arrived here post-Alpine Village, but am now intrigued about this. I am going to make it. Where do you get the Accent Seasoning?
TIA.
11:46 I live in Southern Utah and had to go to Lin's (not in Vegas) but I did see you can order it online. Let us know what you think. My next mission is to find the chicken soup recipe.
Please, find the soup recipe!!!!!!
Accent is MSG. Smiths carries it. And you are absolutely correct, it gets better with age. The caraway seeds and other seasonings need time to work their magic.
https://www.amazon.com/ACCENT-FLAVOR-SEASONING-NATURAL-ENHANCER/dp/B007HACDBA
11:46 AM here.
I like Lin's. We stock up there when we go camping in Southern Utah. Is the link above the right Accent Seasoning?
Yes, that is it. And thank you for not Rick Rolling me when I checked the link haha
11:46 here.
True story: I have rickrolled on this site. Hahahaha.
I look forward to having a life changing experience with this cottage cheese recipe. Maybe I'll even take it with me to the movies.
"Somehow a young Black man was held in jail for six days on a warrant for an older white man with the same name."
Was he held for being Black, or because his name matched that on the warrant? The latter of course.
If we want to be a color blind society, the black/white thing has no relevance. However, the media always looks for and promotes anything that bleeds or can be made into a controversy. We can do better.
As we seek this mythical "color-blind society," we should ask ourselves if an older white man with the same name as a young black man would have been held in jail for a week.
11:50 – did you read the article? The arrested man is 25 years old, black male with brown eyes and black hair with a common name. The warrant was for a 49-year-old white male with blue eyes and brown hair with a common name. The arrested man repeatedly stated it was not him, and not a single person throughout 6 days thought "hmm, this guy looks great for pushing 50"??
We CAN do better, and it starts by acknowledging there is a real problem and disparity in how POC are treated every single day and then working to remedy that.
At first I was happy to give law enforcement (having repped them in many 1983 cases) the benefit of the doubt. This is a common name, i have seen mishaps with common name misidentifications and know they can be difficult at the 'ground level' to straighten out sometimes.
BUT, six days IN CUSTODY and not a similar piece of identifying information is beyond the pale. Just at intake it should have been well beyond obvious that he didn't match the warrant in any sort of way. So yes, perhaps "the media" does look for race controversy,,, but here it is really the heart of the issue and absolutely should be the focus of coverage.
11:50– I am a law and order Republican but come on. The way you keep order is by meticulously following the law and not violating peoples' rights. They had innumerable opportunities to figure out from their own computer that they had the wrong guy. His color is relevant (as was his age, his height, his eye color, etc) because they were obvious evidence that they had the wrong guy. They did not care if this guy rotted wrongfully or not. Hard to follow and respect the law and system when those allegedly upholding the law have so little respect for you or the system.
Yes, his color is relevant only in the sense that it makes it painfully obvious they had the wrong guy. So what if the young guy was white? Given the utter lack of attention to detail, it's probable the hypothetical white guy would also have spent 6 days in jail, maybe even longer. Not everything having a racial factual component is driven by racism.
If you think that a white man would have been held for 6 days with the obvious difference in physical description, I have a bridge to sell you. Racism doesn't go away by covering our ears and eyes to it. Racism goes away when we acknowledge there is a problem and work to fix it.
This guy had warrants and the white guy had (worse) warrants in then neighboring jurisdiction. You should get arrested for your warrants; but not detained for other people's.
Thanks for keeping racism alive 2:22. You are part of the problem.
2:22 here – Ah, intellectual laziness.
We have a blatant violation of human rights in a system that has been shown over and over again to treat POC differently. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system are acknowledged and discussed in a variety of forums (except maybe Fox news) with a basic google search.
Your desire to be "color blind" and refusal to acknowledge the impact of racism in our criminal justice system perpetuates these types of abuses.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
We have basic civil rights being violated every day by the judiciary in this state. Please wake me when the media and the ACLU start doing their damn job. Wait, Roe v. Wade, where is the ACLU?
Quick procedural question on something that's new to me…
Plaintiff filed a complaint but never served it or even attempted to do so. My client knows about it but doesn't want to waive service. The court has sua sponte ordered Plaintiff to explain why he's not doing what he needs to do. I'm going to be at the hearing, mainly to monitor but also to speak up if necessary. Do I need to make a special appearance of some kind? If I do "appear," does that risk waiving any of my client's rights? Any other advice you can give?
Thank you in advance!
Dude, don't go to the hearing.
Don't go to the hearing.
NRCP 4(c) requires service "unless Defendant voluntarily appears"
The last thing you want is to make an appearance, and now your client has appeared, and Plaintiff doesn't have to serve the Complaint and now you just fixed Plaintiff's problem.
OP here. I understood that we could make special appearances without waiving service. However, I get what you're saying — the risks could be substantial. Thanks for the food for thought.
Attend. But do NOT make an on the record appearance.
1/24/22-2:42–Service of process issue.
What happened to the special appearance to contest service?
A special appearance is entered when a person comes into court to test the court's jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service." Milton v. Gesler, 107 Nev. 767, 769, 819 P. 2d 245, 247 (1991).
Special appearances had been abrogated under Fritz Hansen A/S v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 650, 6 P.3d 982 (2000).
Are we thinking with the addition of the "unless Defendant voluntarily appears" language in NRCP 4(c)(1) and 4(d) that we've actually gone backwards and readopted the general vs. special appearance distinction that had previously been abrogated.
The "unless Defendant voluntarily appears" language is new from the 2019 revision of NRCP, doesn't appear in the FRCP, and seems to possibly reintroduce the appearance trap that had previously been abrogated. That seems significant, and nothing relevant is contained in the advisory committee notes. Seems like a big thing to change without drawing any attention to it.
I believe the "voluntarily appears" language was meant to address acceptances of service and voluntary appearance.
Why bother with that added language? FRCP doesn't embrace that language. Waiver of service is already expressly embraced, and personal jurisdiction and service of process based defenses are disfavored defenses that under NRCP 12(h) must be raised in a pre-answer motion to dismiss or the first responsive pleading, or does something to forfeit the benefit of the early defenses, or else they are waived. (Compare FRCP 12(h).) Adding "unless Defendant voluntarily appears" introduces an ambiguity in my mind, since you a defendant can "voluntarily appear" through express waiver of service or waiver of service by operation of rule under Rule 12(h) (which I guess you could consider to be a species of an implied waiver) by appearing and filing a motion to dismiss or an answer without including any personal jurisdiction or process based defenses. This is a potential ambiguity that isn't helpful.
The new language has to be doing some work beyond what the interrelated rules already did without expressly saying "unless Defendant voluntarily appears." The fact that the federal rules don't embrace that language could point toward an interpretation that Nevada intended a contrary construction. Federal courts are expressly clear that service of process is required, even when a defendant has actual notice, unless the defendant expressly waives service under FRCP 4(d) or fails to timely assert the personal jurisdiction of process based defenses and thus is deemed to have waived them under FRCP 12(h). In other words, merely filing a notice of appearance in federal court is meaningless until the plaintiff proves service or a proper waiver.
I (and at least one other practitioner commenting here) am now no longer sure if the same result will obtain in Nevada under the revised NRCP. That's not good. And in those circumstances, the best advice is stay away until you know there has been good service of process.
Special appearance/Motion to Quash/Service Issue:
This is a confusing/conflicting area. How do you challenge service when there has been no service. Can't one still make special appearance especially after the time to service abated by filing a Motion to Quash/Dismiss?
I thought ambush service merely by appearing was no longer a thing, for quite a long, long time.
Joe Hong showed up today for a Calendar Call in a dude rag (before he shut off his camera). Love seeing who some of you are when you are not putting on a polished appearance.
Where can I donate for the Defense? Why is this illegal?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-stepfather-beaten-to-death-by-teen-brothers-and-friend-police-say
OP back. I've been licensed for 23 years and understand the right to a lawyer and all that and I don't want to seem virtue signaling and morally indignant but the POS molested a 9 year old. How can one represent that POS? I just don't get it and don't judge those that do but my blood is boiling right now. I do probably the most boring area of law there is – franchise agreements – and today I am Thankful for that.
The 9 y/o mother could be charged with abuse and neglect, if she failed to protect the child. It is hard to work on child sex abuse cases. I will pray for the little girl; she never has to see her abuser again. In the hierarchy of morals, raping a 9 y/o is worse than killing the rapist that raped the 9 y/o. Three young men delivered a just, swift, verdict, and sentence.