- Quickdraw McLaw
- 50 Comments
- 223 Views
- Judge Timothy Williams 13 separate motions to dismiss an opioid lawsuit and is allowing the case to proceed to discovery. [TNI]
- The Nevada Supreme Court reduced its ask on new judges in Clark County to just six new family court judges. [RJ]
- A suit alleging fraud by the stars of Flip or Flop Las Vegas has settled. [RJ]
- Not Nevada, but a law firm sued an associate who quit after one year. [Above the Law]
The state bar submitted a handwritten amendment to a bill and I'm wondering where our dues go.
Where can we go to see the creative use of crayons for the amendment?
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=36892&fileDownloadName=0228AB207_warm_amend.pdf
I would like to sue county officials for being assholes.
Tim Williams is a genuinely nice guy. But for many reasons he probably shouldn't have been the one ruling on those motions.
Like being super "Plaintiff friendly?"
Or as some would call it, "fair."
He is better than a lot of the other trash that is in the EJDC.
Williams has been a judge for a while now. Prior to ascending to the bench he was almost exclusively a plaintiff-side personal injury lawyer. He was also a very active member of NJA (fomerly NTLA), whose members and PAC have ensured his campaigns are well-funded. He's never faced a legitimate opponent for his seat. He'll be on the Clark County bench for as long as he wants to be there. Eglet wasn't going to lose any of those motions.
Instead of bitching about Williams, the pharmaceutical industry should put its own guy on the bench. That's how it works.
Presumably the pharma gang already used up their one challenge on someone they thought would be worse.
Big pharma simply needs to find a basis to remove the case(s) to federal court. Those are judges they can own.
Big Pharma needs to be held accountable.
Let's hope Nevada gets a billion dollar windfall from the pharmacy conglomerates. Just think of the baseball stadium we could build with that money.
Good, Eglet could financially bail out some of his faves out down at the court house.
To the (bleeping) department who took three weeks to send back my Order rejected with the following note: "The Court did not order findings of fact, conclusions of law. The Court ordered preparation of an Order"- you cannot be serious, right? Please tell me your Judge explained to you, and/or is familiar, with the Supreme Court decisions that have made clear that the Court wants findings of fact and conclusions of law in each Order so that the Court knows what the basis for issuing the Order was. However I suspect the jurist in this Department is such a Emperors' New Clothes level of idiot that he/she has no clue and is just running a private fiefdom.
It is OK to be a tyrant. Just don't be a clueless tyrant.
What the hell is going on down at the RJC? Is anyone in charge there. It is helter skelter.
Wait, let me get back with you….
RJC is the worse. Bailiffs strangle you. Women get felt up. Back door deals reached. Attorneys get placed into custody or intimated by bailiffs. Money goes missing. And you are correct, who is in charge?
Reading this now, I am session with members of Eighth Judicial District now, asking me for more money, more judges. Interesting….
2:17 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are only required for summary judgment. Not for motions to dismiss or other orders.
3:52– It is a dispositive motion.
BTW – the eNews blast just in from the State Bar re e-filing is highly misleading; the the new e-filing rules go into effect tomorrow EXCEPT for e-filing in the NVSCT itself, with that e-filing changeover now delayed until March 30.
That isn't what the email says. The technical issue was encountered in the NV Supreme Court, but the email says that "electronic filing will continue under the previous system." Not just e-filing in the Supreme Court. Goes on to say "Rule changes unrelated to electronic filing will become effective on March 1, as originally scheduled."
And that is wrong, as you will soon see. All e-filing changes go into effect tomorrow except for appellate e-filing. I'm just trying to warn you that the State Bar has it messed up.
Another notice just came out.
I have a NSC brief question, can you single space legal citation longer than 50 words, or can I just cite the statute instead of quoting, bc whole statute applies. Thank you!
I think block quoting statutes is shitty writing. There's always a way to pare it down and focus on the most relevant language.
I don't think block quoting statutory language is bad though. Case law, yes, you should paraphrase or chop it into smaller quotes. But giving the court the exact statutory language at issue is important and it keeps your credibility in tact because you don't look like you're trying to misstate the law.
I massaged it a little bit. You can single space a block quote in appeal. Just indent if it is over 50 words. Appeals court clerks office are nice people. Do your best is what they tell me.
Yes, if you choose to leave the quote with over 50 words, then single space it and indent both margins. If you break it up so any quote is less than 50 words then leave everything double.
Unrelated, the Supreme Court ruled today that Hearing Masters can be subject to discipline by the Nevada State Commission on Judicial Discipline. Hearing Master Jennifer Henry's case will now go forward before the Commission.
Are you sure that was the main basis for the writ she filed– the argument that Hearing Masters cannot be subject to discipline, and you are sure that is the main basis of the NSC opinion on the matter?
I read the Writ request shortly after it was filed, and I can check it again but I think it primarily concerned other issues than whether a Hearing Master is subject to discipline.
After all, she was granted the temporary writ, until the permanent writ was finally granted(which, as you indicate, just occurred).They would not have granted the temporary writ, and taken months to decide the permanent writ, unless the temporary writ request raised issues of arguable merit.
And the argument that hearing masters cannot be subject to discipline by the Commission, can never be an issue of arguable merit because it is utterly preposterous. Of course they can be subject to discipline. Always have been, and always will, and it is codified as such. The fact that they, unlike judges, cannot be booted by the voters, and the fact that hearing masters can be disciplined and even removed by the Chief Judge, in no way indicates that such is the extent of possible discipline. if it were that would indicate they can be shielded from ethical scrutiny to a far greater extent than an actual judge.
But if you are right, and the request for Writ she filed, essentially made the argument that hearing masters should not be subject to discipline by the commission because the Chief Judge can and should be the only one who can discipline and remove them, that is an idiotic argument and of course she would eventually lo
To-5:51. Actually, that was in fact the basis for the writ–that Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution does not specifically enumerate a Hearing Master as someone subject to discipline.
But I agree that seems like a real lame argument, unless her attorneys were just trying to positon themselves for more time and/or be heavily litigious and play hard ball to position themselves for a better negotiated resolution later on.
No chance in Hell that argument would ever fly. There probably was not even anything known as a Hearing Master at the time that constitutional provision was enacted, so we must look at intent. And the obvious intent was that if judges are subject to potentially harsh discipline, if the only real possible discipline against a hearing master is what the Chief Judge decides to do or not do, that is certainly not a result anyone would intend or desire.
If hearing masters were not subject to discipline by the commission, and a solitary individual, the Chief Judge, for whatever reason, decided to completely shield a Hearing Master who may be ethically out-of-control, there would absolutely need to be some disciplinary recourse.
They always have been subject to discipline, and always will be. I'm surprised the NSC even granted a temporary writ till they issued a final one, because I totally agree that her argument was not one of arguable merit.
She serves in Family Court, which reminded me of something.
I don't want to ever be accused of taking up for and defending the Family Court judges, but something I wanted to point out.
There is a couple, both in pro per, who have been posting on various social media sites about how awful a certain Family Court judge is.
No disturbing specifics are offered, but they both keep posting about how they have been fighting each other non-stop in Family Court, before this same judge,for ten years.
They also complain that the various attorneys they each had over the years were totally worthless, so now they both litigate in pro per.
They both seem to generate a lot of support and sympathy from others. But before someone supports someone like that too much, perhaps three observations could be offered to them:
(1)If you have both been fighting before the same judge for 10 years, and both of you are really upset because the judge never sufficiently takes their side and lowers the boom on the other side, then stop fighting! You will never get the pound of flesh you want by persistently fighting before this judge.
2. Also, after ten years, reflect that the fault may not be in the stars, but in yourselves; and
3. If you can both agree on a major issue such as the person in control of your lives really sucks, then remove such judge from the equation and start seeing if the two of you can agree on other things.
So, again, as much as I don't have a high opinion,in general, of many judges in Family Court, I'm stating to get a better sense of all the incredible b.s. they are persistently exposed to. At least 20 years ago they could not be vilified consistently on the internet, but nowadays they can and are. Some of them must have some pretty thick skin.
Damn, Commission is going to finall6y do their job?
Sorry, blind as a bat.
Hate to take the devil's advocate position… While few may appreciate the argument advanced by J. Henry and her attorneys it is of arguable merit. The problem they identified, and rightly raised, is the inherent conflict between the constitutional provision [Art.6 Sec. 21] which established the commission and the statute [NRS 1.425 et. seq.] which was enacted by the legislature in 1995 (20 years after the passage of the constitutional amendment) to implement the constitutional amendment.
Specifically, the problem lies in the conflict between Art.6 Sec 21 definition of jurisdiction which provides: "A justice of the Supreme Court, a judge of the court of appeals, a district judge, a justice of the peace or a municipal judge may, in addition to the provision of Article 7 for impeachment, be censured, retired, removed or otherwise disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Discipline…" The legislatively enacted statute [NRS 1.428] expands the jurisdiction beyond that which is specified in Art.6 Sec 21 by attempting to define the term "judge" to include items not specified in Art.6 Sec.21 [specifically NRS 1.428(6)].
While at first blush the knee-jerk reaction is to say that the argument is ludicrous, but as a legal issue the question is really whether the legislature can expand the commission's jurisdiction beyond that which is specifically set forth and limited by the constitutional provision which created the commission. A corollary question would be if it can not expand the jurisdiction of the commission, what other legislatively created vehicles could it create to accomplish it's goal of a discipline system for judicial officers not subject to the jurisdiction of the commission.
Since the applicable statute being challenged has only existed for about 20 years [The commission itself for only about 42 years] it is not surprising that the issue is one of first impression with so few hearing masters serving to begin with and the fact that they serve at the will of the court. Prior to J. Henry if there were allegations of misconduct (whether founded or unfounded) the judges ordinarily terminated the hearing master to avoid the political risks to themselves.
The final change in the dynamic is the fact that prior to the Halverson v. Hardcastle decision, the hiring/firing decisions regarding a hearing master did not rest exclusively with the chief judge but rather a majority vote of the applicable judges (the affected division(s)). It was that decision that formalized the strong chief judge model and eliminated the say of the other judges.
Dehyle, spelling?, is a joke. He went after Almase over the Rock. More serious complaints were filed with him, and shit was down. That is on you, ass.
To:8:02. You provide a very good legal analysis, but two matters should be kept in mind despite the oversights and omissions you discuss.
1. Intent is abundantly clear. The omissions in no way were meant to imply that hearing masters are impervious to any judicial discipline merely because they are at will employees. No one would intend to exclude them from such discipline, since if excluded you could have a hearing master who is horrific and highly unethical, but is shielded by a solitary individual–a Chief Judge who chooses not to discipline the hearing master, and is the only one who could in fact discipline the hearing master if they are excluded from judicial discipline. Such a scenario would provide a hearing master far more professional protection than a judge, and no one rationally intended such a result.
2. The writ had zero damn chance of being ultimately granted. No way in Hell the NSC was going to shield hearing masters from judicial discipline, and provide them far more protection than judges. That said, attorneys at times file appeals or for writs where they have little chance of succeeding, but it is an intriguing issue which needs to be clarified, etc. And as you suggest, due to the oversight and omissions, it does need to be ultimately clarified and corrected. But, generally speaking, when you are fighting to save someone's career, or protect a professional from serious discipline, that is not the time and place to create a record of losing appellate decisions to pollute the record on behalf of your client. The ultimate experts on judicial discipline(who, admittedly, do not practice in this state) make that point abundantly clear in their writings and lectures. And sending the message that even if we lose these appeals it shows we are willing to fight, delay, and complicate matters on behalf of our clients, never works and never positions the judicial officer to obtain a better negotiated resolution. It just motivates the Commission to fight harder. In the Steve Jones case, the more he fought and lost by filing matters with courts of review, the harder and more ruthlessly the Commission fought against him.
I think the writ was reasonable. Hearing masters are employees and subject to discipline as employees up to and including firing. If there is 'shielding' it would, in theory, be no different from any other employee receiving special treatment rightly or wrongly. On the other hand, hearing masters do not receive ANY of the benefits judicial officers do: no JRS retirement, no free judicial CLE training, and no unlimited time off (masters have to put in for time off earning vacation and sick leave like any other employee). Given that masters are employees, why is it reasonable for Henry to be disciplined by the judicial commission? She was disciplined as an employee. Could she now also be subject to discipline by the State Bar? It just seems common sense to me but maybe I am missing something.
I also agree it appears the Commission goes after low hanging fruit while ignoring some rather large issues. The guardianship fiasco comes to mind.
@10:37: 8:02 here.. I can't argue with any of your points and never meant to imply that the conflict identified was intentionally created. More likely the law of unintended consequences from the drafting of a statutory scheme to give structure to the constitutionally created commission. I suspect no one recognized or gave any thought to the fact that the statute was much broader than the constitutional provision but rather just thought in terms of who exercises "judicial type" authority.
I haven't researched the issue so can't comment on whether it is a contributing factor, but the adoption or modifications to the canons of judicial conduct may have also fed into this issue as I would suspect the legislators would simply look to see who was governed by the canons and give the commission authority over the same people.
Even though the writ petition had a low probability of success, I give credit to Henry's lawyers for the Hail Mary attempt. If played well (obviously it wasn't in this case) it could have also provided a window to negotiate a resolution of the underlying complaint during the period of time that the petition was pending and both sides had some risk of an adverse ruling (much like a pending MSJ provides).
I agree with the low-hanging fruit analogy. In reading through past cases, it does seem like the majority of judicial discipline is directed at non-district court judicial officers.
I think this is because the district court judges often initiate these complaints and the commission doesn't want to offend someone who has some actual power by not pursuing those complaints. I get it.
Any word on the appointment of the next Discovery Commissioner?
Believe me or do not believe me. Those that complain about political "justice" in back room deals at Court severely underestimate what actually goes on. Unless you have clerked there (as I did), I do not believe you have any idea and do believe you would be so disheartened to know what really goes on. It is breathtaking in its obviousness and lack of even attempts at hiding it. (sorry about typos, on my cell)
Were women mishandled at the RJC? Yes, look up the law suits.
Jury room deals– the name for the rubdowns that Judges Cadish and SH Johnson used to get. Not sure if they were mishandled, but they were regularly and Swedishly manhandled.
I am glad that I am blind as a bat; hairy like a racoon.
Oh,oh. Comments are being removed.
Judges cannot be impeached. Ramsey v. City of North Las Vegas
No, judges cannot be recalled from office by a special, popularly initiated recall election. The legislature can still exercise its power of impeachment.