- Quickdraw McLaw
- 64 Comments
- 314 Views
- Term limits still unclear, three decades after approval. [Nevada Current]
- Do you want to be on the police misconduct review panel? [RJ]
- Another body in a barrel found at Lake Mead. [Fox5Vegas]
- Sextortion is a growing problem. [KTNV]
- The Mega Millions jackpot is now over $1 billion–what’s the first thing you’d do if you won? [News3LV]
$1 Billion? Retire, bank it and live off the interest.
Off topic rant:
Can anyone explain why LVJC hasn't yet gotten the memo about NEFCR 8(a) & (b) which require that "[a]ny document electronically submitted to an EFS for filing must be automatically filed, and simultaneously served under Rule 9, upon submission," and that only "[a]fter a document is submitted, filed, and served, the clerk may review the document to determine whether it conforms to the applicable filing requirements"?
The LVJC clerks need to give up the pre-filing gatekeeping function. Them's been the rules around these here parts since at least March 2019.
They've been doing this for years. Try this: talking to a live person and quoting the rules to them.
Worked for me.
Once……. in 2019. Never since.
Judge Saragosa regularly holds bench/bar meetings. Attend and bring up the issue.
11:37, yeah, another nightmare that is the Las Vegas "Justice" "Court"–can't ever get anyone on the phone.
It actually is worse than that. Justice Court routinely files Orders but never serves them on any person. This is a big problem in eviction cases where people get locked out 24 hours later and never were told that an Order was ever even entered.
@341
Yeah. That's why its called "Summary Eviction for Non-payment of Rent". If they don't file an answer or show at the hearing that they filed for, then its entered without Notice. The 24 hr lockout is the Notice.
Even not in summary eviction cases, I've had innumerable troubles over the years with not getting served with anything that issues from that court–orders, notices of hearing, just about anything that originates internal to the court.
Any time we've actually been able to reach someone on the phone, they're convinced their system is infallible and the problem must be on my end. Not likely when they're the only court that has these sorts of problems, even if different email addresses/servers are listed on the chance one decided to blacklist stuff.
The clerks think its working as it should be, the clerks tell the judges that, and the judges don't think anything differently, the attorneys complain, and it all just goes into a circular file.
I am not aware of any lock-outs taking place without the Tenant being given advance notice. The way it is supposed to work (and the way it really does work): Court enters the Order without telling anyone. The Landlord ("L") or his attorney haunts the Justice Court website until he finds that the Order has been issued. L or atty prepares instructions for Constable and pays Constable's fees. Constable goes to the property and posts the Order. Next day, Constable shows up with locksmith and does the lock-out. Tenant might deny having notice, but I believe the Constable that the notice was posted the day before.
4:17– We are talking about cases in which the Tenant is participating.
6:30– Except in cases where the Tenant has filed a Motion to Stay or Motion to Set Aside. Stay is issued while motion under consideration. When the Justice Court fails to serve the Order Denying and never serves that Order, the tenant is locked out without any notice that the stay lifted. This is why service of orders is pretty important.
417 here
The Summary Eviction is their Notice. If they dont file a response, they lose.
Then they always have the right to stay the lockout, if they did not receive notice. The safeguards are there, T's just have to use them.
Finally, the 24 hour Notice is posted on the front frickin door. THAT is their Notice and they can get a stay issued even then. They are almost never locked out without any Notice.
4:17/8:39- Sure, except we are talking about cases in which the tenant does participate and files the stay/set aside and is never served with the Order Denying Stay/Set Aside in which case the first notice that the tenant gets is the Constable changing the locks. Or cases in which the summary eviction gets reissued. When Justice Court fails to serve orders and instead just sends them to the Constable, they are locked out without notice that the stay has been lifted.
417 here again
You are wrong. On a 24 lockout notice, the Notice is posted on the front door. If the tenant obtains an emergency stay, the lockout doesn't happen. If the Constable (and the landlord hired locksmith) show up the next day to perform the lockout and the T can hand them the stay order.
I have several rental properties and have danced this dance more times than I care to remember. Admittedly, I have had very good tenants this last 5 years or so and have not had to evict anyone. But, back the day……..
Let's just say that you haven't really partied until you have cleaned up a rental with a pissed off tenant and they leave you a "lily pad" in one of the toilets. Been granted the fees for that "clean up" and am still garnishing their paychecks on the judgment.
4:17– On this one you are wrong. You are correct in this regard: regardless of whether the tenant has appeared or not appeared, in a residential eviction, the constable serves a 24 hour lockout notice. However the tenant never is served with the Order for Summary Eviction; that usually only goes to the Landlord. So the tenant's first notice that the Order was issued is the Constable giving a 24 hour notice. The tenant can file a Motion to Stay/Set Aside. The filing of that motion serves as an automatic stay until the motion is ruled upon. So the tenant has a stay in place. The issue is that the Order on that motion virtually never gets served on the tenant (but does get sent to the constable) so the tenant does not know that their stay has been lifted and that the tenant either has to file their appeal or move out. The first notice that the tenant gets that the eviction is back on is the constable changing their locks.
It appears we may be circling around the same issue. I contend that service of the "Order for Summary Eviction" is not necessarily relevant (procedurally speaking). This, arguably, may be a flaw in the procedure from a due process standpoint. But, it is what it is.
However, the lockout notice is served and that triggers "notice" and at that point the Motion to Stay can get them a hearing and an "automatic stay".
Back in the day, they used to get a call if the Motion was denied. It doesnt surprise me that these calls arent being made by the Clerks. But, the Lockout has to be renoticed, either way. The constable wont proceed with the Lockout without providing another 24 Notice.
Well, let's see… A $1 billion win taken as a lump sum would be about $600m. Less taxes would be maybe $400m. Probably would spend about $20m like a drunken sailor within the first couple of years, invest about about $200m and live like a king off of dividends and cap gains, then establish a charitable foundation with the remaining $180m or so in order to do some good in the world while I'm still around to see it. Oh, and make an estate-planning attorney very wealthy in the process.
I would keep going in to work as an ID attorney. So much fun to be an attorney.
First thing I would do? The Chappelle's Show Oprah episode comes to mind.
The discovery office called wanting to have the discovery commissioners come give a presentation to our firm. Does that mean they think we are bad apples? Have any of you had them call your firm? What is it about?
They have done this presentation at over forty firms now, so I think no one is getting 'singled out' for being bad apples. One of the Commissioners noted that they thought this forum was more effective than going through the NV Bar for a presentation. It was actually quite an excellent presentation that i think would behoove most firms.
How big does your firm have to be to have them come?
I'm a solo working from home at least 50%. Will they come to my house?
Any chance of them doing this as a bench-bar for those who aren't at big firms?
They came to my firm and it was worthwhile.
With my $400M I'm close to @11:44a. The first ~$20M-$30M is just blown buying stuff I may or may not need, putting $200M-$250M in investments, with ~$20M going into an indexed/insured investment with restrictions that I can't cash it out so I'll be guaranteed a minimum salary my whole life just in case something gets FUBAR'd and I lose everything else. Definitely would give ~$5M each to my four siblings and mother with some similar "this changes my life" gifts to life-long friends; rest to either create a charitable foundation or distribute in chunks to different charities. Lunch time dreaming is over. Back to being the FBU.
12:56 – they are trying to see tons of firms. Want people to understand rules as they are going to start enforcing them and issuing sanctions.
First thing. Two week notice and clean my office out. Next, I'd have a nice party at Mandalay Bay Beach with sky high cold seafood towers and retain KORN to headline. I would pass out envelopes of cash to everyone as parting gifts. For charity, I would fund a Public Interest Medical Aid. I would legally change my name and have the case sealed tight. Then I would buy a house in Grand Cayman and Switzerland. I do not feel the need to collect yachts, airplanes or supercars. The nicest luxury car I would like is a convertible 911 Porsche and a Jeep to go grocery shopping. I would spend the rest of my days visiting the restaurants featured on HGTV and destinations featured on US Daily Mail. Simple.
Claim the prize under an LLC right? Lower taxes and anonymity. Then live your dream.
Can you claim the prize under an LLC? Has anyone ever done that?
I would pay off all the debts and mortgages of every family member and all of my staff. I would fund the college education of my kids and all my nieces and nephews (with the caveat that my money cannot and will not be spent at a religious school or a private school). I would cut a massive, $10M check to Three Square. I would fund scholarships. Smith Center would get some money.
Places I would not donate to:
1. Universities, even those that I attended and have warm feelings for. They are wasteful and inefficient. Giving them more money would be like giving money to a crack addict. It will only make their behavior worse.
2. Politicians. I would resist the urge to think that I could or should impose my will on our system by spending a lot of money to advance my political beliefs.
I would personally fund the reelection of Donald J. Trump.
if i hit the lotto i would buy passage of a constitutional amendment ensuring appointed judges with retention elections and term limits, i would buy adoption of a statute authorizing the admission of collateral source payment evidence. i might buy a self-driving car for every driver in nevada, but even if not, i would buy every billboard in the state and prohibit lawyers from advertising on them. i might also try to have the phone numbering system in nevada changed to add 2 digits and bar numbers with 3 or more consecutive numbers. finally, i'd lobby the bar to get rid of contingency fees or at least cap them at the equivalent rate of demonstrated hours worked on a case, billed at a market rate. in other words i would buy the honor of this profession back.
Man I am so happy that you do not now, nor will ever have the money to do ANY of those things!!! These ID FBUs are going crazy…
@209
I liked you better when you were ID guy going back to work up above.
2:09 here. Not in ID. Just have average to slightly below average IQ and basic moral compass.
Dang Gina. You in the wrong Profesh.
4:13, as to your point that the appointment process does not remove politics from the process, that is true, but, on balance, appointment is a much better process than judicial election. I believe most attorneys would agree with me.
4:18– I don't see the post at 4:13 that you are reacting to. Perhaps it was removed.
At any rate, judicial appointment process also involves politics, but it has certain layers and safeguards whereby even if you don't wind up with the best applicant being appointed, you generally don't have to worry about some total, incompetent oddball getting appointed. But in a judicial election, such folks can occasionally slip through and actually get elected.
So, granted that advocates of the judicial appointment process are wrong when they insist such process eliminates politics. It does not even come close to eliminating politics. Those with juice and connections are often well served by that process.
But weighing an balancing all the pros and cons of each approach, judicial appointment seems far superior to judicial elections.
Once you go the appointment route there will be no turning back to elections and that is the problem. Appointment system will impose so much diversity besides the gender bias in elections. Each seat will be designated members of different groups. It will be despeicable and the judges will have no more experience or qualfications than we have now. At least now they can be booted out of office by the voters. I suspect many wlll from the last election.
Huh! Appointments are pure political plays. Rarely do qualifications sway the appointment.
I would rather have a pure political play with an inherent exit strategy then the idiot LILI voters putting them in and keeping them there.
The elective system for the election of judges went down the toilet when they bottled up all the judicial candidates at once on the ballot in a Presidential Election year. That is how we got the bad judges that snuck in and lost folks like Judge Rob Bare and others. Too many names to go through. The stacking of candidates was supposed to help incumbents but it has not worked out that way. It cost about $250K to mount an effective campaign but no guarantees. The gender issue is huge now. Very hard for any male candidates to get elected.
I know people joked about this but I would keep working. 2 reasons: (1) I actually like (some of) my clients. (2) I would not want to flag that I had just won $600MM. The way to remain inconspicuous is to take the money anonymously.
Quick question for everyone that I guess I should know the answer to: I filed a Motion. Put hearing requested. Got assigned to Chambers Calendar. Needed a hearing. Just filed another motion in same case and put Hearing Oral Argument Requested. Got Chambers calendar. I thought "Hearing Requested" meant that you actually wanted and were going to get a hearing in the EJDC.
Does the judge say anything on his or her department guidelines webpage about matters that are routinely set on the chambers calendar?
I'm not sure you can or are willing to say more about the type of motion, why it needs a hearing, and the judge its before.
Maybe this is a sign some judges are deciding some things solely on the papers and not holding hearings for everything under the sun.
Hearing Requested merely means a hearing is set, could be in chambers or oral argument is entertained; the judge has the discretion to determine what happens. Even putting "Hearing Oral Argument Requested" does not necessarily help, as under the Rules, the judge has the right to decide to rule with or without argument. Not putting "Hearing Requested" does not mean the motion is put on the chambers calendar. It just results in the motion never being adjudicated, as motions are not decided unless there is some sort of hearing set (again, chambers or oral argument).
What does it mean that 5:27's motion was set for a "Chambers Calendar"? Does that mean that there will be a hearing held in chambers? Will it be reported?
It means that on that day, the judge will review the papers and hopefully render a decision. You may or may not be invited. Basically, it's like how most federal motions get decided, except that there's a day set.
@6:35p – it usually means that the motion will be reviewed and decided on the motion papers unless a party opposes it, then it'd be moved to the normal argument hearing schedule.
Thanks for your responses. It is a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, relatively important and nuanced Motion that will indubitably be the subject of appeal and need an appellate record. Hence the reason that we requested a hearing. My concern is that the decisions on hearings/chambers appear to be made in the Clerk's Office and not by the judge. Sure the judge could look at his calendar and move it to hearing calendar but this particular judge seems to not be that active or astute.
Doug Crawford Building for sale $800,000.
His house is on the market as well
Where does the fucker get the money? There has to be a side hustle.
#freethemonkeypox
#freebonniebulla
#freethechoctaco
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/education/ccsd-awarded-57k-in-fees-after-dismissal-of-mask-mandate-lawsuit-2613966/
I wonder if the brainiac team of Chattah and Gilbert advised their clients that they could be on the hook for nearly 60K in attorney's fees to the school district?
Jennifer Dorsey is back.
Show me a retainer agreement that doesnt advise the clients of that fact. Also, this will clearly be appealed again and again until its overturned.
As a fee dispute arbitrator for 15 years, there are quite a few fee agreements that do not advise clients of this fact.
Still? In this day and age? That's just stupid.
I have language to that effect in my retainer, and it is always something I review with the client both at the outset of the case, and again to use as a cudgel in the event they are wanting to give me a hard time and to ignore my advice about accepting a reasonable offer on a crap case. But honestly, I probably need to beef up the language a little bit.
Totally agreed. That section of my Retainer agreement also requires a separate initialing by the client.
Our retainer agreement advises the client they could be liable for attorneys fees and costs. We also make them initial that paragraph.
From Judge Dorsey's December 21, 2021 order in the mask case, recounting hearing proceedings on a number of motions (footnotes omitted):
"During that hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel denied the existence of a pandemic, though the World Health Organization, the White House, and the United States Supreme Court have all consistently acknowledged it. Counsel also suggested that a more stringent mask policy—one requiring the universal use of specific N95 masks—would survive constitutional scrutiny, but the current, flexible policy does not. Despite recognizing that reasonable alternatives to the mask requirements were made available to plaintiffs, counsel confirmed that they chose to send their children to schools subject to the policy and did not seek any accommodations. And counsel largely conceded that plaintiffs’ federal claims are unsupported by any case law."
I'm typically not in favor of fee-shifting but when you appear before a federal judge and deny the existence of a pandemic DURING THE ACTUAL PANDEMIC, you and your client are just asking to be made an example of. I suppose that since we will likely have an election-denier as our new secretary of state, the electorate might as well throw in a science-denier like Chattah as attorney general.
Look who is back