An FBI agent involved in busting the World Cup betting ring at Caesars acknowledged that he did not tell US Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe that the FBI had already secretly entered the villas before asking for a warrant. [RJ]
Unfortunate timing for a motion to dismiss brought by the family of a 13-year old girl who committed suicide last year. [RJ]
We’ll get a decision by the end of the year on whether the HOA scandal trial will be moved out of Las Vegas due to excessive media coverage by the RJ. [RJ]
Opening arguments are supposed to begin today in the anticipated year-long CityCenter trial after six weeks of jury selection. [KTVN] ed. Lucky jurors dodged a bullet–it settled. [8NewsNow]
In case you have forgotten the joys of law school exams, here’s a look at a recent UCLA law question that sparked outrage over its timing and content. [Above the Law Redline]
CCSD needs to fire its lawyers. Not just horrible advocacy (attacking the victim, really???) but Exhibit No. 1 to the argument "first, let's kill all the lawyers." (or whatever it was Shakespeare said)
Sure, it's unsavory to the layperson. But are you saying that, if you were defense counsel, you'd waive the issues of superseding intervening cause and comparative negligence–in a SUICIDE case?
This is a nasty business, for sure. It requires a spine and strong stomach.
CCSD first needs to fire everyone involved in this situation. As the father of a 7 year old in a public school, this story makes my stomach churn. The school receives a report of bullying and then fails to report it to the parents in spite of a requirement to do so. Then they lie to the father THREE TIMES, telling him there was no such report made? Time to clean house after that.
The Motion to Dismiss may have some legal basis, but the BS they loaded it with just makes everyone involved look even worse.
@ 8:49, not talking about waiving any arguments but presenting all viable arguments (Rule 11?) in the most effective way, keeping in mind your audience, who is a judge who likely has either a child, grandchild, or niece/nephew in the exact same age group as the victim (of bullying, not murder) was.
The only thing CCSD lawyers accomplished here was to lower their esteem (significantly) in the eyes of the court and, importantly, give plaintiffs' lawyers something to talk to the press about. Yes, the practice of law requires a spine and strong stomach. It also requires good judgment.
I will start with the disclaimer that I haven't read the full opposition only the "sound bites" in the RJ article. With that said, I don't envy the lawyers for CCSD as they have a difficult job. You have a dead child, sympathetic parents as plaintiffs, and a case containing some egregious facts that if proven (as 9:45am and the RJ article raised some of them) screams for a jury to nail your client.
Worse still is that some of these facts occurred after the suicide (i.e. lying to the father not once but three times that there was no report of a bullying incident). If that is the case, talk about something a jury will latch onto.
The MTD could have some merit and 8:49am is right, as unsavory and unpalatable this business is you have to assert the defenses for your client but 10:11am also has a great point about considering your target audience (i.e a judge who has a child or relative in the same group and/or who has undergone some bullying). I would take it one step further. Assuming you don't win the MTD, you are going to have a jury who is likely to have one or more members on it who has a child, grandchild, niece, etc., and the press on "blame the victim" will be talked about for months prior to any trial by the plaintiffs' lawyers.
I don't have a problem with the arguments in the Motion to Dismiss (hey, we're attorneys, sometimes we have to make difficult arguments) — I have a problem with the timing of the Motion. Anyone who has ever lost someone to suicide knows that certain dates become sacred. Those dates include the person's birthday and the person's date of death (which is especially difficult on the one-year anniversary).
Here, it is particularly difficult for the family because there is only one day separating the girl's birthday and the one-year anniversary of the date of death. For the D.A.'s office to serve the Motion to Dismiss on the day that falls between those two difficult dates is — at least to me — unthinkable. This was a situation where the D.A.'s office should have contacted the family's counsel; advised that it intended to file a Motion to Dismiss; explained that some of the arguments in the Motion would likely cause an emotional reaction on the part of the girl's family; and requested a 30 day extension to respond to the Complaint so that the Motion would be filed after the holidays (which is also an emotional time for a family reeling from the loss of a child).
If all of that happened and the plaintiff's counsel declined the extension, then the D.A.'s office is owed an apology and the R.J. wasted our time with the article. If that didn't happen, someone at the D.A.'s office should be fired.
Your argument assumes the the DA anticipated someone from the family would actually read the Motion to Dismiss. Because that's what clients are just dying to do, right? Wade through legal arguments? No, I put this on Allen Lichtenstein, who's never seen a situation that didn't call for a press release.
Not defending the way the arguments were presented, but people freaking out about the timing of the motion are probably not involved in litigation. And you can't assume that plaintiff's counsel would be excited about an extra 30 day extension so the motion wouldn't be filed around sensitive dates/holidays. From the article:
…“The 10th (of December) was Hailee’s birthday and the 12th was when she died, and I get this motion on the 11th.”
The family filed the lawsuit now in federal court in October, accusing the district of failing to inform them that Hailee was being bullied.
District spokeswoman Michelle Booth said the deadline for filing the motion to dismiss was Friday…"
Not sure when the last time I filed a motion to dismiss a day early was, but it looks like, if anything, the CCSD intentionally avoided filing on the 10th or 12th. When a complaint is filed 10-11 months after an event, it seems likely that the defendants' response will be required around the one-year anniversary of that event.
@ 3:00 p.m. I think your analysis is spot on. People seem to forget that once they start litigation they cannot always control it. Sometimes things that hurt or reopen wounds get brought out during litigation – that's just a fact of life. If lawsuits were ponies, rainbows, and cupcakes, they probably wouldn't be called "adversarial." I do feel for the poor girl's parents, but maybe their attorney should have the burden of preparing the client(s) for what might happen during litigation and when those things will happen so that they could have been better prepared for a motion to dismiss (no matter when it came).
The case number is 2:14-cv-02044. It's publicly available on Pacer guys. People should read it before rushing to judgment. After reading it, the newspaper article reads like a press release from Plaintiff's counsel, and though it's a sensitive subject, I think it's a tad unfair. While it's a sensitive subject and I can understand the sensitivity over the timing (and the whole matter, frankly), I don't think the motion to dismiss is extreme or outrageous. It was written by Lewis Roca attorneys.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2014 4:42 pm
Puzzled by the outrage over the UCLA exam question. Immediately thought of Brandenburg. Seems like a topical and thought provoking question regardless of what side you fall. Obviously, the students could have taken either side.
Once I got to this comment: "And this particular question places an unfair burden on African-American students to emotionally detach from still-recent acts of essentially legalized terrorism against the African-American community.", I stopped reading.
"Legalized terrorism against the African-American community"? Well, I guess that's one way of looking at what happened. There are others.
4 weeks before my father's Torts final, my brother was critically injured in a car accident. The fact pattern on the final involved a teenager being critically injured in a car accident. Did he whine to the professor? He did not. He threw up in the bathroom, then manned the fuck up and got an A on the exam. Sorry, UCLA cupcakes. You get no sympathy from me.
Maybe, and I'm just thinking out loud here, if the students can't handle that question without playing the race card, they should rethink the profession to which they are aspiring. Being a lawyer can be very demanding and demeaning (no matter your race/ethnicity). Being a lawyer so often requires you to put your personal beliefs aside and defend/prosecute on behalf of your client. The judge won't care if you are black, brown, or normal (http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/equally.asp). If students could not answer that question without resorting to immature excuses, I would not want to practice along side those students.
If you read the RedLine comments, the sole black student in his Con Law class had NO problem with the question, and anticipated the current event Q in advance of the exam because another Con Law Prof discussed the legal aspects of free speech and criminal defenses on TV before the test. Real life attorneys must deal with real life issues at work, not watered down PC versions of hand selected facts. Since the students had no problem with the test Q, it is irresponsible of the media to make a big deal out of this.
Once you've acquired a basic knowledge of American history, we can sit down and have an honest conversation about the "blacks" and the "latins", okay? Until then, GTFO.
More to the point, how do you feel about trusting your multi-million dollar litigation to people who are able to take a year out of their lives for the trial?
It was likely written by an associate at Lewis & Roca and supervised by Dan Waite and Dan Polsenberg. And it is very well written. I think the media is giving an unfair treatment of the motion. Considering they did not cite who wrote it, I wonder if the reporter even read it or just heard sound bites from advocates. Understandably, it deals with sensitive subjects at a sensitive time. But let's not pull out the pitchforks and torches just yet.
Interesting how a Nevada State Bar Board of Governor is also an associate at finalist Chisolm Wright (Dept. 3's) law firm
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2014 10:51 pm
LS&C support staff here – I can confirm staff has been advised by a senior shareholder that our severance package following the 12-31-14 dissolution will consist of "unemployment benefits". Another senior shareholder advises to cancel scheduled doctor appointment because "there might not be enough money available to pay claims," although LS&C continues to collect premiums. LS&C office manager advises "don't use flex spending account, because if your claim isn't paid by years' end, you'll have to pay it out of your own pocket" in regard to flex spend account funds collected from employee's paycheck between 1-1-14 and present. Is it just me, or is this very sketchy?
Screw that noise. If you don't use your own FSA, that money goes into LS&C's pocket. Go to town. Look, you aren't getting a severance package. They are bleeding you dry until the very last minute, and then you'll have to file for unemployment benefits, since you won't get anything from LS&C. They have to make the full amount of the FSA available from day 1 through day 365. If they have to reimburse the plan, that's their problem, not yours.
The advice given just sounds wrong on its face, though I don't know much about employee benefits. Nevertheless, I would consider the source and it would seem to be in the self-interest of the current shareholders for employees not to use any of the benefits to which they may otherwise be entitled. That seems pretty consistent with the generous severance package being provided after many people have provided years of faithful service. I doubt anyone would cry if the soon-to-be former shareholders get sued over this and lose.
Take solace in knowing that when one door closes, another one opens. I know a laid off secretary who has, in the span of 18 months, caught up on every soap opera and cable show she had missed over a 20 year period. Unfortunately, she also packed on about as many pounds and is having hip problems now. Anyway, God speed.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2014 11:08 pm
Any word on the list of volunteers to replace Kephart?
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2014 11:22 pm
As an attorney, I don't fault CCSD's attorneys for being insensitive, but I fault them for giving media hog Allen Lichtenstein an issue upon which to grandstand. If they couldn't get an extension, they should have just filed an answer and followed it with the MTD in a few weeks.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2014 11:57 pm
I think CCSD removed to federal court, so they were probably compelled to file on a certain date by the removal statutes.
CCSD needs to fire its lawyers. Not just horrible advocacy (attacking the victim, really???) but Exhibit No. 1 to the argument "first, let's kill all the lawyers." (or whatever it was Shakespeare said)
Sure, it's unsavory to the layperson. But are you saying that, if you were defense counsel, you'd waive the issues of superseding intervening cause and comparative negligence–in a SUICIDE case?
This is a nasty business, for sure. It requires a spine and strong stomach.
CCSD first needs to fire everyone involved in this situation. As the father of a 7 year old in a public school, this story makes my stomach churn. The school receives a report of bullying and then fails to report it to the parents in spite of a requirement to do so. Then they lie to the father THREE TIMES, telling him there was no such report made? Time to clean house after that.
The Motion to Dismiss may have some legal basis, but the BS they loaded it with just makes everyone involved look even worse.
@ 8:49, not talking about waiving any arguments but presenting all viable arguments (Rule 11?) in the most effective way, keeping in mind your audience, who is a judge who likely has either a child, grandchild, or niece/nephew in the exact same age group as the victim (of bullying, not murder) was.
The only thing CCSD lawyers accomplished here was to lower their esteem (significantly) in the eyes of the court and, importantly, give plaintiffs' lawyers something to talk to the press about. Yes, the practice of law requires a spine and strong stomach. It also requires good judgment.
I will start with the disclaimer that I haven't read the full opposition only the "sound bites" in the RJ article. With that said, I don't envy the lawyers for CCSD as they have a difficult job. You have a dead child, sympathetic parents as plaintiffs, and a case containing some egregious facts that if proven (as 9:45am and the RJ article raised some of them) screams for a jury to nail your client.
Worse still is that some of these facts occurred after the suicide (i.e. lying to the father not once but three times that there was no report of a bullying incident). If that is the case, talk about something a jury will latch onto.
The MTD could have some merit and 8:49am is right, as unsavory and unpalatable this business is you have to assert the defenses for your client but 10:11am also has a great point about considering your target audience (i.e a judge who has a child or relative in the same group and/or who has undergone some bullying). I would take it one step further. Assuming you don't win the MTD, you are going to have a jury who is likely to have one or more members on it who has a child, grandchild, niece, etc., and the press on "blame the victim" will be talked about for months prior to any trial by the plaintiffs' lawyers.
I don't have a problem with the arguments in the Motion to Dismiss (hey, we're attorneys, sometimes we have to make difficult arguments) — I have a problem with the timing of the Motion. Anyone who has ever lost someone to suicide knows that certain dates become sacred. Those dates include the person's birthday and the person's date of death (which is especially difficult on the one-year anniversary).
Here, it is particularly difficult for the family because there is only one day separating the girl's birthday and the one-year anniversary of the date of death. For the D.A.'s office to serve the Motion to Dismiss on the day that falls between those two difficult dates is — at least to me — unthinkable. This was a situation where the D.A.'s office should have contacted the family's counsel; advised that it intended to file a Motion to Dismiss; explained that some of the arguments in the Motion would likely cause an emotional reaction on the part of the girl's family; and requested a 30 day extension to respond to the Complaint so that the Motion would be filed after the holidays (which is also an emotional time for a family reeling from the loss of a child).
If all of that happened and the plaintiff's counsel declined the extension, then the D.A.'s office is owed an apology and the R.J. wasted our time with the article. If that didn't happen, someone at the D.A.'s office should be fired.
Your argument assumes the the DA anticipated someone from the family would actually read the Motion to Dismiss. Because that's what clients are just dying to do, right? Wade through legal arguments? No, I put this on Allen Lichtenstein, who's never seen a situation that didn't call for a press release.
Not defending the way the arguments were presented, but people freaking out about the timing of the motion are probably not involved in litigation. And you can't assume that plaintiff's counsel would be excited about an extra 30 day extension so the motion wouldn't be filed around sensitive dates/holidays. From the article:
…“The 10th (of December) was Hailee’s birthday and the 12th was when she died, and I get this motion on the 11th.”
The family filed the lawsuit now in federal court in October, accusing the district of failing to inform them that Hailee was being bullied.
District spokeswoman Michelle Booth said the deadline for filing the motion to dismiss was Friday…"
Not sure when the last time I filed a motion to dismiss a day early was, but it looks like, if anything, the CCSD intentionally avoided filing on the 10th or 12th. When a complaint is filed 10-11 months after an event, it seems likely that the defendants' response will be required around the one-year anniversary of that event.
@ 3:00 p.m. I think your analysis is spot on. People seem to forget that once they start litigation they cannot always control it. Sometimes things that hurt or reopen wounds get brought out during litigation – that's just a fact of life. If lawsuits were ponies, rainbows, and cupcakes, they probably wouldn't be called "adversarial." I do feel for the poor girl's parents, but maybe their attorney should have the burden of preparing the client(s) for what might happen during litigation and when those things will happen so that they could have been better prepared for a motion to dismiss (no matter when it came).
The case number is 2:14-cv-02044. It's publicly available on Pacer guys. People should read it before rushing to judgment. After reading it, the newspaper article reads like a press release from Plaintiff's counsel, and though it's a sensitive subject, I think it's a tad unfair. While it's a sensitive subject and I can understand the sensitivity over the timing (and the whole matter, frankly), I don't think the motion to dismiss is extreme or outrageous. It was written by Lewis Roca attorneys.
Puzzled by the outrage over the UCLA exam question. Immediately thought of Brandenburg. Seems like a topical and thought provoking question regardless of what side you fall. Obviously, the students could have taken either side.
Once I got to this comment: "And this particular question places an unfair burden on African-American students to emotionally detach from still-recent acts of essentially legalized terrorism against the African-American community.", I stopped reading.
"Legalized terrorism against the African-American community"? Well, I guess that's one way of looking at what happened. There are others.
4 weeks before my father's Torts final, my brother was critically injured in a car accident. The fact pattern on the final involved a teenager being critically injured in a car accident. Did he whine to the professor? He did not. He threw up in the bathroom, then manned the fuck up and got an A on the exam. Sorry, UCLA cupcakes. You get no sympathy from me.
Maybe, and I'm just thinking out loud here, if the students can't handle that question without playing the race card, they should rethink the profession to which they are aspiring. Being a lawyer can be very demanding and demeaning (no matter your race/ethnicity). Being a lawyer so often requires you to put your personal beliefs aside and defend/prosecute on behalf of your client. The judge won't care if you are black, brown, or normal (http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/equally.asp). If students could not answer that question without resorting to immature excuses, I would not want to practice along side those students.
If you read the RedLine comments, the sole black student in his Con Law class had NO problem with the question, and anticipated the current event Q in advance of the exam because another Con Law Prof discussed the legal aspects of free speech and criminal defenses on TV before the test. Real life attorneys must deal with real life issues at work, not watered down PC versions of hand selected facts. Since the students had no problem with the test Q, it is irresponsible of the media to make a big deal out of this.
Why are blacks so quick to play the race card? I don't see the Asians doing it at all. I'm not really sure if Latins play it.
Hey there, Skippy, looks like you're not reading the comments. 11:17 says that the one black student in the class isn't complaining.
As to your larger philosophical point…I'll tell you what. You go read this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
Once you've acquired a basic knowledge of American history, we can sit down and have an honest conversation about the "blacks" and the "latins", okay? Until then, GTFO.
Probably been watching too much Steven A. Smith on ESPN, aka Race Card guy.
How do you find jurors who are able to take a year out of their lives for the City Center trial?
More to the point, how do you feel about trusting your multi-million dollar litigation to people who are able to take a year out of their lives for the trial?
According to 8 news now the case just settled.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/27641124/breaking-news-mgm-resorts-perini-settle-harmon-tower-case
moot point as the case just settled
Who represented MGM? Perini?
They couldn't have the trial going anymore 'cuz Richard Scotti has to now go be a judge
MGM – Mark Ferrario
Perini – George Orville
I know one of those jurors works for the government. He was very unhappy he was chosen. Today, he's doing the snoopy dance.
Who are the lawyers representing CCSD? Odyssey does not reveal. Case No. A-14-708849-C?
Isn't it the DA's office?
It was likely written by an associate at Lewis & Roca and supervised by Dan Waite and Dan Polsenberg. And it is very well written. I think the media is giving an unfair treatment of the motion. Considering they did not cite who wrote it, I wonder if the reporter even read it or just heard sound bites from advocates. Understandably, it deals with sensitive subjects at a sensitive time. But let's not pull out the pitchforks and torches just yet.
CCSD has their own in-house counsel. I would guess they also contract out on some matters.
Any scoop on the City Center settlement, besides what's in the news?
Any word on who the Governor appointed to those Court of Appeals seats?
Has there been any word about this? I originally heard it was going to be announced last Friday. Any snafu's in the process?
Interesting how a Nevada State Bar Board of Governor is also an associate at finalist Chisolm Wright (Dept. 3's) law firm
LS&C support staff here – I can confirm staff has been advised by a senior shareholder that our severance package following the 12-31-14 dissolution will consist of "unemployment benefits". Another senior shareholder advises to cancel scheduled doctor appointment because "there might not be enough money available to pay claims," although LS&C continues to collect premiums. LS&C office manager advises "don't use flex spending account, because if your claim isn't paid by years' end, you'll have to pay it out of your own pocket" in regard to flex spend account funds collected from employee's paycheck between 1-1-14 and present. Is it just me, or is this very sketchy?
Sketchy as all get out. That said, I wouldn't take insurance advice from most lawyers I know.
Or office managers
Screw that noise. If you don't use your own FSA, that money goes into LS&C's pocket. Go to town. Look, you aren't getting a severance package. They are bleeding you dry until the very last minute, and then you'll have to file for unemployment benefits, since you won't get anything from LS&C. They have to make the full amount of the FSA available from day 1 through day 365. If they have to reimburse the plan, that's their problem, not yours.
The advice given just sounds wrong on its face, though I don't know much about employee benefits. Nevertheless, I would consider the source and it would seem to be in the self-interest of the current shareholders for employees not to use any of the benefits to which they may otherwise be entitled. That seems pretty consistent with the generous severance package being provided after many people have provided years of faithful service. I doubt anyone would cry if the soon-to-be former shareholders get sued over this and lose.
Take solace in knowing that when one door closes, another one opens. I know a laid off secretary who has, in the span of 18 months, caught up on every soap opera and cable show she had missed over a 20 year period. Unfortunately, she also packed on about as many pounds and is having hip problems now. Anyway, God speed.
Any word on the list of volunteers to replace Kephart?
As an attorney, I don't fault CCSD's attorneys for being insensitive, but I fault them for giving media hog Allen Lichtenstein an issue upon which to grandstand. If they couldn't get an extension, they should have just filed an answer and followed it with the MTD in a few weeks.
I think CCSD removed to federal court, so they were probably compelled to file on a certain date by the removal statutes.