Scott Gragson’s attorneys, Richard Schonfeld and David Chesnoff, go to work arguing certain evidence is not admissible and that he should not have been indicted. [I-team; RJ]
Just when you thought all the alien stuff was behind us, a lawsuit has been filed. [KTNV]
A California-based landlord was indicted in downtown Las Vegas asbestos case. [Fox5Vegas]
The US Supreme Court will soon be deciding whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination. [Las Vegas Sun]
According to the small print of a legal notice, the print circulation of the RJ and Sun continues to drop. [New To Las Vegas]
Vilani is in a no-win. If he rules for the DA, he runs the risk of losing big campaign funding. If he rules for Gragson, RJ and other media will crucify him for being soft on crime.
1:16–To rule for Gragson, while barbecuing METRO for incompetence and thus essentially blaming them for the fact the court must rule for Gragson, only buys the judge a little bit of coverage. The media will still be enraged, and the D.A. will have major egg on their face if Gragson receives very light repercussions for (allegedly) getting drunk and then killing a woman.
So, the posters who say that Villani is in a horrible lose/lose situation are absolutely right. No matter how he rules there are very motivated, very well-heeled donors on either side who will contribute generously to any opponent he receives. And whichever factions are the beneficiary of his rulings will not be even one-tenth as motivated to contribute to him as the aggrieved factions will be to contribute against him. For every $500. donation a judge receives from someone who is pleased or satisfied with him/her, the opponent receives a $5,000.donation from a faction displeased with the judge.
The good news may be that he may not receive any really viable opposition. Contrary to what 2:24 notes, Villani is not one of the judges who generates a great deal of broad-based antipathy.
Guest
Anonymous
September 24, 2019 8:03 pm
Why is it that PI Plaintiff's are able to file very overdue oppositions (over a month late and right before a hearing) and still have them considered by the court?
The cynical answer is: How much did you contribute to the judge's campaign fund? How much did opposing counsel contribute?
A less cynical response is: When does the Court (if ever) look at the moving-opposing papers? Do you think the judge even noticed that the opposition was late? As long as the papers are in the file (on-line or paper) before the judge works up the file for the hearing, there is a very good chance that he/she will never notice the deadlines.
We had a hearing today where defense counsel filed motions several months late, and the court gave them a fair hearing, because it's important to rule on the merits. A procedural ruling might stand up on appeal, but better safe than sorry.
But to follow up on that… some judges will not tolerate any BS. I would not want to be the attorney that tried to slip something past Crockett a month after the deadline passed. He might still hear it, but he will not be happy about it.
It is okay for the judge to be unhappy about the situation. It is also okay for them to grant the opposing side a continuance to deal with the late pleading, as well as, imposing monetary sanctions against the offending attorney payable personally rather than by the client. What is not okay is to punish the client by taking away a substantive right because of the attorney's procedural rule violation. The client should not be punished for the sins of their attorney unless it is unavoidable.
Judges need a clue on due process rights. They exist, and they do not grant judges great latitude to violate them.
Guest
Anonymous
September 24, 2019 11:39 pm
I believe that in general, providing an opposition is in the file by the time the department reviews and briefs the case, that very few departments make an issue of it being a bit late unless an attorney raises the issue.
Remember… the key word in the rule is MAY, not SHALL. The Court should always seek to resolve matters on the merits rather than attempting to avoid work by looking for a procedural rules way out.
4:39 here. Agree with 5:23 that rules need to be followed, but 7:47 is absolutely right that the merits should be reached whenever possible and that we should not unduly extol form over substance.
So, we need to have a sense of proportion as the devil is in the details. For example, if an opposition is filed two days late, but the hearing is weeks away and the moving party has plenty of time to file a Reply if they wish, seems like no harm, no foul.
But if the hearing is on Wednesday and the opposition is filed 4:53 p.m. on Monday, we have a problem.
This is so exciting!
Schonfeld and Chesnoff are going to make some overworked DA very miserable over the next few months.
They'll also create a quagmire for some judge running for re-election and needing campaign money.
And Gragson will leak about $20-30k per month.
More like $50-$75k a month. Judge Vilani has this case. He better hope nobody challenges him.
Vilani is in a no-win. If he rules for the DA, he runs the risk of losing big campaign funding. If he rules for Gragson, RJ and other media will crucify him for being soft on crime.
Seems like the easy out is to rule for Gragson and excoriate Metro for incompetence, thereby passing the buck.
Villani just needs to be voted out – period.
Or find that the GJ proceeding was tainted and dismiss without prejudice.
Blah, blah, blah… Eglet wins
1:16–To rule for Gragson, while barbecuing METRO for incompetence and thus essentially blaming them for the fact the court must rule for Gragson, only buys the judge a little bit of coverage. The media will still be enraged, and the D.A. will have major egg on their face if Gragson receives very light repercussions for (allegedly) getting drunk and then killing a woman.
So, the posters who say that Villani is in a horrible lose/lose situation are absolutely right. No matter how he rules there are very motivated, very well-heeled donors on either side who will contribute generously to any opponent he receives. And whichever factions are the beneficiary of his rulings will not be even one-tenth as motivated to contribute to him as the aggrieved factions will be to contribute against him. For every $500. donation a judge receives from someone who is pleased or satisfied with him/her, the opponent receives a $5,000.donation from a faction displeased with the judge.
The good news may be that he may not receive any really viable opposition. Contrary to what 2:24 notes, Villani is not one of the judges who generates a great deal of broad-based antipathy.
Why is it that PI Plaintiff's are able to file very overdue oppositions (over a month late and right before a hearing) and still have them considered by the court?
Because in NV PI Plaintiff's attorneys fund Judicial reelection campaigns and the defense bar does not.
Due process. Courts are more interested in parties being heard than rules. Seeing it all across the board now.
The cynical answer is: How much did you contribute to the judge's campaign fund? How much did opposing counsel contribute?
A less cynical response is: When does the Court (if ever) look at the moving-opposing papers? Do you think the judge even noticed that the opposition was late? As long as the papers are in the file (on-line or paper) before the judge works up the file for the hearing, there is a very good chance that he/she will never notice the deadlines.
We had a hearing today where defense counsel filed motions several months late, and the court gave them a fair hearing, because it's important to rule on the merits. A procedural ruling might stand up on appeal, but better safe than sorry.
But to follow up on that… some judges will not tolerate any BS. I would not want to be the attorney that tried to slip something past Crockett a month after the deadline passed. He might still hear it, but he will not be happy about it.
It is okay for the judge to be unhappy about the situation. It is also okay for them to grant the opposing side a continuance to deal with the late pleading, as well as, imposing monetary sanctions against the offending attorney payable personally rather than by the client. What is not okay is to punish the client by taking away a substantive right because of the attorney's procedural rule violation. The client should not be punished for the sins of their attorney unless it is unavoidable.
Judges need a clue on due process rights. They exist, and they do not grant judges great latitude to violate them.
I believe that in general, providing an opposition is in the file by the time the department reviews and briefs the case, that very few departments make an issue of it being a bit late unless an attorney raises the issue.
What's the point of having rules like EDCR 2.20 if the court is just going to not follow them?
Remember… the key word in the rule is MAY, not SHALL. The Court should always seek to resolve matters on the merits rather than attempting to avoid work by looking for a procedural rules way out.
4:39 here. Agree with 5:23 that rules need to be followed, but 7:47 is absolutely right that the merits should be reached whenever possible and that we should not unduly extol form over substance.
So, we need to have a sense of proportion as the devil is in the details. For example, if an opposition is filed two days late, but the hearing is weeks away and the moving party has plenty of time to file a Reply if they wish, seems like no harm, no foul.
But if the hearing is on Wednesday and the opposition is filed 4:53 p.m. on Monday, we have a problem.
Who grants a 2 month extension? Do we not have USPS? Trains? Please explain.
Yes, what poor fucker was granted a 2 month extension? I did not even get that When I had a baby.