The civil cases against Scott Gragson are being consolidated. [I-Team]
Glen Lerner is suing for trademark infringement with regard to his “One call, that’s all slogan.” Lerner claims he has spent $40 million in advertising with the slogan since first using it in 1998. The infringing slogan is “One call…does it all.” [Law360–sub. req’d.]
The State and MoneyTree face off in court over “refinancing” high interest loans. [TNI]
AG Aaron Ford says Nevada won’t accept the proposed Purdue Pharma settlement. [Las Vegas Sun]
For AG Aaron Ford, the ultimate question will always be, "What is best for Eglet Adams?" That is the problem will being a puppet.
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2019 4:09 pm
Can we please do away with the need for wet signatures in this day and age? Can someone provide a rationale explanation for the need for wet signatures?
I will always have my Clients' sign documents (especially declarations) as it prevents malpractice, prevents others from knowing and/or unknowingly commit fraud and keeps the Clients informed. If I have an attorney's authority to use their electronic signature on an order or stip, then I agree that should be enough provided it is not a declaration.
Client signatures are obviously a different issue. Requiring an attorney's wet signature on an Order that's going to be e-filed and shredded is…pointless.
I believe this is why you need a wet signature. See NEFCR 11
(c) Documents Requiring Signatures of Other Persons.
(1) When a document to be submitted electronically, such as a stipulation, requires the signatures of any other parties or persons, the party submitting the document must first obtain the signatures of the required parties or persons on a printed form of the document.
(2) The printed document bearing the original signatures must be scanned and submitted in a format that accurately reproduces the original signatures and contents of the document.
(3) By submitting the document, the filer attests that the documents and signatures are authentic.
NEFCR Rule 11(c) requires original signatures on multi-signatory documents, which then requires scanning and e-filing. It's a stupid rule. Compare that to D. Nev. LR IC 5-1(c)-(d), which require the e-filer simply to obtain consent to use an e-signature. The federal district court rule is better.
Is OP complaining about the need to actually sign then physically mail a wet signature, or the inability to use e-signatures? Yeah, certain times an e-signatures isn't appropriate, but aren't we to the point where it's established that scanned versions of a signature page are no different than the original wet version? Are people still making this an issue?
10:48 some judges still require real, original signatures on orders. Some offices I deal with also insist on original signatures being delivered, even when I authorize them to e-sign for me or try to send them a scan.
OP here. Yes I think we can all agree that original wet signatures on certain docs are necessary, for example declarations and settlement agreements. The need for wet signatures on stipulations is a waste of time, money and effort. I suspect that if we went down to the court and asked to see the original of any stipulation that had been filed they would think we were crazy. An exchange of email: "Hey, draft stip attached, please provide modifications and/or authorize me to affix you e-signature" should suffice.
Re 12:27 PM – Sounds like a problem for the attorney that signed without authorization. No reason the rest of us to suffer because of one bad apple. The bad apple should suffer, seriously suffer.
@4:34p – The one I saw was an attorney was not getting ink signatures from clients before filing their bankruptcy petition, and her paralegal was forging client's signatures on some documents without the client's consent or knowledge. She was ordered to refund their money, including the filing fees that were paid, and pay the trustee $750 per case for his work bringing this to the judge's attention. Bad situation all around.
you don't. you can get summonses electronically issued when you file complaint.
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2019 4:11 pm
I'm the last person in the world who would ever want to be accused of defending a heavily advertising P.I. attorney(in this case, saturation level advertising). So, I'm a little upset, disappointed and surprised at myself for actually taking up for one on this matter.
However, "One call…does it all" is eerily similar to "One Call. That's All."
Too close to be a coincidence IMO.
Can't speak to whether he will satisfy all the elements,or create a clear nexus, or establish to what extent any of this harms or drains business from him, or whatever is at issue in this matter.
Also, good luck winning a jury's sympathy when one multimillionaire advertising attorney sues another (presumably very successful) advertising attorney. Perhaps the main purpose will be to reach a settlement where the defendant agrees to stop using the slogan.
But with all those qualifiers and observations in place, it still sounds too close to be coincidental.
As I recall, he abandoned "The Heavy Hitter", because the state bar said it created unrealistic expectations and amounted to improper advertising. The NSB made him stop using it, in favor of the more benign ("A Heavy Hitter")
I watched her handle “interesting” hearings the other day. She had a good temperament, was thoughtful and reached a decision that was probably the right decision, even if legally infirm on a motion to dismiss. Obviously she read everything, did her own research and was on time. On balance, I was impressed
The reasoning rests on the fact that a defendant is at jeopardy of not being able to bear arms if the defendant is convicted. Being ineligible to keep guns after a conviction renders the crime serious for purposes of the jury trial right.
Most DV cases will go away now if the State has to impanel a jury and conduct a jury trial. The victim will not cooperate. In the previous system, they would coerce pleas because the judge would likely find them guilty. If they extend jury trials to DUI/DWIs, you would see most of those cases plead down to a non DUI/DWI. A conviction for domestic violence has horrible consequences beyond just the ability to purchase or keep guns. However, with a domestic violence conviction, they could "Red Flag" any firearms on a complaint. With a domestic violence conviction (misdemeanor), it is hard to get a job with a casino and probably even UBER or LYFT. You can't pass a background check. Once the police are called to a DV situation, someone usually the male perpetrator is getting arrested and booked on charges.
What is the practical effect for the Municipal Court? I don't remember, but I believe that only a few Muni court room have a jury box. I do know that there are a whole lot of DV and DUI cases going through Muni, and every verdict or guilty plea or stip involves an order prohibiting a gun in the residence. A jury trial demand in every Muni DV case seems like a good Defense tactic.
HODL here, the court didn't rule the right to bear arms made it serious as federal law already had that penalty. It was the addition of the same exact penalty under state law that now magically makes it "serious." That part of the opinion feels really thin. But here we are, so the practical effect is likely yes jury demands galore. It's possible the filings will move away from the city and towards the county. Or, the city can start holding jury trials apparently. Don't forget the joy this will bring to rural counties as well!
None of the municipal courts in the state conduct jury trials. In fact, their courtrooms are not set up for jury trials. There will be a fiscal impact to all cities in the state and it will be substantial to the cities in the rural counties that have very little money to retrofit their respective courtrooms for jury trials. I think the best solution is for DV cases to be filed in the justice courts that are already required to have jury trials for civil cases.
Another fun consideration, there isn't express statutory authority to pay jurors in municipal court, see NRS 6.150, probably because no one ever contemplated muni courts holding jury trials. This is probably going to be a mess for a while.
And, the newly planned LV Muni Court building has only 6 court rooms 1 for each of the existing Judges) + 1 for traffic court. No room for expansion as the City population increase or, as here, for increased work load for jury trials.
If the DV jury trials go to Justice Court, then we will need at least two additional JPs (and more court rooms).
I don't think it will be fun for Deputy City Attorneys and Deputy DA's to prosecute these DV cases. If the victim recants which happens a lot, the cases will be dismissed.
4:33, also, muni court buildings don't have additional rooms that can be used for initial instructions for the entire jury pool or jury deliberations after a trial. There are going to be serious space issues at muni courts across the state. Also, cities don't have a jury commissioner and really have no way of securing a jury pool in the short term. This is going to be messy.
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2019 8:56 pm
State Bar sends an Update: "State Bar of Nevada Job Opening: Assistant Bar Counsel. . . .To be considered for the position, applicants must be licensed Nevada attorneys with a minimum of 10 years of litigation experience." You mean when Hooge hired his buddy from Lincoln County Shain Manuele, who had only been a member of the Bar for 3 years that wasn't OK? You mean when Matt Carlyon got hired by OBC 5 years out of law school that was a bad idea? You mean when Hooge got hired for head of the OBC with only 10 years of experience in the rurals and none in private practice, we should have paid closer attention?
The irony of the State Bar's newsletter today was that right below the ad for Assistant Bar Counsel was a notice for a class. "This seminar will provide attendees with knowledge on how to better be aware of the people and environment around them and address ways to defend, scale down or mitigate an active attacker or other potential issue before it escalates." Wonder if they will teach us how to disarm the knuckleheads in their own office?
For AG Aaron Ford, the ultimate question will always be, "What is best for Eglet Adams?" That is the problem will being a puppet.
Can we please do away with the need for wet signatures in this day and age? Can someone provide a rationale explanation for the need for wet signatures?
There isn't one. Requiring a wet signature is a waste of everyone's time and money.
I will always have my Clients' sign documents (especially declarations) as it prevents malpractice, prevents others from knowing and/or unknowingly commit fraud and keeps the Clients informed. If I have an attorney's authority to use their electronic signature on an order or stip, then I agree that should be enough provided it is not a declaration.
Client signatures are obviously a different issue. Requiring an attorney's wet signature on an Order that's going to be e-filed and shredded is…pointless.
Agreed with you. Hopefully everyone else agrees about Client's signatures; even though I am sure that some folks fail to get them signed.
Not all of the departments require all wet signatures, some allow electronic signatures.
I believe this is why you need a wet signature. See NEFCR 11
(c) Documents Requiring Signatures of Other Persons.
(1) When a document to be submitted electronically, such as a stipulation, requires the signatures of any other parties or persons, the party submitting the document must first obtain the signatures of the required parties or persons on a printed form of the document.
(2) The printed document bearing the original signatures must be scanned and submitted in a format that accurately reproduces the original signatures and contents of the document.
(3) By submitting the document, the filer attests that the documents and signatures are authentic.
NEFCR Rule 11(c) requires original signatures on multi-signatory documents, which then requires scanning and e-filing. It's a stupid rule. Compare that to D. Nev. LR IC 5-1(c)-(d), which require the e-filer simply to obtain consent to use an e-signature. The federal district court rule is better.
Is OP complaining about the need to actually sign then physically mail a wet signature, or the inability to use e-signatures? Yeah, certain times an e-signatures isn't appropriate, but aren't we to the point where it's established that scanned versions of a signature page are no different than the original wet version? Are people still making this an issue?
10:48 some judges still require real, original signatures on orders. Some offices I deal with also insist on original signatures being delivered, even when I authorize them to e-sign for me or try to send them a scan.
OP here. Yes I think we can all agree that original wet signatures on certain docs are necessary, for example declarations and settlement agreements. The need for wet signatures on stipulations is a waste of time, money and effort. I suspect that if we went down to the court and asked to see the original of any stipulation that had been filed they would think we were crazy. An exchange of email: "Hey, draft stip attached, please provide modifications and/or authorize me to affix you e-signature" should suffice.
The Young Lawyers chair wrote an article on this issue a few months back. Sums up well why e-signatures should be the norm.
https://www.nvbar.org/nvlawyermagazine/june-2019/
Akerman signed something without my consent. Unethical. Wet signatures all the way.
Putting on my constable hat, I always insist on a judge's wet signature for a civil bench warrant.
Re 12:27 PM – Sounds like a problem for the attorney that signed without authorization. No reason the rest of us to suffer because of one bad apple. The bad apple should suffer, seriously suffer.
I heard this issue was recently raised in bankruptcy court. Any bankruptcy attorneys have the scoop?
@4:34p – The one I saw was an attorney was not getting ink signatures from clients before filing their bankruptcy petition, and her paralegal was forging client's signatures on some documents without the client's consent or knowledge. She was ordered to refund their money, including the filing fees that were paid, and pay the trustee $750 per case for his work bringing this to the judge's attention. Bad situation all around.
Sounds like a paralegal just lost her job or his job. I hope it was only a single instance; but if there was one, likely a lot more.
Similarly, why do we still need to have summonses physically issued by the clerk's office?
you don't. you can get summonses electronically issued when you file complaint.
I'm the last person in the world who would ever want to be accused of defending a heavily advertising P.I. attorney(in this case, saturation level advertising). So, I'm a little upset, disappointed and surprised at myself for actually taking up for one on this matter.
However, "One call…does it all" is eerily similar to "One Call. That's All."
Too close to be a coincidence IMO.
Can't speak to whether he will satisfy all the elements,or create a clear nexus, or establish to what extent any of this harms or drains business from him, or whatever is at issue in this matter.
Also, good luck winning a jury's sympathy when one multimillionaire advertising attorney sues another (presumably very successful) advertising attorney. Perhaps the main purpose will be to reach a settlement where the defendant agrees to stop using the slogan.
But with all those qualifiers and observations in place, it still sounds too close to be coincidental.
Lerner is likely well versed on this issue. Isn't that why he abandoned the "Heavy Hitter" campaign . . . because someone else claimed it was theirs?
As I recall, he abandoned "The Heavy Hitter", because the state bar said it created unrealistic expectations and amounted to improper advertising. The NSB made him stop using it, in favor of the more benign ("A Heavy Hitter")
That's my recollection anyway.
In the #MeToo era, "heavy hitter" seems like it could be sending the wrong message to a certain clientele.
Has anyone appeared before Judge Bluth? Overall thoughts?
I watched her handle “interesting” hearings the other day. She had a good temperament, was thoughtful and reached a decision that was probably the right decision, even if legally infirm on a motion to dismiss. Obviously she read everything, did her own research and was on time. On balance, I was impressed
So she's in the minority?
I miss Tim Kelly.
Miss Tim Kelly, please tell me that is a joke.
Went to law school with her, she was smart and genial then. Haven't been before her yet though.
NVSC just issued a ruling that individuals arrested for a misdemeanor domestic violence charge has a right to a jury trial.
The reasoning rests on the fact that a defendant is at jeopardy of not being able to bear arms if the defendant is convicted. Being ineligible to keep guns after a conviction renders the crime serious for purposes of the jury trial right.
Most DV cases will go away now if the State has to impanel a jury and conduct a jury trial. The victim will not cooperate. In the previous system, they would coerce pleas because the judge would likely find them guilty. If they extend jury trials to DUI/DWIs, you would see most of those cases plead down to a non DUI/DWI. A conviction for domestic violence has horrible consequences beyond just the ability to purchase or keep guns. However, with a domestic violence conviction, they could "Red Flag" any firearms on a complaint. With a domestic violence conviction (misdemeanor), it is hard to get a job with a casino and probably even UBER or LYFT. You can't pass a background check. Once the police are called to a DV situation, someone usually the male perpetrator is getting arrested and booked on charges.
I wonder what the experience has been in other states that have already been holding jury trials in misdemeanor DV cases.
What is the practical effect for the Municipal Court? I don't remember, but I believe that only a few Muni court room have a jury box. I do know that there are a whole lot of DV and DUI cases going through Muni, and every verdict or guilty plea or stip involves an order prohibiting a gun in the residence. A jury trial demand in every Muni DV case seems like a good Defense tactic.
HODL here, the court didn't rule the right to bear arms made it serious as federal law already had that penalty. It was the addition of the same exact penalty under state law that now magically makes it "serious." That part of the opinion feels really thin. But here we are, so the practical effect is likely yes jury demands galore. It's possible the filings will move away from the city and towards the county. Or, the city can start holding jury trials apparently. Don't forget the joy this will bring to rural counties as well!
None of the municipal courts in the state conduct jury trials. In fact, their courtrooms are not set up for jury trials. There will be a fiscal impact to all cities in the state and it will be substantial to the cities in the rural counties that have very little money to retrofit their respective courtrooms for jury trials. I think the best solution is for DV cases to be filed in the justice courts that are already required to have jury trials for civil cases.
Another fun consideration, there isn't express statutory authority to pay jurors in municipal court, see NRS 6.150, probably because no one ever contemplated muni courts holding jury trials. This is probably going to be a mess for a while.
And, the newly planned LV Muni Court building has only 6 court rooms 1 for each of the existing Judges) + 1 for traffic court. No room for expansion as the City population increase or, as here, for increased work load for jury trials.
If the DV jury trials go to Justice Court, then we will need at least two additional JPs (and more court rooms).
I don't think it will be fun for Deputy City Attorneys and Deputy DA's to prosecute these DV cases. If the victim recants which happens a lot, the cases will be dismissed.
4:33, also, muni court buildings don't have additional rooms that can be used for initial instructions for the entire jury pool or jury deliberations after a trial. There are going to be serious space issues at muni courts across the state. Also, cities don't have a jury commissioner and really have no way of securing a jury pool in the short term. This is going to be messy.
State Bar sends an Update: "State Bar of Nevada Job Opening: Assistant Bar Counsel. . . .To be considered for the position, applicants must be licensed Nevada attorneys with a minimum of 10 years of litigation experience." You mean when Hooge hired his buddy from Lincoln County Shain Manuele, who had only been a member of the Bar for 3 years that wasn't OK? You mean when Matt Carlyon got hired by OBC 5 years out of law school that was a bad idea? You mean when Hooge got hired for head of the OBC with only 10 years of experience in the rurals and none in private practice, we should have paid closer attention?
The irony of the State Bar's newsletter today was that right below the ad for Assistant Bar Counsel was a notice for a class. "This seminar will provide attendees with knowledge on how to better be aware of the people and environment around them and address ways to defend, scale down or mitigate an active attacker or other potential issue before it escalates." Wonder if they will teach us how to disarm the knuckleheads in their own office?
Have no faith in the OBC at all.
Did anyone else hear about a bar fight last weekend involving an emissary of Boyd '13?
Nope and I don't care.
Nope, do tell.
I bet Boyd '13 won that fight, as usual.