I dont know who the attorney is for Stout or Vegas Valley Evictions but you truly have some balls if you are willing to deal with the penalties to evict $700 a month tenants to get a 45 day jump on the CDC Moratorium ending December 31. You are either really brave or really stupid.
If a tenant doesn't give the landlord a CDC affidavit, then they can be evicted. Honestly I think it's an information deficit causing the eviction. However, if the person doing the eviction was provided the CDC affidavit and still evicted – I'd expect LACSN would step in with a lawsuit against the company.
The story says that VVE and Stout are getting CDC Declarations and proceeding anyway. The penalties for that are $100,000. I don't care how wrong you think the moratorium is (and I think its short sighted), the decision to ramrod through evictions in violation of the CDC Directive is asinine.
Guest
Anonymous
November 23, 2020 6:30 pm
Your brilliant legal scholar is named Mueller not Muller.
"A diverse group of practice areas and flexible collections helped Akerman weather the pandemic and finish its fiscal year with 6.5% more revenue than 2019, while pandemic-induced paycuts are being reversed retroactively in the form of bonuses."
law dawg deleted comments about a judicial hearing – of course it's politics, but it directly relates to the law. I truly can't believe you deleted the comments – they spoke about the process and whether Sturman should have recused. I guess this blog is going the way of social media censoring. sad
Wrong. I didn't and don't take down "negative" comments. I took down comments that called people "awful", "a disaster", "a swinger", and "a joke". Those comments swung both ways, and they were an awful disaster, no joke.
Then explain why you left the sarcastic comment about Mueller that implied he is "awful" and a "disaster"? You can't – you are clearly selectively censoring this blog. Your bias is apparent.
I missed all the namecalling, but fully support blog admin in deleting or editing anything they want. They don't make money off this, and they don't want to be exposed to legal action (no matter how meritless). If you don't like it, go start your own legal blog.
I don't disagree that the admin can delete anything. I'm calling out their bias in what they delete. Selectively deleting comments is bias. Leaving trash talk about some lawyers, some people, some judges – and not others – is bias. The comments about Mueller went on last week too. Many lawyers are called out by name here. Some comments remain, some are deleted. The name calling was in reference to a state court hearing this morning. But no one called anyone a name that I saw, rather they characterized the judgment and conduct of those involved – as "awful," a "disaster," and a "joke." I missed the swinger reference.
Rodimer's case got reassigned to Atkin. But a little birdie told me that one of the firms that donated to Atkin's campaign employs a paralegal whose little brother attended a meeting of the UNLV Young Democrats in 2013, so a motion to disqualify is coming down the pipe.
I dont know who the attorney is for Stout or Vegas Valley Evictions but you truly have some balls if you are willing to deal with the penalties to evict $700 a month tenants to get a 45 day jump on the CDC Moratorium ending December 31. You are either really brave or really stupid.
If a tenant doesn't give the landlord a CDC affidavit, then they can be evicted. Honestly I think it's an information deficit causing the eviction. However, if the person doing the eviction was provided the CDC affidavit and still evicted – I'd expect LACSN would step in with a lawsuit against the company.
So we are just going to pretend that there's no significant Constitutional issue of a CDC eviction moratorium?
Are we just going to pretend a tenant doesnt have to pay rent?
Sat Cong
The story says that VVE and Stout are getting CDC Declarations and proceeding anyway. The penalties for that are $100,000. I don't care how wrong you think the moratorium is (and I think its short sighted), the decision to ramrod through evictions in violation of the CDC Directive is asinine.
Your brilliant legal scholar is named Mueller not Muller.
https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/04/28/akerman-implements-layoffs-and-pay
About the Akerman layoffs. Only two partners in Vegas now?
That is from April. I know Brenner left. Are things continuing to bleed?
Brutal. Once in a low moment I applied for a job there. Thank Christ I didn't get the nod.
Am I missing something? According to https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/11/12/akerman-closes-2020-fiscal-year-with-record-revenue/
Akerman had a huge year, are reversing all of the cuts in the form of bonuses and are going to grow. This is as of 11 days ago.
Dead link
Link works for me – copy and paste it into a browser.
https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/11/12/akerman-closes-2020-fiscal-year-with-record-revenue/
Who said something negative about Akerman? Only the brightest and nicest people work there
"A diverse group of practice areas and flexible collections helped Akerman weather the pandemic and finish its fiscal year with 6.5% more revenue than 2019, while pandemic-induced paycuts are being reversed retroactively in the form of bonuses."
It's an article from April, and since then they've reversed all changes. Man, WTF are you doing here? Trying to make Akerman look good?
We have to stop with the name-calling.
Hear Hear. And how about laying off politics for a day, or maybe for this week. We've all had enough.
law dawg deleted comments about a judicial hearing – of course it's politics, but it directly relates to the law. I truly can't believe you deleted the comments – they spoke about the process and whether Sturman should have recused. I guess this blog is going the way of social media censoring. sad
How is it that you left the negative comments about Mueller but not Sturman? unreal. law.dawg is a democrat/liberal censorship czar
Wrong. I didn't and don't take down "negative" comments. I took down comments that called people "awful", "a disaster", "a swinger", and "a joke". Those comments swung both ways, and they were an awful disaster, no joke.
Then explain why you left the sarcastic comment about Mueller that implied he is "awful" and a "disaster"? You can't – you are clearly selectively censoring this blog. Your bias is apparent.
If you don't like it go to parler.
I missed all the namecalling, but fully support blog admin in deleting or editing anything they want. They don't make money off this, and they don't want to be exposed to legal action (no matter how meritless). If you don't like it, go start your own legal blog.
I don't disagree that the admin can delete anything. I'm calling out their bias in what they delete. Selectively deleting comments is bias. Leaving trash talk about some lawyers, some people, some judges – and not others – is bias. The comments about Mueller went on last week too. Many lawyers are called out by name here. Some comments remain, some are deleted. The name calling was in reference to a state court hearing this morning. But no one called anyone a name that I saw, rather they characterized the judgment and conduct of those involved – as "awful," a "disaster," and a "joke." I missed the swinger reference.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Rodimer's case got reassigned to Atkin. But a little birdie told me that one of the firms that donated to Atkin's campaign employs a paralegal whose little brother attended a meeting of the UNLV Young Democrats in 2013, so a motion to disqualify is coming down the pipe.
Won't he have to recuse for the same reason Bare did–because he lost?
This comment has been removed by the author.