Operational Parity

  • Law
  • 13 people died in Las Vegas police custody in 2023. [RJ]
  • A couple faces animal cruelty charges after police discover 51 guinea pigs and rabbits in car. [RJ; News3LV]
  • County’s ordinance would devastate sidewalk vendors, opponents say. [RJ]
  • Plans for new Las Vegas airport no longer up in the air. [8NewsNow]
  • We have a second post today about Las Vegas Municipal Court primary race.
administrator
48 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Arguing in Arkansas
Guest
Arguing in Arkansas
April 3, 2024 11:19 am

Apparently Judge Gonzales is covering for Judge Denton for the next few days. Does anyone know if she is ruling on dispositive motions during that time, or is she punting to Judge Denton?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 1:07 pm

As my dad would say, “put on your leather underwear and get prepared to have your a$$ chewed” if Judge Gonzales is back. I still refuse to use her as a mediator for how awful she treated people over the years. I won’t voluntarily fund her retirement.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 1:22 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Appeared in front of her from the beginning. She is wicked smart and had little tolerance for BS or lack pf preparedness. She was always good to me and fair to my clients. Sorry you caught her ire. But, my deep experience knowing her (since 1998) tells me that its more your fault than hers.

As a practitioner she was the hardest working partner at Beckley Singleton (98-2000) and as a small firm owner, she was still the hardest worker I knew.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 1:51 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Besty Gonzalez (with a Z) was the smartest member of the 8th JD bench and it was clear appearing in her court why every big case ended up in front of her. She also loved to play favorites and seemed to consider statutes and precedent to be guidance at best. Would you rather have a brilliant judge who will rule however she wants no matter what the law says, or a dumb as a brick judge who tries to follow the law? I honestly don’t know.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 2:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

What are statutes and precedence to a judge if not guidance?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 3:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

1:07 here. I did not say she treated me that way. I was always very prepared, but I sat in her court many, many times and she was just nasty to most people. I suspect since you knew her for a long time she was nicer to you than most (and I suspect you were prepared too). I tend to agree with 1:51 below about her “consider[ing] statutes and precedent to be guidance at best. I generally prevailed in her courtroom, but I just couldn’t get over how poorly she treated people in her courtroom. She might be wicked smart (although I don’t really agree with that sentiment), but she certainly was not kind. I might be the only one, but I won’t be giving her my money for mediations when there are many options out there who were decent humans while on the bench.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 3:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I will admit to having some hesitation about her as a mediator based upon some people’s negative treatment. So i tried kind of a low stakes case (comparatively) and I felt she was very personable.

That noted i admit i was a law clerk (not hers) and had some previous repoire but I thought she had a great disposition as a mediator and i think anyone afraid of her dressing them down is doing themselves a disservice,,, unless you plan on making a half ass brief and hoping the mediator is just there to cut the opening offers in the middle.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 8:42 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I used her as a mediator, and she was terrible. Put little to no effort into trying to resolve the case. Did little more than walk proposals back and forth. I will never use her as a mediator again.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 8:51 am
Reply to  Anonymous

She was the most effective settlement judge (with Togliatti) on the entire court and implemented the settlement conference program. She is extremely effective as a mediator at ARM because she has the experience with complex business disputes but also tries really hard to relate to individual parties. I have never had a case with her at ARM that she has not settled (the same could not be said as a Business Court Settlement Judge but that was a product of the parties and not the neutral).

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 1:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I definitely disagree. I once had a client rep./attorney from a large corporation come into town for a judicial settlement conference (on the date and time the Judge had set). She gave us about 15 minutes of negotiations and then abruptly told us she had a lunch appointment and then left us sitting in her office. We were so perplexed we thought it was a joke until her marshal came in and very rudely said, “you heard her, you have to leave now.” We had only gone one round in negotiations and neither party was digging in and/or refusing to discuss settlement.

Everyone on this thread saying it is “you” for her treating people poorly sounds like abused spouses that take the blame for being abused. She was unnecessarily rude and mean (I guess unless you were her friend) – period.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 2:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Ok. Well there is one single example, with a single point of view. If true, we certainly do not know what she was going through that day or being faced with or had been told about the case prior to meeting with you.

But it certainly was not par for the course.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 2:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I agree. I did probably 15 Business Court settlement conferences with her (because with Dan Kutinac running the settlement conference program she was always the fastest to take a settlement conference). She was polite, she would stay late and she drove the parties to settle. I am not saying you did not have that experience 1:48 because I also know that she was quick to overcommit herself to obligations for court administration. But she was the most effective settlement judge for a reason.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 9:41 am
Reply to  Anonymous

The only conclusion is that both you and your OC were lukewarm in your briefs and mid-prepared.

I have used her twice and once it was a battle and we settled as a result of her whipping us into shape. I can assure you that if we had not settled, I would have cleaned up the few weak points she pointed out in my case before trial.

The second time, I was prepared and OC was not, she kicked his ass into a settlement that smoked for my clients.

Again, if you hate her, its you. . . .

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 3:27 pm

I am going to answer the OP question and then the comments below:
— She is ruling on substantive motions unless the parties indicate that there is a collateral proceeding that was commenced by Denton and then she is letting Denton continue with what he already started
–It is Gonzalez with a “z”. She was the hardest working judge on the Bench. If you were well prepared, she was your best friend (even if she hated your facts and law) because she knew your record in many cases better than you did. If you were not prepared, she could and would make you look stupid. I warned people not to bring their clients to court because she would humiliate them for not being prepared. If that applied to you, that was a “you” issue.
— She followed statutes and precedent where there was precedent to follow. With that said, she had no tolerance for crap coming down from Carson City and made it known that she had huge issues with Hardesty’s hammer. I respected her more for that.
— For someone who was at times perhaps harsh on the bench, she had a huge role in mentoring younger lawyers and in creation of resources for the poor and pro se litigants. She never shied away from trying to improve the court and the court improved due to her actions.
–Do I prefer Denton’s and Williams’s demeanor? Yes.
–Do I prefer Kishner’s demeanor? No

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 3:44 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Well said, comrade. Well said.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 10:35 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I clerked for Gonzalez, appeared before her in several cases as counsel, even testified as a witness in her courtroom. She knew her stuff. She was thorough and informed. She wasn’t shy of challenging the Supreme Court and she shouldn’t have been. She was a better jurist than perhaps all of them. She didn’t suffer fools. She didnt seem to love pro hac attorneys, and certainly had some attorneys she may have favored, at least from my generally ignorant point of view as a first-year attorney. But I wasn’t one of those favored few. She seemed to go out of her way to give me a hard time. But I certainly respect her. She would actually dismiss a case or grant summary judgment. Seemed good as a judicial mediator. As a private mediator, I don’t know enough to weigh in.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 1:41 pm

Family Court Update: Another commenter posted a few weeks ago about how the family court is filing all non-divorce custody cases as p-cases. For the unfamiliar, that means it is a paternity case and is super-sealed as in you cannot even see the case on the portal even if you type in the case number. So now the judges are in on the game and they are “converting” custody (c-cases) to p-cases to prevent ONJ and the public from observing the proceedings. For example, 2008 custody case. Clearly paternity has been established because this case has existed for 15 years. Judge unilaterally changes it to a p-case. This is manifest bad faith and an absolute abuse of discretion. Get’em Luke!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 1:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The powers that be just can’t let this alone. I would love to see the statistics regarding the number of C cases opened in the first 3 months of 2023 versus the first 3 months of 2024. This super-sealing by the clerk (yes, you clerk) is nothing more than an end run around the Falconi decision. Now, my money is on a legislative attempt to amend the statutes and seal all cases. First Amendment and court sunshine be dammed.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 2:30 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Hmmmm wonder if any connection between powerful domestic lawyers, LACSN, and OBC? This is a microcosm of what we’ve been telling you for years.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 2:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

OP here – LACSN does not want the cases sealed. All the legal aid organizations in NV filed an amicus brief in support of the Falconi writ. This is absolutely family court judges and powerful family court attorneys trying to circumvent the supreme court’s ruling. And you know if they’re fighting this hard, they have something to hide. BTW this is not brand new judges or non-family law experienced judges. This is old school family court judges who know exactly what they’re doing. A 2008 custody case obviously has paternity established. There is no excuse for that case to be “converted” to a paternity case other than a rank attempt to get around the constitution and the NV supreme court’s ruling.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 3:00 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Love the attempt to make this LACSN’s fault even though they were literally on the side of transparency.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 3:47 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Oh you poor child. Yes, the world is made of cotton candy.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 5:51 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

If people want to have issues with LACSN, have at it. Saying LACSN is on the side of sealing cases could not be more diametrically opposed to reality in this case. In fact its known that the LACSN position put LACSN at odds with Willick who is a frequent ally of LACSN.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 7:59 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Marshal “FISA Court” Willick

Alex Falconi
Guest
Alex Falconi
April 4, 2024 3:15 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

LACSN has been wonderful. They wholeheartedly backed my efforts to strike down the anti-public access statutes.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 3:24 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I doubt you’ll see a legislative attempt to try this again. The legislature’s lawyers can read the Falconi decision.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 5:27 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Where in the NRS is a “c” case even described? There is no statutory authority for C cases anywhere, they just kind of happened.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 5:50 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Where are any of the designations described? In family court most cases start with D. The last letter of the case number indicates what kind of case it is: D – divorce, C – custody, R – termination of parental rights, V – third party visitation, P – paternity. If the first letter is a T it’s a TPO case. If the first letter is an R it’s child support. If the first letter is a J it’s a juvenile/CPS case. I think that’s most of them.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 6:35 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Yes. Where in the NRS are custody cases distinguished from paternity cases?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 8:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The clerks did this. They’re out of control.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 3, 2024 8:35 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

OP here – it’s not just the clerks. A very experienced family court judge l>o<l magically converted a custody case from 2008 into a paternity case (as if paternity was really up for debate after 15 years) for the sole purpose of keeping ONJ out of the courtroom and prohibiting access to the orders.

Alex Falconi
Guest
Alex Falconi
April 4, 2024 2:10 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Sued Judge Hoskin again: 88412.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 2:38 pm
Reply to  Alex Falconi

What in the world is going with Hoskins? I am kind of surprised, as I don’t practice in Family Court, but know Chuck personally.

Alex Falconi
Guest
Alex Falconi
April 4, 2024 2:59 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

It seems like he doesn’t want news reporters covering his cases. Even in a case where neither parent objects. This isn’t really that surprising to me, it’s ingrained in the family court culture.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 3:36 pm
Reply to  Alex Falconi

Yeah but Chuck is so goshdarn reasonable, I am surprised.

Alex Falconi
Guest
Alex Falconi
April 4, 2024 3:38 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

To the old guard this is reasonable. I don’t think in his own mind he thinks there is any problem with this at all. Ultimately, I think that the family court of the future is no place for judges like this anymore. I understand they did what they could in the past but this mentality should be left in the past.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 3:41 pm
Reply to  Alex Falconi

I am of the old guard in all local Courts including F.Ct. and there is no way that this policy is reasonable under any standard. Hoskins has always been reasonable on cases and in person.

This surprises me and after well over 20 years, I am not surprised by anything anymore.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 3:13 pm
Reply to  Alex Falconi

what’s the last letter in the case number?

Alex Falconi
Guest
Alex Falconi
April 4, 2024 3:13 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

C

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 3:15 pm
Reply to  Alex Falconi

weird – it’s not coming up for me

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 3:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

it’s missing a number?

Alex Falconi
Guest
Alex Falconi
April 4, 2024 3:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

It’s super-sealed. This means even its existence is secret.

Alex Falconi
Guest
Alex Falconi
April 4, 2024 3:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You’re joking right? They hid it from the docket. I’m not sure why this is such a surprise to anyone. This has been going on for a long time.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 3:18 pm
Reply to  Alex Falconi

EJDC cases have 6 numbers in them, not 5

Alex Falconi
Guest
Alex Falconi
April 4, 2024 3:27 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The domestic case is: D-08-402901-C. The appeal is: 88412.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 3:38 pm
Reply to  Alex Falconi

Ding ding ding . . .

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 4, 2024 3:37 pm
Reply to  Alex Falconi

I found it in 10 seconds. Its a Mandamus petition with NSC.

Alex Falconi
Guest
Alex Falconi
April 4, 2024 3:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I thought they were trying to find the -C case. Yeah it is only the -C case that is super-sealed.