Thousands of voters were not counted because of invalid signatures and failure to cure—a look at the process of validating the mail-in ballots. [TNI]
An ex parte writ of mandamus seeks to have DETR pay unemployment claims and sort out later where the funds come from. [TNI]
A tortoise abuse case in Nye County could go before a jury. [RJ]
The clock is ticking on Nevada’s eviction moratorium. Will Governor Sisolak extend it? [KTNV]
The special legislative session to fix the budget will not happen until next month now. [Nevada Appeal]
Tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. is the Board of Governors’ State of the Bar Zoom meeting. This is your chance to hear from the Board on a variety of topics. You can sign up here.
I feel pretty confident about Nevada's mail-in voting process. My sole question is whether the signature checkers had available to them a voter's party designation. If so, that would make me less confident about the process. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
When your vote is counted, you are marked off of the 'has not yet voted' list with the NVSOS. That list is made available to all candidates that way they can target their calls, emails, texts, mailings, and other promotional materials to those who haven't yet voted and not waste their funds on someone who has already voted and whose decision cannot be changed.
I feel like the candidates didn't get that fucking memo. I voted and continued to get knocks on the door, texts, calls, and other solicitation.
To those of you running for things now and in the future: I am going to vote the way I was going to vote prior to all that stuff (especially the text messages). If I was on the fence and you inundate me with that stuff… Welp, I am probably going to vote the other way.
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2020 5:28 pm
I am a lawyer in town and am suffering miserably with COVID-19. Anyone else going through the same. Just wondering how other lawyers in the community are coping with COVID-19. My office has been physically closed since March, but despite precautionary measures, my family and I are suffering through this hell.
I'm losing my mind and I find less people willing to admit they are as well. I have a few close friends and we joke nightly, while drinking heavily – too much. The civil unrest has compacted the stress. I find my mind racing, yet I'm unable to focus. I try to pour myself into at least one work project a day of substance and that helps my focus – and when i say one i mean, a brief, or reviewing documents and depositions pushing matters along. Of course we all do more than that. So- know you're not the only one even if no one will admit it! I'm also stressing about the financial stability of my office. We all bill time and the hours are down probably 10 to 15 percent. I worry about pay cuts and layoffs, yet the fear isn't enough to motivate me to bill more hours. It's almost crippling to be in this COVID19/Civil Unrest hell.
10:35 – I hear you and can relate. I am fortunate because I have the keys to my office, and even though we were and are still physically closed, I am able to go to the office everyday and continue to work (ignoring "woke squad" calls to the contrary). You will start feeling better soon, since as of July 1 you can be a real lawyer again, take depositions, go to Court, compel discovery, etc. I am hopeful it will be getting back to normal soon, but I share your concerns. I too am drinking too much…… I think many of us are.
I echo everything you've said, 10:35 AM. This is already a stressful profession. The pandemic, isolation and social unrest only compound the depression and anxiety that seem to be endemic to this profession. Re: "I try to pour myself into at least one work project a day." I completely agree with this. I love it when I get in the "zone" and "flow" and completely lose myself in a project, forgetting about the outside world. I'm not a drinker, so this is one of the tools I am using right now to keep my sanity. Thanks for speaking up 10:35 AM, it's nice to know there are others struggling with the same thing.
10:49 AM, I don't think "normal" lawyering is coming back anytime soon, even if the courthouse opens back up.
I, too, try my best to accomplish one substantive task per day, but even that is sometimes too much for me. I definitely feel the same as 10:35.
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2020 5:41 pm
I own tortoises, and a variety of other animals, so I am perturbed by the tortoise abuse case and am pleased that guy is being prosecuted.
But that said, it does not necessary appear to be a case of intentional sadism, or even extreme neglect.
It sounds like there might be a mental illness in operation and/or the guy is simply incredibly stupid. He drills a hole in the tortoise's shell in order to be able to connect a lease to the tortoise.
I could very well be wrong, and he may have intended to torture the animal. And I recognize that even if there were no direct intention to inflict pain or torture, that a successful animal abuse case can be sustained.
But does it seem to you guys that this guy is simply moronic and/or quite emotionally disturbed? If so, his attorney presumably will attempt to argue those matters as some mitigation.
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2020 6:17 pm
I am positive that all of the BOG trolls on this blog will be logging into the meeting so their voices can be heard. No expensive travel, lots of interesting stuff. You will all be there right?
BOG trolls? Thanks, Terry Coffing. You are the troll.
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2020 6:17 pm
I stand with Bubba Wallace.
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2020 6:42 pm
10:41–yes, the tortoise owner appears incredibly stupid, which is also a problem shared by some posters who act shocked that these bad judges keep getting re-elected. I am talking about posters who insist that we vote out certain judges two days after they were just re-elected to a new six-year term. My advice as to how to handle such matters in the future:
1. If you find a judge dreadful, then either run against them or at least financially contribute to a viable candidate who is running against them. If no viable candidate emerges, then try, with others, to recruit one and then support him/her to the best extent reasonable possible.
2. If they get re-elected because they are either unopposed, or opposed by token opposition who almost no one contributes to, then don't post that we need to "vote them out" after you did jack to either run against them or recruit or contribute to someone viable, and thus they just got re-elected.
Same thing on the national level. If you don't like the President, for example, campaign in your own little way for his opponent. Don't wait till the day after he is re-elected and then say "don't re-elect the President" or "impeach the President."
No, I'm not taking a positon on that race, but just using an example to hopefully make a point.
Please stop asking us to vote out judges who just got re-elected without opposition, or re-elected due to weak, token, unfunded opposition.
Bad judges will almost always be reelected. Why? because campaign contributions come mainly from lawyers and law firms, and of course are public. These bad judges may attract opponents who are well-qualified good people (e.g. Jim Cavanaugh or Alex McLeod in the Israel race), but not the kind of people with enough money to meaningfully self-finance or with the "star power," or whatever you want to call it, that is necessary to overcome the built-in advantages of incumbency. We all complain about some of these judges, but the opposition they are able to attract consists mostly of underfunded candidates who lack name-recognition. And I intend no disrespect to those who put their hat in the ring and honorably ran the best races they could. It's more than I did, as I sit here at my keyboard pontificating.
12:45, as 11:42 just emphasized, what good does it say to "vote them out" days after they were just handed a new six-year term due to public apathy, as well as attorney apathy?
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2020 7:06 pm
11:42, I hope you recognize there are some awful judges who don't deserve to serve.
That being said, I have noticed that trend–vote out these or those judges, just after they have been re-elected.
So, yes, those people are about as intelligent as the guy who thought he could drill a hole in a tortoise's shell in order to attach a leash.
But seems like this tortoise guy is getting prosecuted more harshly than some people who abuse children much worse than this tortoise was tortured.
Guest
Anonymous
June 24, 2020 1:22 am
Do you have to obtain the other party's consent or leave of the court to file a crossclaim when you try to file the crossclaim more than 14 days after you filed your answer?
I always thought you did, but opposing counsel just filed a crossclaim 6 months into the case, but prior to our Scheduling Order deadline, without doing either.
When I called him about it, he said that there is no such requirement for crossclaims. His argument:
-There is no timeline for crossclaims under NRCP 13(g); and
-NRCP 15(a)(2)is not applicable [In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires] because he's not amending his answer and a crossclaim is not recognized as a pleading under NRCP 7(a) [Only these pleadings are allowed: (1) a complaint;(2) an answer to a complaint;(3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim;(4) an answer to a crossclaim;(5) a third-party complaint;(6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and(7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.]
I've always obtained consent from other parties or leave from court, and every other party I've seen before has done it that way too. But he seems right. Thoughts?
They need the court’s leave and they need to get it by motion. NRCP 14(a)(1): “Timing of the Summons and Complaint. A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, file a third-party complaint against a nonparty, the third-party defendant, who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it. But the third-party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court’s leave to file the third-party complaint if it files the third-party complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer. A summons, the complaint, and the third-party complaint must be served on the third-party defendant, or service must be waived.”
There may be no explicit timeline for a crossclaim under Rule 13(g), but a crossclaim must be stated in a pleading. ("A pleading may state as a crossclaim…"). A crossclaim is usually asserted in an answer, and an answer is a pleading. Because a crossclaim must be asserted in a pleading, to assert one after the party's answer is already on file would be to amend a pleading. Thus, Rule 15(a)(2) does apply.
"Because Rule 13(g) does not impose any time limitations on the filing of cross-claims, once the parties have filed their initial pleadings, any motion to amend those pleadings and file a cross-claim must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15." Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411, 431 (7th Cir. 1992).
I guess the Court concluded NRS 338.200 doesn't apply to it, to the courthouse, or doesn't apply in these circumstances because the building won't actually be named until after Hardesty retires. FWIW, Hardesty did recuse.
I feel pretty confident about Nevada's mail-in voting process. My sole question is whether the signature checkers had available to them a voter's party designation. If so, that would make me less confident about the process. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
The ballots were different depending on the party.
But the signature is on the envelope and the ballot is inside another envelope
I started getting texts from April Becker, asking me for money. She thanked me for voting, wtf?????
When your vote is counted, you are marked off of the 'has not yet voted' list with the NVSOS. That list is made available to all candidates that way they can target their calls, emails, texts, mailings, and other promotional materials to those who haven't yet voted and not waste their funds on someone who has already voted and whose decision cannot be changed.
I feel like the candidates didn't get that fucking memo. I voted and continued to get knocks on the door, texts, calls, and other solicitation.
To those of you running for things now and in the future: I am going to vote the way I was going to vote prior to all that stuff (especially the text messages). If I was on the fence and you inundate me with that stuff… Welp, I am probably going to vote the other way.
I am a lawyer in town and am suffering miserably with COVID-19. Anyone else going through the same. Just wondering how other lawyers in the community are coping with COVID-19. My office has been physically closed since March, but despite precautionary measures, my family and I are suffering through this hell.
Do you mean you are suffering from the actual illness, or suffering from the economic effects of it? Hope you're well.
I'm losing my mind and I find less people willing to admit they are as well. I have a few close friends and we joke nightly, while drinking heavily – too much. The civil unrest has compacted the stress. I find my mind racing, yet I'm unable to focus. I try to pour myself into at least one work project a day of substance and that helps my focus – and when i say one i mean, a brief, or reviewing documents and depositions pushing matters along. Of course we all do more than that. So- know you're not the only one even if no one will admit it! I'm also stressing about the financial stability of my office. We all bill time and the hours are down probably 10 to 15 percent. I worry about pay cuts and layoffs, yet the fear isn't enough to motivate me to bill more hours. It's almost crippling to be in this COVID19/Civil Unrest hell.
10:35 – I hear you and can relate. I am fortunate because I have the keys to my office, and even though we were and are still physically closed, I am able to go to the office everyday and continue to work (ignoring "woke squad" calls to the contrary). You will start feeling better soon, since as of July 1 you can be a real lawyer again, take depositions, go to Court, compel discovery, etc. I am hopeful it will be getting back to normal soon, but I share your concerns. I too am drinking too much…… I think many of us are.
I echo everything you've said, 10:35 AM. This is already a stressful profession. The pandemic, isolation and social unrest only compound the depression and anxiety that seem to be endemic to this profession. Re: "I try to pour myself into at least one work project a day." I completely agree with this. I love it when I get in the "zone" and "flow" and completely lose myself in a project, forgetting about the outside world. I'm not a drinker, so this is one of the tools I am using right now to keep my sanity. Thanks for speaking up 10:35 AM, it's nice to know there are others struggling with the same thing.
10:49 AM, I don't think "normal" lawyering is coming back anytime soon, even if the courthouse opens back up.
I, too, try my best to accomplish one substantive task per day, but even that is sometimes too much for me. I definitely feel the same as 10:35.
I own tortoises, and a variety of other animals, so I am perturbed by the tortoise abuse case and am pleased that guy is being prosecuted.
But that said, it does not necessary appear to be a case of intentional sadism, or even extreme neglect.
It sounds like there might be a mental illness in operation and/or the guy is simply incredibly stupid. He drills a hole in the tortoise's shell in order to be able to connect a lease to the tortoise.
I could very well be wrong, and he may have intended to torture the animal. And I recognize that even if there were no direct intention to inflict pain or torture, that a successful animal abuse case can be sustained.
But does it seem to you guys that this guy is simply moronic and/or quite emotionally disturbed? If so, his attorney presumably will attempt to argue those matters as some mitigation.
I am positive that all of the BOG trolls on this blog will be logging into the meeting so their voices can be heard. No expensive travel, lots of interesting stuff. You will all be there right?
BOG trolls? Thanks, Terry Coffing. You are the troll.
I stand with Bubba Wallace.
10:41–yes, the tortoise owner appears incredibly stupid, which is also a problem shared by some posters who act shocked that these bad judges keep getting re-elected. I am talking about posters who insist that we vote out certain judges two days after they were just re-elected to a new six-year term. My advice as to how to handle such matters in the future:
1. If you find a judge dreadful, then either run against them or at least financially contribute to a viable candidate who is running against them. If no viable candidate emerges, then try, with others, to recruit one and then support him/her to the best extent reasonable possible.
2. If they get re-elected because they are either unopposed, or opposed by token opposition who almost no one contributes to, then don't post that we need to "vote them out" after you did jack to either run against them or recruit or contribute to someone viable, and thus they just got re-elected.
Same thing on the national level. If you don't like the President, for example, campaign in your own little way for his opponent. Don't wait till the day after he is re-elected and then say "don't re-elect the President" or "impeach the President."
No, I'm not taking a positon on that race, but just using an example to hopefully make a point.
Please stop asking us to vote out judges who just got re-elected without opposition, or re-elected due to weak, token, unfunded opposition.
When it's over, it's over.
Bad judges will almost always be reelected. Why? because campaign contributions come mainly from lawyers and law firms, and of course are public. These bad judges may attract opponents who are well-qualified good people (e.g. Jim Cavanaugh or Alex McLeod in the Israel race), but not the kind of people with enough money to meaningfully self-finance or with the "star power," or whatever you want to call it, that is necessary to overcome the built-in advantages of incumbency. We all complain about some of these judges, but the opposition they are able to attract consists mostly of underfunded candidates who lack name-recognition. And I intend no disrespect to those who put their hat in the ring and honorably ran the best races they could. It's more than I did, as I sit here at my keyboard pontificating.
It takes guts to run, more than I have. Very few incumbents are worth retaining. Vote the majority of them out.
12:45, as 11:42 just emphasized, what good does it say to "vote them out" days after they were just handed a new six-year term due to public apathy, as well as attorney apathy?
11:42, I hope you recognize there are some awful judges who don't deserve to serve.
That being said, I have noticed that trend–vote out these or those judges, just after they have been re-elected.
So, yes, those people are about as intelligent as the guy who thought he could drill a hole in a tortoise's shell in order to attach a leash.
But seems like this tortoise guy is getting prosecuted more harshly than some people who abuse children much worse than this tortoise was tortured.
Do you have to obtain the other party's consent or leave of the court to file a crossclaim when you try to file the crossclaim more than 14 days after you filed your answer?
I always thought you did, but opposing counsel just filed a crossclaim 6 months into the case, but prior to our Scheduling Order deadline, without doing either.
When I called him about it, he said that there is no such requirement for crossclaims. His argument:
-There is no timeline for crossclaims under NRCP 13(g); and
-NRCP 15(a)(2)is not applicable [In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires] because he's not amending his answer and a crossclaim is not recognized as a pleading under NRCP 7(a) [Only these pleadings are allowed: (1) a complaint;(2) an answer to a complaint;(3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim;(4) an answer to a crossclaim;(5) a third-party complaint;(6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and(7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.]
I've always obtained consent from other parties or leave from court, and every other party I've seen before has done it that way too. But he seems right. Thoughts?
They need the court’s leave and they need to get it by motion. NRCP 14(a)(1): “Timing of the Summons and Complaint. A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, file a third-party complaint against a nonparty, the third-party defendant, who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it. But the third-party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court’s leave to file the third-party complaint if it files the third-party complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer. A summons, the complaint, and the third-party complaint must be served on the third-party defendant, or service must be waived.”
Never mind, I am wrong, sorry -_- hope someone else can help
There may be no explicit timeline for a crossclaim under Rule 13(g), but a crossclaim must be stated in a pleading. ("A pleading may state as a crossclaim…"). A crossclaim is usually asserted in an answer, and an answer is a pleading. Because a crossclaim must be asserted in a pleading, to assert one after the party's answer is already on file would be to amend a pleading. Thus, Rule 15(a)(2) does apply.
"Because Rule 13(g) does not impose any time limitations on the filing of cross-claims, once the parties have filed their initial pleadings, any motion to amend those pleadings and file a cross-claim must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15." Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411, 431 (7th Cir. 1992).
I am aware of an attorney who was sanctioned $6,000 for filing a cross claim without a motion. I believe it was in front of Judge Denton.
There are judges still running in November. The only incumbent I am voting for is Susan Johnson. The rest suck.
Wow, how close-minded. I definitely want YOU to be my lawyer. . .
10:50, so 6:45 is a bad lawyer for supporting Susan Johnson? Makes sense.
Yesterday, the Nevada Supremes entered an administrative order naming the Las Vegas Appellate Courthouse for Justice James W. Hardesty "upon his retirement from the Nevada Supreme Court." http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=59242&csIID=59242&deLinkID=775316&onBaseDocumentNumber=20-23064
I guess the Court concluded NRS 338.200 doesn't apply to it, to the courthouse, or doesn't apply in these circumstances because the building won't actually be named until after Hardesty retires. FWIW, Hardesty did recuse.
It is better to have a court house named Hardesty than a Justice named Hardesty.
And the Nevada Supreme Court continues to ignore rules and law in cases and in administrative orders. Get rid of all of them.