have you heard about this thing where if you type stuff with * on either side of it to narrate, it makes you sound creepy.
*types quietly into the comment box*
Do you think it is really a thing?
*looks around with trepidation*
I didn't think so.
*takes hands out of pockets*
Guest
anonymous
March 7, 2018 6:16 pm
The homeowners have every right to be furious with the HOA, its defense attorneys and insurance company. This is what happens when insurance companies sit there and lowball cases. Too many times the strategy works, because the client is behind a couple of car payments and will settle for that amount in pocket, and the insurance companies know this. But when it backfires on them. it does so in spectacular fashion, as happened here. I hope they get taken to the cleaners.
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2018 6:21 pm
I understand there was something like 60k in specials. Those were never presented. And, there was an offset for prior settlements. I understand surveillance was excluded too, despite being disclosed before discovery cutoff. It's not as cut and dried as some think. Just my 2 cents.
Which is why one might rationally choose to not present the specials in a head injury case. The damage can be significant even though the bills aren't. And, although I don't know pretend to know all the facts, disclosing surveillance before the discovery cut off doesn't in and of itself make the disclosure timely.
There was 3 Million Dollars in prior settlements so unless the insurance company valued the case at $5M+, not settling for policy limits is not unreasonable on a case where the kid has around $60,000 in specials and is NOT currently treating and there is no dollar value in evidence for any future treatment that the kid would require. It is easy to look at the runaway train which Hardy allowed the case to become and say "Well yeah they should have thrown $2MM at the case now." But honestly, looking at the facts above, I would not value this case as a $5MM case.
His injuries were so severe that the plaintiff just completely forgot about the concussion he was treated for, and tweeted about, just a few days before the incident. Just totally forgot, so his lawyers didn't disclose that at all, and threatened other parties when that fact was about to be revealed. And of course, Judge Hardy, the Captain of the Good Ship WTF, stopped defense counsel from asking plaintiff about it.
Surveillance is protected until counsel decides to disclose it. If it was disclosed at or before discovery cutoff, then it's difficult to see why it was excluded. Why hide the truth from the jury?
11:04 is absolutely correct. Hardy entered an Order that because the defense had not found the Twitter account that Plaintiff never disclosed that not only was Defendant precluded from introducing the Twitter, Plaintiff was barred from even ASKING about the Twitter or even impeaching Plaintiff using the Twitter account. I know the $20 Million number looks impressive but this trial had some serious shenanigans.
OH BTW: This is also the case where Hardy leveled $97,000 in sanctions against Defense Attorneys for the mistrial during Voir Dire.
so many people here being monday morning quarterbacks and keyboard jockeys. The point is that the HOA absolutely knew they had a defective playground and did not do a damn thing about it. It broke several times before, was warned about it, had the option to get a maintenance plan (at the cost of $120 a month or something like that) and chose to do freakin nothing. All these arguments above are in regards to how much the jury would/should have awarded. at the end of the day, the HOA was liable when it maintained it was not, and the jury also added punitives for the gross failure to remove or remedy a known hazard. and yes, the HOA lawyers screwed up by serving the carrier and not the interests of the HOA. and no, i am not part of the lawsuit but know the facts a little better than most in this online forum
Yes I have to agree 11:46. That is pretty bold allegations that the HOA Lawyers did not serve the HOA. I hope there are some specific facts which back up that claim.
And, 11:46, no one is "monday morning quarterback[ing]" by saying that if Hardy kept out some extremely damning evidence from the plaintiff's own mouth that is obviously highly relevant and not even close to more prejudicial than probative, that is some serious shenanigans. This would be true regardless of if the HOA had employed a teacup chihuahua to defend the case. They are entirely unrelated.
It didn't "break several times before." A previous set broke, and they replaced the whole thing. And the "maintenance and inspection" program was only recommended when the playset was located where sprinkler overspray could potentially cause an issue. Since the crossbar was like 12 feet up, sprinkler overspray wasn't an issue.
Re surveillance: I think Bonnie's typical ruling has been that you don't need to disclose until after the plaintiff's deposition. If they waited until the last day of discovery or something, then that's a problem, because if my client has been surveilled then I want to depose the investigator, find out what they were told, and also get all of their raw footage, not just the few minutes or so that they want to use to make my client look bad.
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2018 8:55 pm
I understand the sanctions were for discussing reptile theory during opening. Seems unfair to tie defense counsel's hands from even discussing reptile theory.
Even more dubious than that. A juror during voir dire called Claggett "the Reptile Guy". The juror was dismissed for cause because he figured out Claggett is "the Reptile Guy." (How that rises to being proper dismissal for cause who knows).
Hardy claims he admonished counsel to "not go down that road" (although defense counsel pointed out that there is nothing in the record which reflects any such admonishment). Nor was there apparently any specificity as to what "that road" was. So when jurors asked defense counsel during voir dire if he was going to tell them what this "reptile" thing was, Defense Counsel is alleged to have said that he would like to tell them but could not. Next day Hardy declared a mistrial, and then later levied $90,000+ in sanctions for "disparaging Plaintiffs" which caused a mistrial for raising the Reptile issue.
And that,1:12, is what I don't understand; If a jury had not been empaneled, then could they not dismiss the prospective jurors and bring in a new group? I realize that's easier said than done sometimes, but was it ever considered?
1:12 here- My understanding was that there were questionnaires for this jury so they would need to get an entirely new venire with a new round of questionnaires. I cannot say for certain.
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2018 10:08 pm
Can someone explain the reptile thing to me? I have no idea what that means.
at the risk of a mistrial….. it is a reference to the part of the human brain that is similar to a reptile brain–a part that reacts strongly to fear and danger. The idea being that if plaintiff can trigger the reptilian response about the alleged danger, they'll get an instinctive reaction from the jurors that will cause them to rule in plaintiff's favor.
Does anyone have a recommendation for a good employment lawyer that represents employees in wrongful termination and/or employment discrimination cases?
I am getting old enough that I sent everyone to Kathy England and do not do that any longer. Gabroy is a good choice, not a good human being but a good employment attorney.
Check out the back pages of your Nevada Lawyer magazine this month. The time is here. The time is now. BOG Elections are now upon us. I don't want to see Dobberstein or Paola or really anyone currently on the BOG reelected. Not a SINGLE one. So post your name on this Blog and tell me how you plan to tear the whole system down and I will sign on to nominate you and your slate and I will campaign VIGOROUSLY for you to win. Enough is a (bleeping) enough.
Absolutely every single solitary incumbent needs to go. Anyone running on a Platform of "Hey I just left the Clark County/ Washoe County Bar Assn. Board and now want to join the BOG to keep up the good work" needs to be shot down. I don't think the SBN really appreciates how bad things are while they sit and meet in their shiny new office.
Guest
Anonymous
March 8, 2018 1:24 am
5 people need to sign your nomination. Just 5. They don't need to campaign for you, they don't even need to go public with their support. There's no filing fee. Let's flood the nomination process with enough candidates so that "None of the Above" can't realistically be the best choice anymore.
Does the fact there wasn't a rule on point when it happened, exculpate the negligence? The beneficiaries who lost over $350K in trust assets didn't think so. Under the same facts today, what would OBC do?
With that said, there is going to be a new case coming to light in the next few weeks regarding the OBC and NSC and the Star Chamber bullshit that they pull which will make all of the previous cases of malfeasance by those 2 organizations pale in comparison. Stay tuned. Lets just say no one is ever going to cooperate with the State Bar again when this case comes out because no one would believe how untrustworthy they are.
Thank you, 9:37. I have some big cases now, but maybe I will get into it. I am really tired of them abusing people who are decent. I know there are the guilty, but people are entitled to due process. The judges seem to forget that as well. Surprised.
The NSC remanded the case to the Second Judicial District Court for further proceedings. Haven't read the disposition by the lower court so was there a repayment order?
As an aside, if you read the NSC decision, there's mention of at least one actionable ethics violation OBC failed to pursue. "In September 1986, more than three years after Lichowsky became trustee, Susan Charleson ("Charleson"), acting as guardian ad litem for Richard Lee Trelease, filed a complaint against Lichowsky for declaratory relief and an accounting. Hardesty notified Lichowsky that Charleson was seeking an accounting and told Lichowsky that he would have to furnish one. At this time, Lichowsky informed Hardesty that most of the trust assets had been removed from Nevada and invested in a Malibu ranch. Hardesty requested information from Lichowsky regarding the ranch property, but Lichowsky never sent him any information about the ranch. Nevertheless, Hardesty filed, for Lichowsky, an answer to Charleson's complaint, in which it was asserted that Charleson's allegation that Lichowsky had not rendered an accounting was false.[3]"
In Note [3] "Hardesty claims that Lichowsky told him that he had sent the accounting to Charleson. As mentioned, however, Hardesty had never received an accounting from Lichowsky and did not have an accounting when he filed the answer to Lichowsky's complaint."
*there
*were
have you heard about this thing where if you type stuff with * on either side of it to narrate, it makes you sound creepy.
*types quietly into the comment box*
Do you think it is really a thing?
*looks around with trepidation*
I didn't think so.
*takes hands out of pockets*
The homeowners have every right to be furious with the HOA, its defense attorneys and insurance company. This is what happens when insurance companies sit there and lowball cases. Too many times the strategy works, because the client is behind a couple of car payments and will settle for that amount in pocket, and the insurance companies know this. But when it backfires on them. it does so in spectacular fashion, as happened here. I hope they get taken to the cleaners.
I understand there was something like 60k in specials. Those were never presented. And, there was an offset for prior settlements. I understand surveillance was excluded too, despite being disclosed before discovery cutoff. It's not as cut and dried as some think. Just my 2 cents.
Which is why one might rationally choose to not present the specials in a head injury case. The damage can be significant even though the bills aren't. And, although I don't know pretend to know all the facts, disclosing surveillance before the discovery cut off doesn't in and of itself make the disclosure timely.
There was 3 Million Dollars in prior settlements so unless the insurance company valued the case at $5M+, not settling for policy limits is not unreasonable on a case where the kid has around $60,000 in specials and is NOT currently treating and there is no dollar value in evidence for any future treatment that the kid would require. It is easy to look at the runaway train which Hardy allowed the case to become and say "Well yeah they should have thrown $2MM at the case now." But honestly, looking at the facts above, I would not value this case as a $5MM case.
His injuries were so severe that the plaintiff just completely forgot about the concussion he was treated for, and tweeted about, just a few days before the incident. Just totally forgot, so his lawyers didn't disclose that at all, and threatened other parties when that fact was about to be revealed. And of course, Judge Hardy, the Captain of the Good Ship WTF, stopped defense counsel from asking plaintiff about it.
Surveillance is protected until counsel decides to disclose it. If it was disclosed at or before discovery cutoff, then it's difficult to see why it was excluded. Why hide the truth from the jury?
if what 11:04 says is correct, that is some serious shenanigans.
11:04 is absolutely correct. Hardy entered an Order that because the defense had not found the Twitter account that Plaintiff never disclosed that not only was Defendant precluded from introducing the Twitter, Plaintiff was barred from even ASKING about the Twitter or even impeaching Plaintiff using the Twitter account. I know the $20 Million number looks impressive but this trial had some serious shenanigans.
OH BTW: This is also the case where Hardy leveled $97,000 in sanctions against Defense Attorneys for the mistrial during Voir Dire.
so many people here being monday morning quarterbacks and keyboard jockeys. The point is that the HOA absolutely knew they had a defective playground and did not do a damn thing about it. It broke several times before, was warned about it, had the option to get a maintenance plan (at the cost of $120 a month or something like that) and chose to do freakin nothing. All these arguments above are in regards to how much the jury would/should have awarded. at the end of the day, the HOA was liable when it maintained it was not, and the jury also added punitives for the gross failure to remove or remedy a known hazard. and yes, the HOA lawyers screwed up by serving the carrier and not the interests of the HOA. and no, i am not part of the lawsuit but know the facts a little better than most in this online forum
Do you 11:46? What did the HOA lawyers do to serve the carrier and not the HOA? Please do tell.
Yes I have to agree 11:46. That is pretty bold allegations that the HOA Lawyers did not serve the HOA. I hope there are some specific facts which back up that claim.
And, 11:46, no one is "monday morning quarterback[ing]" by saying that if Hardy kept out some extremely damning evidence from the plaintiff's own mouth that is obviously highly relevant and not even close to more prejudicial than probative, that is some serious shenanigans. This would be true regardless of if the HOA had employed a teacup chihuahua to defend the case. They are entirely unrelated.
It didn't "break several times before." A previous set broke, and they replaced the whole thing. And the "maintenance and inspection" program was only recommended when the playset was located where sprinkler overspray could potentially cause an issue. Since the crossbar was like 12 feet up, sprinkler overspray wasn't an issue.
Re surveillance: I think Bonnie's typical ruling has been that you don't need to disclose until after the plaintiff's deposition. If they waited until the last day of discovery or something, then that's a problem, because if my client has been surveilled then I want to depose the investigator, find out what they were told, and also get all of their raw footage, not just the few minutes or so that they want to use to make my client look bad.
I understand the sanctions were for discussing reptile theory during opening. Seems unfair to tie defense counsel's hands from even discussing reptile theory.
Even more dubious than that. A juror during voir dire called Claggett "the Reptile Guy". The juror was dismissed for cause because he figured out Claggett is "the Reptile Guy." (How that rises to being proper dismissal for cause who knows).
Hardy claims he admonished counsel to "not go down that road" (although defense counsel pointed out that there is nothing in the record which reflects any such admonishment). Nor was there apparently any specificity as to what "that road" was. So when jurors asked defense counsel during voir dire if he was going to tell them what this "reptile" thing was, Defense Counsel is alleged to have said that he would like to tell them but could not. Next day Hardy declared a mistrial, and then later levied $90,000+ in sanctions for "disparaging Plaintiffs" which caused a mistrial for raising the Reptile issue.
To 12:55's point, it was not during opening. It was during voir dire. They never even got to opening statements.
And that,1:12, is what I don't understand; If a jury had not been empaneled, then could they not dismiss the prospective jurors and bring in a new group? I realize that's easier said than done sometimes, but was it ever considered?
1:12 here- My understanding was that there were questionnaires for this jury so they would need to get an entirely new venire with a new round of questionnaires. I cannot say for certain.
Can someone explain the reptile thing to me? I have no idea what that means.
at the risk of a mistrial….. it is a reference to the part of the human brain that is similar to a reptile brain–a part that reacts strongly to fear and danger. The idea being that if plaintiff can trigger the reptilian response about the alleged danger, they'll get an instinctive reaction from the jurors that will cause them to rule in plaintiff's favor.
One of the more humorous descriptions of reptilian theory, offered by Judge Andrew Gordon:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2015cv00505/106908/89/0.pdf?ts=1492082405
Pretty clever.
Such a low Bar for what constitutes clever.
Does anyone have a recommendation for a good employment lawyer that represents employees in wrongful termination and/or employment discrimination cases?
Wes Smith at Christensen James & Martin
Christian Gabroy
I am getting old enough that I sent everyone to Kathy England and do not do that any longer. Gabroy is a good choice, not a good human being but a good employment attorney.
Anthony Golden at Garg Golden Law Firm.
Check out the back pages of your Nevada Lawyer magazine this month. The time is here. The time is now. BOG Elections are now upon us. I don't want to see Dobberstein or Paola or really anyone currently on the BOG reelected. Not a SINGLE one. So post your name on this Blog and tell me how you plan to tear the whole system down and I will sign on to nominate you and your slate and I will campaign VIGOROUSLY for you to win. Enough is a (bleeping) enough.
I have never voted in BOG. I am encouraging everyone I know to vote and to vote against the incumbents.
Absolutely every single solitary incumbent needs to go. Anyone running on a Platform of "Hey I just left the Clark County/ Washoe County Bar Assn. Board and now want to join the BOG to keep up the good work" needs to be shot down. I don't think the SBN really appreciates how bad things are while they sit and meet in their shiny new office.
5 people need to sign your nomination. Just 5. They don't need to campaign for you, they don't even need to go public with their support. There's no filing fee. Let's flood the nomination process with enough candidates so that "None of the Above" can't realistically be the best choice anymore.
Andrew Craner should run for BOG.
Can we draft him if he doesn't actively seek the nomination?
You cannot draft him but you can nominate him even without his participation. Its a Nomination form.
A bit off topic but just the same coming under the heading of the "Preposterous" and 'every saint has a past' — when someone slings a verbal arrow at Justice Hardesty, I sometimes reflect on an old case most of you either don't know about or forgot. "Charleson v. Hardesty," 108 Nev. 878, 882-83, 839 P.2d 1303, 1306-07 (1992)
It should have derailed Justice Hardesty's career at gestation. https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1992/21940-1.html
See: https://lasvegassun.com/news/1998/aug/22/judicial-race-heats-up-with-allegations-against-ha/
Does the fact there wasn't a rule on point when it happened, exculpate the negligence? The beneficiaries who lost over $350K in trust assets didn't think so. Under the same facts today, what would OBC do?
Under these facts with today's OBC, Hunterton would be looking to mount Hardesty's head to a wall.
Which tells you something.
With that said, there is going to be a new case coming to light in the next few weeks regarding the OBC and NSC and the Star Chamber bullshit that they pull which will make all of the previous cases of malfeasance by those 2 organizations pale in comparison. Stay tuned. Lets just say no one is ever going to cooperate with the State Bar again when this case comes out because no one would believe how untrustworthy they are.
I already knew that. I helped a colleague beat a complaint. I did not think it was a big deal. Maybe I should advertise it.
You should absolutely advertise beating the OBC because it is a big deal and true specialty. Other than Bill Terry, I don't know who else is doing it.
Thank you, 9:37. I have some big cases now, but maybe I will get into it. I am really tired of them abusing people who are decent. I know there are the guilty, but people are entitled to due process. The judges seem to forget that as well. Surprised.
My question is did Hardesty repay the $335,270 as ordered by the court?
We will never know.
The NSC remanded the case to the Second Judicial District Court for further proceedings. Haven't read the disposition by the lower court so was there a repayment order?
As an aside, if you read the NSC decision, there's mention of at least one actionable ethics violation OBC failed to pursue. "In September 1986, more than three years after Lichowsky became trustee, Susan Charleson ("Charleson"), acting as guardian ad litem for Richard Lee Trelease, filed a complaint against Lichowsky for declaratory relief and an accounting. Hardesty notified Lichowsky that Charleson was seeking an accounting and told Lichowsky that he would have to furnish one. At this time, Lichowsky informed Hardesty that most of the trust assets had been removed from Nevada and invested in a Malibu ranch. Hardesty requested information from Lichowsky regarding the ranch property, but Lichowsky never sent him any information about the ranch. Nevertheless, Hardesty filed, for Lichowsky, an answer to Charleson's complaint, in which it was asserted that Charleson's allegation that Lichowsky had not rendered an accounting was false.[3]"
In Note [3] "Hardesty claims that Lichowsky told him that he had sent the accounting to Charleson. As mentioned, however, Hardesty had never received an accounting from Lichowsky and did not have an accounting when he filed the answer to Lichowsky's complaint."
Hardesty found a televangelist: had a come hither to Jesus moment on his Reno couch, and we are all paying the price.
Was that an early, middle or latter day Jesus?
One of those pious kinds that allow you to burn people at the stake while your sins get swept under the rug.