Nevada defends untested lethal injection plan as drugs near expiration. [TNI]
The SNWA approved a resolution to ban installation of grass in new developments. [RJ]
The Fifth Circuit says Nevada should have been allowed to intervene in ACA case restricting access to contraceptives. [Las Vegas Sun]
Speaking of the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit overturned a stay of an OSHA vaccine/testing mandate that was issued by the Fifth Circuit. [National Law Review]
Not Nevada (even though the name is similar), but a judge sanctioned the Davis Wright firm and attorney Mark Hutcheson over $40,000 for failing to mention settled, long-standing case law that barred the court from an injunction sought by the firm. [ABA Journal]
Is the law library a thing of the past for law firms? [ABA Journal]
In Judge Kishner's court this morning, there was an attorney that filed an errata last night after business hours (this was not my case). Judge Kishner said that because it was filed after business hours, it was considered to be filed today. I am not familiar with this rule, what is she referring to? I thought NECFR stated midnight was the cutoff?
NEFCR Rule 8(d) governs time of filing and it says filing by 11:59pm local court time is is filed on that date.
(d) Time of Filing.
(1) Any document electronically submitted by 11:59 p.m. at the court’s local time is deemed to be filed on that date.
(2) For any questions of timeliness, the date and time registered by the EFS when the document was electronically submitted is determinative and serves as the filing date and time for purposes of meeting any statute of limitations or other filing deadlines, regardless of whether nonconformities exist or are cured.
(3) If the court or clerk strikes a nonconforming document, questions of timeliness are determined by the date and time that the filer resubmits the document to the electronic filing system, unless the court orders otherwise.
The rule that was repealed in 2020 add that if the filing was done past 5, the date on which the time starts for calculating a response to that filing begins the next day. So, if you file a Memorandum of Costs, which requires a responsive Motion to Retax within three days, file it at 11:59 p.m. on a Friday. With the "next day if after 5 p.m." provision repealed, the Motion to Retax would be due the following Monday. Crazy, huh?
Can anyone provide a cite to the rule change? Both the NV Supreme Court website and Lexis are showing NEFCR 8(d) was last amended in March 2019 and that anything filed by 11:59 pm is deemed filed that day.
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2021 6:19 pm
10:06–this is a classic example of people involved in a case extolling form over substance.
Ideally, the focus should not be on the hyper-technical distinction of whether a document filed after 5:00 p.m. should be considered as being filed that day or the next day.
I believe the concern should be to inquire if the court had sufficient time to review it. If the court did not and the attorney filing it believes it is critical for the court to have sufficient time to review it, they have the option of asking that the matter be continued if that is practical and can be accomplished without undue prejudice, and without exposing that side to attorney fees, etc.
And , more to the point, is it something the court or the other side would need real time to review, or was it just correcting a typing error which could lead to misconstrue, or correcting a wrongly typed figure?
Those concerns, among others, I believe should be where the focus is.
If a judge can just glance at it, and see what is being corrected, who really cares about what day it was actually filed on?
But, yes, I realize that motions, and even appeals, have sometimes been affected by such seemingly minor matters.
NOTICE OF ERRATA.
P submits this Notice of Errata to P's MSJ filed 11/2/2021 in order to correct an inadvertent clerical error. Contained in the MSJ are minor errors where P notes "there are no issues of material fact" when in fact P meant to say "there are most definitely issues of material fact and I should lose this motion". P is filing a corrected MSJ to correct such errors to be filed concurrent with this Notice of Errata.
/s/ Federal litigator who isn't sure if state court requires Notice of Errata explaining the changes made.
Agreed. Kishner comes off to me who needs to make a point of being right solely to throw her weight around. I think someone used the word robe-itis the other day. Sad.
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2021 6:22 pm
10:19, yes, we have all seen cases affected by something very minor, and very technical.
That said, we don't really know what went on here.10:06 didn't tell us why there was an inquiry as to what date the document should be considered filed on, nor whether the matter was merely a ministerial correction matter, or something more substantive that takes time to absorb and consider.
10:06 AM here. I don't know what exactly the errata was because it wasn't my case.
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2021 8:15 pm
Bottom line is it(whether the document filed after 5:00 p.m. should be considered filed that day or the next day) is something which should absolutely not affect any of the merits in any substantive manner.
@12:15
Yes, it should make a difference. A filing deadline is deadline, otherwise throw out the court rules and a good chunk of civil procedure. Consider the effect on the date of service.
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2021 8:47 pm
Kishner is horrible.
Guest
Anonymous
December 22, 2021 2:57 am
Ya'll, it seems that the OP just wanted to know what the rule is or is not. Did not seem to be seeking substantive philosophical debates over whether it should be the rule or what consequences should result if the rule is not followed.
Guest
Anonymous
December 22, 2021 4:23 am
I know nothing about labor law and do not know any labor law attorneys. A client's relative works for a retail establishment that requires twice weekly all-employee phone conferences but does not pay for the time for the meetings that last at least an hour each. Is that legit? Thank you.
Client confirmed that the meetings are mandatory and at least one employee has been terminated for not attending. It appears the employer also requires 24/7 responsiveness to texts and calls. I'm an attorney, so I expect that, but I am also paid very well for making myself available, and I bill my clients. This seems odd.
Telephone meetings–If the employee is an hourly employee and required to participate in a telepohone meeting that is work time like staying after hours and constitutes uncompensated time. The employee must be paid and could be eligible for overtime. If the person is management and salary with possibly being exempt there is a different analysis.
In Judge Kishner's court this morning, there was an attorney that filed an errata last night after business hours (this was not my case). Judge Kishner said that because it was filed after business hours, it was considered to be filed today. I am not familiar with this rule, what is she referring to? I thought NECFR stated midnight was the cutoff?
That used to be the rule, but it was repealed in 2020.
NEFCR Rule 8(d) governs time of filing and it says filing by 11:59pm local court time is is filed on that date.
(d) Time of Filing.
(1) Any document electronically submitted by 11:59 p.m. at the court’s local time is deemed to be filed on that date.
(2) For any questions of timeliness, the date and time registered by the EFS when the document was electronically submitted is determinative and serves as the filing date and time for purposes of meeting any statute of limitations or other filing deadlines, regardless of whether nonconformities exist or are cured.
(3) If the court or clerk strikes a nonconforming document, questions of timeliness are determined by the date and time that the filer resubmits the document to the electronic filing system, unless the court orders otherwise.
The rule that was repealed in 2020 add that if the filing was done past 5, the date on which the time starts for calculating a response to that filing begins the next day. So, if you file a Memorandum of Costs, which requires a responsive Motion to Retax within three days, file it at 11:59 p.m. on a Friday. With the "next day if after 5 p.m." provision repealed, the Motion to Retax would be due the following Monday. Crazy, huh?
Can anyone provide a cite to the rule change? Both the NV Supreme Court website and Lexis are showing NEFCR 8(d) was last amended in March 2019 and that anything filed by 11:59 pm is deemed filed that day.
10:06–this is a classic example of people involved in a case extolling form over substance.
Ideally, the focus should not be on the hyper-technical distinction of whether a document filed after 5:00 p.m. should be considered as being filed that day or the next day.
I believe the concern should be to inquire if the court had sufficient time to review it. If the court did not and the attorney filing it believes it is critical for the court to have sufficient time to review it, they have the option of asking that the matter be continued if that is practical and can be accomplished without undue prejudice, and without exposing that side to attorney fees, etc.
And , more to the point, is it something the court or the other side would need real time to review, or was it just correcting a typing error which could lead to misconstrue, or correcting a wrongly typed figure?
Those concerns, among others, I believe should be where the focus is.
If a judge can just glance at it, and see what is being corrected, who really cares about what day it was actually filed on?
But, yes, I realize that motions, and even appeals, have sometimes been affected by such seemingly minor matters.
10:06 AM here. Yes, agreed on all points. But what rule is she referring to? I have never heard of such a rule and do not wish to be ignorant of it.
NOTICE OF ERRATA.
P submits this Notice of Errata to P's MSJ filed 11/2/2021 in order to correct an inadvertent clerical error. Contained in the MSJ are minor errors where P notes "there are no issues of material fact" when in fact P meant to say "there are most definitely issues of material fact and I should lose this motion". P is filing a corrected MSJ to correct such errors to be filed concurrent with this Notice of Errata.
/s/ Federal litigator who isn't sure if state court requires Notice of Errata explaining the changes made.
Agreed. Kishner comes off to me who needs to make a point of being right solely to throw her weight around. I think someone used the word robe-itis the other day. Sad.
10:19, yes, we have all seen cases affected by something very minor, and very technical.
That said, we don't really know what went on here.10:06 didn't tell us why there was an inquiry as to what date the document should be considered filed on, nor whether the matter was merely a ministerial correction matter, or something more substantive that takes time to absorb and consider.
I'd be interested in knowing.
10:06 AM here. I don't know what exactly the errata was because it wasn't my case.
Bottom line is it(whether the document filed after 5:00 p.m. should be considered filed that day or the next day) is something which should absolutely not affect any of the merits in any substantive manner.
@12:15
Yes, it should make a difference. A filing deadline is deadline, otherwise throw out the court rules and a good chunk of civil procedure. Consider the effect on the date of service.
Kishner is horrible.
Ya'll, it seems that the OP just wanted to know what the rule is or is not. Did not seem to be seeking substantive philosophical debates over whether it should be the rule or what consequences should result if the rule is not followed.
I know nothing about labor law and do not know any labor law attorneys. A client's relative works for a retail establishment that requires twice weekly all-employee phone conferences but does not pay for the time for the meetings that last at least an hour each. Is that legit? Thank you.
"Requires". Does the employee get docked or demerited for not being there? If so, then it is compensable work. If not, then it is not.
They're begging to be sued
Client confirmed that the meetings are mandatory and at least one employee has been terminated for not attending. It appears the employer also requires 24/7 responsiveness to texts and calls. I'm an attorney, so I expect that, but I am also paid very well for making myself available, and I bill my clients. This seems odd.
no, it does not sound legit. Try to get more info from/file a complaint with the NV Labor Commissioner.
Telephone meetings–If the employee is an hourly employee and required to participate in a telepohone meeting that is work time like staying after hours and constitutes uncompensated time. The employee must be paid and could be eligible for overtime. If the person is management and salary with possibly being exempt there is a different analysis.