In case you missed it, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure changed last month and there is a lot to consider. Judge Joe Hardy will discuss new rules 5 and 6 at a civil bench bar meeting today at noon. On May 14, Jay Young will do a presentation on the new proportionality standard of discovery. [eighthjdcourt blog]
The Assembly judiciary committee is discussing AB421 addressing construction defects and the Senate judiciary is discussing convictions on confessions alone this morning. [TNI]
Family of Las Vegas woman who died in airplane crash in Arizona files wrongful death suit. [RJ]
A dad is fighting with CCSD to allow his autistic son to wear a GPS/listening device. [I-Team]
AG William Barr says the redacted Mueller report should be available to Congress next week. [KNPR]
Has the NSB ever been sued to deunify its trade association and regulatory functions? Any information would be appreciated on litigation or perhaps even public decisions by the NSB. Thank you
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2019 6:01 pm
I don't believe an action has ever been filed. I am a past Bar President and am willing to be a plaintiff.
I am close to retirement and willing to be a plaintiff too and do a lot of the grunt work, research, etc. (too much time on my hands) under someone else's instruction as my practice has not been in this area. I do not want to put my name on the blog just yet but if 11:01 wants to setup a private anonymous email account I will "go first" and email all my contact info and trust that this person is who they say they are.
11:01 here. I did not create that email address above.
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2019 9:08 pm
In recent months I have made a few appearances in Family Court. It does not appear that any rule changes will matter in Family Court as it appears there are few, if any, rules that are followed. Certainly the Rules Of Evidence, and the Rules Of Civil Procedure, seem to be largely ignored.
I do understand that these case involve the well-being of children, and that when protecting children that there are cases where it can be contra-indicated, and even dangerous, to extol form over substance.
But it seems that even in cases where there are no serious issues impacting the best interests of children, that there is very little appetite to abide by, and enforce, proper procedural and evidentiary rules.
Am I at least partly right about all this, or is my experience an exception to how matters usually proceed?
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2019 10:24 pm
There is a NSC case which states custody matters must be decided on the merits rather than procedural default. That is why timelines are never enforced. The revised NRCPs are going to wreak havoc in family court particularly related to service – you can service via social media, an attorney or his staff can serve, if you don't know a parties address you can drop the document with the Clerk's office as though it were some sort of general delivery mail room. Also, cases can no longer by summarily dismissed where there is no proof of service on file for the Summons and Complaint – the Court has to issue an OSC and hold a hearing. It is going to be Mr. Toad's Wild Ride for the rest of the year.
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2019 11:23 pm
Yeah, they changed the dates for motion oppositions down to 10 calendar days from what was essentially three weeks before by changing the calendaring rules without updated the EDCRs. I hope they update the EDCRs on that point soon, I am getting hammered by having to oppose a ton of motions on what I consider a very shortened schedule.
That 14 day rule only applies to deadlines in the NRCP— the 10 day rule for oppositions is an EDCR rule. The time to file oppositions is no 10 calendar days — ie one weekend
No. 4:23 is correct as is 8:48. The EDCR regarding Motions does not actually conflict with any NRCPs as there is no NRCP that addresses Motion deadlines. 4:46's comment relates to an Advisory Note that comments to the changes to the NRCP, but does not apply to the EDCRs. That comment is not in the actual rules, so it cannot effect the EDCRs. This ain't rocket science
The EJDC issued Administrative Order 19-03 suspending some EDCRs which conflict with the revised NRCPs. A partial list of suspended EDCRs includes 1.14(A)-(C); 1.90(A)(2); 1.90(B)(3) to 1.90(B)(4); 2.20(B); 2.34(F) and 2.34(H); 2.55; 5.602(G); 8.01 and 8.03 to 8.16.
I was there. Kind of a snoozer. Mostly Judge Williams talking about medical causation. Nothing very insightful. Hardy supposedly talked about Rules 5 and 6 but it was fairly clear he does not really understand them fully. Sad.
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2019 11:28 pm
Is there a ruder Judge at the EJDC level (now that Bonnie is gone) than Pomrenze?
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2019 11:35 pm
3:24–I agree with most of your observations on service–including how ludicrous it is to be able to drop the document at the Clerk's Office if a party purports to not know an address.
But some of the other now permitted forms of service–which, yes, admittedly do sound strange and silly on the surface–are actually a lot more effective than service by snail mail, as to increasing the odds that someone will actually know about a hearing.
For example, continuing to send motions to change custody by snail mail often guarantees it will never be received. Often, the moving party knows damn well that the other party moved form the residence on file 10 years ago, but the moving party is permitted to satisfy notice requirements by sending it to the very stale address on file because the opposing side never filed a Change Of Address(and most litigants never file such document when they move).
But service by social media has a good likelihood of placing someone on actual notice. And although I agree that it seems improper that an attorney's staff member can now serve, and downright unseemly and conflict-inducing if the attorney themselves serves, at least this establishes actual service providing the judge believes, and finds, that the attorney did in fact serve. But an attorney serving opens up another can of worms–the attorney of record can become a witness as to service if the challenging of service is deemed as a sufficiently viable issue for the judge to require testimony and evidence.
You are certainly right about the part that it is unduly cumbersome, and largely pointless, to issue a OSC, and hold a hearing, before dismissing a case that no one any longer appears to have any interest in proceeding with.
The change from prohibiting to allowing a lawyer to serve process on his/her client's adversary wasn't the result of the new rules but a split decision from the NSC last year overruling prior case law and rejecting advisory committee notes as wrong.
Has the NSB ever been sued to deunify its trade association and regulatory functions? Any information would be appreciated on litigation or perhaps even public decisions by the NSB. Thank you
I don't believe an action has ever been filed. I am a past Bar President and am willing to be a plaintiff.
Sure.
I am close to retirement and willing to be a plaintiff too and do a lot of the grunt work, research, etc. (too much time on my hands) under someone else's instruction as my practice has not been in this area. I do not want to put my name on the blog just yet but if 11:01 wants to setup a private anonymous email account I will "go first" and email all my contact info and trust that this person is who they say they are.
I just want to commend you guys for doing this. I wish you both luck
Email to IAmNotTheBarPretendingToBeAPlaintiff@yahoo.com
11:01 here. I did not create that email address above.
In recent months I have made a few appearances in Family Court. It does not appear that any rule changes will matter in Family Court as it appears there are few, if any, rules that are followed. Certainly the Rules Of Evidence, and the Rules Of Civil Procedure, seem to be largely ignored.
I do understand that these case involve the well-being of children, and that when protecting children that there are cases where it can be contra-indicated, and even dangerous, to extol form over substance.
But it seems that even in cases where there are no serious issues impacting the best interests of children, that there is very little appetite to abide by, and enforce, proper procedural and evidentiary rules.
Am I at least partly right about all this, or is my experience an exception to how matters usually proceed?
There is a NSC case which states custody matters must be decided on the merits rather than procedural default. That is why timelines are never enforced. The revised NRCPs are going to wreak havoc in family court particularly related to service – you can service via social media, an attorney or his staff can serve, if you don't know a parties address you can drop the document with the Clerk's office as though it were some sort of general delivery mail room. Also, cases can no longer by summarily dismissed where there is no proof of service on file for the Summons and Complaint – the Court has to issue an OSC and hold a hearing. It is going to be Mr. Toad's Wild Ride for the rest of the year.
Yeah, they changed the dates for motion oppositions down to 10 calendar days from what was essentially three weeks before by changing the calendaring rules without updated the EDCRs. I hope they update the EDCRs on that point soon, I am getting hammered by having to oppose a ton of motions on what I consider a very shortened schedule.
Periods between 6-15 days are now 14 days.
That 14 day rule only applies to deadlines in the NRCP— the 10 day rule for oppositions is an EDCR rule. The time to file oppositions is no 10 calendar days — ie one weekend
Wrong. EDCR rules that conflict with NRCP were suspended
No. 4:23 is correct as is 8:48. The EDCR regarding Motions does not actually conflict with any NRCPs as there is no NRCP that addresses Motion deadlines. 4:46's comment relates to an Advisory Note that comments to the changes to the NRCP, but does not apply to the EDCRs. That comment is not in the actual rules, so it cannot effect the EDCRs. This ain't rocket science
The EJDC issued Administrative Order 19-03 suspending some EDCRs which conflict with the revised NRCPs. A partial list of suspended EDCRs includes 1.14(A)-(C); 1.90(A)(2); 1.90(B)(3) to 1.90(B)(4); 2.20(B); 2.34(F) and 2.34(H); 2.55; 5.602(G); 8.01 and 8.03 to 8.16.
Here is the EJDC link re: Administrative Order 19.03
https://eighthjdcourt.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/nevada-rules-of-civil-procedure-have-changed-and-theyre-a-must-read-for-lawyers/
Did anyone attend the civil bench bar meeting yesterday?
I was there. Kind of a snoozer. Mostly Judge Williams talking about medical causation. Nothing very insightful. Hardy supposedly talked about Rules 5 and 6 but it was fairly clear he does not really understand them fully. Sad.
Is there a ruder Judge at the EJDC level (now that Bonnie is gone) than Pomrenze?
3:24–I agree with most of your observations on service–including how ludicrous it is to be able to drop the document at the Clerk's Office if a party purports to not know an address.
But some of the other now permitted forms of service–which, yes, admittedly do sound strange and silly on the surface–are actually a lot more effective than service by snail mail, as to increasing the odds that someone will actually know about a hearing.
For example, continuing to send motions to change custody by snail mail often guarantees it will never be received. Often, the moving party knows damn well that the other party moved form the residence on file 10 years ago, but the moving party is permitted to satisfy notice requirements by sending it to the very stale address on file because the opposing side never filed a Change Of Address(and most litigants never file such document when they move).
But service by social media has a good likelihood of placing someone on actual notice. And although I agree that it seems improper that an attorney's staff member can now serve, and downright unseemly and conflict-inducing if the attorney themselves serves, at least this establishes actual service providing the judge believes, and finds, that the attorney did in fact serve. But an attorney serving opens up another can of worms–the attorney of record can become a witness as to service if the challenging of service is deemed as a sufficiently viable issue for the judge to require testimony and evidence.
You are certainly right about the part that it is unduly cumbersome, and largely pointless, to issue a OSC, and hold a hearing, before dismissing a case that no one any longer appears to have any interest in proceeding with.
The change from prohibiting to allowing a lawyer to serve process on his/her client's adversary wasn't the result of the new rules but a split decision from the NSC last year overruling prior case law and rejecting advisory committee notes as wrong.
Yes, case is McGowen v. Sec. Jud. Dist. Ct., 134 Adv. Op. 89, 432 P.3d 220 (2018).