- Quickdraw McLaw
- 57 Comments
- 299 Views
- Judge Mark Denton rules in favor of RJ in legal battle over police video. [RJ]
- CCSD hit by “cybersecurity incident,” affecting email, sparking investigation, precautions. [RJ; 8NewsNow]
- Legislative Dems killed daily room cleaning mandate. Culinary Union threatens to strike over it. [Nevada Current]
- What else is going on today?
Received an interesting email from ARM this morning:
Greetings!!
We are pleased to announce that Justice James Hardesty (ret.) has had some recent dates open up and is now available on the following dates:
December Availability:
December 4th
December 7th
December 13th
December 19th
December 20th
Justice James W. Hardesty, with a distinguished judicial career spanning decades, stands out as a prime candidate for any mediation or arbitration role. His impeccable record as both a District Court Judge and a Supreme Court Justice of Nevada exemplifies his adeptness in interpreting and applying the law.
Notably, while serving as Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District Court, Justice Hardesty conducted settlement conferences in a wide range of complex cases, from mass torts to intricate business disputes, facilitating resolutions in 75 to 85 cases annually. This experience, combined with his role in crafting major judicial reforms and policies, has equipped him with a profound understanding of the legal landscape and a unique skill set for conflict resolution.
Choosing Justice Hardesty as a mediator or arbitrator ensures a seasoned, fair, and respected figure at the helm- ensuring just and equitable resolutions.
Specializing in matters of:
-Commercial Litigation-
-Business & Partnership Disputes-
-Land Use-
-Estate & Trust Issues-
-Construction Related Disputes-
-Medical Malpractice-
-Personal Injury-
-Water Law-
Yeah I don’t need to pay 4K to be preached at all day long.
I am always annoyed when you pay top dollar for these mediators and they take the position "if it settles, it settles…" That's not what I am here for. I want you to browbeat these parties into accepting a reasonable settlement so we can get this thing done. If I wanted someone to just sit there I could have done a free settlement conference through the court.
I prefer mediators who listen first. Hard to find that type any more. Browbeating is the thing now.
At the height of the residential construction defect litigation boom (~1999-2004), trial judges used to bring in Hardesty to try and get the settlements into the endzone. I think Hardesty was a rising trial judge up north at the time, not sure what county. He knew almost nothing about insurance coverage, construction, trial strategy, or case valuation. His main purpose was to stand around and act menacing. He wanted the lawyers, parties and claim adjusters to bow down to him. He was all bluster and no substance. Fucking blowhard if you ask me. Not a mediator I'd ever spend my client's money on.
I'll push back a little. On a personal level, I don't care much for Jim Hardesty. I won't be inviting him over to watch the Super Bowl or send him a Christmas card. But so what? Doesn't his domineering, arrogant personality work well in this situation? Good mediators aren't necessarily academics in any particular area of law. The good ones beat the shit out of the parties. It seems like Jim Hardesty would actually be pretty good at that.
Not sure if I'd personally use Hardesty, but I agree in principle with 12:33. And to the extent that the problem is your client, telling them "this is a former chief justice of the Supreme Court telling you to take the deal" might get them to budge.
I don't want to get into how well-like Hardesty was or wasn't as a jurist, or how effective he is or is not as a neutral
For the sake of argument, let's assume he wasn't as well regarded or revered as certain other justices have been.
Even if that be the case, there can be so much more to a jurist than the actual performance on the case decisions.
There should always be at least one of those seven that can get things accomplished financially, politically, etc. Hardesty was that guy and very effective at it.
Justice Mike Cherry was also very effective as an ambassador of the court, and still to a large extent although retired.
But Hardesty was an absolute master at political/financial chess games. For example, although not all of us are enthralled by our court of appeals, I don't believe it would have ever come into existence without Hardesty.
Also, he was critical as to expansion of District Court, securing more departments.
That all said it is difficult for me to play devil's advocate like this as I am not taking issue with some of the above negative comments.
But it is likewise true that some of that above promotional, puff material(at 10:32) do constitute actual accomplishments.
As to the topic of role of mediator, I agree strongly with 11:28 that you want someone very strong and proactive.
12:52-But, as you concede, even if he does merit credit for some of those "accomplishments" some of them may not be matters the legal community really benefits from.
For example, I do agree he was at the vanguard of creation of COA, but many attorneys do not believe creation of that court has made appeals more expeditious or economical. Plus, many attorneys are not generally pleased with the decisions nor the current composition of such court.
As for expansion of District Court, I suppose that could be reasonably viewed as a net positive, but I believe that would have occurred even without his efforts(unlike COA creation, wherein I do agree it may not have been created without his efforts and commitment).
10:54, you presumably don't need to pay 4K to be preached at.
But you may have an occasional client who does. Some(not most, but some) clients who have unrealistic expectations become more reasonable when they hear the lay of the land from a firm, persuasive judicial neutral.
12:26-Your assessment seems, on the surface, quite harsh(almost borderline abusive) but there are attorneys I respect who provided a similar assessment as to his role on residential construction defect mediations in the first few years of this century.
HOWEVER, he did settle a fair number of those cases. I can't necessarily defend the methods you and others have described, but when it comes to a reasonable settlement both sides can live with, and which brings massive litigation to an end, sometimes I am tempted to think the ends justify the means.
Wasn’t it Hardesty that started all the turmoil at the Obc back in the day?
As to comments such as 12:09 and 12:26, I agree he might benefit if he had a more approachable, more modest demeanor and improved bed-side manner. So, yes his approach might, in part, explain all those open dates and broad availability. But at this point in life, dramatic personality changes rarely occur, so he is what he is.
So, I take no real issue with what those two posters observed about his approach.
But I take issue with 12:26's observation that Hardesty lacks basic knowledge in all the areas of law 12:26 lists(but, in fairness, 12:26 was focusing on their view of Hardesty's legal knowledge 20 or 25 years ago.)
And I take real issue with 12:09 impugning Hardesty's integrity.
Pompous at times? Yes, seemingly so. Not having the most warm and friendly interpersonal skills? Yep. That too. Self-promoter who focuses and directs attention to himself and his goals and projects? To a real extent, yes.
But: Lacking sufficient legal knowledge in the areas he mediates? Totally disagree. Integrity issues? Sorry, but strongly disagree with that as well.
Many don't find him too likable, but let's not conflate that with a lack of integrity and/or a lack of sufficient legal knowledge and ability.
I appreciate you 12:39 and 12.52. However my experience with him is that parties could not tell him where to fly a kite when he was on the Court but certainly will now. I experienced Hardesty as a settlement judge on the Second Judicial District Court and brought in as a heavy in EJDC cases and he was awful at settlement conferences because he had no human touch or feel for the room. Hardesty was not there for the parties and treated everyone as if they were there for him. The key to mediation is to have the parties feel as if they control the keys to getting out of the case.
I am not going to lie: I choose mediators who I think have the human personal touch with clients but also those that I want to spend an afternoon with and do not mind enriching. I think Floyd Hale, Togliatti and Gonzalez are all very effective in their own ways. But they are also people who make my clients feel like they can let their guard down and talk earnestly about the case. Hardesty has none of those traits.
2:09- I am sorry that you believe Hardesty's integrity to be beyond reproach. He has a published opinion regarding perceived ethical violations when he was in private practice. He puts his personal interests above those that he is serving– that is goes to a lack of personal integrity. He did great damage to a number of parties and persons in the name of his personal interests. Frankly his history is worthy of a scrutinizing eye, the same one that he has leveled on so many people over the years.
Law Dawg, a full blown blawg discussion of the best and worst mediators and arbitrators, which ones are best for certain types of cases, etc., would likely be a productive use of the blawg.
solid idea!
October 18 – "Tell us Your Thoughts on Mediators"
Comments: omg did you see the allegations in that one case, let's talk about that instead
Knowing the kids that frequest this blawg, it sounds like a full time job for the honorable Thwackmaster. Zero chance we can behave ourselves enough to have an objectively un-defamatory conversation about the opinions of various mediators and arbitrators.
For me, I LOVED settlement conferences with the former Honorable Magistrate Robert Johnston. Every one (7 or 8 by my count) settled and reasonably and an always polite and humble jurist. I miss him.
Isn’t Hardesty the one who went on tour explaining how the COA wouldn’t cost anything because they’d use existing resources and then the very next year bold as brass asked for more money for COA? I’m certain there’s a word for that…it’s on the tip of my tongue…starts with an “L” I think…
Forget Michael, LeBron and Kobe. Nancy Becker is the GOAT.
@2:39, the word you're thinking of is
lawyer.
Funny, I was trying to spell politician starting with an "L". . . . . Legislator?
More details about the arrest of former DA Tanner Castro:
https://www.8newsnow.com/investigators/prosecutor-fired-accused-of-trying-to-meet-underage-girl-at-henderson-park-for-sex/
Well, lets see him convicted first and then worry about hanging him.
I guess I met a different Robert Johnston. Mine spent an in chambers conference with a US Attorney and me fawning over the prosecutor who was a star marathon runner. He totally ignored me. No other judge ever treated me like that.
Is it a three day notice of intent to default or seven day notice? I can't find any case law on point and I've been told different things by colleagues. Thanks.
There is no specific rule requiring certain number of days–closest thing is NRPC 3.5A "When a lawyer knows or reasonably should know the identity of a lawyer representing an opposing party, he or she should not take advantage of the lawyer by causing any default or dismissal to be entered without first inquiring about the opposing lawyer’s intention to proceed." NRCP 55b2 which deals with default judgments has the 7 day notice requirement IF the party already appeared. So, if you're just entering a default for someone who has not appeared or answered, the good practice is to give a 3 day notice regardless of whether you know they have counsel or not. If they have counsel you serve them with it, if they don't send it to last known address.
The rule is (a)7 Day Notice of Intent to Take Default Judgment (there is no per se rule regarding a set number of days of notice before you take default); but (b) NRPC 3.5A states that you are to show the professional courtesy of not taking a default when you know there is someone on the other side.
Go with a longer number of days instead of shorter. Then the issue becomes when they ask for an extension to file an answer or responsive pleading.
NRCP 55(b)(2) 7 days
NRCP 55(b)(2) talks about notice before taking default judgment and not before default.
Be sure to procedurally distinguish entry of clerk's default under NRCP 55(a) and entry of default judgment, either by the court or clerk under NRCP 55(b).
There is case law on the interplay between NRCP 55(a) and NRPC 3.5A.See Landreth v. Malik, 127 Nev. 175, 177, 251 P.3d 163, 165 (2011) (citing Rowland v. Lepire, 95 Nev. 639, 600 P.2d 237 (1979)).
There's an interesting discussion of this case law in a Court of Appeals disposition, Order Reversing & Remanding, Brooks v. Turner, No. 82881 (Aug. 10, 2022) (unpublished disposition), especially footnote 8 and the accompanying text, but unfortunately it's unpublished and can't be cited. NRAP 36(c)(3).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5865213328139880149
Anyone have a case number for the Henderson jail video case? Can't find it anywhere.
A-23-878529-C
Robert Telles is back on calendar tomorrow morning for his motion to continue. Also Telles filed a notice of witnesses including a toxicology expert (for his own results).
His witnesses are five custodians of records and an expert? Good Lord. Rob has the arrogance of Jim Hardesty and the strategic prowess of the Washington Generals.
It's pretty obvious what he is going to try and do. Although it's not obvious to him as it is to us how badly it will fail. He's going to try and attack the authenticity of the records and evidence, but it will be nonsense. It will be stuff like raising immaterial or perceived inconsistencies in the documents or records or how they were kept in order to weave a story of conspiracy.
Rob, I know you can't read this, but I knew ye before the arrest. You have a very distinctive gait. The murderer has your gait. The video of the murderer walking in German's neighborhood is what forced me to accept that you killed Jeff German. They have your DNA under German's fingers. You had a motive. You're fucked because you did it. And you have the arrogance to think you'll trip up a custodian of records and obtain an acquittal?
It worked in Presumed Innocent. Always check the spermacidal jelly.
Hahaha I love that movie!!
Just accept it. Telles is going to beat the charge and pop a bottle of Dom for Xmas to celebrate the ineptness of the DA’s office.
Ah, 3:36, Doubting Thomas. The game has been rigged from the start.
First, the DA will present their (flimsy) case-in-chief. It may include, among other things; DNA, motive, testimony, video, consciousness of guilt, blah, blah, blah. But beneath it all will be a thin veneer of terror. Pure. Terror. A dark and inky terror that fills up the lungs and gushes out in a cacophony of Prosecutors' night terror screeches. The DA fears Telles, because the DA cannot understand Telles.
That terror will unveil itself as Telles takes his full pounce upon their weak, crumbling case (that is, of course, if Leavitt hasn't already dismissed this bit of chicanery by then). The records, golden calves as they are, may be believed by the meek and feeble masses. But the truth, well, the truth will be revealed to all when Telles shows the Court, the jury, the media, the dancing shadows on the courtroom wall, that the DA can't show that an AI did not merely generate this 'incriminating gait.' The DA can't show that it was *his* body that this "toxicology report" was generated from. And the DA cannot – and will not – be able to prove that Robert Telles, as great as he was, was not merely a figment of the gestalt consciousness' imagination.
The DA is running in fear of Robert Telles. This Notice of Witnesses may as well be entitled a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty – because when this trial is over – the DA is over.
Obviously, posts like 10:25, and others, are meant in humor, to get other posters to take the bait and get sucked into a lengthy debate about the case, etc.
But despite all the posts meant in humor as to how he will destroy the D.A's case, etc., there are some posts from time to time that indicate Telles does have supporters who believe very much in his abilities and strategies. These could be friends or colleagues who were close to him.
But bottom-lining things, starting in the mid-90's criminal jurors increasingly worship at the altar of DNA evidence(the C.S.I Effect, or whatever it's called). And there is seemingly conclusive, connect-the-dots DNA evidence in this case. So, unless his brilliance extends to suppressing all the DNA evidence, there wouldn't appear to be a lot of cause for optimism(an that's a gross understatement).
828 is a ton of fun at parties.
I
Can
Tell
🙄
I could swear that this post like a repost of a prior "analysis".
8:36-Not sure how you conclude 8:28 is some boring drone or drag.
Thought the purpose of this blog is to discus legal matters and the like, not show how entertaining we are at parties. And since you are concerned about originality, and whether someone reposted something, 8:36 appears to be the person who posts almost daily about how some blogger must be a real blast at parties.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with 8:28 by the way, and I don't agree that most jurors only focus on DNA evidence, but it's a legitimate discussion of a timely major legal case.
So, apparently anyone who attempts to use their brain, and analyze anything, must be "a blast at parties."
You are obviously not an attorney as you have no patience for any legal discussion, so why not go to a different blog?
The Telles hearing should be starting right about now. As soon as anyone hears anything, could they please post. Some of us do care about legal cases in the community.
8:36 should realize that when one attends lawyer parties, or any gatherings of people who keep up with the news rather than burying their head in the sand, people who keep up on current important cases, and can discuss such matters, is socially well-served. I think 9:08 over-reacted to 8:36, but 8:36 is well-advised to refrain from snarky remarks each time someone attempts to use their brain and analyze matters. Why not join the discussion and discuss where you agree and disagree with someone.
As a lawyer, I have no patience for nonsense, regurgitated, unoriginal analysis of any kind, legal or otherwise. The Telles case is sensational, the press, the courtroom antics by Telles, prosecutors and the judge make it fun to watch (and poke fun at). But blathering on about DNA and the CSI effect is just someone that did not get enough attention from the post the first time he said it.
Thus, my logical conclusion that 828 is not any fun at parties. Prove me wrong.
I am not the original "not fun at parties" guy. I did borrow that because it was so appropriate.
PS, I do not come here for storied legal analysis. I come here to get the tea, to bash the OBC and to occasionally extol the virtues of solo practice (20+ years). So you can kindly see yourself out, if you like.
It has started. Live stream here: https://www.facebook.com/KTNVLasVegas/videos/1399385157601235/
Calendar call and trial moved to March 2024.
But even less original than the incessant "You must be a blast at parties"
post is the post whenever anyone says something remotely positive about someone(even if the comment also incudes some criticism of the person) someone invariably attributes the remark to the person being discussed.
Example: "I agree with some of this criticism of Judge X, but on the positive side she usually appears to be reasonably prepared and moves her calendar along at a reasonably efficient rate."
In response, some shockingly unoriginal knucklehead will respond with "Thank you for your comment Judge X."
And yet, that is the person who is at least trying to be "fun at parties".
Anyone know what is going on at the law school library? Phone and in person services at the Reference Desk suspended. Is it because of the demonstrations and just how it is.
What demonstrations?
I believe it is about the Israeli-Hamas war, but not sure which side the protestors are on.
Is it because I am a boomer I can’t navigate the Supreme Court website on my iPhone or is it incompetence by whoever designed the website that it doesn’t work on mobile phones?
I have the same problem. Also, it doesn't work all the time and links won't open. It's gone downhill in the past year or so.
Incompetence by the web designers. Or a total lack of concern about a website working on mobile devices. So either way, incompetence.
https://www.facebook.com/KTNVLasVegas/videos/1399385157601235/
Live feed of Telles hearing, which is about to start. Telles is asking for trial to be continued. Trial is scheduled for early next month.
Did the District Attorney even really oppose a continuance?