A grand jury indicted the woman who ran over a manicurist last year. [Las Vegas Sun]
The Nevada Highway Patrol pulled over a hearse in the HOV lane. [Fox5Vegas]
A shopping center security guard was arrested for murder of a homeless man. [KTNV]
Michael Lowry writes about a case where opposing counsel keeps negotiating without telling him that the client is dead. [Compelling Discovery]
As a courtesy for anyone who may have forgotten about the duty of candor, here’s an article about how it requires to disclose adverse authority–even if it hurts your case. [ABA Journal]
Unrelated: Our firm still has 1/2 the firm calendaring one way, and the other 1/2 per March update. In the 8th Judicial – are you filing your oppositions 10 days or 14 days, replies 5 days or 7?
Our firm has been using the updated deadlines — 14 and 7 days. As far as I can tell, all the opposing firms we face are doing the same.
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2019 6:35 pm
New rules are in effect so they should probably be followed.
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2019 6:44 pm
Opps are still 10 days (NRCP doesn't specifically address Opps). Should be amended to conform soon though (which should make them 14).
OC got on of of the other associates at my office for filing an Opp 14 days out. Easier to just get it done in 10 and save the headache.
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2019 8:41 pm
EDCRs have not been amended to reflect the changes in the NRCP. I am advocating at our firm for reading the current EDCRs in light of the new NRCP Time Calcs. But the partner I work for wants to do it "the new way". He wont listen when I explain to him that there is no new way under the Opps and Reply Rules, except 10 is 10 and 5 is 5, as read under the new NRCP.
"But the intent in the Committee Notes…….'
Shut the eff up, you jackass.
I hate that I am smarter than you. Pretty soon, I will be leaving, hanging a shingle and taking all your clients. Retire already…or do us all a favor and run/apply for D.Ct. judge.
Read up sucka before you opine. I knew you were wrong and it took me three seconds to verify it.
EDCR 2.20 governs response times. The only section that was suspended of that rule was 2.20(b) that requires a Notice of Motion, which the clerk of the court now issues. I keep a copy of the Admin Order suspending certain EDCR's on my desktop.
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2019 9:08 pm
Does anyone know which "partner" Lowry is referring to in his post? I do think that lawyers that try to pull shenanigans should be shamed. I get that he doesn't want to do it on his blog, but we can do it here.
I am genuinely curious too. I have my suspicions but I don't want to throw names out without any support.
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2019 9:38 pm
If you look on pacer its not too hard to figure out the case. although in light of the stip and order I presume Lawry still paid some money on the case
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2019 11:52 pm
Unrelated question, does anyone have suggestions on home alarm systems monitoring that are reasonable? Thanks.
Jesus, the little slice of cheese I earn in this cut throat profession, and you cannot rely on ADT. I guess I need to build up some street cred. Where is a nice Mormon lawyer for me to associate with when I need one?
Guest
Anonymous
July 3, 2019 2:08 am
I always love it when I come here and see a bunch of people moaning.. there is a conflict in the rules that establishes 2 timelines, which which is to be followed? The easy answer never seems to dawn on people… simply follow the more stringent one.
You will never get into trouble following that rule of thumb. If anything, you may gain some goodwill points with the judge's law clerk by giving them a couple of extra days to work on it. It's not like they are the Maytag repairman just waiting for something to come in for them to work on.
Show me where in the rule EDCR 2.20(e) was suspended. The problem lies entirely in how days are counted under NRCP 6. Prior to the amendments, for periods of time of under 11 days, you excluded weekend, holiday, and non-court days from the count, whereas periods of time of 11 days or more did count intermediate weekend, holiday, and non-court days. Not so under NRCP 6 as amended. Now all days are created equal when it comes to counting.
The rule setting the timeline for filing oppositions and replies doesn't conflict with the revised NRCP though. The NRCP changed deadlines to 7/14/21 days, but it does not require that change for deadlines not set by the NRCP. Its 10 and 5 calendar days.
Why can't they just revise the EJDC to match NRCP? this should take about five minutes, and should have been anticipated well in advance. It isn't like these changes were a surprise to anyone.
The revisions to NRCP were a long time in the pipeline. They were hardly a surprise. Heck, at least one judge of the EJDC sat on the rules revision committee for NRCP. It really shouldn't have been a surprise.
Guest
Anonymous
July 3, 2019 5:21 pm
I call bullshit on that NHP release about the hearse.
Unrelated: Our firm still has 1/2 the firm calendaring one way, and the other 1/2 per March update. In the 8th Judicial – are you filing your oppositions 10 days or 14 days, replies 5 days or 7?
Our firm has been using the updated deadlines — 14 and 7 days. As far as I can tell, all the opposing firms we face are doing the same.
New rules are in effect so they should probably be followed.
Opps are still 10 days (NRCP doesn't specifically address Opps). Should be amended to conform soon though (which should make them 14).
OC got on of of the other associates at my office for filing an Opp 14 days out. Easier to just get it done in 10 and save the headache.
EDCRs have not been amended to reflect the changes in the NRCP. I am advocating at our firm for reading the current EDCRs in light of the new NRCP Time Calcs. But the partner I work for wants to do it "the new way". He wont listen when I explain to him that there is no new way under the Opps and Reply Rules, except 10 is 10 and 5 is 5, as read under the new NRCP.
"But the intent in the Committee Notes…….'
Shut the eff up, you jackass.
I hate that I am smarter than you. Pretty soon, I will be leaving, hanging a shingle and taking all your clients. Retire already…or do us all a favor and run/apply for D.Ct. judge.
Pretty sure the EDCRs were suspended by Administrative Order due to the conflicts with the new NRCPs.
Read up sucka before you opine. I knew you were wrong and it took me three seconds to verify it.
EDCR 2.20 governs response times. The only section that was suspended of that rule was 2.20(b) that requires a Notice of Motion, which the clerk of the court now issues. I keep a copy of the Admin Order suspending certain EDCR's on my desktop.
Does anyone know which "partner" Lowry is referring to in his post? I do think that lawyers that try to pull shenanigans should be shamed. I get that he doesn't want to do it on his blog, but we can do it here.
I am genuinely curious too. I have my suspicions but I don't want to throw names out without any support.
If you look on pacer its not too hard to figure out the case. although in light of the stip and order I presume Lawry still paid some money on the case
Unrelated question, does anyone have suggestions on home alarm systems monitoring that are reasonable? Thanks.
A dog and a Glock.
Alternatively, and if you are a Dutch mariner, a clog and a dock.
I use Simplisafe. It's relatively cheap and easy to adapt to your home and needs with different levels of monitoring.
I worked on a case where the alleged thieves were tipped off by the security provider that the owners left the home. Be careful.
Jesus, the little slice of cheese I earn in this cut throat profession, and you cannot rely on ADT. I guess I need to build up some street cred. Where is a nice Mormon lawyer for me to associate with when I need one?
I always love it when I come here and see a bunch of people moaning.. there is a conflict in the rules that establishes 2 timelines, which which is to be followed? The easy answer never seems to dawn on people… simply follow the more stringent one.
You will never get into trouble following that rule of thumb. If anything, you may gain some goodwill points with the judge's law clerk by giving them a couple of extra days to work on it. It's not like they are the Maytag repairman just waiting for something to come in for them to work on.
There is no conflict. It is 10 days until EDCR is revised.
EDCRs suspended by Administrative Order 19-03.
http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/res/rules-and-orders/2019-03-12_01_33_44_administrative%20order%2019-03.pdf
Show me where in the rule EDCR 2.20(e) was suspended. The problem lies entirely in how days are counted under NRCP 6. Prior to the amendments, for periods of time of under 11 days, you excluded weekend, holiday, and non-court days from the count, whereas periods of time of 11 days or more did count intermediate weekend, holiday, and non-court days. Not so under NRCP 6 as amended. Now all days are created equal when it comes to counting.
7:37 can you read administrative order you posted? 8:12 can read. BOYD class of 2013.
Or all state attorneys.
"To the extent any other rule of the EJDC conflicts with the revised NRCP, the NRCP controls."
Boom!
The rule setting the timeline for filing oppositions and replies doesn't conflict with the revised NRCP though. The NRCP changed deadlines to 7/14/21 days, but it does not require that change for deadlines not set by the NRCP. Its 10 and 5 calendar days.
Why can't they just revise the EJDC to match NRCP? this should take about five minutes, and should have been anticipated well in advance. It isn't like these changes were a surprise to anyone.
No its a huge surprise since even the EJDC seems to have no idea what ADKTs are coming down in the dark from Carson.
The revisions to NRCP were a long time in the pipeline. They were hardly a surprise. Heck, at least one judge of the EJDC sat on the rules revision committee for NRCP. It really shouldn't have been a surprise.
I call bullshit on that NHP release about the hearse.
NHP probably calls bullshit about your release also!
Lowry states that the "unremarkable slip and fall" was removed to Federal Court with no hint of irony.