Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 118

FILED

1 J.MICHAELSUNDE
VIKTORIYASOKOLSUNDE
2 4790CaughlinPkwy.,#119
Fp/192013
Reno,NV89519-0907
3 Telephone:(775)830- 7578
ReC
Facsimile:(775)787- 8272 4.4'
4 InProperPersons
5
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
6
7 J.MICHAELSUNDE,VIKTORIYA
SOKOLSUNDE,
8
Petitioners, CaseNo.62617
9
V.
10
THESECONDJUDICIALDISTRICT
11 COURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
inandfortheCountyofWashoe,and
12 THEHONORABLESTEVENP.
ELLIOTT,Judgethereof,
13
Respondents.
14
15 EmergencyMotionUnderNRAP27(e)
16SECONDAMENDEDEMERGENCYPETITIONFORWRITOF
MANDAMUSORPROHIBITION
17
18Petitionersfilethisamendedpetitionabovereferencedsoastosubmittheordersigned
19bytheDistrictCourt.OnFebruary13,2013,Mr.SundecalledthepartiesincludingJudge
20StevenP.Elliottandadvisedthemofthefilingofthispetition.Thenextday,February14,2013,
21ofthatcalltoJudgeElliott' schambers,JudgeElliottsignedanorderthathadbeenpendingfor
22manymonths.Exhibit12.Thepurposeofthisamendedpleadingismerelytoincludethatorder
23forthisCourt ' sconsideration,correctthefileddateonthepriorfiling,anddatecorrections.
24OtherveryoldpleadingsfiledinJudgeElliott ' sCourtremainunansweredbythejudge.
25 NRAP27(e)CERTIFICATE
2..Telephonenumbersandaddressesoftheattorneysfortheparties:
(qv
E144- i. erableStevenP.Elliott DavidO' Mara
1 ,6)2 Araudrt J .dtirceieatlDistrictCourt AttorneyAtLaw
311E.LibertySt.
Bo0083 Reno,NV89501
CLERK afrsup.EmECOURT
DUTYCLERK
Page1of28
Reno,NV89520 Telephone:(775)323-1321
Telephone:(775)328-3110
B. Factsshowingexistenceandnatureoftheclaimedemergency:Seepages1-3.
C. Whenandhowcounselfortheotherpartieswerenotifiedandwhethertheyhave
beenservedwiththemotion;AttorneyDavidO'Marawasnotifiedbyfacsimileon
February12,2013,ofthispetitionforwrit.JudgeStevenElliott'sofficewascalled
andnotifiedofthepetitionforwritonFebruary13,2013.Bothpartieswereserved
thepetitionandappendixesbyfirstclassmail.
ThemostrecentdatesoftheeventssupportingthispetitionwereFebruary14,2013,
SecondJudicialDistrictCourtOrderDenyingDefendants'MotionForReconsiderationOf
OrdertoStayandMotionForReliefFromOrder.Exhibit12.
J.MichaelSundeandViktoriyaSokolSunde("Petitioners")herebypetitionthisCourtfor
anEmergencyWritofMandamusorProhibitionorderingrespondent("DistrictCourt",or
"Department10")tovacatefour(4)previousdecisionsinPetitioners'DistrictCourtactionthat
theyconsidertobe"rigged"andtocease"rigging"decisionsinPetitioners'DistrictCourt
actioninthefuture.ThePetitionersdemandthiscourtorderaninvestigationbytheNevada
AttorneyGeneraltodeterminetheextentofthecorruption,mailfraudandwirefraudcommitted
bytheDistrictCourtandtodeterminethenumberofpreviously"rigged"decisionsbythe
DistrictCourtoveraperiodaslongas10yearsandwhichshouldincludethedeterminationof
thequidproquoprovidedtotheDistrictCourtbyrealpartiesininterestRobertD.Crockett,
VictoriaA.Crockett("Crocketts")andtheirattorneysWilliamO'MaraandDavidO'Mara
("O'Maras")toobtainthe"rigged"decisionsfromtheDistrictCourt.Allgroundsadvancedin
supportofthehereinpetitionweresubmittedtotheDistrictCourt.
Thefour(4)decisionsriggedbytheDistrictCourtinclude: (1)TheOrdersignedby
JudgeStevenP.ElliottonDecember13,2012stayingtheDepartment10action.. The
statedpurposeofthemotiontostaywastoconsolidatetheDepartment10actionwiththe
Department6action.However,theDepartment6actionisonappealbeforethisCourt,Case
No.57574.AbsolutelynocommonalitybetweentheDepartment10andDepartment6actions
waspresentedtotheDistrictCourtbytheO'Marasandnocommonalitywasruleduponnor
containedintheDistrictCourt'sorderstayingtheDepartment10action.Fortherewas
absolutelynocommonality.TheCrockettsandO'Marasfailedtofilethecompulsory
Page2of28
counterclaim over 2 years ago when the Department 10 action was filed. Furthermore, over the
past 2 years, Judge Steven P. Elliott and the O'Maras admitted dozens of times that the
Department 6 action was not relative whatsoever with the Department 10 action. District Court
Judge Steven P. Elliott ignored the laws of Nevada and falsified his order staying the
Department 10 action; (2) The Order signed by Judge Steven P. Elliott on December 22,
2011 that the motion by the Petitioners was deemed frivolous. The District Court stated at
hearing that Petitioners' motion was not frivolous three (3) times, but the O'Maras when asked
by Judge Elliott to prepare an order for him to sign O'Mara falsified the Proposed Order stating
the motion was frivolous. Judge Steven P. Elliott signed said falsified order without even
verifying the findings in the order; (3) The Order signed by Judge Steven P. Elliott on
December 22, 2011, which asserted that the Petitioner was evicted. The transcript from a
Justice Court hearing proved that Petitioners were not evicted from the Greenwich house. But
the O'Maras after being asked by Judge Elliott to prepare an order inserted into the Proposed
Order that Petitioners neither appeared at the Justice Court hearing, which they did, and that the
Petitioners were evicted, which the transcript proves Petitioners were not evicted. These facts
center directly on the action before the court as the Crocketts had given Mr. Sunde a contract
for a lifetime leasehold for said Greenwich home. The District Court signed the falsified
proposed order without verfying the findings in the order; (4) The Order signed by Judge
Steven P. Elliott on March 3, 2011 awarding attorneys fees. The O'Maras filed a motion for
attorney fees based on a lease allowing attorney fees to the prevailing party. Since there has
been no trial, no judgment, by law there cannot be a prevailing party. District Court Judge Steve
P. Elliott ignored the law and falsified the order allowing attorney fees.
Every questionable decision by Judge Steven P. Elliott was ruled against Petitioners. The
only explanation can be corruption and collusion between Robert D. Crockett, Victoria A.
Crockett, William M. O'Mara, David C. O'Mara and Judge Steven P. Elliott or a complete
disregard of the rule of law and an abuse of discretion.
Page 3 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Petitioners pray for justice from this Court by overturning the orders entered by Judge
Steven P. Elliott which also will eliminate the need to go to federal court for the protection of
our constitutional rights.
As the above referenced allegations involve criminal conduct by the district Court Judge
and the two attorneys who falsified proposed orders, the six-month limitation is inapplicable to
this case. The Court and attorneys engaged in fraud, in a fraud upon the court, bribery of a
judge, and fabrication of evidence by the attorneys. Savage v. Salzmann, 88 Nev. 193,495 P.2d
367 (1972); Manville v. Manville, 79 Nev. 487, 387 P.2d 661 (1963); Murphy v. Murphy, 103
Nev. 185, 734 P.2d 738 (1987).
Petitioners will file complaints regarding this corrupt conduct by the Court and attorneys
to the Discipline Commission, State Bar of Nevada, and others.
Page 4 of 28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ISSUEPRESENTED
THEDISTRICTCOURT,PRESIDINGJUDGESTEVENP.ELLIOTT,ENTERED
ORDERSTHATWEREBLATANTLYWRONGANDSHOULDBEOVERTURNED.
ANDWHENADISTRICTCOURTENGAGESINCOLLUSIONANDCORRUPTION
WITHATTORNEYSINTHE"RIGGING"OFDECISIONSTHOSEDECISIONSARE
INCONTRAVENTIONTOTHEWILLOFTHEPEOPLE,AGAINSTPUBLIC
POLICY,ANDTHEREFORETHISCOURTISTHECOURTOFLASTRESORT.
CONSTITUTIONALVIOLATIONS
ThecorruptionandcriminalconspiracyengagedinbyRobertD.Crockett,VictoriaA.
Crockett(realpartiesininterest),DistrictCourtJudgeStevenP.Elliott,attorneysWilliamM.
O'MaraandDavidC.O'MarahasdenudedandunlawfullytakenPetitioners'constitutionalrights
tosubstantivedueprocessandproceduraldueprocess.Theconductoftheseco-conspirators
wasnotappropriate,propernorreasonable.TheselectivejusticedispensedbyJudgeSteven
P.ElliottagainstPetitionersandasallegedhereinandmanyotherlitigantsinDepartment10
ofWashoeCountyDistrictCourthascreatedunimaginableviolationsofmanyparty's
constitutionalprotections.
DISCUSSION
I. EMERGENCYRELIEFBYEXTRAORDINARYWRITISAPPROPRIATE
ANDNECESSARY
IngeneralthisCourtwillnotissueawritwhenthereisa"plain,speedyandadequate
remedyintheordinarycourseoflaw"(NRS34.170),suchastheabilitytoappealadistrictcourt
orderfollowingtheentryofafinaljudgment.However,thisCourtwillconsiderawrit,even
whenthereisaspeedyandadequateremedyatlaw,whenanimportantissueoflawhasbeen
usurpedbyalowercourt,andpublicpolicywillbeservedbythisCourt'sinvocationofits
originaljurisdiction. Dayside Inc. v. First Jud. Dist. Ct.,
119Nev.404,407(2003), overruled
on other grounds by Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Bullock Insulation, Inc.,
124Nev.Adv.
Rep.92,197P.3d1032(2008).
Withoutadoubt,thePetitioners'disputeoverthe"rigging"ofdecisionsbytheCrocketts,
O'MarasandDistrictCourtthroughanunknownspecialarrangementwithattorneysWilliam
andDavidO'Marainvolvesanimportantissueoflaw.The"rigging"ofdecisionsbytheDistrict
Page5of28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court goes to the very heart of justice in America. The "rigging" of these decisions involved
the use of wire transfers and the mails and was accomplished through participation in a corrupt
fraudulent scheme by the Crocketts, O'Maras and District Court. Petitioners believe and
therefore allege Federal crimes have been committed by the Crocketts, O'Maras and District
Court and this corruption could date 10 years or more and could involve additional, unknown
attorneys. Furthermore, the issues presented herein need to be addressed because the District
Court's decisions and orders contradict the plain language of the relevant statutes, disregards
decisions of this Court that are directly on point, and are inconsistent with decisions of other
district courts, and, because corruption was involved in the rendering of these decisions by the
District Court.
Citing Walser v. Moran, 42 Nev. 111, 173 P.1149 (1918) this Court stated, "In the case
of State ex rel. Marshall et al. v. District Court, 50 Mont. 289, 146 Pac.743, Ann.Cas. 1917C,
164, the Supreme Court of Montana, in considering the question, took occasion to remark that:
"A remedy is speedy when having in mind the subject-matter involved, it can be pursued
with expedition and without essential detriment to the party aggrieved, and it is neither
speedy nor adequate if its slowness is likely to produce immediate injury or mischief."
In Walser this Court cited the case of Bell, Davidson et al. v. First Judicial District Court, 28
Nev. 280, 81 Pac. 875, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 843, 113 Am. St. Rep. 854, 6 Ann. Cas. 982, and this
Court said:
"The object of the writ is to restrain inferior courts from acting without authority of law
in cases where wrong, damage, and injustice are likely to follow from such action. ***
The writ should not be granted, except in cases of usurpation or abuse of power, and not
then, unless the other remedies provided by law are inadequate to afford full relief. ***
If the entire proceedings are without authority of law, * * * certainly the remedy to be
obtained by the slow process of appeal, which could only follow a vain, fruitless, and
perhaps expensive trial, could not be considered an adequate remedy."
Petitioners in the case at bar have no remedy, not even appeal. The District Court has stayed
the action pending consolidation with another non-existent district court case, a case on appeal.
Petitioners not only do not have a speedy and adequate remedy, they have no remedy.
Accordingly, the District Court "rigging" of decisions and corruption by opposing parties
and their attorneys is flatly inconsistent with the law, morals and ethics of the District Court and
the attorneys. A definitive ruling by this Court on these issues would therefore serve public
Page 6 of 28

policy by putting an end to this corruption with certainty regarding the rights and Constitutional
rights and remedies of Petitioners and dozens or even hundreds of other litigants who have had
their rights stolen by the District Court and attorneys working in collusion.
II. INTRODUCTION
All disputed or questionable decisions of the District Court favored real parties in interest,
the Crocketts, and their attorneys, the O'Maras. None favored Petitioners. Such collusion and
corruption can only be explained by an unknown quid pro quo between the Crocketts, O'Maras
and District Court. It is natural for petitioners to assume the quid pro quo was money.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. FIRST ALLEGED CORRUPT ORDER BY JUDGE STEVEN P. ELLIOTT
Real parties in interest Robert and Victoria A. Crockett filed a motion to stay the District
Court, Department 10 action. Appendix V, Bates Stamp No. 0903-0907. The basis for the stay
was to consolidate the Department 10 action with the Department 6 action. However, the
Department 6 action is on appeal before the District Court, Case No. 57574, there is no
commonality between the two (2) actions, and the Department 6 claims occurred 2 years after
the Department 10 claims. Petitioners filed opposition to the motion to stay, Appendix V, Bates
Stamp No. 0911-0973, and real parties in interest have filed a reply. Appendix V, Bates Stamp
No. 0974-979. Department 10 issued its Order Staying the Action on December 13, 2012. 1
The Crocketts and O'Maras have lied repeatedly in arguing that, "..and many of the factual
and legal issues are the same."' Worst of all, is that O'Mara asked the District Court to join this
action with the Department 6 action, but, there is no Department 6 action, and there may never
be a Department 6 action. Or if there is any future Department 6 action, it could be years away.'
a. Crocketts, O'Maras & District Court Have Repeatedly Admitted The Department 10
action Is Not Related to Department 6 Action
During each hearing in the District Court case, the Crocketts, O'Maras and the District Court
argued and ordered that this case is distinctly different that the Department 6 action and nothing in the
Appendix V, Bates Stamp No. 0980-0982, Motion to Stay Pending Action
2 Appendix V, Bates Stamp No. 904,1. 18, Motion to Stay The Pending Action
Page 7 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Department6actionisrelevanttotheDistrictCourtaction,Department10.Theyallarguedthereis
nocommonalitybetweentheDepartments10and6actions.
DuringtheFebruary4,2011,HearingnumerousclaimsofirrelevantwerevoicedbyO'Maraand
validatedbytheDistrictCourt.3
AttheHearingonSeptember20,2012,theCrocketts,O'Marasand
theDistrictCourtvoicedmuchstrongerargumentsandrulingsthattheDepartment6casewasirrelevant
(pagenumbersinthetranscriptofSeptember20,2011areincluded). 4 Someofthosearguments/rulings
include:"O'MARA:Objection,YourHonor.Thistrustisnoteveninquestioninthiscase.Ithas
nothingtodowithit.Ithastodowiththeleaseagreementoftheproperty".p.72,1.13-15;"COURT:
Well,Iunderstandhisargument,butit'snotrelevant".p.72,1.24;"O'MARA:It'snotrelevanttoin
regardstothiscase.There'snothinginregardstoher.She'snotbeingsuedasthetrusteeinhercapacity
atallasthetrustee.She'sindividuallybeingsuedonanavenueofthisbreachofcontractthatthey're
claiming.It'snotrelevantinthiscase.It'salreadybeendeterminedinDepartment6inregardstoall
oftheissuesinregardstothetrust..."p.73,1.2-9;"COURT:I'mgoingtosustaintheobjectionasto
goingintothetrustinthatIdon'tbelievethetrustisdirectlyinvolvedinthismattertoday.ButI'm
goingto...sustaintheobjection.Idon'tfeelthetrustisdirectlyinvolvedinourproceedingtoday".p.
73,1.10-22;"O'MARA:Objection,YourHonor.Thisisalsoirrelevant.Ithasnothingtodowiththis
case."COURT:Idon'tbelievethatthecarisreallyatissuetoday".p.74,1.8-11;"O'MARA:
Objection,YourHonor.Thisisalsonotrelevantatall".COURT:"Sustained.I'mnotreally
concernedabout...""Wehavealimitedconcern."p.75,1.10-15;"COURT:I'mgoingtosustainthe
objectiontogoingintothefamilyhistory.Idon'treallyneedtoknowthatforthisproceeding."p.76,
1.4-6."Q:Isthatsuitregardingthetrustthatthejudgedoesn'twanttohearabout.A:Yes.Q:Isthat
becauseyoustoppedpayingyourfatherdividends?"p.78,1.20-24."O'MARA:Objection,Your
Honor.Notrelevant.""COURT:Sustained."p.79,1.1-3.
AttheHearingonNovember8,2011,theDistrictCourtissuedadditionalrulingsthatthe
Department6actionisirrelevant.'"O'MARA:Objection,YourHonor.Thisistotallyoutsidethe
3 Exhibit9,HearingTranscriptdatedFebruary4,2011,p.11,1.16-17;p.21,1.18-24;p.23,
1.5-24;p.24,1.6-7,12-13;p.23,1.13;p.41,1.3-10.
4 Exhibit5,HearingTranscriptdatedSeptember20,2011,p.72,1.13-24;p.73,1.1-12,21-24;
p.74,1.1-2,10-11,23-24;p.75,1.1-2.8-15;p.76,1.4-6;p.78,1.20-24;p.79,1.2-3.
5 Exhibit1,HearingtranscriptdatedNovember8,2011,p.14,1.11-18
Page8of28

realm of this hearing, and it's already been decided in against and in our favor by Department six."
"COURT: I would have to sustain the objection to that matter because in the realm of another court at
this point."
During no hearing nor order of the District Court has any issue of the Department 6 case been
ruled relevant to the District Court, Department 10, action.
Furthermore, the complaint in the District Court action discloses that, that action is between
individuals related only to the house on Greenwich Way. 6
However, the Department 6 action, has no claims related to the house, and is related to a Nevada
Trust and Nevada Corporation.' The causes of action in Department 6 include: breach of fiduciary duty
by Trustee Victoria Crockett; replacement of trustee and contingent trustees; elder abuse for theft of
sole trust beneficiary Sunde's dividends required for his and his family's support and maintenance by
Robert & Victoria Crockett; breach of contract related to the trust agreement by Trustee Victoria
Crockett; personal injury resulting from the loss of Sunde's dividends from the trust; embezzlement
of trust dividends by Trustee Victoria Crockett and Robert Crockett; and, negligence in the
management of the Nevada trust. Id.
Consolidation of similar or even identical cases is governed by NRCP 42, which states:
RULE 42. CONSOLIDATION; SEPARATE TRIALS
(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are
pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in
issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such
orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
(b) Separate Trials. The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or
when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate
trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate
issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or
issues, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury.
Rule 42 is clear that consolidating the Department 10 action with the Department 6 action
"sometime in the distant future", if at all, does not meet the language of or the intent of Rule 42.
The most important purpose of Rule 42 is to avoid unnecessary costs and delay. The
Department 10 action has been set for trial and a Scheduling Order has been issued.' The
6 Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 271-290, Supplemental Complaint Department 10
7 Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 291-317, Complaint Department 6
Appendix V: Bates Stamp No. 908-910, Scheduling Order dated October 30, 2012
Page 9 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Scheduling Order set deadlines for: Submission of Motions to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties;
Initial Expert Disclosures for November 30, 2012; Rebuttal Expert Disclosures for December
31, 2012; Completion of All Discovery Proceedings for February 28, 2013; Filing of
Dispositive Motions for March 29,2013; and, submission ofDispositive and all Other Motions
for April 26, 2013.
NRCP 42(a) requires actions to be pending before a district court. The Department 6
action is not pending before a district court. It has been closed at the district court level while
an appeal is pending.
Furthermore, as argued herein, there is no common question of law, damages, fact,
transactions or parties in these two actions. These cases may not be consolidated. Two actions
may not be consolidated unless they arise out of the same transaction and the transactions are
connected to the same subject. Wells, Inc.v. Shoemake et al.,
64 Nev 57, 177 P.2d 451 (1947)
["...property damages arising out of motor vehicle collision were properly joined"; "Plaintiff
may unite several causes of action in the same complaint, when they all arise out of...8. Claims
arising out of the same transaction, or transactions connected with the same subject of
action..."]; Marcuse v. Del Webb Communities, 123 Nev. 278, 163 P.3d 462 (2007) ["... trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying unnamed class members' motions to consolidate
their claim and for separate trials"; "(1) contrary to the requirements of NRCP 42(a), the
Marcuses had failed to demonstrate any pending action involving a common question of law
or fact, and (2) there were no common questions of law or fact between the Marcuses' claims
and the class's claims, since the class action sought recovery for future damages, not resultant
damages"]. While the courts enjoy broad discretion, the courts do not enjoy unfettered
discretion in ordering consolidation. Id. See also, Havas v. "Alger, 85 Nev. 627,461 P.2d 857
(1969); Mikulich et al. v. Carner, 68 Nev. 161, 228 F'.2d 257 [(1951) ["Where two causes of
action against same defendants arising out of same accident were tried jointly, extent of
damages and recovery were entirely independent issues in each action, even if other issues of
law and fact were identical"]; California State Auto. Ass 'n. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex
rel. County of Clark, 106 Nev. 197, 788 P.2d 1367 (1990);
Verner v. Nevada Power Co., 101
Page 10 of 28

5
10
15
20
25
I Nev. 551, 706 P .2d 147 (1985) [where the issues of liability and damages were inextricably
2 intertwined bifurcation is inappropriate].
3 In the District Court case, there is no similar issues of liability, no similar damages,
4 common questions of law, nor common questions of fact, commonality of "time", "pending
before a District Court." Consolidation, even if warranted, is not available in this action as there
6 is no other case which can be consolidated with this action. NRCP 42(a).
7 b. No District Court Action May be Stayed For Consolidation Pending An Appeal
8 In the District Court action, Department 10, there is no commonality of facts, damages,
9 law, transactions, parties, or the same transaction, and no commonality of "time" with the
Department 6 action. The claims in the Department 6 action occurred in 2008-2010 and the
11 complaint9 was filed in April 2010, a judgment was rendered in December 2010, and that action
12 was appealed on January 10, 2011. The claims in the Department 10 action occurred in 2011
13 and 2012, and the complaint was filed on January 28, 2011. 10
14 Even in similar cases of common facts, law, transactions, and parties, staying a lower
court action while waiting for an appeal to be decided is contrary to law. Landis v. North
16 American Co., 299 U.S. 248,249 (1936) ["If a second stay is necessary during the course of an
17 appeal, the petitioners must bear the burden, when that stage shall have arrived, of making
18 obvious the need. Enough for present purposes that they have not done so yet. (299 U.S. 248,
19 258) From the stay in its operation during the course of an appeal, we pass to the stay in its
operation while the test suit is undetermined. That aspect of the order is subject to separate
21 consideration and calls for separate treatment. ...We do not find it necessary to determine a stay
22 to continue until the decision by the District Court, and then ending automatically, would be
23 moderate or excessive if viewed as of the time when the order differently conditioned was
24 placed upon the files"]. Landis cited in: Maheu v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 89 Nev. 214,
510 P.2d 627 (1973); Tonnemacher v. Touche Ross & Co., 186 Ariz. 125, 920 P.2d 5 (1996)
26 [this claim arose out of the same facts as the claim in the federal action, stay denied].
27
28
9 Appendix II, Bates Stamp No. 291-317, Complaint, Department 6 action
10 Appendix II Bates Stamp No. 271-290, Department 10 Supplemental Complaint
Page 11 of 28
c. No compulsory Counterclaim Was Filed by Plaintiffs
The Crocketts and O'Maras attempted to join the Department 6 and 10 actions even though
there was commonality of facts, law, damages, parties, time, or transactions. If commonality
existed when plaintiffs filed the Department 10 action in 2011, a mandatory counterclaim was
required to be filed in the Department 10 action, including the claims now in the Department
6 action. No counterclaim was filed in the Department 10 action claiming the alleged damages
as contained in the Department 6 action. Commonality is impossible as the alleged damages
in Department 6 occurred in 2008-2010, even before the Department 6 action was filed in 2011.
Executive Management v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 823, 963 P.2d 465 (1998)
["Compulsory Counterclaim. A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the
time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim"]. Id.
Having failed to file the required compulsory counterclaim, the Department 6 and 10
actions may not now be joined.
d. Crocketts & Adams Cited Cases do Not Support Stay
All four (4) cases cited by the Crocketts and Adams are distinguishable from the District Court
action. In the cited case of Tonnemacher, the dispute centered on an abatement claim for a case in state
court and another case in federal court. The lower court did not enter any stay because the defendant
did not move to seek a stay, and the superior court made no ruling on a stay. Tonnemacher v. Touche
Ross & Company, 186 Ariz. 126, 920 P.2d 5 (1996). In the cited case of Landis the court pointed out
that "the facts have now been settled by stipulation" and also a decision was expected within a
reasonable time. The court of appeals was reversed, and the order of the district court was vacated, and
the case was remanded to determine the motion for a stay, which was not yet entered. Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In the cited case of Mikulich the court stated: "Where two
causes of action against same defendants arising out of same accident were tried jointly, extent of
damages and recovery were entirely independent issues in each action, even if issues of law and fact
were identical." Even in Miku/ich, with identical parties, identical facts, two (2) different verdicts were
rendered: "Not only were there two separate verdicts, but two separate judgments." Id. No stay was
Page 12 of 28
ordered in Mikulich, contrary to the claims of the Crocketts and O'Maras. Mikulich v. Corner, 68 Nev.
161, 228 P.2d 257 (1951). In the cited case of Maheu the court pointed out that the appeal was based
solely, "with the court's calendaring of the pending motions." Id. at 217. Maheu v. Eighth Judicial
District Court, 89 Nev. 214, 510 P.2d 627 (1973).
All of the Crocketts' and O'Maras' cited cases are distinguished from the District Court case and
do not support a stay in the District Court action.
e.
Crocketts&O'MarasFailedtoIdentifyanyCommonLiability,Damages,Questionof
Law,QuestionofFactorTime
While the Crocketts and O'Maras argued four cases supported their motion to stay, above cited,
they failed to correlate any cited case with the District Court action. More important, the Crocketts and
O'Maras listed no common liability, common parties, common damages, common question of law,
commonality of "time", nor common question of fact. Lacking any such analogy this case is
distinguishable from those four (4) cases cited by the Crocketts and O'Maras.
f.
PetitionerFiledMotionforReconsideration&MotionforRelief
Petitioners filed a Motion For Reconsideration of the stay order 11 ; Plaintiffs filed an opposition
12
;
Petitioners filed a reply to Plaintiffs' opposition'. Petitioners also filed a Motion for Relief From
Order"; Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Motion For Relief From Order ls ; and Petitioners filed a Reply
to Opposition to Motion For Relief From Order.'
To date the District Court has ignored those filings.
g. DistrictCourt'sStayWasaCoverup
The stay issued by the District Court was a coverup of the corruption already engaged in by
Judge Steven Elliott. Petitioners have attempted to obtain discovery from Plaintiffs since February 21,
2012. 1 ' Following several Recommendations For Order by the discovery Commissioner and three (3)
"Appendix V, Bates Stamp No. 0983-1144, Motion For Reconsideration
12 Appendix VI, Bates Stamp No. 1151-1155, Opposition to Defendants' Motion St al.
13 Appendix VI, Bates Stamp No. 1156-1158, Reply to Opposition to Defendants' et al.
14 Appendix VI, Bates Stamp No. 1162-1329, Motion for Relief From Order
15 Appendix VI, Bates Stamp No. 1330-1334, Opposition to Motion For Relief From Order
16 Appendix VI, Bates Stamp No. 1335-1336, Reply to Opposition to Motion For Relief et al.
17 Exhibit 11, Motion For Contempt; Sanctions
Page 13 of 28


orders from the District Court to produce requested discovery, Petitioners filed the Motion For
Contempt; Sanctions. Exhibit 11.
B. SECOND ALLEGED CORRUPT ORDER BY JUDGE STEVEN P. ELLIOTT
Falsified Order Regarding False Allegations of Frivolous at Hearing
At a Hearing on November 8, 2011, on Petitioners retitled EX PARTE MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION'', the District
Court stated three (3) times that Petitioners' motion was not frivolous. The District Court
stated:
1) "...and I don't know that the motions up to this point in time are frivolous... "; 2) "I'm
not going to hold that, you know, this desire to file an injunctive relief trying to stop the
sale of the property is frivolous... "; and, 3) "So anyway, I wouldn't say that this is
frivolous, but it's just not something that can be granted." 19
The Crocketts and O'Maras stated in the Proposed Order: "That the motion filed for a
protective order was frivolous..." 20 This statement was dishonest and was a fraud upon the
court. The District Court signed the falsified Proposed Order and included the statement: "7.
That the motion filed for a protective order was frivolous..." 21
The Crocketts' and O'Maras' claim to the District Court that Petitioners' motion was
frivolous was an outright lie, and was done for a reason, to assist the O'Maras in obtaining an
order for attorney fees based on a frivolous pleading argument, pursuant to, without limitation,
NRS 7.085.
The Crocketts, O'Maras and the District Court colluded to falsify the December 22,2011,
Order After Hearing, which brings embarrassment and ridicule to the judicial system in Nevada.
While engaging in this conspiracy to defraud by way of wire transfers and use of the U.S. mails
to complete their fraudulent scheme, Petitioners are informed and therefore allege that federal
crimes have been committed.
C. THIRD ALLEGED CORRUPT ORDER I Y JUDGE STEVEN P. ELLIOTT
a. False Claim of Eviction by Justice Court
18 Appendix II Bates Stamp No. 0250-0270, Ex Parte Motion of Prohibition retitled Ex et al.
19 Exhibit 1, Transcript Hearing November 8,2011, p. 74,1. 1-12
20 Exhibit 2, Proposed Order drafted by Attorney O'Mara for the November 8, 2011, Hearing
21 Exhibit 3, Order After Hearing dated December 22, 2011, p. 4, 1. 23-24
Page 14 of 28

The Crocketts and O'Maras falsely claimed that Petitioners were evicted from the
Greenwich home by the Justice Court. However, Victoria A. Crockett, O'Maras' own client
testified in the District Court action that Petitioners were not evicted. 22 And the Justice Court
stated that defendants were not evicted.' One of the main issues of the action at bar is that the
Crocketts had contracted with Mr. Sunde for a lifetime leasehold for the Greenwich home. The
Crocketts admitted this lifetime leasehold during the Hearing of September 20, 2011. 2' But the
Crocketts and O'Maras persisted in repeatedly falsifying this claim of eviction, for the purpose
of showing Petitioners no longer had a viable claim of breach of contract for lifetime leasehold
for the Greenwich home, to vitiate Petitioners breach of contract damages for the termination
of Petitioners' contracted lifetime estate in the Greenwich home.
In the Proposed Order' the Crocketts and O'Maras lied and falsely alleged:
"7. That after being served with a notice of eviction, Mr. and Mrs. Sunde did not contest
the notice of eviction in the Reno Justice Court that has exclusive jurisdiction of landlord
and tenant issues and the Reno Justice Court ordered the eviction of Mr. and Mrs.
Sunde."26
In truth, Petitioners did in fact contest the eviction and O'Maras' own client, Victoria A.
Crockett, even removed the eviction request at the Justice Court Hearing. Victoria A. Crockett
testified that the eviction request was removed":
"We are not obviously now attempting to evict because payment has been made.
They called the hearing. What we asking for is to have them pay us directly
instead of the mortgage so we can follow payment."
The Justice Court ruled that this was not an eviction action as falsely claimed by the O'Maras 28 :
"Well, after reviewing the Lease Agreement and hearing testimony, Mr. And Mrs.
Sunde, I'm going to find in favor of the Crocketts for the limited purpose of the
amount of the rent and where it should be paid." [Emphasis added].
22 Exhibit 4, Justice Court Hearing Transcript dated December 20, 2010, p. 4,1. 13-14
23 Exhibit 4, Justice Court Hearing Transcript dated December 20, 2010, p. 18,1. 1-4
24 Exhibit 5, Transcript of Hearing on September 20, 2011, p. 79,1. 5-18
25 Exhibit 2, Proposed Order for Hearing dated November 8, 2011
2' Exhibit 2, Proposed Order for Hearing dated November 8, 2011, p. 3, If 7
27 Exhibit 4, Justice Court hearing transcript dated December 20, 2010, p. 4,1. 13-14
28 Exhibit 4, Justice Court hearing transcript dated December 20, 2010, p. 18,1. 1-4
Page 15 of 28
ThepurposeoftheseliesanddishonestybytheCrockettsandO'MarasisbecauseVictoriaA.
CrocketthadtestifiedattheSeptember20,2011,hearingthattheCrockettshadcontractedwith
Mr.SundeforalifetimeleaseholdfortheGreenwichhome.'VictoriaCrocketttestified:
QWasitcontemplatedbetweenyouandyourfatherthathewouldliveinthat
housefortherestofhislifeifhechoseto?
A:Yes.
QI'msorry?
AYes.
TheCrockettsandO'MarasareattemptingtoshowthatPetitionerswerethecauseoftheir
voluntarilyvacatingtheGreenwichhomerentedbytheCrockettstoMr.Sundefor10years,a
homeMr.Sundeinvestedover$224,000.toremodel,donebyMr.Sundebasedonmultiple
promisesofalifetimeleaseholdforsaidhome.TheCrockettsareattemptingtoshowthat
Petitionersabandonedtheirlifetimeestatevoluntarily,whenintruththeonlyreasondefendants
leftsaidhomewasduetotheCrocketts'illegalevictionattemptandunlawfullockoutactions,
inviolationtothelifetimeleaseholdgiventoMr.Sunde.First,theCrockettsfiledaneviction
noticeagainstPetitioners.'Whenthatwasunsuccessful,asPetitionershadintruthpaidthe
rent,theCrockettsfiledaNo-CauseTerminationNoticetoVacate.'TheCrockettsfollowed
thatwithanunlawfullockoutonJanuary25,2011,Mr.Sunde's68thbirthday,preventing
defendantsaccesstotheirhome.'Theseactionsmaycertainlynotbeconstruedas"voluntary"
leavingbyPetitionersasrepeatedlyandfalselyallegedbytheCrockettsand0'Maras.
VictoriaA.Crockettliedrepeatedlyandfalselyclaimedthatdefendantsabandonedthe
Greenwichhomevoluntarilysomanytimes,shecannotnowtestifyhonestly.Victoria
Crockett'sstatements,withoutlimitationinclude:"Wedidnotremovehimfromthehouse"33;
"Again,wedidnotremovehim.Wegotacallfromaneighborthatsawatruckunloadingstuff
fromthehouse."34 "Weneverfiledaneviction."'"Soit'syourtestimonythathevoluntarily
leftthehouse?A"Yes."id.
29 Exhibit5,hearingtranscriptdatedSeptember20,2011,p.79
3 Exhibit6,FIVE-DAYNOTICEOFUNLAWFULDETAINERetal.
'Exhibit7,NO-CAUSETERMINATIONNOTICETOVACATE
32 Exhibit8,locksmithchangeslocksonGreenwichhome
33 Exhibit5,hearingtranscriptdatedSeptember20,2011,p.69,1.3
'Exhibit5,hearingtranscriptdatedSeptember20,2011,p.76,1.11-15
35 Exhibit5,hearingtranscriptdatedSeptember20,2011,p.78,1.2-3
Page16of28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
But in apparent moments of confusion Victoria Crockett also admitted: "I filed an eviction
notice in December... and we also filed a no-fault end of lease letting him know that we would
not continue the lease after February 28th, 2011. 36 Nevertheless, the Crocketts attempted to
argue voluntary leaving by Petitioners to vitiate their damages for the termination of Petitioners'
contracted lifetime leasehold in the Greenwich home.
As far back as the hearing of February 4, 2011, the Crocketts and O'Maras have
misrepresented the truth and lied in this action. At that Hearing the Crocketts and O'Maras
stated: "It wasn't a life estate for life, and he was never promised to be able to stay there."
37
O'Maras' own clients testified that Petitioners were given a lifetime lease, but their own
attorney argued the opposite.
Therefore, the Crocketts and O'Maras lied in claiming: 1) defendants did not contest the
notice of eviction; and, 2) the Reno Justice Court ordered the eviction of Mr. and Mrs. Sunde.
The Sundes contested the eviction, Exhibit 4, and no eviction was ordered as falsely alleged by
the Crocketts and O'Maras.
The District Court's signing of the corrupt Proposed Order signifies the Order was
obtained through corruption and collusion between Robert D. Crockett, Victoria A. Crockett,
Attorneys William 0"Mara, David O'Mara and District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott.
b. Pleadings Filed in Second & Third Alleged Corrupt Orders by Judge Steven P.
Elliott
Pleadings filed herein related to Subsection A include: Ex Parte Objection to Proposed
Order, Motion For Sanctions, dated December 12, 2011, Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 0318-
0326; Amended Ex Parte Motion to Correct Clerical Error or In The Alternative to Correct
Errors Due to Mistakes, Inadvertence, or Excusable Neglect, Request For "Sanctions &
Attorney Fees & Costs, dated January 30, 2012, Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 0327-0485;
Opposition to Defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Correct Clerical Errors or in The Alternative to
Correct Errors Due to Mistake, Inadvertence, or Excusable Neglect, Request For Sanctions &
36 Exhibit 5, hearing transcript dated September 20, 2011, p. 77,1. 3, p. 78,1. 2-5
37 Exhibit 9, transcript hearing dated February 4, 2011, p. 39,1. 10-12
Page 17 of 28

Attorney Fees and Costs, dated February 8, 2012, Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 0486-0489;
Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Ex Parte and Amended Ex Parte Motion to
Correct Clerical Errors or in The Alternative to Correct Errors Due to Mistake, Inadvertence,
or Excusable Neglect, Request For Sanctions & Attorney Fees and Costs, dated February 15,
2012, Appendix III: Bates Stamp No. 0490-0710; Order Denying Defendants' Ex Parte and
Amended Ex Parte Motion to Correct Clerical Error or in The Alternative to Correct Errors Due
to Mistakes, Inadvertence, or Excusable Neglect, Request For Sanctions & Attorney Fees &
Costs, dated March 15, 2012, Appendix III: Bates Stamp No. 0711-0714.
D. FOURTH ALLEGED CORRUPT ORDER BY JUDGE STEVEN P. ELLIOTT
In clear violation of law, the District Court has repeatedly ordered attorney fees be paid by
Petitioners. The District Court on March 3, 2011, again in a clear sign of corruption and collusion,
ordered attorney fees for a motion under which attorney fees were based on a lease agreement between
Petitioners and the Crocketts. The lease allowed attorney fees "to the prevailing party." 38
Following a hearing, the Crocketts and O'Maras filed Plaintiffs' Motion For Attorney Fees?' The
motion sought attorney fees and costs in the amount of $4,047.50. Id. Said motion only cited NRCP
54(d) and a single case referencing their "reasonable" argument. Id.
However, NRCP 54(d) is only applicable to judgments. And there still is no judgment in the
District Court action. Rule 54(d) states:
(d) Attorney Fees.
(1) Reserved.
(2) Attorney Fees.
(A) Claim to Be by Motion. A claim for attorney fees must be made by motion.
The district court may decide the motion despite the existence of a pending appeal
from the underlying final judgment.[Added; effective May 1, 20091
(B) Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless a statute provides otherwise , .
the motion must be filed no later than 20 days after notice of entry of judgment is
served; specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling the
movant to the award; state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate of it; and
be supported by counsels affidavit swearing that the fees were actually and
necessarily incurred and were reasonable, documentation concerning the amount
of fees claimed, and points and authorities addressing appropriate factors to be
considered by the court in deciding the motion. The time for filing the motion may
not be extended by the court after it has expired. [Added; effective May 1, 2009.]
38 Appendix VI, Bates Stamp No. 1162-1329, Lease Agreement
39 Appendix I, Bates Stamp No. 0001-0019, Plaintiffs' Motion For Attorney Fees
Page 18 of 28
(C) Exceptions. Subparagraphs (A)-(B) do not apply to claims for fees and
expenses as sanctions pursuant to a rule or statute, or when the applicable
substantive law requires attorney fees to be proved at trial as an dement of
damages.
Rule 54 requires there to be an "underlying final judgment", which the District Court case is
lacking. The very definition of judgment, "includes a decree and any order from which an
appeal lies." As the District Court's order is not a final order it is not appealable. Therefore,
the District Court's Order is not a judgment. Furthermore, "this court has consistently held that
a party cannot be a 'prevailing party' where the action has not proceeded to judgment." Dimick
v. Dimick, 112 Nev. 402,915 P.2d 254 (1996) citing, Works v. Kuhn, {112 Nev.405} 103 Nev.
65, 68, 732 P.2d 1373, 1375-76 (1987).
Petitioners filed an opposition to the motion for attorney fees.' The Crocketts and
O'Maras filed a reply.' The District Court entered its Order Granting Motion For Attorney Fees
on March 3, 2011. 42 In that Order, District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott stated: "...nonetheless,
not a single argument advanced by Defendants warrants the denial of Plaintiffs' Motion. To
begin with, Defendants argue that NRCP 65 does not provide for an award of attorneys' fees;
however, as the District Court noted above, the District Court based the award of attorney' fees
on the terms of the lease agreement, not NRCP 65.... Finally, as it relates to NRCP 54, the rule
merely governs the procedure for obtaining a judgment and an award of attorneys' fees.
Nowhere in the rule does it require that a judgment be obtained before seeking an award of
attorneys' fees as Defendants apparently contend." Id.
Petitioner reminded the District Court that our recent pleading was denied because we
failed to cite an applicable rule or statute. But District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott exhibited
outright bias, prejudice, collusion and corruption against Petitioners by approving this improper
motion for attorney fees. Id.
District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott has exhibited unbelievable collusion and corruption
and has engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Robert D. Crockett, Victoria A. Crockett,
4 Appendix I Bates Stamp No. 0020-0022, Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion Attorney Fees
4 ' Appendix I Bates Stamp No. 0023-0027, Reply In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion Attorneys'
Fees
42 Appendix V Bates Stamp No. 0028-0031, Order Granting Motion For Attorney Fees
Page 19 of 28
attorneys William M. O'Mara and David C. O'Mara. Disbarment of all three (3) attorneys is
more than appropriate as this conspiracy may have been in place for as long as 10 years. .
E. DAVID & WILLIAM O'MARA HAVE VIOLATED NEVADA RULES OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Defendants allege that David & William O'Mara have violated Rule 8.4, Misconduct of
the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 8.4 states as follows:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or
induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers' honesty, trustworthiness
or f fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or
to achieve results y means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
or knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable
rules of judicial conduct or other law.
By their actions in falsifying the proposed order of December22, 2011, followed by
actions of collusion with the District Court, the O'Maras have violated sections (a) - (f) of the
Rules of professional Conduct. Defendants believe and therefore allege that the O'Maras
misconduct alleged and proven herein are disbarable offenses.
Whenever allegation is made that an attorney has violated his moral and ethical
responsibility, an important question of professional ethics is raised; it is the duty of this Court
to examine the charge, since it is this Court which is authorized to supervise the conduct of
members of its bar. Erickson v. Newman Corp., 7 F.3d 298 (1996).
The scope of this Court's inquiry in determining what is appropriate Rule 11 sanction, is
what will deter attorneys and/or their client from future misconduct, and what will deter other
attorneys and clients from adopting a similar course of conduct. In re Martinez, 393 B.R. 27
(208).
This Court, as well as state bar, have responsibility under Nevada law to maintain public
confidence in the legal profession; this means that this Court may disqualify an attorney for not
only acting improperly but also for failing to avoid appearance of impropriety. Erickson v.
Newman Corp., 87 F .3d 298 (1996). Lack of candor toward tribunal, knowing disobedience of
Page 20 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
obligation under rules of a tribunal, filing frivolous and dishonest claims, engaging in
misconduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation warrants disbarment. In
re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 25 P.3d 191, modified on denial of rehearing 31 P.3d
365, certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 1072, 534 U.S. 1131, 151 L. Ed . 2d 974 .
The seriousness of the O'Maras falsifying proposed orders and colluding with the District
Court system that resulted in the signing by this Court of that falsified, rigged orders are
offenses demanding the disbarment of William and David O'Mara. Defendants request this
Court refer this conduct to the Nevada Attorney General, Supreme Court of Nevada and Nevada
Bar Association so as to determine and verify the misconduct and possible criminal conduct of
the O'Maras and Judge Elliott.
a. O'Mara Has Gouged His Clients By Running Their Bills
O'Mara has run his clients bills in this action to over $100,000. And O'Mara gouged and stole
from his clients by first filing many contradictory pleadings, so as to fraudulently bill his clients prior
to filing of the motion to stay. O'Mara filed 119 document requests, a motion for summary judgment,
a motion to waive attorney client privilege and, finally, the motion to stay. Such dishonesty by O'Mara
must not be laid at our doorstep by the rendering of any adverse order against Defendants by the District
Court.
The entire purpose of the motion to stay, is to once again obfuscate Defendants' discovery efforts
and to sidestep four (4) Orders of the District Court to produce documents requested by Defendants.
Over 400 days into the discovery process and Plaintiffs have yet to fulfill their requirements as ordered
by the District Court.
O'Mara has run up his billings to his clients, a very substantial bill remains unpaid, and O'Mara
seeks to stall this case to allow his clients to continue their monthly payments of his billings. Unpaid
client billings does not justify stalling this case for 473 days or what is now sought, 600 or more days.
b. O'Mara Has Already Stalled Discovery in this Case Nearly 500 Days and Now Seeks
the Assistance of the District Court to Stall discovery Another 500 Days in Violation of
Defendants' Constitutional Rights to Equal Justice Under Law and Due Process
Page 21 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
O'Marahaspreviouslystalleddiscoveryhundredsofdays.'Thecomplaintinthisactionwas
filedonJanuary28,2011.Fromthedateofthefilingofthecomplainttothisdate,is523days.
Reducingthistimeby20daystofileananswerand30dayswithinwhichtoholda16.1conference,
O'Marahasstalleddiscoveryover473days.
c. O'Mara Continues to Lie To The District Court With Impunity
O'MarahasalreadyliedtotheDistrictCourtwithimpunity.Hehasludicrouslyclaimed,"Indeed,
Mr.SundeisclaimingintheNevadaSupremeCourtthatSixClaimsforreliefintheCV10-01187were
notheardordecidedinDepartment6thatiscurrentlyonappeal.IfMr.Sundeiscorrect,thenitappears
thatMr.SundeislitigatingclaimsthatarerelatedtotheDepartment6actionandthus,thismatter,in
theinterestofjudicialeconomyshouldbeconsolidatedwiththeDepartmentSixmatter."
O'Maramadenosenseinthisstatement.Ofcoursethesix(6)causesofactionarerelatedtothe
Department6action,astheyarecontainedintheDepartment6action.O'Maraprovidednorelationship
betweenthe6causesofactionandthiscase,nordidheevenlistthose6claimssoastodetermineany
relationshiptothiscase.'
Firstly,defendantsremindtheDistrictCourtthattheDepartment6actionwasfiledinApril2010.
However,O'MarafiledthecomplaintinthisactiononJanuary28,2011.The6causesofactionwere
filedintheDepartment6actionover2yearsago,substantiallypriortoO'Marafilingthecomplaintin
thisaction.Infilingthisaction,O'MararepresentedtotheDistrictCourtthatthisactionwasfiledonly
afteraninquiryreasonableunderthecircumstances;thatitwasnotpresentedforimproperpurposeor
tocauseunnecessarydelayorneedlessincreaseinthecostoflitigation;thattheclaims,defensesand
otherlegalcontentionswerewarrantedbyexistinglaw;thattheallegationsandotherfactual
contentionshaveevidentiarysupport.NRCP11.O'Marafailedtoperformanyrudimentarydue
diligencepriortofilingthisaction.ItwasonlyabouthowmuchmoneytheO'Marascouldbilltheir
clients.Itwasjustaboutmoney.TheO'MarasviolatedvirtuallyeverysectionofRule11andsanctions
mustbeordered.Failuretoordersanctionscanonlybeexplainedbybiasandprejudiceagainst
Defendants.
"See,DefendantsfirstmotiontodismissfiledNovember14,2011
44
O'MarastatementsinfascontainedinPlaintiffs'priorpleadings
Page22of28
O'Mara also claims that "This is the first extension requested, and in made in good faith and not
for purposes of delay." In this false claim alone, O'Mara lied 2 times. He lied in claiming the motion
was filed in good faith. O'Mara lied in claiming the referenced motion in not for the purpose of delay.
It has been proven beyond question that most everything O'Mara has done in this case is for the purpose
of delay, and O'Mara virtually never acts in good faith. The proof, the actions of O'Mara, the pleadings
speak for themselves. The District Court is fully aware of O'Mara's dishonesty and failure to act in good
faith, but as yet has refused to comply with the law and sanction O'Mara.
O'Mara claimed in the District Court on numerous occasions that the department 6 action was not
relevant to this action. In fact, the District Court also stated the department 6 action is not relative to
this action.
O'Mara claimed, "The Courts and the parties should not have to litigate what is essentially one
case in two different courts if Mr. Sunde's relief is granted by the Nevada Supreme Court." But O'Mara
is the one that filed this as a separate action, by said filing he claimed this action was a distinctly
different case, with different proof, different facts in support of their allegations and defenses to
defendants' counterclaim. But now he claims it is the same case.
So, was O'Mara lying then or is he lying now? Rule 11 sanctions must be ordered against the
O'Maras.
O'Mara is stalling this action solely for the purposes of extending the time to complete this action
to allow plaintiffs to pay their seriously delinquent billings to O'Mara, to deny justice to defendants and
to obfuscate his discovery obligations under law.
O'Mara has turned this case into a circus with his lies. Defendants have recently filed a copy of
our reply brief in the appeal of the Department 6 action, proving O'Mara lied to the Nevada Supreme
Court 20 or 30 times. An attorney who lies to the District Court and the Nevada Supreme Court as
often as O'Mara, has an obvious deficiency in his mental acuity. We therefore, request the District
Court order a mental examination of David O'Mara and submit a request to the Nevada Supreme Court
and State Bar of Nevada recommending disbarment of David O'Mara and William O'Mara.
d. Rule 11 Sanctions and Attorney Fees
Page 23 of 28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRCP Rule 11 mandates that pleadings and motions must contain allegations and factual
contentions which "have evidentiary support, "and claims and legal arguments must be
"warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument." NRCP Rule 11(b)(2)(3). The
O'Maras and Judge Elliott have defrauded the entire legal system by the filing and signing of
pleadings, papers, they have certified as being factual, accurate and truthful. Rule 11(b) and,
"it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary
delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. "Rule 11(b)(1). And pursuant to Rule 11(c)
defendants' requested sanctions, costs and attorney fees must be awarded against the attorneys
and law firm. Naimo v. Fleming, 95 Nev. 13, 588 P.2d 1025 (1979);
Morrow v. Beach City
LLC, 991 P.2d 982 (2000); Bergman v. Boyce, 109 Nev. 670, 856 P.2d 560 (1993).
The plain language of NRS 7.085 specifically requires the issuance of sanctions and
attorney fees in this action due to the abuses of the litigation process in this action, dishonesty
and collusion engaged by the O'Maras and Judge Elliott. NRS 7.085 independently from Rule
11 requires this Court to issues sanctions, costs and attorney fees against plaintiffs' and their
attorneys, the O'Maras and Judge Elliott.
The O'Maras, Plaintiffs and Judge Elliott certainly cannot argue that their misconduct and
collusion were well-grounded in fact or law, when in fact their conduct was a fraud upon the
entire court system. This Court must order sanctions, attorney fees, and costs against the
O'Maras, plaintiffs and Judge Elliott.
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons stated above, this Court should grant the Petition and issue a writ of
mandamus or prohibition. Even though the Petitioners have extremely limited legal expertise
or experience, They have made every effort to follow the rules of this Court. The criminal
conduct proven herein cries out for justice, not picking apart every rule to find an excuse for
denying the enclosed application for writ protection. Petitioners demand justice,
Petitioners request the following:
1. Overturn the District Court Order dated February 14,2013 in which the Court denied
Petitioners' Motion For Reconsideration and motion to set aside the order.
Page 24 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. OverturntheDistrictCourtOrderdatedDecember13,2012inwhichtheCourt
OrderedtheStayofThePendingAction;
3. OverturntheDistrictCourtOrderdatedMarch15,2012,inwhichtheCourtdenied
Petitioners'exparteandamendedexpartemotiontocorrectclericalerror,etal.
4. OverturntheDistrictCourtOrderdatedDecember22,2011whichassertedthatthe
Petitionerspleadingswerefrivolous;
5. OverturntheDistrictCourt'sOrderdatedDecember22,2011,whichassertedthatthe
PetitionerswereevictedfromtheGreenwichhome;
6. OverturntheDistrictCourtOrderdatedMarch3,2011whichillegallyawardedthe
O'Marasattorneyfees.
7. DisqualifyWilliamandDavidO'Marafromanyfutureparticipationinthisaction;
8. ReferandrecommendthedisbarmentofStevenP.Elliott,DavidandWilliamO'Mara
totheStateBarofNevadaandtheDisciplineCommission;
9. OrderSanctionspursuanttoNRCP11and56thatsummaryjudgmentbeordered
againsttheCrocketts'originalComplaintandSupplementalComplaint;
10. OrdertheCrockettsandtheO'MarastopayPetitioners'attorneyfees,hiredlegal
researchfees,andcostsassociatedwiththismotion.
11.AwardtothePetitionersanyandallotherremediesallowableunderthelaw.
Thepartiescertifythatnosocialsecuritynumberofanypersoniscontainedinthese
documents.
Datedthis /74layof rekiky, 2013
Datedthis (Kdayof Iir-- )Xucki, 2013
Page25of28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATEOFMAILING
I hereby certify that on the of February, 2013,1 deposited in the United States mail, at Reno,
Nevada, with certified postage thereon fully prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
SECOND AMENDED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR
PROHIBITION, addressed as follows:
The Honorable Steven P. Elliott
Second Judicial District Court
75 Court Street
P.O. Box 30083
Reno, NV 89520
David O'Mara
Attorney At Law
311 E. Liberty Street
Reno, NV 89501
Page 26 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE )
Under penalties of perjury, the undersigned declares that he is one of the Petitioners herein
in the within-captioned Second Amended Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus or
Prohibition ("Petition"); that he is familiar with the facts set forth in this Petition and knows
the contents thereof; that such facts are true to the best of his knowledge, and as to those factual
allegations therein contained which are stated on information and belief, he believes them to be
true as well.
Dated this ( Yday of February, 2013.
J. Mich* Sunde
P efitiontr
SUBSc RIBED and SWORN to before me
this I day of- Pii2Art_r1.4 2013, by
J. MICHAEL SUNDE.
K. GANIS
Notary Public - State of Nevada
Appointment Recorded in Washoe County
No:08-5571-2 - Expires December 12, 2015
NOTARY PUBL
Page 27 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INDEXOFEXHIBITS
NumberDescription No.Pages
1Hearing Transcript dated November 8, 2011
6
2Proposed Order for November 8, 2011, Hearing 9
3Order After Hearing dated December 22, 2011
5
4Justice Court Hearing Transcript dated December 20, 2010 4
5Hearing Transcript dated September 20, 2011
10
6Five Day Notice of Unlawful Detainer For Non-Payment of Rent 2
7No Cause Termination Notice to Vacate
3
8Locksmith changing locks on Greenwich Home
1
9Hearing Transcript dated February 4, 2011
8
10Recommendation For Order
17
11Motion For Contempt
12
12Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Order
3
To Stay and Motion For Relief From Order
Page 28 of 28
EXHIBIT1
Crockett vs Sunde Writ of Mandamu ,
November OS, 2011
Pane I
CODE: 4185
NICOLELI. ALEXANDER, CCR446
PeggyHoogs&Associates
435MarshAvenue 435MarshAvenue
Reno,Nevada89509
I CERTIFIED (775)327-4460
CourtReporter
1
COPY
SECONDJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOFWASHOE
THEH 4ORABLESTEVENP.ELLIOTT,DISTRICTJUDGE
--o0o--
R&VCROCKETT, CaseNo.CV1I-00307
Plaintiff, Dept.No. 1C
vs.
J. MICHAEL/VIKTORIYASUN
Defendant.
TRANSCRIPTOFPROCEEDINGS
WRIT-MANDAMUS/PROHIBITION
TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 0, 2011
APPEARANCES:
ForthePlaintiff: INPROPRIAPERSONA,ESQ.
5200SummitRidge Ridc,7eDr.ft422[
Reno,Nevada
FortheDefendant: WILLIAMM.O'MARA
DAVIDC.O'MARA,ESQ.
311EastLibertyStreet
Reno,Nevada
Peggy Boogs & Associates
775-3274460
Crockettvs Sunde WntofMandamus
NovemberOR,70)I
Page 2
-000-
RENO, NEVADA, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011, 8:30 A.M.
THE COURT: COURT: Now, this matter is in the case
:rockett versus Sunde, and initially, it was filed as
6 a motion for writ of prohibition, and then the defendants
7hadthisother document -- of course, it's on the
8bottom-- theexpartemotiontoamendmotionforwritof
9 prohibition to beretitledexpartemotionfortemporary
10restrainingorderandpreliminaryinjunction.And1
11wouldsaythatwhatwe'rehereforisprobably
2preliminaryinjunction.Ithinkthatthatistheproper
3 thing.
4 TheSundesareseekingtopreventthesaleof
5theresidence,andit'sreallyaninjunctiverelief
6 matterratherthanawritofprohibition.Ijustthink
7itwasincorrectlymade,and then wecangofromthere.
8 So,Mr.Sunde,Iseeyou'rehererepresentin
19yourself;isthat correct?
20MR.SUNDE:Yes,sir,YourHonor.Yes,sir,
21YourHonor.we'vebeenunabletobeintouchwithour
22lawyer,andallofasudden,heshowsuptoday.Wehad
23someplanningconferencesandsoforth,sonot
knowing
24 whattoexpect,Ihadnochoicebuttosubstitutemyself
Peggy Hoogs & Associates
775-327-4460
CrockettvsSonde
WritofMandarno
November 08, 20 J
Page14
1unfortunately,whenyoulookattheirincometaxreturn
2 forthatyear,
It's$55,923.So it'snot$204,000.
3obviously,theydefraudedthebanksinapplyingforthat
4loanwithfraudulentinformation.You'llsurelyhear
5 somebody say well, we submittedanewonelater.well,
6theproblemis,weneverseethat.Weneverseethat
7document.Whereisthatdocument?It'sthesamething
8withtheclaimsI'vemadethatVictoriaCrockett
9 embezzled money from NevadaDivorce.I'veaskedabout
10 that moneyshestoleand--
11 MR.O'MARA:Objection,YourHonor.Thisis
12totallyoutsidetherealmofthishearing,andit's
13alreadybeendecidedinagainsthimandinourfavorby
14DepartmentSix.
15THEWITNESS: Andthatcaseisonappeal.
16THECOURT:Iwouldhavetosustainthe
17objectiontothatmatterbecauseintherealmofanoc,her
18courtatthispoint.
19THEWITNESS:Oneoftheotherthingsthat
20expendedforthathouseovertheyears,ofcourse,is
21thatwhen the house was first purchased, there was a
22firstmortgage$207,$208,000,andtherewasasecond
23mortgageforsomethinglike$23,andIpaidforboth
the
24firstandthesecond. The$2,000thattheyclaimwasthe
PeggyHoogs&Associates
775-327-4460
Crocken vs Sun&
Wru of Mandamus
November M 2011
Page n
1 and that the deed has already been recorded. This is a
2 done deal and there's a new owner there, you know.
3
MR. O'MARA: Your Honor, proof of that
4 document is in our pleadings, so if the Court wishes to
5 look at Exhibit 1 to our answer to this, it's already in
6 there.
THE COURT: Well, it would appear that if
that is true, that the issue is moot, that the sale has
already taken place. Primarily, I would say that the
10 injunctive relief is not appropriate property for the
11 reasons I've just gone over.
12 Now, with regard to future motions,
13 understand the issue that the Crocketts don't
want to
14 have additional legal expenses while the issue of their
15 motion to strike and dismiss are pending.
And, you know,
16 I understand your desire to, you know, hold down legal
17 expenses.
18 What Mr. Sunde is claiming is that there's a
19 16.1 violation, that somehow the 16.is due, and that
20
you're in violation of that. And I haven't considered
21 that issue. I suppose I don't know that somebody can,
22 you know, not be able to present that issue. So I'm not
any more
23 going to grant your request that you're not file
24
motions. There may be something valid and appropriate to
Peggy Hoogs & Associates
775-327-4460
Crockett vs Sunde
Writ of Mandamus
November O. 2011
Page/
Ibefiled,andIcan'tprejudgethat,andIdon'tknow
2thatthemotionsuptothispointintimearefrivolous,
3althoughinthiscase,IwouldsaythattheCrockettsare
4victoriousonthismatter.I'mnotgoingtoholdthat,
5youknow,thisdesiretofileaninjunctiverelieftrying
6tostopthesaleofthepropertyisfrivolous,butat
7
leastitdoesn'tseemtobearsomething thattheCourt
8 couldreasonablybeexpectedtograntwhenthere'snot a
9 claimofthetitle,atleastthat'smyunderstandingat
10thelaw.Soanyway,Iwouldn'tsaythatthisis
11frivolous,butit'sjustnotsomethingthatcanbe
12granted.Itsinappropriateforinjunctiverelief.
13Soanyway,I'llauthorizeyoutoapplyfor
14attorney'sfeessinceyou'rethevictoriouspartyonthis
15matter.Andifyouwishtoprepareanappropriate
16findingsof factandconclusionsoflawinthis,Iwould
on
17entertainthatsothatwecouldgetawrittenord
?ar
18this.
19 MR.O'MARA: That'sfine,YourHonor.
20THE COURT:All
right.Courtwillstandin
21recess.
22
(Theproceedingsconcluded
at3:40p.m.)
-00o-
23
24
PeggyHoogs&Associates
775-327-4460
Crocken vs Sunde
Writ of Mandamus
Novembcr 08, 2011
Pa9e 75
1STATEOFNEVADA)
COUNTYOFWASHOE)
85.
I,NICOLEJ.ALEXANDER,CertifiedCourt
4ReporterinandfortheStateofNevada,dohereby
5certify:
6
Thattheforegoingproceedingsweretakenb)
7meatthetimeandplacethereinsetforth;thatthe
8 proceedings were recorded stenographically by me and
9thereaftertranscribedviacomputerunder mysupervision;
Mthattheforegoingisafull,trueandcorrect
1 transcriptionoftheproceedingstothebestofmy
2knowledge,skillandability.
IfurthercertifythatIamnotarelative
14noranemployeeofanyattorneyoranyoftheparties,
15noramIfinanciallyorotherwiseinterestedinthis
16action.
Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjuryunderthe
lawsoftheStateofNevadathattheforegoingstatements
9 aretrueand correct.
20
DatedthisNovember14,2011.
NicoleJ. Alexander
Nicole
J. Alexander, CCR #446,
RPR
Peggy Hoogs & Associates
775-327-4460
EXHIBIT2
CodeNu.3860
2 II
THEO'MARALAWFIRM,P.C.
WILLIAMM.O'MARA(NevadaBarNo.0083
DAVIDC.O'MAPA(NevadaBarNo.8599)
311EastLibertyStreet
4HReno,NV89501
Telephone: 775/323-1321
Facsimile: 775/323-4082
6,AttorneysforPlaintiff
INTHESECONDJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA 7
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOFWASHOE
101IROBERT&VICTORIACROCKETT,
)
)CaseNo.CV11-00307
Plaintiffs,)
)DeptNo.10
211
VS. )
) REQUESTFORSUBMISSIONOF
J.MICHAEL SUNDE,individually,
) PROPOSEDORDERAFTERHEARING
VIKTORIYASOKOLSUNDE, )(ofNovember8,2011)
4llindividually,andDOESI-X )
Defendants.
)
)
)
16
7
ITISHEREBYREQUESTEDthattheproposedOrderAfterHearing
18
(ofNovember8,2011),atrueandcorrectcopyofwhichisattached
19
heretoasExhibit1,besubmittedtotheCourtfordecision.
20
AFFIRMATION
21 (PursuanttoNRS239B.030)
22 Theundersigneddoesherebyaffirmthatthepreceding
23
411
documentfiledintheabovereferencedmatterdoesnotcontain
24
thesocialsecuritynumberofanyperson.
25
DATED:December 7,
2011.THEO'MARALAWFIRM,P.C.
26
27
/s/WilliamM.O'Mara
WILLIAMM.O'MARA,ESQ.
28
5
10
15
20
25
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
Iherebycertifyunderpenaltiesofperjurythatonthis
dateIservedatrueandcorrectcopyoftheforegoingdocument
4 IIbY:
Deposltingformailing,inasealed
envelope,U.S.Postageprepaid,at
Reno,Nevada
7
Personaldelivery
Facsimile
9
MessengerService
FederalExpressorotherovernight
delivery
12
addressedasfollows:
3
J.MichaelSunde
1 411ViktoriyaSokolSunde
5200SummitRidgeDr.#4221
Reno,Nevada89523
16
DATED:December7,2011./s/ValerieWeis
17
VALERIEWETS
18
19
2
22
23
24
26
27
28
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2 II Exhibit No Description
No of Pages
3 1 Proposed Order After Hearing
5
4
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Inc. V. Second Judicial District Court,103Nev.473,745P.2d
2117
00(1987).
7.
Thatafterbeingservedwithanoticeofeviction,Mr.
4andMrs.Sundedidnotcontestthenoticeofevictionin the
5 RenojusticeCourtthathasexclusivejurisdictionoflandlord
6
andtenantissuesandtheRenoJusticeCourtorderedthe
7evictionofMr.andMrs.Sunde.
8. ThatonoraboutOctober25,2011,thepropertyin
9ilquestioninthismatterwassoldbyMr.andMrs.Crockettto
SandraBrooke.
ThatthisCourtrefrainsfrommakingfindingsofother
12factsasthismatteriscontinuingandtheCourtwillmake
13 appropriatefindingsattheendofthecase,whenallofthe
14evidencehasbeenpresented.
15CONCLUSIONSOFLAW
16Thatthechangeofnameofthewritofprohibitionwas
9.
1.
17madebyDefendantsunderMRCP15andacceptedbythisCourt.
18
Thatthepurposeofinjunctivereliefis 2. tomaintain
19thestatusquoatthetimeofthehearingpendingcourt
20determination. All Minerals Corp. V. Kunkle 105Nev.835,837-
138,784P.2d2,4(1989).
22Thatthestatusquoisproperif"injurytothemoving 3.
3 party(Mr.andMrs.Sunde)willbeimmediate,certainandgreat
24ifit isdenied,while thelossofinconvenienceto theopposing
25 partywillbecomparativelysmallandinsignificantifitis
26
granted." Rhodes Mining Co. vs. Belleville Placer Mining Co., 32
27Nev.230,239,106P.2d561,563(1910).Mr.andMs.Sundeare
28claimingtheirrightsunderaleaseandMr.andMs.Crockett
soldthepropertypriortothehearing.Therefore,theharmis
211notimmediate,certainand/orgreat,sinceMr.andMrs.Sunde
canexercisetheirleaserightsif,andonlyif,theirleaseis
distillvalid-aquestionwhichthiscourtisnotwillingor
capableofdecidingatthistime.
6
Mr.andMrs.Sundearenotentitledtoreconsideration
7,ofthecourt'sdecisiontocanceltheuspendens.
Reconsiderationofmotionsisproperifthedistrictjudgeto
91Iwhomthefirstmotionwasmadeconsentstoarehearing.
10 Harvey's Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. MacSween,
96Nev.215,217(1980).
11Additionally,underDistrictCourtRule13(7)"Nomotiononce
12heardanddisposedofshallberenewedinthesamecause,nor
4.
13 shallthesamemattersthereinembracedbereheard,unlessby
14
leaveofthecourtgranteduponmotiontherefor,afternoticeof
15 suchmotiontotheadverseparties."Here,Mr.andMrs.Sunde
16 didnotfileamotionforleavetofileamotionfor
17 reconsideration.Thus,sucharequestnowisdenied.
5.
19 maintainthestatusquothemotionshouldbedenied.
20
Thepresentstatusoftherealpropertyandhouse,is
18
Lastly, sinceamotion forinjunctivereliefisto
6.
21thatthepropertyispresentlyownedbyMs.SandraBrooke, who
22 isnotapartytothisaction.Thus,theissueofatemporary
2.
estrainingorderismootatthistime.
24
7. Thatthemotionfiledforaprotectiveorderwas
25frivolousandtheamendedrequestforatemporaryrestraining
26orderinviewofthepropertyhavingbeensoldpriortohearing,
27makesthechangeofthemotionfromprotectiveordertoamotion
28fortemporaryrestrainingordermoot.
ORDER
Baseduponthefindingsoffactsandconclusionsoflaw,
hewritforprohibition,asrenamedasamotionforinjunctive
eliefbe,and herebyis,DENIED.
Mr.andMrs.Crockettmayfileamotionforattorney'sfees
6
andanycostswithintwenty(20)daysofthedateofthisOrder.
7
ITISSOORDERED.
8
DATED:, 2011.
9
10
DISTRICTCOURTJUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT3
FILED
Electronically
17-22-2011103716AM
CralyFranden
CierkottheCourt
Transaction 0 2662351
INTHESECONDJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOFWASHOE
t
9
)
BERT&VICTORIACROCKETT
)
Plaintiff, )
)
1
vs. )CaseNo.CV11-00307
)
J. MICHAELSONDE,individually,)DeptNo.10
VIKTORIYASOKOLSUNDE,)
individuallyandDOESIthrough)
1 ,1
)
Defendants.
)
16
17
ORDER AFTERBEARING
Thismattercame uponhearingthis8tmdayofNovember,
initiallyawritofprohibition,which apparentlywas
lischaracterizedandshouldhavebeenidentifiedasamotionfor
'I 1
4 i
injunctiverelief.Mr.Sunde,althoughrepresentedbyMr.
luery,filedapaperdismissingMr.But, tyashiS ocunse...
4
AlthoughMr.Suerywaspresent,Mr.SundeproceededinpropPr
24
person on his andMrs.Sokol-Sunde'sbehalf. PlaintiffVictoria
Crockettwaspresentinpersonandrepresentedbyhercounsel,
26
WilliamM. O'Mara,Esq.,ofTheO'MaraLawFirm,P.C.
27
ThisCourttookevidencefromMr.Sunde,heardte(eStiMony
28
fromVictoriaCrockett,theonlywitnessescalledbythe
ylOV ewiththeSecondJudicialDistrictCourt
parties,andreceivedexhibits_Thematterwasthensuhm,,:ted
2
fordecision.
3havingconsideredthetestimonygivenandthe TheCourt,
4exhibits submittedincourtand in thewrittenmotion,
opposition andreply,findsas follows:
FINDINGSOFFACT
1. Thatonoraboutdune5,1996,Victoria andRobert
Crockettpurchasedthehouseand/orrealpropertylocatedat
9111090 Greenwich, Reno,Nevada.
2. Thatin2009,VictoriaandRobertCrockettentered
IlintoaleaseagreementwithJ.MichaelSundeandhiswife,
121VjktoriyaSunde,forreasonsunknown17othe"Our
3.
F
ThatViktoriyaandJ.MichaelSundemakenoclaim
14Hownershiptothehouseand/ortherealproperty.
4. 2011,thisCourtentered Thaton the26thdayofJuly,
611anordervoidinganyimproperuspendensfiledbyJ.Michael
Sunde.Thatnotice of entryofnaidorderwascjivenon the26h
dayofJuly,2011,andnotimelymotionforI. ecr)nslderation Wdfl;
:iledbyMr.and/orMrs.Sunde.
20
E. Thatonthe19thdayofOctober,2011,Uefehdants,
21 luoughMr.Buery,filedawritofprohit-, itionregardinat_he
2211reinstatementofthe1ispendens.Onthe3rddayofNovembel,
23
Plantiffsfiledan opposition to thewritot prnibt
24
6.ThattheCourtfindsthatthewritofprohibition
25
appropriateasthereisanadequateremedyatlawto
26 establishMr.andMrs. Sunde'sleaseprovidedthatsaidleas,:
27hadnotbeenotherwiseterminatedbytheRenoj1j.5iCe,Court,
1
Achhasexclusivejurisdiction(seeNRS4.370(q))and
K,7.R,
28
2
yoforiyinalonfilewiththeSecondJudicialDistrictCourt

/nc.v. SecondJudicial DistrictCourt,103Nev.473, 745P.2d


100(1987).
7.
That after beingservedwithanoticeofeviction,M
4 andMrs.Sundedidnotcontestthenoticeofevictioninthe
RenoJusticeCourtthathasexclusive jurisdictionofItindlord
tenant 13sue3and theRena justiceCourt:orderedthe
7evictionofMr.andMrs.Sunde.
8 ,Thatonor about October25,2011,the propertyin
5
1
8.
9 questioninthismatterwassoldbyMr.andMrs.Crockettto
0'SandraBrooke.
IIThatthisCourtrefrainsfrommakingfindingsofother 9.
factsasthismatteriscontinuingandtheCourtwillmake
appropriatefindingsattheendofthecase,whenallofthe
evidencehasbeenpresented.
CONCLUSIONSOFLAW
1. Thatthechangeofnameof the writofprohibitor wis
madebyDefendantsunderNRCP15andacceptedbythis':jdurt.
2. Thatthepurposeofinjunctivereliefistomaintain
20
he statusquoatthetimeofthehearingpendingcourt
21
determination. 837-
AllMineralsCorp.v.Kunkle 105Nev.835,
22
38,784P.2d2,4(1989).
23
3. Thatthestatusquoisproperif - injurytofhemcv)11
24
party(Mr.andMrs.Sunde)willbeimmediate,certainandcfrat
ifitisdenied,whilethelossofinconveniencetotheopposirl
25
partywillbecomparativelysmallandinsignificantifitin
26
27
granted."
RhodesMiningCo.vs.BellevillePlacerMiningCo.,
A2
28
Nev.230,239,106P.2d561,563(1910). Mr.andMs.sundeare
)OFprionalonFilewiththeSecondJudicialDistrictCourt

71aiming their rights under a lease and Mr. and Ms. Crockett
211sold the property prior to the hearing. Therefore, the harm is
3notimmediate,certain and/or great.
41 Mr.andMrs.Sundearenotentitledtoreconsideration
4.
of the court's decision tocancelthe us pcndens.
6 Reconsiderat'IonQfmotionsIsproper if tedi3triotjudgeto
7 whom the
first motion was made consents to a rehearing,
8 Harvey's Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. MacSween, 96Nev.215,217(198C)
9
Additionally, under District Court Rule 13(7) "No motion once
lopeard and disposed of shall be renewed in the same cause, nor
shall the same matters therein embraced be reheard, unless 1-Y.y '
12 leave of the court granted upon motion therefor, after notice of
'3 such motion to the adverse parties." Here, MT. and Mrs. Sunde
I4 did not file a motion for leave to file a motion for
econsideration.Thus, such a request now is denied.
5.Since the motlonfor injunctive reliefIs to mai7ltdih
17 1 do notownthehome, 1(the status quo, and the Crocketts
otion must be denied.
9 ii
6.The present status of the real property and house, is
2oUthat the property is presently owned by Sandra Brooke, who
'Hisnot a party to this action. Thus, the issue of a temporary
22 restraining order is moot at this time.
23
7.That the motion filed for a protective order was
24 frivolous and the amended request foratemporary restraining
25 order in view of the property having been sold prior to hearing,
26 makes the change of the motion from prOt.eCtivr! order, to a mo7.)n
27 for temporary restraining order moot.
28
4
oforiginalonfilewiththeSecondJudicialDistrictcourt
ORDER
Baseduponthefindingsoffactsandconclusionsoflaw,
3
the writforprohibition,asrenamedasamotionforinjunctive
reliefbe,andherebyis,DENIED.
Mr.andMrs.Crockettmayfileamoticrforattorney'sfees
6
andanycost.!.:withintwenty(20)daysofthedateofti,j5- Order.
7
ITIS SOORDERED.
DATED: 2011.
9
10
11
12
17
18
19
20
21
2/
23
24
26
27
28
oforiOnalonFilewiththeSecondJudicialDistrictCourt
EXHIBIT4
2
IN THE LANDLORD TENANT COURT
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
-00o-
CROCKETT .
7
Plaintiff,
8
Case No. 2010-002102
VS.
SUNDE,
10 Defendants,
11
12
13
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
14
HEARING
15
December 20, 2010
16 Reno, Nevada
17
18
19
20 SUNSHINE REPORTING SERVICES
21 (775) 883-7950 or (775) 323-3411
22 Transcribed By:GAIL R. WILLSEY, CSR f359, CA CSR
23 #9748 COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION BY:
24
CERTIFIED COP'
caseCATalyst 11
1
SUNSHINE REPORTING SERVICES(775) 323-3411

3
4
,
5:
6
9
A A
10
11 APPEARANCES
12
13 VICTORIA CROCKETT
14
ROBERT CROCKETT
15
MR. & MRS. SUNDE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SUNSHINE REPORTING SERVICES(775)323 3411 -

April19thandafterwards,we had asked forthemto


2 payit direct], toussowecanfollowproof
3 payment Todate,theyhaverefusedto doso.
WefiledandpostedtheNotice ofEvictionon
theirdoorDecember11thof2010.Up to them on the
14th, filing their affidavit, they claimed inthe
affidavit that the rent was paid.The rent was not
Wehadtopersonallypayitourselvesthrough
9 themortgagecompany.statementsfor
id.
Idohaveour
10 prcof.
They did finally pay directly to the mortgage
12 on December 16th.So it was Quite a bit after
the
13 eviction.We are not obviously now attempting to
14
evict because payment has been made. They called the
15 hearing. tohavethempayus Whatwe'reaskingforis
16 directly instead ofthemortgagesowecanfollow
17 payment.
18 They did reference thattheyhaveoverpaid
our mortgage for the last years, however, wedo havea
20 copy of the lease.The lease does say that they are
21 required to us $2.100 permonth,They historically
Soweare
23 askingtonowmakethemresponsibleforthe$2,100
24 dollarspermonthwhichisintheleaseandpayus
22 havejustkindofcoveredthemortgage.
4
SUNSHINEREPORTINGSERVICES3411 - (775)323
We'!1,afterreviewingtheLease Agreementand
hearingtestimony,Mr.AndMrs.Sunde,I'mgoing to
find in favor of the Crooketts for the limited Purpose
oftheamountoftherentandwhereitshould be paid
5
Iunderstand.Mr.Sunde,therearealot of
6!othercomplicationsandentanglements,equitable
7considerationsasitsoundslikeyouhaveconsidered
61 with legal counsel.Those are issues that need to he
,cd considered and decided in another venue, in another
10Notanothervenue,butanotherforumnothere forum.
11in Landlord Tenant Court.
12 Please don't interrupt at this time, sir.
13Just one moment.Ihavetodecidewhat'sbefore this
14court and it's very limited, it doesn't mean you don't
15have a cause of action for other issues that you are
16raising.It means this is what I can't decide. This
17i is the authority that I have today "Yes - or "No," that
18type of thing, it doesn't mean that you can't go
19elsewhere.
20Ifyoualready are in District Court, if you
21you mayhaveanothercauseofaction,iflt think
22doesn't rise to the jurisdictional amount, it could he
smallclaimsasfarastheworkyouputin
24 Itemsyoupurchased.
23
or the
ItcouldbeJusticeCourtifit
IP
SUNSHINE REPORTING SERVICES(775) 323-3411
EXHIBIT5
Rag.,
CODE;4105
NICOLEJ.ALEXANDER.CCR446
PeggyHoogs4AsSOciates
435 marshAvenue
Reno,Nevada89509
(775)327-4460
CourtReporter
SECONDJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHESTI.TE or NEVADA
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOFWASH
THEHONORABLESTEVENP.ELLIOTT,DISTICT.JUDGE
--o0o-'
R.&V.CROCKETT, CaseNo.CV11-:10307
Plaintiffs, Dept.No.10
S .
.J. MICR/ :L/V1KTORIYASUND.E,
Defendant.
TRANSCRIPTOFPROCEEDINGS
MOTIONSREARING
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER20,2011
APPEARANCES:
For thePlaintiff: DAVIDC.O'MARA,EEO.
311EastLibertyStrek
Reno,Nevada89505
FortheDefendant: DONALDD,BEURY,ESQ,
423EStreet
Davis,California 956:6
Page69
Upuntil
thetimethathewas
removedfromthe
house,
2hepaidallofit?
AWe did
notremovehimfrom the houcc.
1 4
Upuntilthetimeheleftthe house,hepaidallof
it?
6AWhenyou sayallofit, whatis--
7
QAllofthemonthlypayments?
8AAllof themonthlypaymentstous?
9
Q
Uh-huh.
10ATheleasecalledfor$2,100inmortgagepayments
11Oftentimes,hepaid$2,100.However,manytimes,we
accepted
12lower paymentaslongasthemortgagewascovered.
130Sohecoveredthemortgage?
14AHe didnotpaythe homeowner'sassociation
duesfor
5 overa year,andwehadalienonthat. So thatwas$1,467bat
hedidnot_pay fortheexpenses-
7
0Soyoupaidit?
ASowepaidit.
19 Didyouevergetthemoneyback
from him?
20 A No.Heowesusatonof money.
21 Okay.Soheowed--
22 MR.SUNDE:Yeah,butIdidn'tsteal
twoandahalt
23milliondollarsworthofmyincomeeitherlike
youandyour
24crookedhusband.
Page72
1it.
2
Didyourmothersayinanypleadingwhyshebelieved
3thatthishousebelongedtoMr.Sunde?
4Theywereusingthetermsfraudulenttransfers,I A
5believe.Butwewerealwaystheoriginalownersofthehouse,
6soitwasneveranytransferbackandforthoranythinglike
7that.
Didsheevertellyouinconversationswhyshe
9believedthathousebelongedtoher?
10
Ihadnocontactwithmymother. A
11WereyouthetrusteeofthetrustsetupbyMr.Sunde? 0
12Yes. A
13
Andthepurposeofthattrustwastoprovide forhim
Q
14inhisoldage?
15MR.O'MARA:Objection,YourHonor.Thetrustisnot
16eveninquestioninthiscase.Ithasnothingtodowithit.
17Ithastodowiththeleaseagreementoftheproperty.
18MR.BEURY:Itshowsageneralpattern,thatthere'sa
19trustsetupforhertopayhimbenefits,andtheyalsohavea
20housethat hewouldown,butitwouldbeinhername.
21MR. O'MARA: There'snothinginthetrustatallthat
22saysanythingaboutahouseor--
MR.BEURY:He'stestifyingagain.
24
THECOURT:Well,Iunderstandhisargument,butit's
23
--
--
--
--
Page73
notrelevant.
MR.O'MARA:It'snotrelevanttoinregardstothis
3case.There'snothinginregardstoher.She'snotbeingsued
4asthetrusteeinhercapacityatallasthetrustee.She's
5individuallybeingsuedonanavenueofthisbreachofcontract
6thatthey'reclaiming.It'snotrelevantinthiscase.It's
7alreadybeendeterminedinDepartment6inregardstoallofthe
8issuesinregardstothetrust.Andthenifthatwewereunder
9thosecircumstances,thenitwouldbe--
10THECOURT:Iamgoingtosustaintheobjectionasto
11goingintothetrustinthatIdon'tbelievethetrustis
12directlyinvolvedinthismattertoday.
13MR.BEURY:Ijustwanttoshowthat'sthe
14relationship,YourHonor,thatthere'sarelationship.Hegave
15hisdaughter controloverhisbusiness
16THECOURT:Ithinkheultimately--
17
MR.BEURY: allofhisfinances,
18
MR.O'MARA:Firstofall--
19THECOURT:ButI'mgoingto
20THECOURTREPORTER:Oneatatime,please.
21THECOURT: sustaintheobjection.Idon'tfeelthe
22trustisdirectlyinvolvedinourproceedingtoday.
23BYMR. BEURY:
24
Okay.DidMr.SundehaveaMercedesautomobile? Q
--
Page74
M.O'MARA:Objection,YourHonor.Thisisalso
2irrelevant.Ithasnothingtodowiththiscase.
3THEWITNESS:No.
4
MR.BEURY:Ithinktheybroughtupthefactthat
5 Mr. Crockett'scarwasphotographed,andIwanttogetintowhy
6thathappened.
7MR. O'MARA:Ithasnothingtodowithit.
8THECOURT:Well,I don'treally
9MR.O'MARA:We'vealreadyagreedthat--
10THECOURT:Idon'tbelievethatthecarisreallyat
11issuetoday.
12
MR.BEURY:Well, thecourtunderstandsmyargument
13thattherewasapatternhere;thattherewasatrustsetup
14givingheragreatdealofleewaytopayornottopayMr.Sunde
15hisbenefitswhichjustcarriesovertothehouse,theideathat
16let'sbuyahouse,putitinhername.Heownsthehouse.He
17makesthepayments.Hepaysforeverything.Hecanmake
18improvements.Hecanputallofhismoneyintoit.Butitwas
19afather/daughteraren'twefriendlytypeoftrust
20relationship--
21
MR.O'MARA:Exceptfor--
22MR.BEURY:--asfaras - -
23MR. O'MARA:We'retalkingaboutapieceofproperty
24andaleaseagreementinregardstooverayearatleast..Oral
--
Page75
1agreementsororaltestimonyhavenorelevancewhatsoeverin
2 thesecases.
3THECOURT:I'mnotmakingfinaldeterminationsasto
4thematter.
5MR. O'MARA:
Exactly.We'rekindofatalimited
6scopetoday.
7BYMR. BEURY:
WhenMr,SundemarriedthecurrentMrs.Sunde,didyou
9approveofthatmarriage?
10 MR. O'MARA: Objection,YourHonor.Thisisalsonot
11relevantatall.
12THECOURT:Sustained.I'mnot reallyconcerned
13about,youknow,theirlifestory.
14MR. BEURY: Well,Iunderstand that.
15THECOURT:Wehaveaverylimited
concern.
16MR.BEURY: Thereasonthiswholerelationshipfell
17apartandthereasonshe'snolongersayingthatthatwashis
18housewasbecauseshedidn'tapproveofthenewwife.
19MR. O'MARA: Andthat's Imean,ifMr.Beury is
20goingtosaythatI'vebeentestifying,whatwasthatinregards
21tothat.Andquitefrankly--
22MR. BEURY: I gettoaskthequestions.
23MR. O'MARA: - -
ifhewasinvolvedinthiscasefor
1
24thelastthreeyears,hewouldknowthatwascompletelyuntrue
Page 7
1in
regardstohowMrs.Crockettallowedandhadaworking
2relationshipwithhimbefore,andthatwasnotthereason
why
3
thisthingwasdestroyed.
4
THECOURT:I'mgoingtosustaintheobjectionto
5goingintothefamilyhistory.1don'treallyneedtoknowthat
6for thisproceeding.
7 BYMR.BEURY:
8
mayIhaveamoment? Q
9Inyourownwords,whywasMr. Sunde removedfromthe
house?
A Again,wedidnotremovehimhWegotacallfroma
12 neighborthatsawatruckunloadingstufffromthehouse.
13
Soit'syourtestimonythathevoluntarilyleftthe
Q
14 house?
15 A Yes.
16 Q
he paidupatthatpoint? was
17 A honest, Ican'trememberifhehadpaidJanuary. Tobe
18Ibelievehedid,waspaidupatthatpoint.
Q

L9 You never filedaneviction notice againstMr. Sunde?


20 A filedanevictionnoticein December because hehad
I
21 notpaidrent,andwealsofiledano
faultendofleaseletting
-
22himknowthatwewouldnotcontinue the leaseafterFebruary
2328th,2011.
24
Q


SotheDecemberbefore,youfiledtheevictionnotice?
Page77
A
Yes.Hehadnotpaidrentontime.
2
Forhowlong?
3
A
I think we filed iC
on
December 11th, around that
I time.
5
Sohewas11dayslate? Q
6 A Yes.
Soyoudidfileanevictionnotice.Whendidheshow
upwith theatrucktounloadhisstuff?
A WegotacallJanuary25th,2011.
10 Sothatwasamonthandahalfafter youfiledthe
ill evictionnotice?
12 A well,toexplaintheevictionnotice--
Well, no.Wasitoutamonthandahalfafteryou
14 filed the eviction notice?
15 A Yes,butwedidn'tcontinuethe non-payment eviction.
16Hedidsubsequentlypay.
17
Q

andhemovedout
Okay.Youfiledanevictionnotice,
18 Yousaid itwasvoluntary.
19 A Wefiledanevictionnoticein Decemberfor
20nonpayment.Heaskedforahearing,sowe went to a hear
21 When he showed uptothehearing,hedidn't show at that point
22thathehad
paid.Whenwefirstfiled,hehadnotpaid. Soin
23themeantime,hedidpay.Sowedroppedourevictionfor
24 nonpayment.

Okay.Didyoufileasecondeviction?
A
Idon't believeweever filed.we neverfiledan
eviction.What
wedidiswehadwrittena
letterstatingLhat
4theendofthetermwouldbeFebruary28th,2011, andwedidnot
5wanttorenewa leasewiththem.
6whendidyourrelationship--Iassumeyour Q
7 father/daughterre hip wasgoodatsomepoint.when dld
8it breakdown?
9AJune 2008. Threeyearsaf heirmarriage.
1 Andhestayedthereanotherthreeyearsafterthat?
AWhatwasthequestion?
2 Hestayedlivinginthathouseaboutthree yearsaftl.
3that?
14AYes.
15
Q
Didyoudeal withhimlikean ordinary tenantatthat
16 time?
No.Westilldealtasafather/daughterrelationship
Upuntil when?
9 A
17 A
HesuedusinApril2010.
120 Isthatsuitregardingthe trustthatthe judge
0


21doesn'twanttohear about?
22 A Yes.Andhestarted--
23
Q
Isthatbecauseyoustoppedpayingyour
father
24 dividends?

Page "";
ANo.
O'MARA:Objection,YourHonor.Notrelevant.
THECOURT:Sustained.
4BYMR.BEURY:
5Qwhenwasthelease--therewas a lease;correct?
6 A Yes.
Forfiveyears--there'swaterifyouneedit.Tne
8leasewasforfive-yearterms;correct?
9 A No.
10
Q


Whatwerethetermsofthelease?
11 A Ibelieveitwasyeartoyear.
12 Q
t. Wasitcontemplatedbetweenyouandyourfatherthi
13hewouldliveinthathousefortherestofhislifeifhechose
14to?
15Yes. A
16 I'msorry?
17 Ayes.
18 MR.BEURY:Yes.Okay.Ihavenothingfurther.
19 THECOURT: Anyotherquestions?
20
21
REDIRECTEXAMINATION
22BYR.O'MARA:
23 Q
missCrockett,wasitcontemplatedthatyourfather
24 wouldsueyou?
EXIT
BIT6

FIVE-DAYNOTICEOFUNLAWFULDETAINERFORNON-PAYMENTOFRENT
NRS40.2512
AND
NOTICEOFSUMMARYEVICTION-NRS40.253
T O
\k(1.1:2,CALdr. ' ..4!:1-reE-nant
cr,iC)(:i j1Cj
6`
-
_
DateofService:
t
PLEASETAKENOTICEthatyouareinunlawfuldetainerfordefaultinpaymentof
lentfortherentalunitlocatedat OROG.,a.J. 2,ciitne ;4,
inthesumof:$ "1'6 . '710fortheperiodcommencingfrom.
20 toto Cc,20ILL,Tenantpaidsc
nadvancr.
for anycleaning,securityorrentdeposits,inexcessofthefirstmonth'srent
)ayinent(s)becamedelinquenton
'0 1IL
,
ATTENTION! Asthetenantoftheabovedescribedrenk--il not youmustflhri
paythefullamountofrentowedwithinfive(5)judicialdays'of servw:e ofthisNoticccn
Mealternative,vacateandleavetherentalunitwithinfive(5)judicialdaysofservice(ifthc..
Notice
ATTENTION!Tocontestthisnotice,youmustfilea Tenant';
Affidavit/DeclarationwiththeJusticeCourtof c 3-eyno Township
bynoonoftheFIFTHJUDICIALDAYfromthedateofserviceofthisnotice,staling
thatyouhaveeithertenderedrentorthatyouarenotindefaultinthepaymentof
rentThereisafilingfeeof$ .Ifyouareunabletopaythefilingfee,you
Judicial Days"donot include date of service,weekendsorlc:galholidays
ArAdmenl
Nolgce
uay Note o, Unlawful Detarner for Non-Poyment
Of Reii!andNoticeofSummaryEviction(NRS2!):13
1;7
Ajga4 .!CIOD


may file a written motion with the court requesting a fee waiver. lithe court grants
your fee waiver, your Tenant's Affidavit/Declaration will be filed at no charge. You
must also deliver a file-stamped copy of your Tenant's Affidavit/Declaration upon tho
landlord or his or her duly authorized agent. Upon the filing and delivery of your
Tenant's Affidavit/Declaration, you are entitled to a court hearing.
ATTENTION!
Your failure to pay rent or vacate and leave the rental unit within
five (5) judicial days, or your failure to contest this notice, may result in the landlorri
applying to the Justice of the Peace of _ Township, County
_ State of Nevada, for an Eviction Order, 'Die Justice of the Peacc-:,
may thereupon issue an order directing the Constable to remove you within twenty-frAii
(24) hours after the receipt of the Eviction Order.
Dated this . 1(\ day of ?Ulu
V c _
Landlord
Address
\AI5
,;, .;
C115)_'75)-:).L5.)
Phone
C..1- cA-Tfa
Signature of Landlord or Duly Authorized Agent
\ tCcr-r- _
Print Name of Landlord or Duty Authorized Agent
,
I Andsoid Notice
tire.aey Notice ol Unlawful Detainer for Non-Payment
N Rent and Nottce of Summary Eviction (NRS 40.253)
l'otm 07
Revised Pin II , 7006
EXHIBIT7

NO-CAUSETERMINATIONNOTICETOVACATE
NRS40.251(1)
TO. rt -itCY
-I VI
4,- 10
DateofService:
ZcJ
PLEASETAKENOTICEthatyoumustsurrenderandvacatetherentalunit
locatedatTiDclf)
scv5
I"4
Youareentitledtoaperiodof
1. Seven(7)judicialdays'afterserviceofthisnoticetovacateand
leavetherentalunit(becauseyouare3 week- to- weektenant)
NRS4.0.251(1)(a)(1)
2. Thirty (30) calendar daysafterserviceof thisnoticelovacate and
leavetherentalunit(becauseyouhaveaperiodictenancywhichis
not week-to-week).NRS40.251(1)(a)(2).
3Five(5)judicialdaysafterserviceofthisnoticetovacateand leave
therentalunit(becauseyouhaveatenancyatwiti). NRS
40.251(1)(a)(3)
"Judicial Days"donotincludedateofservice,weekendsorlegalhot
Y s
Apeatmenl
tanolorclNotice
NoCFOsTeernmationNoticeloVacale
Form01
C2006NevadaSupremeCourt
RevisedAdd/11,i(106
4
Seven (7) judicial days after service of this notice to vacate and
leave the rental unit (because your tenancy is subject to Chapter
118A of the Nevada Revised Statutes and your rental agreement
will expire or terminate as of ,
NRS 40 251(1)(b)(1)(1) (Applies to week-to - week tenancies.)
111 ry- e
5Tfitrty--( ) cale-rIciar days after service of this notice to vacate one
leave the
rental unit (because your tenancy is subject to Chapter
118A of the Nevada Revised Statutes and your rental agreement
will expire Or terminate as of rc.,, LA.C2,- 20iu
NRS 40.251(1)(b)(1)((1) (Applies to all other periodic tenancies.)
6. Five (5) judicial days after service of this notice to vacate and leave
the rental unit (because you have a recreational vehicle lot tenancy
pursuant to NRS 40,215(6), NRS 40.251(1)(d)
ATTENTION! If you fail to vacate the rental unit by i,tOt2010_
you will be guilty of an unlawful detainer (unlawful possession). and I will start infiction
proceedings against you
NOTE: If you are 60 years of age or older, or it you have i physical or menta:
disability, and your tenancy is noi week-to- week, you may make a written request to me
to be allowed to continue in possession of the rental unit for an additional 30 days pas
the time listed on this notice You must provide me with proof of your age Or disability
with your written request If I reject your request, you have the right to petition the court
lo continue in possession of the rental unit for an additional 30 days. If the court denies
your petition, you will be allowed to continue in possession of the rental unit for five (5)
calendar days following the date of entry of the order denying the petition
Apzretwen$
fOrdliC
No Cavsiti.,mination NoliceVacole
rum K)2006 Ne Ws) da 5upt erne Coin
Revised April 14, 2006



ATTENTION! THIS NOTICE IS BEING GIVEN PURSUANT TO NEVADA
REVISED STATUTES. It you do not comply with this notice you will be in
unlawful
possession of the rental unit, and you will be subject to the eviction
procedures contained in NRS 40.254 or NRS 40.290
et seq.
Dated this 1 1 i-4/-1 day ot 2010
\--Ar4b-Lka
Landlord
etT4 f33 ci5
Address
Aj
Phone
Signature of Landlord or Duly Authorized Agent
OVCLavi:4--ii)G-f
Print Name of Landlord or Duly Authorized Agent
ApIlmunt
La/Idiot No4ico
NQCue Ten-null)N011C0 10 Vacalv
loim
6 Nevada Supreme Cour(
Revtsed hpril 14,20,06
EXHIBIT8
Page 1 ot
Mike
From:"mariabidwellviaPayPal"<member@paypal.com>
Date:Monday,February18,201310:20AM
To:"RenoDivorce"<renodivorce@gmail.com>
Subject: Transaction18A71667FF262540TunderPayPalPaymentReview
Lx,PayPal
HelloRenoDivorce,
mariabidwelljustsentyoumoneywithPayPal.Tohelpprotectyou,we'rereviewingthispayment.
ThePaymentReviewmaytakeupto24hours.Whenwe'vecompletedthereview,we'lleitherclearorcancelthepayment.
Ifthepaymentclears:Youmayproceedtoprocesstheorder.Toknowifyouritemiscovered,checkthe'SellerProtection'
sectionofthe'TransactionDetails'pageandensurethatitstates'Eligible'.
Youshouldn'tshiptheitemuntilweletyouknowthatthepaymenthascleared.We'llsendyouanemailwhenwecomplete
therevieworyoucanchecktheTransactionHistorytabofyourPayPalaccount.
mariabidwellisaUnverifiedCustomer
PaymentDetails:
Amount:$570.00USD
TransactionID:18A71667FF262540T
Viewthedetailsofthistransactiononline
ItmaytakeafewmomentsforthistransactiontoappearintheRecentActivitylistonyourAccountOverview.
ShippingInformation:
Address:
mariabidwell
7850broadstoneloopapt#208
tampa,FL33625
UnitedStates
AddressStatus:Confirmed
Thanks,
PayPal
PayPalEmailIDPP1417.
2/18/2013
4410.1
;Ntti*
EXHIBIT9

CODE:
NICOLE J. ALEXANDER,CCR446
?PeggyHoogs&Associates
435MarshAvenue
Reno,Nevada89509
I11E35
(775)327-4460
1CourtReporter
r,
SECONDjUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
INANDFOPTHECOUNTYOrWASHOE
d4;
THEHONORABLE.STEVENP.ELLIOTT,DISTRICTJUDGE
--o0o--
R .0VCROCKETT,CaseNo.CV1I-0030-7
Plaintiffs,Dept.No.10
J.MICHAEL/VIKTORIYASUNDE,
; _3
Defendants.
14
TRANSCRIPTOFPROCEEDINGS
PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION
FRIDAY,FEBRUARY4,2011
APPEARANCES:
C.
,
Forthe Pl aintff: WILLIAMM.O'MARA,ESO.
DAVIDC.O'MARA,ESQ-
31:EastLibertyStreet
21 Reno,Nevada
22
FortheDefendant.:INPROPRIAPERSONA
PEGGY KOOGS AND ASSOCIATES (775) 32 7- 4 4 60
Li
I knewdarnwellthatwehadalaterlease.Whysheincludedit
2wasbecauseshedidn'twantitincluded,Iguess,becauseofthe
3 lawsuit.Sheknewwesignedanotherlease.Thatwasn't
4withheldfrommylawyer.
5
THECOURT:Butyouaren'tcontestingthatthisis
6simplyacopyof a filingfromanothercase?
7
MR.SUNDE: It'sacopyofafilingfromanothercase.
6THECOURT: Aliright.Well,Exhibit2willbe
9admitted.
10MR.O'MARA:Thankyou,YourHonor.Now,
11 interestinglyenough,Mr.Sundelikestoblameeverybodybut
12himself.Butifwelookat--
13MR.SONDE:Andwhodoesmydaughterblamefor
14 stealingtwomilliondollarsofmyretirement?
15 MR.O'MARA:YourHonor--
16 THECOURT:Well,we'rejustconcernedaboutthe
17 house.
18 MR.SUNDE: Excuseme,YourHonor.
19MR.O'mARA:And,YourHonor,let'slookatthe
20evidence,andwe'llseethatMr.Sundeiscaughtinhisown
21 fabrications;right?Thelease of March1stof 2008saysthat
22itwillterminateonFebruary28thof2009.There'sarenewal
23ofoneyear,arenewaloftheotheryear. It'sonparagraph-
24
It's
it'sunderthe terms--It'snotlabeledasaparagraph.
PEGGYHOOGSANDASSOCIATES(775;327-4460
THECOURT:Allright. Isthereanythingelsethat
youhave?
MR.SUNDE: No,sir.
MR.O'MARA: Justafewthings,YourHonor.Car,
approachtogetanexhibit?
THECOURT! Yes.
MR.O'MARA: Exhibit2,please,YourHnoc.r
e
thathebelievesthatthinwasgoingtoh(: H ,Anor,Mr.Sunde says
9hislifeestatehouse ifthat'strue,whydidtheyenterinto
10anagreementin2004,2005,and2008? Itwasn'talifeestate
forlife,andhewasneverpromisedtobeableto -3t-ayCood- .,o
12 ItJustmakesabsolutelynosense*
Butwhatisevenmoretroublingandtoshowthe
14 maliciousnessofthisman,let'slookatwhatheJustsaid.He
:5 tookthestuffoutbecausehedidn'twanttheCi:ockett:;to
Andhewascryingwhenhewasr ;
r t
wasjustthishorriblething.Butlookatthetermsofhis
fraudulentleaseagreement. He wasgoingtoget$205,000
dollarsbackbecausehewasgoingtogetanoffset,isthat he
20claims.Itmakesabsolutelynosense.Hetoteltoutbecaune
hedidn'twantthemtohaveit.Hewantedtodestroythe
proriertybecausehe.wasgoingtobemalicious. Ifit'shis,why
:n
and nowhe's t.ryng to
wouldyoudumpit?Hethrewitallaway,
2.4tell theCourtthataftertenyears,youcanput a pieceof
PEGGYHOODSANDASSOCI ATE$ 773 2 . 7 - 4 4 0
21
Mrs.Sunde,wouldyouliketopresentyoursideofthis?
2MR.SUNDE: Icertainlywould,YourHonor,butIhave
3
Idoneedtogodownthehall,ifIcould,five aproblem.
4 minutes.
THECOURT: Allright.
(Recesswastaken.)
THECOURT:And,Mr.Sunde,wouldyouliketopresent
youandyourwife'spositiononthis?
9 MR.SONDE:Thankyou,sir. Yes,YourHonor.IfI
10may,justsomeverybriefbackground. I'm68yearsold.The
11daytheylockedthedoorsonthehousewasmybirthday,January
12 25th.I'vebeentryingtohavediscussionswiththeCrocketts
13forsometimeaboutobviouslywhatIfelttobemyfutureand
14makingsomeimprovementtothatfutureforretirement.Several
15 yearsago,theyforcedthepurchaseofanofficebuilding.I
16 didn'twanttobuyit,butIwasthepresident.Shewasthe
17bossand--
18MR.O'MARA:Objection,YourHonor.Thisistotally
19irrelevantandquitefranklyuntrue.He signed itandhewas--
20Imean,it'stotallyirrelevant.
21MR.SUNDE:It'snot relevant becauseit'srelevantto
22thenatureofwhywe'rehere,YourHonor.
23THECOURT:Well,I'lloverruletheobjection,buttry
24
allI'm
tofocuson,youknow,thislease.That'sreally
PEGGYHOOGSANDASSOCIATES(775)327-4460
I
3
23
1
withregardtothatbuilding,shewarnedmedon'ttalkaboutthe
2building,or I'llstoppayingyouyour dividends.Stubbornas
am,Jdidcontinuetalkingtoheraboutthebuilding.She
4stoppedpayingmydividends.
Whenshestoppedpayingmydividends,sheranoutin
6Marchof2010andsoldtheremainingstockofNevadaDivorce --
7
MR.O'MARA:YourHonor--
8MR.SUNDE:--whichproduced thesedividends.
9MR.O'MARA:--Iwanttocontinuemyobjections
10becauseJudgeAdamsalreadyruledontheseissues.He
11 invalidatedthat$900dollarshare,plusheinvalidatedthesale
12of900sharesthatMr.Sundeattemptedtodowhilehe was not
13evenanofficerofthecorporationtohiswife.We'regoingto
14behereforsixdaysifhe'sallowedtomakethis.Andithas
15nothingtodowiththelease.Theleaseisthelease. It's
16What'sgoingonwiththelease. reallysimple.
17THECOURT:Well,howdidthisotherbusiness
18arrangementorbusinesscalledNevadaDivorcerelatetothis
19house?
20
MR.SUNDE:Itrelatestoherconducttowardmeandmy
21wifesinceI
Itrelatestohergreed.Shehastaken married.
22everythingfromme.She'stakenthedividendsbysellingthe
23stockto
herselfandherhusbandfor$900dollars.She
tookmy
24dividendsfor$900dollars.
PEGGYHOOGSANDASSOCIATES(775)327-4460
24
R.O'MARA: YourHonor
2MR.SUNDE: Itdoesn'tmakeanydifferenceif--
3MR.O'MARA:--JudgeAdamsalsoruledonthataswell,
4 sir,whereduring this wholeperiodoftimehestillgothis
5dividendsuntilaperiodoftime.Shewasnotactingforgreed
6
It'stotally
oragainsthimfromthetimeoftheirmarriage.
7 irrelevant.
THECOURT:Well,Iwillacceptthatyourposition
9seemstobethattheCrockettsbearyousomeillwill.
10MR.SUNDE: verymuch.
11THECOURT:Butwe'llmovebeyondallofthoseother
12 thingsand,youknow,Ireallyhavetojustfocusonthehouse
13 andthelease.
14MR.SUNDE: Allright.Firstofall,hementionedwhy
15Imentionedthe2-28datefromonelease.Well,the2-28date
16wasmentionedbec that's the date of their notice of
17lelease waseffective2-28. terminationof
Itwasmentioned
18 fromthatdocumentthattheyfiledinjusticecourt.That'swhy
191mentionedthe2-28-11date.Thatwastheterminationdate
20whensheterminatedtheleasetoremoveus.
I
21TheyquestionedwhyIpaid
$2,100dollars.Well,
22paid$2,100dollarsbecausewewenttojusticecourtbecausethe
23Crockettsfiledpapersincourttoevictmeaftertenyearsof
24beinginthehomeandpaying$25,000ayearforthehomefor
PEGGY HOOGS AND ASSOCIATES (775) 327-4460
't 4
ofthisloose.
2Ihadalegalrighttocomplainaboutthatextra
1Ihadarighttocomplainabouttheoffice
building.
3$23,000ayeargoingtothatbuildingwhenwecouldhaverented
4 someplaceandspent$23,000less.Itwasalegitimate
5complaint,youknow.Forhertosellstocktoherhusband,
6whichthenprecipitatedmylawsuitwhichcameafterthetimeshe
7 soldthatstock,allofthethingsshe--Icouldstandherefor
8twohours,whichIwon'tbecauseyou'llthrowsomethingatme.
9Butallofthethingsshe'sdonethatcausedmeharm.Her
10 father,whohelpedheralloftheseyears,didgoodthingsfor
11 her.Webabysattheirchildrenforyearsandyearsandyears;lc
12 charge.
13THECOURT:Well,Idon'twanttogothere.
14MR.SUNDE:
I'msorry. I'malittleofftrack.I
15 apologize.
16THECOURT: Perhaps,Mr.Sunde,Icouldaskyouthis.
17Whathappenedtothecabinets?
18
MR.SUNDE:Dump.They'reatthedump.Iwentto2nd
19Ihiredguys. andGalletti.
20
THECOURT:Tothetransferstation?
21
MR.SONDE:No.Thepeoplestandingonthestreet.
22Theywantwork.
23
THECOURT:Okay.Yeah.Allright.
24MR.SONDE:SoIhiredthem.
PEGGY HOOGS AND ASSOCIATES (7751 327-4460
41
MR.O'MARA: --soldthesharestohiswife.
MR.SUNDE:Objection.
3MR.O'MARA:AndJudgeAdamsclearly,Imean,he's
4 broughtallofthisstuff,YourHonor.
5iTHECOURT: I'mnotterriblyinterestedinthis.This
6 doesn'tdirectlyrelatetothelease.
1 MR.O'MARA:And,YourHonor,youcertainlycantake
8 judicialnoticeofthefive-daytranscriptthattookplacein
9theothercases. Youcertainlycantakejudicialnoticeofthe
10orderthatJudgeAdamsenteredintoafterthehearing,okay?We
11
Obviously,we'rehereatatemporaryor
askyoutodothat.
12preliminaryinjunctionhearing,sowe'renottryingtodothe
13wholecasetoday,hopefully.Andwhatwe'retryingtodois,we
14wanttokeepthestatusquo.Now,Mr.Sundeisnowsayingthat
15
hethreweverythingaway.We'reaskingifthat'strue,then
16everythingis
gone.Andwe'regoingtohavetoyoatter
17 damages.Becauserememberwhathesaid.
Itwasabeautiful
18home.You'veseenthepictures.Howbeautifulisitnow?It's
19
It'sprettyshot. prettyshot.
Imean,it'sunlivable.
20
Now,thepowerissue.TheCourt,Ithink,gota
littleconfused.Youstartedmakingastatementabouthowthe
21
22
factthatMr.Sundestatedthathecalledthepowercompanyand
23saidIdon'twanttobebilledpastthatdatebecauseI'mmoving
24
out;right?Youhadalittlebitofamis--Ithinkwhenyou
PEGGYHOOGSANDASSOCIATES(775)327-4460
EXHIBIT10
2
FILED
Electronically
07-02-2012:04:49:12PM
JoeyOrdunaHastings
CODENO.1945
ClerkoftheCourt
Transaction#3057009
INTHESECONDJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOFVVASI-i0E
*
9ROBERT&VICTORIACROCKETT,
10 Plaintiffs,
11vs.
CaseNo,CV11-00307
12J.MICHAELSUNDE,individually,VIKTORIYADept.No.10
SOKOLSUNDE,individually,etat.,
13
Defendants.
14
15J.MICHAELSUNDEandVIKTORIYASOKOL
SUNDE,
16
Counterclaimants,
17
vs.
18
ROBERTD.CROCKETTandVICTORIAA.
19CROCKETTetat,
20 Counterdefendants.
21
_
22 RECOMMENDATIONFORORDER
23 The background of this case is set forth in greater detail in previous decisions from this
I
24 Court. On May 4, 2012,Defendants filed and served a Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion for
25 Sanctions. ThatmotionwasfirstsubmittedfordecisiononMay18,2012However,onMay 21,
26 III
2012,Plaintiffsfiledtheir Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery.' OnMay29,
2012,Defendantsfiledtheir
Reply to Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, and
themotionwassubmittedfordecisiononthatsamedate.
TherecordreflectsthatonFebruary21,2012,DefendantsservedPlaintiffswithDefendants'
RequestforProductionofDocuments.Inthatrequest,Defendantsdescribeseventy-twocategories
ofdocumentstheyseek,andrequestPlaintiffstoproduceresponsivedocumentsonMarch21,
2012.PlaintiffsservedDefendantswiththeirResponsetoDefendants'RequestforProductionof
DocumentsonMarch21,2012.Plaintiffsobjectedtoeachcategoryoftherequest,asfollows:
Objection.RequestforProductionviolatesNRCP34(b)becauseitseeks
documentsearlierthanthethirty(30)dayminimum.Plaintiffsreservetherightto
10 supplementtheiranswerandfurtherobjecttotheserequestsuponaproperlyserved
RequesttorProductionofDocuments.
11 Additionally,thesedocumentshaveeitheralreadybeenproducedand/orare
inthepossessionofDefendants.
12
Plaintiffsdidriotproduceanyrequesteddocuments.
4InaletterfaxedtoPlaintiffs'counselonApril30,2012,DefendantJ.MichaelSunde
15complainedaboutPlaintiffs'refusaltoproducerequesteddocuments.Heexpressedhisintentionto
seekahearingbeforetheDiscoveryCommissioner,andinformedcounselthatanappropriate
17motionwould be filed unlessresponsivedocumentswereproducedbyMaytl,2012.Inaletter
18 faxedtoPlaintiffs'counselonMay3,2012,DefendantSundestatedasfollows:
19Irecentlycalledyourofficeandleftamessage,butyouhaveyettorespond.The
purposeofthecallwastoarrangeatimetoconferwiththediscoverycommissioner's
2011officeinthesettingofahearingonourmotiontocompeldiscovery.Weintendtofile
saidmotionlatetomorrow,assumingyouwillnotproducealldocumentswehave
21requested.
22DefendantsarguethatNRCP34doesnotrequirethatpartiesbegiventhirtydaysinwhichto
23producedocuments.Theruleprovidesinpertinentpart,asfollows:Therequestshallspecifya
24 reasonable time, place, and manner of making theinspectionandperformingtherelated acts."
25 NRCP 34(b). But italsoprovidesthatthepartyuponwhomtherequestisservedshallservea
26
l Plaintiffs opposition was timely filed, pursuant to the provisions set foil?) in NRCP 6(a) and (e)
2
enresponsewithin30daysaftertheserviceoftherequest."Septd.Ifapartyhasthirtydaysto
object,itgenerallycannot be requiredtoproducedocumentssoonerthanthatdeadline.Ineffect,a
"reasonabletime"forpurposesofNRCP34(b)cannotbelessthanthirtydays,absentastipulation
rcourtorderallowinganabbreviatedresponsetime.aeeNat'lFireIns.Co,v.JoseTruckingCo.,
5264F.R.D.233,241(W.D.N.C.2010)(defendantshaduptothirtydaysafterserviceoftherequest
6toproduceinwhichtoproduceresponsivedocuments).
7
Whenarequestingpartyprovideslessthanthirtydaysinwhichtoproducerequested
8documents,therespondingpartymayproperlyobjecttothataspect ofthe requestTherefore,
9Plaintiffs'objectiontothecategoriesofDefendants'requestwasproper,becauseDefendants
10allowedPlaintiffslessthanthirtydaysinwhichtorespond.Buttherequestingparty'sfailuretostate
11areasonabletimedoesnotentirelyrelievetherespondingpartyofanobligationtoproduce
12documents,assumingthattherequestisotherwiseproper.Rather,itrequirestherespondingparty
13Itoproducerequesteddocumentsagain,totheextentthattherequestforproductionisotherwise
14unobjectionablewithinwhatitbelievestobea"reasonabletime."Ifresponsivedocumentsareto
15beproduced,theresponding party is obligated in its writtenresponsetostatewhenitwillproduce
16thosedo
cument s.
?
17Inthiscase,Plaintiffs
statedthat
they"reservetherightto.furtherobjecttotheserequests
18 upon a properlyservedRequestforProductionofDocuments."Asexplainedabove,Defendantsare
19notrequiredtoserveanessentiallyidenticalrequest for production of documents that permits
20Plaintiffsatleastthirtydaystoproduce
documents. Moreover,apartygenerallyisobligatedinits
21writtenresponse toassertallobjectionsthatitmighthaveinconnectionwithaparticularcategory,
22Anyobjectionsnotassertedinatimelyresponsearegenerallydeemedwaived.See,ell.,Krewson
23v.CityofQuincy,120F.R.D.6, 7 (D.Mass.1988)(failuretoservetimelyresponsetorequest(or
24productionconstitutesawaiverofanyobjectiontocategoriesofthatrequest).Courtsgenerally
25"
-
Inthatregard,courtstypicallypresumethatthirtydaysIsthedeadlineforproductionofdocuments.Aparty
lieves lhalil needsmoretimetoproduce responsivedocuments Mal
either(a)timelyobject(i.e.,withinthirtydays)
26 gtoproductionwithinthestatedorpresumedthirty-daydeadlineAggprovideanalternativedeadline,or(b)obtaina
ipulationorcourtorderextendingthedeadlineforproduction
disfavor an approach to discovery that allows a party to assert and obtain rulings on objections in a
piecemeal fashion. See Robinson v. Cit of Arkansas Ci , No. 10-1431-JAR-GLR, 2012 WL
603576, at '11 (D. Kan. Feb. 24, 2012) (fijn general the federal rules do not contemplate piecemeal
objections to discovery requests"); Hall v. Sullivan, 231 F.R.D. 468, 473 (D. Md. 2005) (Inlo benefit
s achieved by allowing piecemeal objections to producing requested discovery, as this adds
unnecessary expense to the parties and unjustified burden on the court").
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer with
heir counsel prior to filing this motion. The purpose of rules requiring prefiling consultation (or an
attempt at consultation) is to lessen the burden on the Court and reduce the unnecessary
expenditure of resources by litigants, through the promotion of informal. extrajudicial resolution of
discovery disputes. See Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co., 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D. Nev. 1993);
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v Chemed Corp s , 101 F.R.D. 105, 106 (E.D. Pa. 1984). Thus, compliance
with these provisions requires the attorney filing a discovery motion to first make reasonable efforts
14 r to resolve the dispute without the need for formal court intervention. See Dondi Props. Corp. v,
15 Commerce Say. & Loan Ass'n, 121 F.R.D. 284, 289 (N.D. Tex. 1988) (mtitle purpose of the
16 conference requirement is to promote a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by
7 agreement or to at least narrow and focus the matters in controversy before judicial resolution is
sought"), citgd with approval in Nevada Power, 151 F.R.D. at 120. The parties must present to each
19 i other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support as during
20 the briefing of discovery motions. See Wilson v. Aargon Agency. Inc., 262 F.R.D. 561, 564 (D. Nev.
21 2010); Nevada Power, 151 F.R.D. at 120. Judicial intervention should be considered appropriate
22 only when (1) informal negotiations have reached an impasse on the substantive issues in dispute,
23 or (2) one party refuses to engage in negotiations altogether or refuses to provide specific support.
24 See Nevada Power, 151 F.R.D. at 120.
25 ,The Court agrees that the letters sent by Defendant J. Michael Sunde do not reflect a desire
26 to discuss the request for production with Plaintiffs' counsel, and do not otherwise satisfy the
4

requirementsofagood-faithattemptatconsultation.However,therecordalsodoesnotevinceany
responsebyPlaintiffstotheletterofApril30,2012,eventhoughPlaintiffswereadvisedof
Defendants'intenttofilemotionasofMay4,2012.PlaintiffstateintheirmotionthatIcjounsel
respondedtoMr.Sundebyseekingatimetomeetandconferabouttheissueshehasraised."But
DefendantsdisputethatPlaintiffsrespondedtotheirlettersortelephonecall,andnoevidenceis
6offeredinsupportofPlaintiffs'contraryassertion.Onthisrecord,theCourtfindsthatthebest
7courseistoaddresstheissuesraisedinDefendants'motion.3
Inmanycategoriesofthisrequest,Defendantsseekdocuments"provingcertainallegations
9ofPlaintiffs'complaintandsupplementalcomplaint.ThespecificcategoriesatissueareCategory
10Nos.2,3,4,5,6,9,10,13,14,15,16,27,29,30,31,34,37,39,40,41,42,43,50,55,and56.
11TheCourtinterpretsthesecategoriesasencompassingthedocumentsthatPlaintiffsmayusein
12supportofthoseallegations.4 Inthatregard,therequestsarenotobjectionable,andPlaintiffsmust
13producetherequesteddocuments.Intheirresponse.Plaintiffsobjectonthegroundthat"these
14documentshaveeitheralreadybeenproducedand/orareinthepossessionofDefendants."ifthey
15havealreadybeenproducedinthislitigation,thenPlaintiffsarenetobligatedtoproducethema
16secondlime,buttheymustneverthelessidentifythosedocuments(e.g.,byBates-stampnumbers)
17inasupplementalresponse.Likewise,ifPlaintiffsmayusedocumentsproducedbyDefendantsin
18thisaction,thenPlaintiffsmaysimplyidentifythosedocumentsintheirresponse.Otherwise,
19however,thefactthatPlaintiffsbelieveDefendantstohave possession of certain documents is not a
20 sufficient basis to relieve Plaintiffs from producing the documents theymayuseinthiscase.5
3
Thepartiesshouldnote,however,that the failuretoconsultIngoodfaithcanresultinadecisiondenyinga
22 discoverymotionuntilthepartieshavesatisfiedtherequirementsofNRCP37(a)(andWOCR12(6)Thefailureto
promptlyrespondtoan attempttoconfercanalsoimpacttheCourt'sanalysisonwhetherloawardexpenses,aspermitted
underNRCP 37(a)(4).
23
To the extent that Defendants might also be asking Plaintiffs to produce documents that support these
24
allegations even though Plaintiffs will not use those documentsInthiscase, the request violates the work product doctrine.
SeegenerallyHickmanv.Taylor. 329 U.S. 495 (1947).
25
The Cowlremindstheparties that the expense of copying documents is paid by the partyreceivingthecopies.
NRCP 34(d).IfDefendantswishtoavoidpayingcopyingchargesfordocumentsthataroalreadyintheirpossession,
26
en DefendantsshouldpromptlycommunicatewithPlaintiffsinthatregard.
Inseveralothercategories,Defendantsseekdocuments"proving"specifiedassertions.The
specificcategoriesthatfallwithinthisgroupareCategoryNos.7,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,
26,59,65,66,67,and70.Becausenospecificparagraphsofthepleadingsare
referenced, the
Court
doesnotknowwhetherPlaintiffsaremakingthoseassertions(whetherasaffirmative
legations,or in
thecourseofdenying one ormoreofDefendants'allegations).ButifPlaintiffsare
akingthoseassertionsinthiscase,thentheymustproducethedocumentsthattheymayuseto
support
thoseassertions,tothesameextentasexplainedabove.Otherwise, Plaintiffsarenot
8 n requiredtoproducedocuments in responsetothesecategories.
Category Nos.44,45,46,47,48,49,51,52,and53essentiallyencompassdocuments
"proving"thatvariousassertionsbyDefendantsarenottrue.Ineffect,Defendantsarerequesting
documentsthatPlaintiffsmayuseindenyingthetruthofthoseassertions.Asexplainedabove,
1211 Defendantsareentitledtothosedocuments.
Othercategoriesofthisrequestmustbeaddressedindividually.InCategoryNo.1,
4Defendantsseekdocumentspertainingto Plaintiffs'transactionwithSandraJ.Brookeinvolvingthe
5propertyatissue.Thesesamedocumentswerealreadysoughtandobtainedfromvarious
16nonparties, asexplained intheprevious Recommendation for Order. Therefore, thisrequest
7appearsunreasonablyduplicativeorcumulativeandwillnotbe
enforced. SeeNRCP26(b)(2)To
theextentthatDefendantsare inneedofaspecificdocumentfromthattransaction,theyarefreeto
19serveanotherNRCP34request,withdueregardforthediscoverydeadline.
20InCategoryNo.8,Defendantsseek"lailldocuments,withoutlimitation,anysubpoena,or
21otherdiscoveryorotherinstrumentusedtoobtainanydocuments orknowledgeinsupportofthe
22ComplaintorSupplementalComplaintinthisaction."Totheextentthatthisrequestseekscopiesof
23anysubpoenausedbyPlaintiffstoobtaindocumentsinthislitigation,Defendantsareentitledto
24copiesofthosesubpoenas(totheextentthattheywerenotalreadyprovided).However,the
25'requestfor"discovery"whetherofinformationordocumentsisobjectionableonthebasisthatitis
26unnecessary:Plaintiffscouldobtain"discoveryonlyfromDefendants,whoobviouslywouldhave
6
5
10
15
20
25
ceivedacopyoftheunderlyingrequest.TherequestforotherdocumentsthroughwhichPlaintiffs
mighthaveobtainedinformationordocumentsisalsoimproperonthegroundthatitseeksPlaintiffs'
counsels'workproduct,
WithregardtoCategoryNo.12,inwhichDefendantsseeklap,documentsprovingplaintiffs
equityownershipoftheresidence,"theCourtunderstandsthattheresidencewassoldtoMs
6
Brooke,Thus,Plaintiffsapparentlyarenotpresentlyclaiminganyequityownershipinthatproperty
7 ButifPlaintiffsaremakingsuchaclaimatthistime,thentheymustproduceanydocumentsthat
8 theymayusetoprovethatclaim.
9 InCategoryNo32,DefendantsaskPlaintiffstoproducethefollowingdocuments:
11
12
13
14
Alldocumentsprovingthatplaintiffssubmittedclaimsforallegeddamagesby
defendantstotheresidenceat1090GreenwichWaytoaninsurancecompany,
includingalldocumentsandothermaterialsplaintiffsreceivedfromtheinsurance
company,allbidsandestimatesofdamageswither(sic]submittedtoinsurance
company,ornotsubmittedtotheinsurancecompany,andincludingallchecksand
moniespaidfortheallegedlossestoGreenwichhome,andincludespecificallyproof
ofanydamagetosaidresidenceorplaintiffsasadirectorindirectresultofthe
allegedactionsbydefendants.
PartofthisdisputeconcernstheextenttowhichDefendantsdamagedtheresidenceatissue.If
16 Plaintiffssubmitted a claim seeking insurance benefits for thoseallegeddamages,thatinformationis
17 levantfordiscoverypurposes,Theinsuranceclaimessentiallyconstitutesanotherstatementby
18 PlaintiffsabouttheextenttowhichtheresidencewasdamagedbyDefendants.Bidsand
19 estimateswhetherornottheyweresubmittedtotheinsurancecompanyarealsorelevant onthe
extentofdamageallegedlycausedbyDefendants.ButtheCourtwillnotrequireproductionof
21 documentsreflectingpaymentsbytheinsurancecompany.TheNevadaSupremeCourthas
22 adopteda"2grserulebarringtheadmissionofacollateralsourceofpaymentforaninjuryinto
23 evidencefor any purpose"becausesuchevidence"inevitablyprejudicesthejurybecauseitgreatly
24 increases the likelihood that a jury will reduce a plaintiffs award ofdamagesbecauseitknowsthe
plaintiffis already receiving compensation." SeeProctorv.CasteHai,
112Nev.58,90,911P.2d
26 853,854(1996).Althoughinadmissibleevidencemightneverthelessbediscoverable
under
7
appropriatecircumstances,seeNRCP26(b)(1),thepartyseekingevidenceofcollateralsource
paymentsmustarticulatesomeotherlegitimatebasisforseekingthatinformation.Nosuch
3IIexplanationisprovidedinconnectionwiththismotion,soPlaintiffsarenotobligatedtoproduce
hosedocumentsreflectingpaymentsfromtheinsurer.
CategoryNo.33encompassesdocumentaryproofofdamagesinexcessofthosepaidby
Plaintiffs'insurancecompany.Inothercategoriesofthisrequest.Defendantshaverequestedall
documentsthatPlaintiffsmayusetosupporttheirdamagesclaims.Thus,thedocumentssoughtin
8IICategoryNo.33areunreasonablyduplicativeorcumulative,andPlaintiffsmaydisregardthis
category.
0II
CategoryNo.35issimilarlyproblematic.Defendantsessentiallyseekalltangiblethings
whichmaysupportPlaintiffs'assertionsinthiscase.ButPlaintiffsalreadywereobligatedtoidentify
12thosetangiblethings,pursuanttoNRCP16.1(a)(1)(B).Ifnotangiblethingswereidentified,thenthe
13CourtwillpresumethatPlaintiffswillnotuseanytangiblethingsinsupportoftheirassertionsinthis
14case.Inanyevent,thecategoryisoverbroadonitsface.Astherequestingparty,Defendants
5muststate eachcategoryoftheir requestwithreasonableparticularity.Seeid. 34(b).Plaintiffsmay
hereforedisregardthiscategory.
In CategoryNo.36,Defendants askPlaintiffsto"Mr:lentily,describeandproducealltangible
hingswhichconstituteorcontainmatterswithinthescopeofRule26(b)andwhichareinthe
possession, custody,orcontrolof
anotherparty."NothinginNRCP34requiresaparty toidentifyor
20describetangiblethings,andnorulerequiresonelitiganttoidentify,describe,orproducetangible
21thingsinthepossession,custody,orcontrolofanotherlitigantornonparty.Becausethiscategoryis
22objectionableonitsface,Plaintiffsmaydisregardit.
23CategoryNo.38issimilartoCategoryNo.1,exceptthatDefendantsnowseeksimilar
21 documentation withregardtoany"attemptedtransfer"oftheresidenceatissuetosomeone offering
2511
e TheCourtisnotrequiredtoenforce adiscovery request thatIspatentlyobjectionable. SegNrewseriv,Otto(
Quinct 120F.R.D. 6, 7 (DMass.1988); Bose111v.Southeaslem_:31,,trans.Aulh,.108F.R.O.723,726(ED.Pa.1985),
26
ff
Shenker v. SporjlIi, 83 r.R.D. 365,367(ED.Pa.1979);ylitliwnsv. Kriegel,01 F.R.D.142,145(S.D.N.Y.1973).In(act,
theCourtmayproperly denyapartyaccesseven torelevantandnonprivilegedmaterialunderappropriatecircumstances.
See NRCP26(b)(2),(c).
8
o purchase it. The Court is not persuaded that Defendants are entitled to discovery of every
conceivable document that might have
been generated in connection with such an "attempted
transfer." Whether specific documents are discoverable in that regard is not clear, but the burden
ests with Defendants to make such a request with reasonable particularity. Because this request is
oo broad, Plaintiffs may disregard it.
In Category No.
54, Defendants seek various documents relating to Plaintiffs' defamation
6 11
aim. As an initial matter, Defendants request that Plaintiffs execute certain authorizations allowing
em to obtain records. While some courts have required plaintiffs to execute authorizations for the
elease of records, this Court finds the opposing view more persuasive and consistent with our
discovery rules.' See Clark v. Vega Whelessle Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev, 1998): Neal v,
Boulder, 142 F.R.D. 325, 327 (D. Colo. 1992). Of course, a court has inherent power to control
12 discovery by virtue of its right to control the disposition of causes on its docket with economy of lime
13 and effort for itself, counsel, and litigants. See Landis v. North Am, Co., 299 U.S, 248, 254-55
14 (1936):
Maheu v. District Court, 89 Nev. 214, 217, 510 P.2d 627, 629 (1973). In extraordinary
15 situations, a court presumably has inherent authority to require a party to execute an authorization
or the release of certain records. But Defendants have not demonstrated that the documents they
seek are unavailable
through the methods set
forth in our discovery rules. For these reasons,
Plaintiffs are not required to execute the requested authorizations at this time.
Defendants also seek copies of monthly statements, deposits, and checks for accounts at
20 any bank, credit union, or other financial instilu1ion in the name of Nevada Divorce & Document
21 Services, Inc., any other business owned or operated by Plaintiffs, ERKP Family Trust, and both
22 Plaintiffs, individually, from March 1, 2010, to February 21, 2012. In their request, Defendants
23 explain that these requests are warranted due to Plaintiffs' claim for relief based upon defamation.
24 Specifically, in the Sixth Claim for Relief in Plaintiffs' supplemental complaint, Plaintiffs allege that
25 K
7
Significantly, while NRCP 28 through 37 allow a litigant to compel an opposing party to provide information or
documents, or even undergo a physical or mental examination, no rule or other authority requires a party to execute an
26 ull
authorization for the release of records upon the request of an
opponent. Similarly, neither NRCP 37 nor any other
uthority expressly empowers a Nevada court to order execution of such an authorization,
DefendantJ.MichaelSundemadeanunprivileged,false,anddefamatorystatementconcerning
PlaintiffstoRobertCrockett'semployer.InParagraph25ofthesupplementalcomplaint,Plaintiffs
allegethatDefendantsentalettertoPlaintiffCrockett'sbranchmanager,datedSeptember1,2011,
regarding"AllegationsRe;Morals&DishonestyofAdjusterRobertD.Crockett."InParagraph26,
Plaintiffsidentifytheparticularstatementsthattheycontendaredefamatory.Essentially,Defendant
SundestatedthatPlaintiffsengagedintheftandembezzlementofhisretirementfunds,and
effectivelystolehisremodelingoftheresidenceatissueandhisMercedesBenzautomobile.
Whenconfrontedwithaclaimbasedupondefamation,adefendantmaypleadthedefenseof
9justification;thatis,itmayallegethattheallegeddefamatorystatementsaretrue,andthose
10statementsarethereforenotactionableSee Wellmanv.Fox, 108Nev.83,88,825P.2d208,211
(1992);LasVegasSun,Inc.v.Franklin,74Nev.282,288,293,329P.2d867,870,872(1958).In
hatregard,althoughdiscoveryhasultimateandnecessarylimits,see !OppenheimerFund,Inc,v.
anders,437U.S.340,351(1978); Hickmanv.Taylor,329U.S,495,507(1947),thescopeof
14discoveryisbroad.Essentially,partiesareentitledtoanynonprivilegedinformationthatisrelevant
15tothe subjectmatteroftheaction,includinganyclaimsordefenses. SeeNRCP26(b)(1).
16DefendantSundeisentitledto
appropriatediscovery todeterminethetruthofthestatementsset
17forthin hisletterofSeptember1,2011.
8Theallegeddefamatorystatementsconcernthetheft and embezzlement of specific funds,
ndividuals frequentlymaintainaccountswithfinancialinstitutionstoholdtheirfunds.If,asasserted
20byDefendantSundeinhisletterofSeptember 1, 2011,Plaintiffsstoleandembezzledhisfunds,
21theiraccountswithfinancialinstitutionswouldbeareasonableplacetolookforthosefunds.
22Therefore,Defendants'desiretoconductdiscoveryregardingfinancialinstitutionaccountscontrolled
23byPlaintiffsisreasonable.
24ButtheCourtobservesthatfinancialinformationisentitledtoagreaterdegreeofprotection
25thanmostotherinformation.See Hefterv. DistrictCourt, 110Nev.513,520,874P.2d762,766
26 (1994) ("publicpolicysuggeststhatfinancialstatusnotbehadforthemereasking").Moreover,
10
Defendantshavenotestablishedthattheyhavealegitimateneedforinformationpertainingtoevery
expenditurebyPlaintiffsoverthestatedperiod.Underthesecircumstances,theCourtfindsthat
DefendantsatthistimeareentitledtoreviewthemonthlystatementspertainingtoPlaintiffs'
accountswithanyfinancialinstitution,whethertheaccountsaremaintainedinthenameofNevada
Divorce&DocumentServices,Inc.,anyotherbusinessownedoroperatedbyPlaintiffs, ERKP
Family Trust, or eitherPlaintiff,individually.Sincealldepositswillbereflectedonthesemonthly
statements,Defendantsarenotentitledtoinspectionofindividualdepositslips.Inaddition,
Defendantsarenotentitledatthistimetoseetheindividualchecksdrawnonthoseaccounts.Ifthe
statementsidentifyspecificexpenditures,eitherintheformofcheckspaidordebitcardtransactions,
thatinformationmayberedactedby Plaintiffs priortoproductionofthesestatements.
Defendantsalsoseekcopiesofmonthlystatementsforallcreditcardaccountsforthesame
12individualsandentities,overthesameperiodoftime.Foressentiallythesamereasons,theCourt
13,findsthatDefendantsareentitledtoseepaymentinformationfromthosemonthlystatements.
4Althoughpaymentsoncreditcardsarenotthesameasdepositswith a financialinstitution,payment
5oflargecreditcardexpendituresreasonablycouldbeevidenceoftheftorembezzlementof
16DefendantSunde'sfunds.However,Defendantsarenotentitledatthis timetoseePlaintiffs'credit
17cardexpenditures.Therefore,priortoproducingthesestatements,Plaintiffs mayredactall
18informationregardingcreditcardpurchases.
DefendantsmakeoneotherrequestinCategoryNo.54--theyseekcopiesoftaxreturnsfor
202010,2011,and2012forthesameindividualsandentitiesidentifiedabove.TheNevadaSupreme
21Courthasconsistentlyheldthatdiscoveryoftaxreturnsmaynotbeapprovedintheabsenceofa
22showingthattheinformationisotherwiseunobtainable.See McNair v. District Court, 110Nev.
231285,1290,885P.2d576,579(1994)("taxreturnsmustberelevanttobediscoverable,and may
24 not be discoverable intheabsence ofashowingthat theinformationisotherwiseunobtainable")
25(emphasisadded); Clark v. District Court, 101Nev.58,64,692P.2d512,516(1985)(discoveryof
26taxreturns
"may riot be approved intheabsenceofashowingthattheinformationisotherwise
11

1 1 unobtainable")(quotingSoh
latterv.DistrictCourt, 93Nev.189,192,561P.2d1342,1343(1977))
2(emphasisadded).Ashowingthatinformationcontainedintaxreturnsisrelevantoreven
crucialisnotsufficienttosupportdiscoveryunderthesupremecourt'sstandard.Theparty
seekingthosereturnsalsomustshowthattheinformationcontainedthereinisotherwise
unobtainable.Eventhen,therequestingpartywouldbepermittedaccessonlytothoseportionsof
hetaxrecordscontainingrelevantinformation.Atthistime,Defendantshavenotshownthatthe
informationsoughtintherequestedtaxreturnsinotherwiseunobtainable.Plaintiffsmaytherefore
disregardthisportionofDefendants'request.
9IInCategoryNo.57,Defendantsseekthefollowingdocuments:
01Alldocumentsprovingthatdefendantshadnoethical,moralorlegalrightstoprotect
theirlifetime leaseholdandownership of the$224,000remodelingcostsdefendants
investedintotheresidencelocatedat1090GreenwichWay,andincludespecifically
proofofanydamagetosaidresidenceorplaintiffsasadirectorindirectresultofthe
allegedactionsbydefendants.
To alargeextent,thislitigationisabouttheextent,value,andownershipofimprovementsmadeby
Defendantstotheresidence.Ineffect,thisrequestseeksvirtuallyeverydocumentthatPlaintiffs
mayuseinthecase.Althoughpartiesarerequiredtoatleastidentifyallsuchdocuments in
16connectionwiththeirNRCP16.1(a)(1)initialdisclosures,anyrequestfordocumentsmustbemade
17-withreasonableparticularity. CategoryNo.57coverstoomanydifferentkindsofdocuments,and
18 manyifnotalloftherequesteddocumentsmust beproduced inresponsetoother,more-specific
19categoriesofthisrequest.Plaintiffsmaythereforedisregardthiscategory.
20Plaintiffsareaskedtoproducelaindocuments contained inthecorporatebooksandrecords
21 1 ofNevadaDivorcecoveringtheperiodFebruary28,2010,untilFebruary28,2012inCategoryNo.
2258.Thiscategorydoesnotcontainanylimitationwithregardtosubjectmatter,andthislitigation
23doesnotimplicateeveryconceivablepieceofinformationthatmightbecontainedinthecorporate
24booksandrecordsforthisentity.TheCourtfindsthatCategoryNo.58isoverbroadonitsface,and
25Plaintiffsmaythereforedisregardthiscategory.
_
26
a Thefactthattaxreturnsmightprovideamoreconvenientsourcefordesiredinformationisnotrelevantinthe
supremecourt'sanalysis.
12
ThreecategoriesoftherequestCategoryNos60,61,and62--arebaseduponadesirefor
documentsregardingassertionsmadebyPlaintiffsintheir Opposition to Defendant's Ex Parte and
Amended Motion to Correct Clerical Errors or In the Alternative ka Correct Errors Due to Mistake,
Inadvertence, or Excusable Neglect, Request for Sanctions & Attorney Fees and Costs,
filedon
February8,2012.InCategoryNo.60,Plaintiffsareaskedtoproduce"[aptdocumentsprovingthe
ruthfulnessofplaintiffs'claims",nordidtheyeverhaveaviableclaimoflifetimeleasehold,"
ontheproperty.TheCourtobservesthatinParagraph7oftheircounterclaim,Defendantsallege
hat"Mhopartiesenteredintoaseriesoffiveyearleases(regardingthesubjectproperty]and
defendantshadanabsoluterighttorenewtheseleasesfortherestoftheirlives."Intheirreplyto
hecounterclaim,Plaintiffsdenythatallegation.Therefore,intheiramendedresponsetoCategory
o.60,Plaintiffsmustproduceanydocumentsthattheymayuse in supportoftheirdenialofthe
allegationsinParagraph7ofDefendants'counterclaim.
InCategoryNo.61,Defendantsseeklaindocumentsprovingthetruthfulnessofplaintiffs'
sertionthat]"...andtheyvoluntarilyrentedanotherapartmentandremovedalltheirbelongings
ratherthen(t)stayinthehousewhentheywereprovidedtheNoticeto
vacate andadvisedthattheir
asewouldnotberenewed."Presumably,thisstatementwasmadetosupportPlaintiffs'contention
17 Defendant Sunde never had a viable claim of lifetirne leasehold on the subject property. Thus,
8 DefendantsmayreasonablyassumethatPlaintiffswillcontinuetomakethisassertioninthis
1 itigationPlaintiffsmustthereforeproduceanydocumentsthattheymayuseinsupportofthis
20 ssertion,
2 InCategoryNo.62,Defendantsrequestlapdocumentsprovingthetruthfulnessofplaintiffs'
22 laimsthat,".injunctivereliefwasclearlyfrivolous."TheCourtviewsthisstatementasa
23 conclusionofferedbyPlaintiffsbaseduponevidenceandargumentpreviouslypresentedtothe
24 CourtinconnectionwithDefendants' Motion for Writ of Prohibition filedonOctober19,2011.Thus,
25 Defendantshavealreadyseenandhaveaccesstowhateverevidencewasusedinoppositionto
26 hatmotion.Plaintiffsmaythereforedisregardthiscategoryoftherequest.
13
CategoryNo.63isarequestfor"fail)documentsprovingthetruthfulnessofplaintiffs'claims
hattheydidnotcommitbankfraudanddidnotfalsifytheirincomeclaimsinthepurchaseofthe
Greenwichhomein2000."TheCourthasreviewedthepleadingsfiledbybothsides,anddoesnot
seeanyclaimscontainingallegationsthatPlaintiffsactedassetforthinthiscategory.Inparticular,
thiscontentionisnotcontainedinDefendantsaffirmativedefensesortheircounterclaim.TheCourt
indsthatthedocumentsrequestedinCategoryNo.63areirrelevantforpurposesofNRCP
7II26(b)(1),andPlaintiffsmaythereforedisregardthiscategoryoftherequest.
InCategoryNo.64,Defendantsseekthefollowingdocuments:
Alldocumentsprovingtheuntruthfulnessofdefendants'claimsthatplaintiffsfalsified
thedisclosuresintherecentsaleoftheGreenwichhome,andplaintiffsaretoprovide
proofthattheydisclosedtheflooding,themold,thattherearethree(3)lawsuits
against plaintiffs including a claim against the Greenwich home, and proofplaintiffs
disclosedtothebuyerthattheSunde'shaveacontractforalifetimeleaseholdforthe
Greenwichhome,asadmittedbyplaintiffVictoriaA.Crockett.
ThefalsityofdisclosuresmadebyPlaintiffstoMs.Brooke in connection withherrecentpurchaseof
heresidenceisnotatissueinthiscase, so Plaintiffs will not be requiredtoproducedocuments
15 proving that their disclosures were true. Likewise,thepleadingsdonotcontainallegationsof
16flooding,mold,ortheexistenceoflawsuitsagainstPlaintiffs,andPlaintiffsneednotproduce
7 documents proving that they made those disclosures. Finally,therequestfordocumentsproving
hatPlaintiffsdisclosedthatDefendantshavealifetimeleaseholdontheresidenceisproblematic.
PlaintiffsdenythatDefendantseverhadalifetimeleaseholdinterestintheresidence.Effectively,
20DefendantsareaskingPlaintiffstoproducealldocumentsthatdisputePlaintiffs'owncontentions.
21Thatkindofrequestdoesnotsatisfythe"reasonableparticularity" requirement of NRCP 34(b), and
22 violatestheworkproductdoctrineaswell.Therefore,Plaintiffsmaydisregardthiscategoryofthe
23 req
24InCategoryNo.68,Plaintiffsareaskedtoproduce"la)11documentsprovingthetruthfulness
25ofplaintiffs'claimsthatMrs.SundeabusedbailiffLightnerorDavidO'Mara,ascontainedin
26 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant'sMotiontoDismissPlaintiff'sComplaint."Whetherornotsuch
14
abuseoccurredisirrelevanttoanyclaiminthependingaction.Therefore,Plaintiffsmaydisregard
2thiscategoryoftherequest.
CategoryNo.69encompasses"railldocumentsprovingtheplaintiffsdidnotfalsifythe
proposedorderofDecember22,2011."Therelevanceofthisrequestisnotapparent,sincethe
Courthasalreadyaddressedargumentsabouttheproprietyofthereferencedorderinitsorderof
6March15,2012Therefore,Plaintiffsmaydisregardthiscategoryoftherequest.
7InCategoryNo.71,Defendantsseeklaindocumentsprovingthatthetranscriptofthe
8November8,2011,Hearing,containsanyreferenceinanymannertotheevictionofdefendantsat
9theJusticeCourtHearing."Thetranscriptisavailabletobothsides,anditspeaksforitself.Iteither
10containsreferencestotheevictionofDefendantsattheJusticeCourtHearing,oritdoesnot.The
11languagecontainedinotherdocumentsisirrelevant,andPlaintiffsmaythereforedisregardthis
12categoryoftherequest.
13InCategory No,72,Plaintiffsareaskedtoproduce"faindocumentsprovingthatthe
14transcriptoftheNovember8,2011,Hearing,includesanystatementbytheJudgethatanypleading
15 filedbydefendantswasfrivolous."Theanalysiswithregardto CategoryNo. 71appliesequallyto
16CategoryNo.72.Thetranscriptspeaksforitself.Therefore,Plaintiffsmaydisregardthiscategory
17oftherequest
18Intheirmotion,DefendantsseektheissuanceofanordertoshowcausewhyPlaintiffs
19shouldnotbeheldincontempt.AlthoughNRS22.010identifiesvariousactsoromissions
20constitutingcontempt,DefendantshavenotshownthatPlaintiffshaveactedinamannerthat
21; warrantsacontemptcitationunderanyofthoseprovisions.Defendantsalsoseektheimpositionof
22' evidentiaryandmonetarysanctions,underNRCP11 andNRCP37.With regardtoNRCP11,the
23provisionsofthatrule"donotapplytodisclosuresanddiscoveryrequests,responses,objections,
24andmotionsthataresubjecttotheprovisionsofRules16.116.2,and26through37."SeeNRCP
25,11(d).DiscoverysanctionsunderNRCP37(b)(2)generallywillbeimposedonlywhentherehas
26
15

been willfulnoncompliancewithadiscoveryorder.SeeClarkCnty.Sch.Dist.v.Richardson
Constr.,Inc.,123Nev.382,391,168P.3d87,93(2007).DefendantsdonotcitetheCourttoany
3IIspecificdiscoveryorderthattheymaintainhasbeen
violatedbyPlaintiffs.Defendantsaretherefore
notentitledtoanorderimposingsanctionsagainstPlaintiffs.
DefendantsalsoseekanawardoftheexpensesIncurredinconnectionwiththismotion
Where,ashere,adiscoverymotionisgrantedinpartanddeniedinpart,theCourtmayapportion
thereasonableexpensesincurredinrelationtothemotionamongthepartiesandpersonsinajust
8
fi
manner.SeeNRCP37(a)(4)(C).Underthecircumstances,theCourtfindsthateachsideshould
bearitsownexpensesincurredinconnectionwiththismotion.
10ACCORDINGLY,Defendants'
Motion to Compel Discovery, MotionforSanctionsshouldbe
11GRANTED
inpart,andDENIEDinpart.
12
ITSHOULD,THEREFORE,BEORDEREDthatPlaintiffsproduceforinspectionandcopying
byDefendants,nolaterthanJuly16,2012,thedocumentsdescribedbyDefendantsinDefendants'
14
RequestforProductionofDocuments,totheextentrequiredbyandinaccordancewiththis
15 decision.
16 DATED:This2nd dayofJuly,2012.
17
18
19
?0
22
23
24
9 Sanctionsmayalsobeimposedfora willful failure to produce documents as required under NRCP 16.1,but
thatruleisinapplicableinconnectionwiththecurrentmotion.
25
TotheextentthatDefendantsseektheimpositionofsanctionsagainstPlaintiffsbaseduponanalleged
26
"historyofobfuscatingdiscovery,' the Courtisnotpersuadedthatsanctionsarewarrantedonthatbasis.
16
.1111**, I 4.
5200SummitRidgeDr.,#4221
Reno.NV89523
ViktoriyaSokolSunde
5200SummitRidgeDr.,#4221
Reno,NV89523
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
EXHIBIT11

490
MICHAEL SUNDE 12 AUG 20 FI1 I:
14
2 11 VIKTORIYA SOKOL SUNDF.
561 Keystone Avenue, Suite 684
Reno. NV $9503
8 y
(775) 787-7489
4 In Proper Person
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF Tlir STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
OBER1 & VIC1 OR1A CROCKETT.
Case No ("V11-00307
P lain t i ffs.
Dept. No. 10
LAU_ SUNDE. mniduall
14 II VIKTORIYA SOKOL. SUN DI.
individually, and DOES
Delenthinis,
ND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT; SANCTIONS
COMES NOW defendants. J. MICHAEL SUNDE & VIKTORIVA SOKOL SUNDE, in
prop
rsons. and tiles this Motion For Contempt. This motion is made pursuant to NRCP 16.1, 26, and 37
d NRS 22_010. and is based on the points and
authorities herein and any and all tiles and pleadings
11
Filed herein.
. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs have failed to respect this Court's Order for discovery entered on July 20,2012. following
he Discovery Commissioner's
Recommendation For Order dated Jul 2, 2012. Plaintiffs did not tile
an objeciion to the recommendation requiring the recommendation to be accepted by this Court as
admitted by- Plaintiffs.
28
Plaintiffsare
inviolationofthisCourt'sOrdeienteredJuly20.2012,byrefusingtoproduce
documentsrelatedtothe followingofDEFENDANTSREQI.lESTFORPRODUCTION OF
3DOCUMENTS:
455,56,60.65.66. 07.and70.
DefendantssubmittedtheirDEFENDANTSREQUESTFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTS
onFebruary 21.20I2.ThisCourthas already allowedmorethan189daysforPlaintiffsto abidebythe
7lidiscovery rules.Any additionaltimeordelayforanyreasonisaninsulttoallthosethatcomplywith
erulesfortheyfullyexpectseriouscourtsanctionsagainstthosethatdonotcomply.
.HISTORYOFDISCOVERYABUSESBYPLAINTIFFS84ABUSESBYTHISCOURT
theComplaintinthisactionwastiledonJanuary 28.2011.
OnFebruary17.2011.PlaintiffsfiledaMOTIONTOENTEND1IIFEARLYCASE
2ONFERENCF.ThisCourtentered itsOrderonMarch3.2011.allowing90daystoholdthe
conference.Plaintiffs didnotboldthecaseconferenceasorderedbythisCourtandthwarted
Defendants'elibrtstomovethiscaseforward. PlaintiffsviolatedtheorderofMarch3.2011.Thecase
conferencewasnothelduntilJanuary17.2012.IyearaftertheComplaintwasfiled,
OnMarch 7.2011, PlaintiffsfiledaMOTIONFOREXTENSIONOETIMETOFILE
ANSWER
II
11 4.13.17,19,20,22.23.24,25, 1 6,30.411,41.42,43.44,45,46. 47.50.52.53.54.
1
7TOCOUNTERCLAIM.On
April5.7011,thisCourtentereditorderallk.wsing, 90 additionaldaystOr
8PlaintiffstoanswertoDefendantscounterclaim.PlaintiffsfailedtotiletheansweruntilDecember12.
2011.PlaintiffsviolatedthisCourt Orderandfailedtofilethe
answerasordered.
On January10,2012,PlaintiffstiledaMOTIONFORATTORNEYFEES
ANDCOSTSetal.
Plaintiffsfalsifiedthelegalargumentinseekingthoseattorneyfees.OnJanuary30,2012,Defendants
22tiledanOPPOSITIONTOPLAINTIFFS'MOTIONFORAl- FORNEYFEES& COSTS.Regardless.
23-thisCourtissuedafalsifiedorderforattorneyfees.
241OnNovember14.2011.DefendantsfiledanEXPARTE MOTIONTO
DISMISSPLAINTIFFS
25COMPLAINTS,whichwasbasedondiscoveryabusesbyPlaintiffs.OnDecember
7.201I.Plaintiffs
26submittedafalsifiedPROPOSEDORDERAFTERHEARING. wherein Plaintiffsfalsifiedseveral
27sectionsoftheProposed Odertosolidifytheir claimsinthisaction.AlthoughDefendants
on December
2812.2011.filedanEXVARIE()RJR-HONTO PROPOSEDORDER. etal..this CourtfraudtdentlY
signedtheProposedOrder.Theportionsofthe order
thatwerefalsifiedincludedthatDefendants'
motionwasfrivolous.whenintruththisCourtstatedduringtheHearingthree(3)timesthemotionwas
"notfrivolous,and.theOrderstatedthatDefendantswereevictedfromthe1090Greenwichhome,when
4intruththeJusticeCourttranscriptcontainedno
suchdecision.
5
OnJanuary24,2012,DefendantsfiledEXPARTEMOTION10CORRECTCLERICALERROR
6ORINTHEALIFRNATIVETO
CORRECTERRORSDUE
TOMISTAKES,INADVERTENCE,OR
7,EXCUSABITNFOLEC
r. etal.OnMarch15.2012,thisCourtfabricatedreasonsfordenying
811Defendants'motiontocorrect,ThisCourtfalselystatedthattheevidencetoprovesaidOrderwas
.akitiedt.i. thisCourtwasnotsupportedbysufficientevidence.But,thisCourt'sownwordsduring
heHearing,containedinthetranscript,wasnotsufficientevidence'?However.theDiscovery
Commissionerstatedthatthetwo(2)allegedallegationsofafalsifiedorderinthisCourt,inboth
nstancesthe"transcriptsspeakforthemselves."
OnMarch6.2012.DefendantsfiledaMOTIONTOCOMPELPRODUCTIONOF
1411DOC11MENTS.MOHONFORCONTEMPT.OnJuly2,2012.theDiscoveryCommissionersubmitted
isRECOMMENDATIONFORORDERtothisCourt.ExhibitI.OnJuly20.2012,thisCourtordered
16PlaintiffstofulfilltheirproductionrequirementspursuanttotheRECOMMENDATIONFORORDER
17submittedbytheDiscoveryCommissioner.Exhibit2
i81onMay29. 2012. DefendantsfiledaMOTIONTODISMISSPLAINTIFFS'COMPLAINI&
SUPPLEMENTALCOMPLAIN
- 1.OnJune15,2012.PlaintiffsonceagaintiledanEXPAR]E
201MOTIONTOEXTENDTIMEWITHINWHICHTORESPONDTODEFENDANTS'MOTIONTO
21DISMISS.OnJune18.2012.PlaintiffsfiledanOPPOSITIONTODEFENDANTSMOTIONTO
22DISMISSPLAINTIFFS'COMPLAINT&SUPPLEMENTALCOMPLAINT.ThisCourtdenied
23defendants'motiontodismissonJuly31.2012.
24OnJuly16.2012,Plaintiffsonceagainattemptedtostall discovery byfiling anEX PARTE
MOTION"F0EXTENDlifyIEWITHINWHICHTOSATISFYTHEDISCOVERY
COMMISSIONER'SRECOMMENDAHONBECAUSEANOBJECTIONWILLBEFILED.OnJuly
3.2012.Defendantsfiledanoppositiontothismotion.ThisCourtdeniedthisextensionoftimeinits
OrderofJuly20.2012.whichincludedanOrderforPlaintiffstocompletetheir responseto
3
DEFENDANTSREQUESTFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCI.lMENTSbyAugust3,2012.Plaintiff
efusedto
complywiththatOrder.
ThreeOrdersof
thisCourtignoredbyPlaintiffs.
InsteadofcomplyingwiththisCourt'sOrderofJuly20.2012.Plaintiffscontinuedtofilemotions
toextendtime.OnJuly24.2012,PlaintiffsfiledyetanotherMOTIONFOREXTENSIONOFTIME
ViRESPOND]0DEFENDANTS'DISCOVERYREQUESTS.Also,onJuly24.2012.Plaintiffs
tiledaMOHUNFORRECONSIDERATIONOFTHISCOURT'SORDERRE:THEDISCOVERY
COMMISSIONERS
RECOMMENDATION.Defendantstiledoppositionstothesetwo(.2.) attempts
9tostalldiscoveryonAugust8,2012,andAugust10,2012.
10a.
Additional Attempts to Stall Discovery
OnJuly23.2012,inalettertoDefendants,O'Maracontinuedhisrelentlesscampaigntostall
lendantsConstitutionallyprotectedrightstodueprocess.ourrightstodiscovery.Exhibit 3. In that
ter )Maraclaimedhewaspreparing
touse "tensofthousands"orcopiesfromother cases the parties
1 14havebeen
involvedin.O'Marathendemandedprepaymentofallcoststocopythese "tensofthousands"
15
ofdocuments.Inresponse,DefendantsexercisedourrightspursuanttoNRCP34(0and(b)and
nnouncedthatPlaintiIfsweretoprovidethedocumentsandwewoulddoallthecopyingwedetermined
necessary,Exhibit 4,
OnAugust14.2012,inaletterto Defendants. O'Mara souuht to eliminate his requirement to
11
9providealldocumentsPlaintiffsintendtoenterinthisaction,thosederived front the Carson City and
20 Department 6 actions,
Exhibit5,ThisinhutanotherobviousattemptbyO'Marato"laypaper"on
)elendarns.paperPlaintiffs havenointentionofsubmittingtothe Courtinthisaction.Defendantswill.
22' nowbeforcedtotileamotioninliminepriortotrialtoeliminatethosedocumentsasunrelatedtothis
23-.action.Defendantsresponded to PlaintiffsAugust14thletterregisteringyetanothercomplaintrelated
24 1 toPlaintiffsstallingdiscover,:inthisaction,anddemandingthatdocumentsPlaintiffsintendtousein
25'',thiscaseattrialmustbeprovided.Exhibit6,
16
b. Notice of Withdrawal is Invalid
27But
O'Maradidn'tstopthereinhisstallingofdiscoveryanddisobedienceofthisCourt'sOrder
of
28 ,, July 20, 2012. On August
20.2012.O'Marathensubmitted aNOTICEOFWITHDRAWALANDIOR
4
ABANDONMENTOF".
ITIESIXTHCLAIMFORRELIEFANDRELEASEOFINJUNCTION.
Plaintiffs'referencetoNRS41inthatnoticeisnotapplicableasNRS41onlyappliestodismissal
'theentireactionofPlaintiffs.their
ComplaintandSupplementalComplaint.Rule41inrelativepart
411states:
RULE41.DISMISSALOFACTIONS
(a)VoluntaryDismissal.Effectthereof.
(1)
ByPlaintiff;byStipulation.SubjecttotheprovisionsofRule23(e),ofRule66,and
ofanystatute,anactionmaybedismissedb)theplaintiffuponrepaymentof
defendants'filingfees.withoutorderofcourt(1) by filinganoticeofdismissalatany
timebeforeservicebytheadversepartyofananswerorofamotionforsummary
811
judgment,whicho,erfirstoccurs,or(ii)byfilingastipulationofdismissalsignedby
allpartieswhohaveappearedintheaction...
(2) ByOrder ofCourt.Exceptasprovidedinsubdivisiontaxi)ofthisrule,anaction
shallnotbedismissedattheplaintiffs'instancesaveuponorderofthecourtandupon
suchtermsandconditionsasthecowldeemsproper.
1111Inanyevent the
noticewasnottimelyasan answerinthisaction hasalreadybeentiled, Anfiction
isdefinedas."Theterms'action'and'suit'arenearlyifuotquitesynonymous."Black'sLawDictionary.
Seealso,NRCP
3COMMENCEMENTOFACTION..NRS11.010CommencementolCivil Actions:
NRS12,010.et al
Delendantshaveexpendedhundredsofhour.sindefending againsttheSixthCauseofActionbased
theRule11 representationsofPlaintiffs,To attempttoremovethatcauseofactionatthispointin
Cconstitutesa .
eryseriousviolationofRule11demandingsanctionsagainstPlaintiffs.
8Moreimportant, theonlyreasonforattemptinganendrunaroundtheirdiscoveryobligationsisto
9
notrespondtoDefendantsrequestnumber54asorderedbythisCourt,However,thesixthcauseof
20actionisnot theonlycauseunderwhichDefendantshavealawfulrighttoaresponsetorequest
number
21154.Plaintiffs
SupplementalComplaintincludesthefollowingcausesofactionalsodirectlyrelatedto
22defamationandproductionunderNo.54oldelendants'requests:CauseofActionSeven.Slander of
231Title: CauseofActionEight,IemporaryandPreliminaryInjunction;CauseofActionNine,Intentional
24InterferenceofContractualRelations;CauseofActionTen,IntentionalInterferenceWithProspective
25EconomicAdvantage.
26 AreadingoftheSupplementalComplaintrevealsthatall referencedcauses ofactionaboverelate 1
27tothelettersenttoRobertCrockett'ssupervisor,Ms.
Z:11Ter. Removalofoneofthesecauses()faction
28doesnot inanywit)
eliminatetherequirementofrespondingtonumber54,asPlaintiffs'othercauses
action requires these documents under No. 54. More important. Plaintiffs have violated this Court's
der to respond. Furthermore, Defendants have alleged several causes of action that also demands
duction of these documents under No. 54. and the RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER includes
4 II references to Defendants claims of theft that also require a response to No. 54.
In addition, should this Court violate Defendants rights and remove any of Plaintiffs' causes of
611 action without our express
written permission. Defendants will
supplement their counterclaim and add
causes of action of defamation and slander against Plaintiffs, It the Supplemental Complaint falsely
Ileged slander. defamation against Defendants, then that allegation itself was a slander upon
Defendants. Slander for slander.
Claims of Production Were Falsified by O'Mara & Plaintiffs
O'Mara's claim to have produced documents pursuant to Defendants' REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS is a fallacy.
On March 14.2012, Plaintiffs produced their SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL 16.1 PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS. The only documents contained in this response were pictures of the 1090
Greenwich home. Exhibit 7.
On March 21_ 2012. Plaintiffs provided their RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST
FOR
7 PROM(' floN OF DOCUMENTS. Plaintiffs provided no documents in this response.
Exhibit 8.
On June 4.2012. Plaintiffs produced nearly 500 pages of
in their SUPPLEMENTAL
9 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, Exhibit 9.
20 However, many of the documents contained in this response were not included in DEFENDANTS'
2111 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. Exhibit 9, A summary of documents released
Defendants in this production is contained in Exhibit 10.
On August 20.2012. Plaintiffs provided their THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL 16.1 PRODUCTION OF
24 DOCUMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
25 DOCUME.NTS, Exhibit 11. 'Fhis response included only rental information from the apartment rented
26 by Defendants.
27On June 12, 2012. Defendants filed a motion to quash and objections to a subpoena issued by
28 Plaintiffs to Defendants' prior landlord. Montebello Apartments. Plaintiffs provided no notice of this
submission to Defendants, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants motion to quash on June 18,2012.
Defendants tiled a request for submission on June 26, 2012. In an act of extreme bias and prejudice and
in violation of Defendants' Constitutional rights to due process, this Court ignored Defendants' motion
4 and has never issued an order related to this motion to quash. Plaintiffs have this day filed a motion to
quash subpoenas recently.' served by Defendants for bank records ordered produced by this Court in its
Order olJuly 20. 2012, As Plaintiffs are now lying about having produced these documents. it behooves
his Court to reject Plaintiffs' motion to quash.
8 1On August 29. 2012. Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendants claiming they have complied with ,
discovery order oldie Court and have also complied with defendants' request No. 54. Exhibit 12. As
e exhibits prove herein, Plaintiffs are lying that full production had occurred, and No. 54 has not been
:sponded to.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Plaintiffs have failed to comply with NRCP 26. 16.1 and 37. to cooperate in discovery. The
answers they have pros ided are incomplete, and they refuse to provide the requested discovery as
5 . ordered by this Court on July 20.
1 012.
16 1
Defendants request the court hold Plaintiffs and David O'Mara in contempt of court, and that they
17 be sanctioned for their actions. The documents requested by Defendants is reasonable and would be
8 evidence in support of Defendants' defenses and counterclaim.
RULE 37. FAILURE', TO MAKE DISCLOSURE OR COOPERATE IN DISCOVERY,
SANCTIONS.
(a) Motion jot- Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery. A party. upon reasonable notice
to other parties and all persons affected thereby. may apply for an order compelling disclosure
or discovery as follows:
(it . Appropriate Court
An application for an order to a party may be made to the court in
which the action is pending. or. on matters relating to a deposition. to the court in the district
where the deposition is being taken. An application for an order to a deponent, who is not a
party shall be made to the court in the district where the deposition is being. or is to be, taken.
(2) Motion,
26
(A) If a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 16.1(a) or 16.2(a). any other party.
may move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions. The motion must include a
certification that the movant has in good faith contcrred or attempted to
confer with the party
not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action.
(13) I la deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Rules 30 or 31.
or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 30(bX6) or 31(a). or a
party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rulc 33, or if a party, in response to a
request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond that inspection will he
permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested. the discovering party may
move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection
in accordance with the request. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in
good faith_ conferred or attempted to conrer with the person or party failing to make the
discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action. When taking
a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the
examination before applying for an order.
(3/
Evasive or incomplete disclosure. answer or response. For purposes of this subdivision
an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer
or response is to he treated as a failure to disclose.
answer or respond.
(4) Expenses cind sane/ions.
0
(A) If the motion is granted or lithe disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the
motion was tiled, the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party
or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such
conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party
the reasonable expenses incurred in making
the motion,
including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the motion was filed without
the,movant's first making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court
action, or that the opposing
party's nondisclosure, response or objection was substantially
14
justified, or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
5
(1l) if the motion is
denied, the court may enter any protective order authorited under Rule 26c
and shall, alto affording an opportunity to
be heard, require the moving party or the attorney
16 II filing the motion or
both of them to pay to the party or deponent who opposed the motion the
reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees. unless the court
711 finds that the making of the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make
an award of expenses unjust.
(C) 11 ..the motion is
granted in part and denied in part, the court may enter any protective order
authorized under Rule 26(C) and may, after affording an opportunity to he heard, apportion the
reasonable
expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the panics and persons in a lust
20 manner.
(hi Failure to Comply KA Order.
(I) 'N'anctionv- -Deponent.
If a deponent fails to he sworn or to answer a question after being
directed to do so b the court the failure ma v be considered a contempt of court.
(2) Sanctions Party,
If a party or an ollicer. director. or managing agent of a party or a
24
person designated under
Rule 36(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey an
order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (a) of this rule
25
or Rule 35. or if a party fails to obey an order entered under Rules 16, 161, and 16.2. the court
in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just. and
26 -
among others the following:
27(A) An order
that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated
lac ts shall be taken to be
established for the purposes oldie action in accordance with the claim
28of the party obtaining the order:
(It) , 111 order refusing to alloy, the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims
or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence:
(C.) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereol or staying further proceedings until the
order is obeyed, or dismissing the
action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a
judgment by default against the disobedient party:
(D) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto. an order treating as a contempt
of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental
examination,
(1:1) Where a party has failed to comply with an order under Rule 35(a) requiring that party to
produce another for examination, such orders as are listed in subparagraphs (A), (13), and (C)
faits subdivision, unless the party failing to
comply shows that that party is unable to produce
such person for examination.
In lieu limy of
the foregoing orders or in addition thereto. the court shall require the party failing
o obey the order or the attontey advising that party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees. caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or
hat other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Falitire to Disclose, False or Misleading Disclosure: Refusal to Admit
(I) . A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule
16.1. 16.2, or 26(e)(1), or to
amend a prior response to discovery as required by Rule 26(0(2).
is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or
on a motion any witness or information not so diclosed. In addition to or in lieu of this
sanction, the court, on motion and after affording an opportunity to be heard, may impose other
appropriate sanctions. In addition to requiring payment of reasonable expenses, including
16
attorney's fees, caused by the failure, these sanctions may include any of the actions authorized
under Rule 37(b)(2)(A). (B). and (C) and may include informing the jury ofthe failure to make
7the disclosure.
(2) If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter as
requested under Rule 36. and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the
genuineness of the document or the truth of the matter, the requesting pans may apply to the
court for an order requiring the other party to pay the re,isonable expenses incurred in making
that proof, including reasonable attorney's fees. The court shall make the order unless it linds
that (AAt the request was held objectionable pursuant to Rule 36(a), or (B) the admission sought
was of no substantial
importance, or (C) the party failing to admit had reasonable ground to
believe that the prty might prevail on the matter. or (D) there was other good reason for the
failure to admit.
411 Failure c). ,f Party Iv Attend at Own Deposition or Serve Answers. to Interrogatories or
Respond to Reqiic,r fin- inspection. If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
party or a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify on behalf of a party fails
(1) to appear before the officer who is to take the deposition, after being served with
a proper
notice, or (2) to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule
33, after
proper service of the interrogatories, or (3) to serve a written response to a request
for
inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper service oldie request, the court in which the
action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just.
and
among others it may take an!. action authorized under subparagraphs (A). (B). and
((._ ) of
subdivision
(b)t 2) of this rule. Any motion specifying a failure under clause (2) or (3) of
this
subdivision shall include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or
9
attemptedtoconfer
withthepartyfailingtoanswerorrespondinanefforttoobtainsuch
answerorresponsewithoutcourtaction.Inlieuofanyorderorinaddition(hereto,thecourt
2
shallrequirethepartyfailingto ad ortheattorneyadvisingthatpartyorbothto pay the
reasonableexpenses,includingattorney'sfees,causedb thefailure,unlessthecourtfindsthat
thefailurewassubstantiallyjustifiedorthatothercircumstancesmakeanawardofexpenses
unjust.
Thefailure
toactdescribedinthissubdivisionmaynotbeexcusedonthegroundthatthe
discoverysoughtisobjectionableunlessthepartyfailingtoacthas appliedforaprotective
orderasprovidedbyRule26(C).
6
(/) Fuifttre to
Participate in the Framing al Cl Discoverv Plan. Ifa partyoraparty'sattorney
7
failstoparticipateingoodfaithinthedevelopmentandsubmissionofaproposeddiscovery
plan
asrequiredbyRule16.I(b)(2)or16.2, thecourtmay.afteropportunityforbearing,require
suchpartyorparty'sattorneytopaytoanyotherpartythereasonableexpenses.including,
attorney'sfees,causedbythefailure.
Inaddition.NevadaRulesofCivilProcedure16.1(e) states,inpertinentpart:
(e)Failureorrefusaltoparticipateinpre-traildiscovery;sanctions.
1 (1-)Ifanattorneyfails toreasonablycomplywithanyprovisionsofthis rule.orifanattorney
orapartyfailstocomply
withanorderenteredpursuant tosubsection(d)ofthisrule.thycourt.
1 uponmotionoruponitsowninitiative.shallimposeuponapail) , oraparty'sattorney,orboth.
appropriatesanctionsinregardtothefailure(s)arejust.includingthefollowing:
AlAnyofthesanctionsavailablepursuanttoRule37(b)(2)andRule37(0;
(13)Anorderprohibitingtheuseofanywitnesses,document.ortangiblething,whichshould
have been disclosed,produced,exhibited,orexchangedpursuanttoRule16,1(a).
16jNRS22.010definescontemptasfollows:
17 Thefollowiuactsoromissionshall bedeemedcontempts:
3I)isobedionceorresistancetoanylawfulwrit,order.rule orprocessissuedbythecourtor
judgeatchambers.
NRS22.100PenaltyforContempt.
2(
Upontheanswerandevidencetaken,thecourtorjudgeorjury.asthecasemaybe,shall
determinewhetherthe person proceededagainstisguiltyofcontemptcharged;andifitbe
foundthatheisguiltyofacontempt.afinemaybeimposedonhimnotexceeding$500,orhe
22 maybeimprisonednotexceeding25days....
3 NRS125.240EnforcementofJudgmentandOrders:Remedies
Thefinaljudgment and anyordermadebeforeorafterjudgmentmaybeenforcedbythecourt
bysuchorderasitdeemsnecessary.Areceivermaybeappointed,securitymayherequired,
5 executionmayissue.realorpersonalpropertyorspousemaybesoldasunderexecutionin
othercases,anddisobedienceofanyordermaybepunishedasacontempt.
DefendantsrequestthiscourttoacknowledgePlaintiffsareincontemptofcourtforfailingto
27
dediscoveryandfalsifying
statementsthatdiscover'pursuantto Defendants'RequestFor
2R
10
Production of Documents was
provided as more fully enumerated herein.
Plaintiffs failure to abide by discovery rules has been deliberate and willful requiring a contempt
rder and sanctions. (
lark Cly. SOL Dist v. Richardson Constr. Inc., 123 Nev. 382.391, 168 P.3d 87.
4 93(2007): Hove's v. Bank offer.. 96 Nev. 567.613 P.2d 706(1980) [court struck pleadings when party
5 willfully failed to respond by gi ing incomplete or evasive answers!: Young V. Johnny Ribeiro
6 106 Nev. 88, 787 P.2d 777 ( 1990);
Skeen ralleY Bank, 89 Nev. 301, 511 13 .2d 1053 (1973) (default
7 judgment
upheld where normal adversary process has been halted due to unresponsive party]; Riverside
'mina Corp.
Brewer , 80 Nev. 153, 390 P. , d 232 (1964) (where defendant willfully and
ersistently evaded plaintiffs' efforts underdiscovery procedures authorized by the rules, entry ofdelault
udgment was proper]:
Hamlett v. Reynolds,
114 Nev. 863. 963 P.2d 45 7 (1998);
)'omaha Motor ( .
,W.4 Arnoidi. 114 Nev. 233. 955 P.2d 661 (1998): Morgan v, Las Vegas Sands. Inc 118 Nev. 315.
12 11 43 P.3d 1036 (2002)1
Defendants have provided more than sufficient factual information and rules violations by plaintiffs
14 to justify dismissal of the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint with prejudice.
Dismissal of plainti Ifs' Complaint and Supplemental Complaint is not only warranted hut dismissal
16 ' is mandatory. Picini v Ryon, 99 Nev. 801. 671 P.2d 1133(1983) (Plaintiffs unexplained and
17 - unwarranted failur e t o
provide disco ery information was sufficiently wilful so as to warrant sanction
18 , of dismissal of complaint]; Kazman v. Bank ol":4inerica, 92 Nev. 538. 554 P.2d 262 ("The Supreme
I. Court held that where defendant 18' ho suggested no legal reason why he was unable, as he claimed, to
201 conduct adequate disc herwise offer a defense and cited no relevant authority in support of
21 11 his novel claim, grant ofsummary judgment would not be disturbed"1, Walls v. Brewster. 112 Nev. 175.
912 P.2d 261(1996) l"The Supreme Court held that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate in light
23 ll of evidence of lack of diligence" See, Vance v. Judas Priest, 1990 WI_ 130921 (Nev. dist, Ct.):
24 Hamlett v. Reynolds-,
114 Nev. 863. 963 13
,2d 457 (1999) ("Striking husband's answer and entering
25 default against him in action by wife for divorce was warranted by husband's repeated failure to comply
26 with discovery orders, where husband offered no explanation for his failure to comply1;
27O'Mara have desperately claimed Defendants already have the documents we seek. Of course. he
28 S no . effort to produce any proof of that absurd claim. O'Mara made no effort to identify which

numberedrequest
in Defendants' Motion to Compel is in Defendants possession. Furthermore,
documents must be produced in this action in order to be admitted in the forthcoming trial.
V. CONCLUSION
4 II
Based on the foregoing, Defendants ask this Court that Plaintiffs and David O'Mara be held
in
nternptofcourtforviolationofRule37,16.1,26,and34forfailingtoprovidedDefendantswith
6 discovery as previously
ordered by this Coun, and by Plaintiffs deceivingthis Court by falsely claiming
7 that they had provided discovery to Defendants.
Defendantsrequestsanctions
against plaintiffs, withoutlimitation,toinclude entry of default of
9 1 plaintiffs' Complaint and SupplementalComplaint.andOrderPlaintiffstopayallofdefendants'costs,
10Plaintiffs history ofobfuscatingdiscovery,ignoringtheRulesofCivil Procedure. and dishonesty
I Idemandserious sanctions against plaintiffs and their attorney. DavidO'Mara,
Thepartiescertifythatthesepleadingsdonotcontainthesocialsecuritynumberofany
:rson.
DATED:August 3C-.). 20
By:
By:
VIIZTORIYAS
EXHIBIT12
FILED
Electronically
02-14-2013:06:23:09 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
2
Transaction # 3534055
4
5
6
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
7
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
* *
8
9
ROBERT & VICTORIA CROCKE
10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
13
3. MICHAEL SUNDE, individually,
VIKTORIYA SOKOL SUNDE, individually,
14
And DOES I-X,
1
Defendants.
16
Case No.:CV11-00307
Dept. No.:10
17
OR! ER DENYI
FEN DANT ' TI N FOR E N DE
TO STAY AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER
18
Presently before the Court, is a Motion for Reconsideration of an Order to Stay filed
19
by Defendants J. MICHAEL SUNDE and VIKTORIYA SUNDE (hereafter collectively referred
20
to as "Defendants") on December 24, 2012. Following, on January 14, 2013, Plaintiffs
21
ROBERT CROCKEi i and VICTORIA CROCKETT (hereafter collectively referred to as
22
"Plaintiffs") filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. Thereafter, on
23
January 17, 2013, Defendants filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the
24
atter for the Court's consideration.
25
On January 17, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Relief from Order. Thereafter,
26
on February 5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Motion for Relief from Order.
27
Following, on February 8, 2013, Defendants filed a Reply to Opposition to Motion for Relief
28
5
10
15
20
25
from Order. Contemporaneously, Defendants filed a Request for Submission, thereby
2
submitting the matter for the Court's consideration.
Defendants are requesting reconsideration of this Court's December 13, 2012 Order
4 Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay the Pending Action. In that Motion, Plaintiffs requested
that this Court stay the pending action until the conclusion of the previously litigated case
6 between the same parties which is currently before the Nevada Supreme Court.
7 Defendants argued that the action did not qualify for consolidation as there are no
similar issues of damages, no common questions of law, and no common questions of fact.
9 This Court determined that a stay in this case would be in the best interest of the Court
and the parties, as not to waste the Court's time on previously decided issues.
11 This Court believes that Defendants' filings of these Motions are done so without
12 merit and would be considered vexatious litigation. These Motions seem to be repetitive
13 and burdensome and an abuse of the judicial system. This Court does consider the merits
14 of the Motions that have been filed in this case, and at this time will not reconsider the
ruling regarding these matters set forth in the December 13, 2012 Order. Accordingly,
16 both Motions are denied.
17 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for
18 Reconsideration of Order to Stay is DENIED.
19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Relief from Order is
DENIED.
21
22 DATED this 1 7 day of February 2013.
23
24 EN P. ELLIO
District Judge
26
27
28
CERTIFIcATE OF MAILING
2ii
IherebycertifythatIelectronicallyfiledtheforegoingwiththeClerkoftheCourtby
usingtheECFsystemwhichservedthefollowingpartieselectronically:
LUAMO'MARA,ESQ.forVICTORIACROCKETTetal
DAVIDO'MARA,ESQ.forVICTORIACROCKETTetal
6
IfurthercertifythatIamanemployeeoftheSecondJudicialDistrictCourtofthe
7'StateofNevada,inandfortheCountyofWashoe,andthatonthisdateIdepositedfor
8
mailingacopyoftheforegoingdocumentaddressedto:
9
J.MichaelSunde
10
ViktoriyaSunde
11
4790CaughlinPkwy.,#119
Reno,NV89519-0907
12
DATED this dayofFebruary,2013.
13
14
15
DIHO
JudicialAssistant
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28