3 7 12 0204 1708 MTN Set Aside Order To Show Cause, Continue Stay Hearing CV11-03628-2753310 (MTN Alter or Amend Judgment)

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
Document Code:
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
4!! E. 9th "t. #!
$eno, N% &9'!
(ele: 77')33&)&&
*a+: 949),,7)74-!
ZachCoughlin.hotmail.com
/ttorne0 1or 2ro "e /ttorne0 /33ellant
4N (5E "EC6ND 78D4C4/9 D4"($4C( C68$( 6* (5E "(/(E 6* NE%/D/
4N /ND *6$ (5E C68N(: 6* ;/"56E
Z/C5/$: C68<594N=
/33ellant,
vs.
>/((5E; >E$94""
$es3ondent.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?

C/"E N6: C%)-3,!&
DE2(: D7
Motion to Set Aside Order to Show Cause; or alternatively, Motion to Continue or Stay
Hearing on Order to Show Cause Pending the Resolution of the Criminal Trespass Matter
C6>E" N6;, 3art0 designated as re3resented, @0 and through attorne0, Z/C5/$:
B/$AE$ C68<594N, E"B., and 1iles the a@ove named document and moves this Court 1or the
relie1 requested herein. (his 1iling is 1urther @ased u3on the 3a3ers and 3leadings on 1ile herein and
the >emorandum o1 2oints and /uthorities su@mitted hereCith and an0 oral argument this Court ma0
desire.
MMORA!"#M O$ PO%!TS A!" A#THOR%T%S
%& PROC"#RA' H%STOR()
- 1
>otion to "et /side 6rder to "hoC Cause= or alternativel0, >otion to Continue or "ta0 5earing on
6rder to "hoC Cause 2ending the $esolution o1 the Criminal (res3ass >atter
F I L E D
Electronically
03-07-2012:01:32:30 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2810070
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
(here is a 3arallel criminal 3roceeding in $>C C$ !,4-' Chich is to go to (rial 1airl0 soon, @ut not 3rior to
the 6rder (o "hoC Cause 5earing in this matter.
%%& AR*#M!T)
Against a party who ta+es the $ifth& *enerally, the de,ision in a ,ivil ,ase whether to admit one-s
invo,ation of the $ifth Amendment into eviden,e is in the distri,t ,ourt-s dis,retion& $ara,e v& %ndep& $ire %ns& Co&,
.// $&0d 012, 031 45th Cir&3/678& There is no ,onstitutional 9ar to the admission of this eviden,e, and it may 9e
admitted if it is relevant and not otherwise prohi9ited 9y the rules of eviden,e& :a;ter v& Palmigiano, 205 #&S& 716,
73. 43/<.8& #nder Rule 217 of the $ederal Rules of viden,e, the eviden,e will 9e e;,luded if its pro9ative value is
su9stantially outweighed 9y the danger of unfair pre=udi,e& See $ara,e, .// $&0d at 01/>33 4error to admit that
plaintifftoo+ the $ifth in a ,riminal investigation) pre=udi,ial effe,t outweighed the pro9ative value of that
eviden,e, whi,h should have 9een e;,luded8& %f a witness who ta+es the $ifth at an early pro,eeding 9ut later
,hanges his position and testifies, then his original invo,ation of the $ifth should not 9e used against him& Harrell
v& "CS ?uipment 'easing Corp&, /53 $&0d 3257, 32.2 45th Cir&3//08; $ara,e, .// $&0d at 01/>33& 0& Against the
witness- employer@ The same rules of eviden,e govern whether to admit an employee-s invo,ation of the $ifth in a
suit against that witness- employer& See Curtis v& MAS Petroleum, %n,&, 3<2 $&7d ..3 45th Cir& 3///8 *ury
instru,ted that it may ,onsider ,orporate representative-s invo,ation of fifth against the ,orporation8& The $ifth
Cir,uit o9served in Curtis that, 9e,ause a ,orporation la,+s a privilege against self>in,rimination, BCuDpon 9eing
served with dis,overy re?uests, a ,orporation must appoint agents who ,an, without fear of self>in,rimination,
furnish relevant information availa9le to the ,orporation&B %d& at .<2& The Court therefore ,on,luded that it was
not unduly pre=udi,ial to a ,orporate defendant to allow an adverse inferen,e 9ased on a designated ,orporate
representative-s invo,ation of his $ifth Amendment rights at a deposition 9e,ause a ,ontrary ,on,lusion Bwould
effe,tively permit the ,orporation to assert on its own 9ehalf the personal privilege of its individual agentsB and
B,ir,umventCD the Supreme Court pre,edent that < Chapter 03 ,orporate entities may not assert a $ifth
Amendment privilege&B %d& 4internal ?uotation mar+s and ,itations omitted8& %%%& Stay of Civil Pro,eeding Pending
Criminal Ehen a ,ivil defendant fa,es related ,riminal prose,ution, he is put to a BHo9son-s Choi,eBl 9etween 438
testifying to defend his ,ivil pro,eeding, whi,h might in,riminate him in his ,riminal pro,eeding, or 408 ta+ing the
$ifth, whi,h might forfeit his defense to the ,ivil pro,eeding&F Courts have re,ogniGed a solution) to stay the ,ivil
- 2
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
,ase until the ,riminal ,ase is resolved& A& Ehen Can a Stay 9e Sought@ %f the ,ivil witnessHdefendant has already
9een indi,ted, then the ris+ of ,riminal prose,ution 4and the need for the stay8 is ,lear& %f the ,ivil
witnessHdefendant has not 9een indi,ted, he will have to ,onvin,e a sometimes s+epti,al =udge that the ris+ is real
and imminent& The BHo9son-s Choi,e,B however, e;ists 9efore or after indi,tment, as any testimony given in a ,ivil
,ase 9efore indi,tment may 9e used 9y prose,utors& %n the leading ,ase of Eehling v& Colum9ia :road,asting Sys&,
.16 $&0d 3162 45th Cir& 3/</8, the $ifth Cir,uit ordered a stay even 9efore indi,tment& %d&, at 316.>6/ 4reversing
denial of stay, 9alan,ing the interests involved, when movant had appeared 9efore a grand =ury five times, his
lawyer 9elieved he was a Btarget, and ,ompany was ,ooperating with the government in the ,riminal investigation)
"enying a stay would re?uire the plaintiff Bto ,hoose 9etween his silen,e and his lawsuitB8; see also Imart Corp&
v& Aronds, Civ& !o& H> /.>3030 4S&"& Te;& "e,& 33, 3//.8& !ota9ly, the party o9taining the stay in Eehling was a
plaintiffin the ,ivil suit& Ehether to grant a stay ,onstitutes a dis,retionary ,all 9y the trial ,ourt& Courts have
held that the following fa,tors are relevant to the determination of whether to grant a stay) B38 the e;tent to whi,h
the issues in the ,riminal and ,ivil ,ases overlap; 08 the status of the ,ase, in,luding whether the defendants have
9een indi,ted; 78 the plaintiff-s interest in pro,eeding e;peditiously weighed against the pre=udi,e to plaintiff
,aused 9y a delay; 28 the private interests of and 9urden on defendants; 58 the interests of the ,ourt; and .8 the
pu9li, interest&B Ealsh Se,urities, %n,& v& Cristo Property Management, 'td&, < $&Supp&0d 507, 50.>0<
4"&!&J&3//68& :& Eho see+s the stay@ As in Eehling, the ,ivil litigant ,an see+ a stay pending developments in his
,riminal investigation or ,ase, to prevent having Bto ,hoose 9etween his silen,e and his lawsuit&B However, the
prose,ution also ,an see+ a stay of a ,ivil ,ase, to prevent the use of ,ivil dis,overy > not availa9le in ,riminal law >
that would aid the defense or e;pose the government-s ,ase& Criminal pro,eedings 4e;,ept in some states8 la,+
depositions, interrogatories, re?uests for admission and other dis,overy tools that are availa9le in ,ivil ,ases& %n
fa,t, under the so>,alled federal Jen,+s A,t, the prose,ution need not even reveal the identity of its witnesses or
their prior statements or testimony until trial& There are many reasons for these limits on dis,overy, in,luding that
the "epartment of Justi,e had a hand in writing them& A ,ivil defendant fa,ing ,riminal ,harges might 9e
perfe,tly willing to ta+e the $ifth and suffer an adverse inferen,e in his ,ivil trial if he also then got to dis,over and
depose the government-s witnesses 9efore the ,riminal trial& %n that ,ir,umstan,e, prose,utors might move to stay
the ,ivil ,ase, and su,h re?uests are often granted& Chapter 03 %n granting a stay, the ,ourt is 9alan,ing the ,ivil
witnessHdefendant-s right to defend his ,ivil ,ase with his right not to in,riminate himself& :ut a stay also delays the
- 3
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
opposing ,ivil party its day in ,ourt& A ,riminal defendant fa,es =eopardy through the end of his trial, through his
senten,ing, and even through his appeal& "epending on the fa,ts, the ,ourt has dis,retion whether to order a stay
throughout appeal& & See atta,hed Motion for Stay and Order in #nited States v& $astow where the Court stayed
"efendant-s o9ligations to file an Answer or respond to dis,overy during the penden,y of ,riminal pro,eedings&
%K& Corporate CooperationHEaiver of PrivilegeHThrowing mployees Over9oard Our ,riminal law is not supposed
to punish defendants for e;er,ising their right to trial, 9ut it may 4and does8 reward defendants who a,,ept
responsi9ility for their ,rimes, ,ooperate with governmental authorities, and show remorse and reha9ilitation& %n
the last de,ade, punishments for federal ,rime have in,reased dramati,ally& Many ,arry life in prison 4su,h as for
a third nar,oti,s offense or for a se,urities fraud affe,ting a ma=or pu9li, ,ompany8& As the gap in punishment
9etween losing a trial and pleading guilty widens, the distin,tion 9etween rewarding ,ooperation and punishing
defendants for e;er,ising their right to trial evaporates, and inno,ent as well as guilty people will de,ide they must
give up their right to trial& Many ,orporations fear that merely 9eing indi,ted will e;pose them to intolera9le ,osts,
whi,h they will ta+e e;treme a,tion to avoid& The fear of e;,essive punishment, plus the methods of ,ooperation,
are eroding traditional notions of the adversarial system& C& Ehat is stayed) the whole ,ase or rather a part of A&
dis,overy@ %n 3///, and again in 0117, the "epartment of Justi,e issued memoranda des,ri9ing fa,tors it would
,onsider in de,iding whether to prose,ute The ,ourt has dis,retion to stay an entire ,ivil a ,orporation that had
,ommitted a ,rime& ,ase, in,luding even the o9ligation to file an answer, or only a part of dis,overy, if a more
limited stay will serve the re?uired purposes& "& How long does stay last@
% have gone through a very, very rough pat,h re,ently& %n June 0133 my partner of 5 years left me and
moved out of our shared home law offi,e& #nfortunately, un+nown to me at the time, she had so,+ed away two
months of rent that % was under the impression she was forwarding on to the landlord, as was always our
arrangement in the previous years& % ,an-t really say this woman, Melissa #lloa, BstoleB the money from me or
anything li+e that& As % am sure you +now, living with a domesti, partner for 5 years entails a great deal of mi;ed
finan,es, however, it was a ,omplete surprise to me in early August, 0133 or so my landlord ,onta,ted me a9out
the missing rent& And of ,ourse it was devastating to have a 5 year live in relationship that mean so mu,h to me
end, parti,ularly after % had sa,rifi,ed to mu,h over that time to help Ms& #lloa 9e,ome the first person in her
family to graduate from ,ollege& She did, from #!R with a degree in =ournalism, in May 0133& Her father moved
here from La,ate,as, Me;i,o and has wor+ed as a short order ,oo+ for over 01 years, so % was enormously moving
- 4
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
to wat,h Melissa graduate last year, +nowing what long odds su,h a proposition fa,ed, and how many shared
sa,rifi,es where involved&
4 got arrested on /ugust !-th, !- incident to a ver0 unusual situation Chere a hi330 1ound a 3hone in the sDate
3arD, held it alo1t, and announced he Could EthroC it in the riverE i1 some@od0 didnFt claim it immediatel0. "ome
sDate@oarders angril0 accosted me some time therea1ter, and 1rightened and alCa0s aCDCard Cith the 3olice, m0 res3onse
turned the situation into something much more damaging to me than it 3ro@a@l0 should have @een. ;hile in Gail 1or si+
da0s incident to that charge, 4 could not get ahold o1 an0@od0 to @ail me out, or sign the @ail sheet, and 4 donFt @elieve 4
have the 1ull @ail required 1or the then 1elon0 grand larcen0 charge)the charge Cas soon therea1ter reduced to 3ett0
larcen0. ;hile in Gail, a No Cause "ummar0 Eviction 1rom m0 then home laC o11ice Cas instituted Hand argua@l0, a
9ease /greement liDe the one involved, Chich alloCed 1or commercial uses o1 the 3ro3ert0, made im3ermissi@le the uses
o1 the summar0 eviction 3rocedures 1ound in N$" 4-.!'3?, and that resulted in a ver0 3rolonged legal @attle Cith $ichard
<. 5ill, Esq. 4 have res3ect 1or >r. 5ill and Cish him no harm and Gust Cant these situations to de1use as much as
3ossi@le and ho3e1ull0, result, in m0 retaining m0 laC license and having an o33ortunit0 to 3icD u3 the 3ieces o1 m0 li1e,
maDe m0 mea cul3as and a3ologies, and @egin to re@uild m0 re3utation in our legal communit0 and amongst the 7udges.
>0 2u@lic De1ender in the /ugust !-th, !- 3ett0 larcen0 arrest 1or the the1t or E3ossession o1 lost, mislaid 3ro3ert0
Cith intent to de3riveE is 7oe <oodnight.
(he $7C required me to de3osit all the mone0 4 had in the Corld as a Erent escroC de3ositE to reserve m0 right to
litigate ha@ita@ilit0 issues, some I!,!7'. (his mone0 Cas retained @0 the $7C even a1ter 7udge "1erraJJa granted the
6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction. 4 @elieve retaining such an amount, 3articularl0 given that onl0 I!'- Could @e required 1or
a su3ersedeas @ond and sta0 o1 such an eviction Chere m0 rent Cas less than I,---, necessaril0 should have accorded
me a sta0 o1 eviction in connection Cith the 6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction that 1olloCed the 6cto@er !'th, !- 5earing or
E(rialE in that matter. *urther, >r. 5illFs o11ice did send me a E@illE dated Novem@er -th, !- Cherein a demand or @ill
1or the various charges Cas asserted. ;hat is odd is that, des3ite 3roceeding Cith the summar0 eviction 3roceeding @ased
onl0 u3on a No Cause Eviction Notice Hie, the non)3a0ment o1 rent Cas not alleged @0 the landlord or his counsel,
$ichard <. 5ill, Esq.?, the landlordFs counsel then, over - da0s a1ter Cinning an 6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction, sends a E'
Da0 Notice o1 8nlaC1ul Detainer 1or Non)2a0ment o1 $entE. 4n that letter o1 K-K the landlordFs counsels Crites that
- 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E0ou Cill 1ind a co30 o1 an a11idavit @0 Dr. >erliss, veri10ing and u3dating the 3rinci3al amount o1 0our underl0ing de@t
to him as o1 6cto@er 7, !-. /dditional late 1ees and charges 1or 0our electricit0 use have attached since that date. 4n
addition to the sums identi1ied @0 Dr. >erliss in his a11idavit, 0our de@t noC also includes 1ees 1or storage o1 0our
3ersonal 3ossessions le1t at the 3ro3ert0, Chich accrue dail0 at the fair rental value of the property. :our de@t 1urther
includes actual costs 1or inventor0ing and moving 0our 3ossessions 1rom the 3ro3ert0. "ee N$" &/.4,-. (hose sums
Cill @e 3rovided to 0ou once the0 have @een 1i+ed.
N$" &/.!- E$ental agreements: 2a0ment o1 rent= term o1 tenanc0. . $ent is 3a0a@le
Cithout demand or notice at the time and 3lace agreed u3on @0 the 3arties. !. 8nless the
rental agreement esta@lishes a de1inite term, the tenanc0 is 1rom CeeD to CeeD in the case
o1 a tenant Cho 3a0s CeeDl0 rent and in all other cases the tenanc0 is 1rom month to month.
3. 4n the a@sence o1 an agreement, either Critten or oral: Ha? $ent is 3a0a@le at the
@eginning o1 the tenanc0= and H@? $ent 1or the use and occu3anc0 o1 a dCelling is the 1air
rental value 1or the use and occu3anc0E
4 DnoC 7udge 5oCard and 7udge Nash 5olmes are liDel0 ver0 u3set Cith me. 4 have a great deal o1 res3ect 1or
@oth o1 those 7udges and ho3e to earn their res3ect ultimatel0. Both recentl0 sentenced me to several da0s o1
incarceration 3ursuant to a "ummar0 Contem3t Committed in the CourtFs 2resence 1inding. *urther, 7udge 5olmes has
a33arentl0 had m0 tCo cell 3hones and 3erha3s some other materials con1iscated 3ursuant to the search incident to arrest
in connection Cith m0 summar0 contem3t incarceration incident to the recent (rial in $>C tra11ic citation matter tr
!,&-- HticDet num@er '44!&? Chich occurred at 3m *e@. !7th, !- @e1ore 7udge 5olmes, Cherein $eno Cit0
/ttorne0 6rmaas Cas re3resenting the Cit0 o1 $eno.
(he Gail did not give me @acD m0 tCo cell 3hones or a micro sd card...the0 said the $eno >unici3al Court
H$>C? con1iscated those items on !K!&K!, though the0 indicated that the0 did not require the $>C Hactuall0 the $eno
>arshalFs division? to shoC a court order or Carrant 3rior to so con1iscating those items. /33arentl0 the0 are holding
these items 3ursuant to E3ro@a@le causeE, o1 Chat 4 do not DnoC. 7udge Nash 5olmes questioned me in o3en court as to
Chether 4 Cas recording the 3roceeding. (he 3roceedings are recorded as a matter o1 laC @0 the court, and the
3roceeding is an o3en hearing, 3art o1 the 3u@lic record, so...4 am not sure Chat she Cas getting at, @ut...(he $eno
>arshalFs >arshal 5a0ne0 Hor 5ine0, not sure? and the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas Cere seen Chis3ering in each otherFs
ears during the hearing H4 noted that ver@all0 into the record? and a1ter the hearing, Chile >arshal 5a0ne0 Cas searching
- 6
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
me 3ursuant to m0 @eing arrested HChich Cas odd given 4 Cas in the 3rocess o1 attem3ting to 3a0 the alternate disci3line
7udge 5olmes had o11ered, I'--, Chich Cas su33osed to ena@le me to avoid serving the ' da0s Gail time?, he 1ound m0
3hone and a micro sd card Cas on the 1loor ne+t to m0 1oot. 5e immediatel0 started accusing me o1 ErecordingE and told
the other >arshalFs to re3ort that 4 had @een doing so to the 7udge, 7udge Nash 5olmes.
4t seemed that the Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas Cas a1raid 4 had a recording o1 her telling me she did not care a@out an0
re3orts o1 @ri@er0 @0 $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. in relation to m0 charge o1 $2D "argent (arter retaliating against me Cith
three tra11ic citations shortl0 a1ter 4 re3orted to him that $2D 611icer Chris Carter admitted to me on Novem@er !th,
!- Hduring m0 arrest 1or tres3ass as m0 1ormer home laC o11ice at ! $iver $ocD "t.? that he acce3ts @ri@es 1rom
$ichard 5ill, Esq. Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas seemed to @ecome 1ear1ul o1 this a1ter it @ecame a33arent in court that Chether
or not 4 Could @e 3ermitted to enter an0 such evidence in su33ort o1 that contention Could @e de3endent u3on Chether 4
had 3reviousl0 attem3ted to 3rovide an0 such evidence to the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0. 4 @elieve m0 testimon0 HChich should
@e ca3tured @0 the audio recording the $>C maDes o1 all hearings, i1 it doesnFt m0steriousl0 disa33ear or get EdamagedE?
includes m0 stating that 4 had attem3ted to 3rovide such 3roo1 to not onl0 $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas, @ut also the
3revious $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 on the case, Dan ;ong, and that the0 had @oth told me the0 didnFt care to hear a@out such
@ri@er0 allegations involving the $eno 2D and $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. 4 seem to recall 7udge Nash 5olmes demanding to
DnoC Chether 4 had an0 3roo1 o1 m0 so attem3ting to @ring these @ri@er0 allegations to the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0Fs ;ong
and 6rmaas, and 4 might have said something liDe ECeFll seeE, Chich, o1 course, u3set the 7udge Hits hard in o3en court,
ever0thing ha33ens ver0 1ast and the rules seem to onl0 @e used against those Cho are not 3art o1 the s0stem?.
(he case num@er in this $>C tra11ic citation matter is tr !,&-- $>C HticDet num@er '44!&? and the (rial or
5earing occurred at 3m *e@. !7th @e1ore 7udge 5olmes
/@out - da0s ago 4 1iled an a33lication 1or a tem3orar0 3rotection order against a $eno 7ustice Court Baili11
named $e0es. Baili11 $e0es had, on 3ro@a@l0 Novem@er !&, !- or so, told me he Cas going to E3ut his 1oot u3 0our
assE. 5e continued to @e menacing and aggressive to me and 1inall0 4 1iled a 3rotection order a@out - da0s ago. (o m0
DnoCledge, no decision or hearing has @een held on that 3rotection order, and Aaren "tancil, Chie1 Civil ClerD Cith the
$7C in1ormed me it Cas @eing trans1erred to "3arDs 7ustice Court H4 @elieve? do to the $7C having a con1lict. /lso, 4
- 7
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
re3orted to $7C Court /dministrator (uttle another incident Cherein Chie1 Baili11 >ichael "e+ton has made menacing
commentar0 to me regarding m0 EassE as Cell, tCice during (hanDsgiving CeeD in the Civil Division *iling 611ice.
4 am telling 0ou this @ecause 4 donFt DnoC Chat to do, or Chat is going to ha33en. 4 am tr0ing to de1use the
situation as @est as 3ossi@le....(o clari10, the $>C is the $eno >unici3al Court and the0 em3lo0 >arshals to @e the
muscle in court. (he $7C is the $eno 7ustice Court and the0 em3lo0 Baili11s to do the same.
Additional 'egal Points to Consider)
N$" &/.39- 8nlaC1ul removal or e+clusion o1 tenant or Cill1ul interru3tion o1 essential items or services=
3rocedure 1or e+3edited relie1. . 41 the landlord unlaC1ull0 removes the tenant 1rom the 3remises or e+cludes the tenant
@0 @locDing or attem3ting to @locD the tenantLs entr0 u3on the 3remises, Cill1ull0 interru3ts or causes or 3ermits the
interru3tion o1 an0 essential item or service required @0 the rental agreement or this cha3ter or otherCise recovers
3ossession o1 the dCelling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-, the tenant ma0 recover immediate 3ossession 3ursuant to
su@section 4, 3roceed under N$" &/.3&- or terminate the rental agreement and, in addition to an0 other remed0,
recover the tenantLs actual damages, receive an amount not greater than I!,'-- to @e 1i+ed @0 the court, or @oth. !. 4n
determining the amount, i1 an0, to @e aCarded under su@section , the court shall consider: Ha? ;hether the landlord acted
in good 1aith= H@? (he course o1 conduct @etCeen the landlord and the tenant= and Hc? (he degree o1 harm to the tenant
caused @0 the landlordLs conduct. 3. 41 the rental agreement is terminated 3ursuant to su@section , the landlord shall
return all 3re3aid rent and securit0 recovera@le under this cha3ter. 4. E+ce3t as otherCise 3rovided in su@section ', the
tenant ma0 recover immediate 3ossession o1 the 3remises 1rom the landlord @0 1iling a veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited
relie1 1or the unlaC1ul removal or e+clusion o1 the tenant 1rom the 3remises, the Cill1ul interru3tion o1 an0 essential item
or service or the recover0 o1 3ossession o1 the dCelling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-. '. / veri1ied com3laint 1or
e+3edited relie1: Ha? >ust @e 1iled Cith the court Cithin ' Gudicial da0s a1ter the date o1 the unlaC1ul act @0 the landlord,
and the veri1ied com3laint must @e dismissed i1 it is not timel0 1iled. 41 the veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1 is
dismissed 3ursuant to this 3aragra3h, the tenant retains the right to 3ursue all other availa@le remedies against the
landlord. H@? >a0 not @e 1iled Cith the court i1 an action 1or summar0 eviction or unlaC1ul detainer is alread0 3ending
@etCeen the landlord and tenant, @ut the tenant ma0 seeD similar relie1 @e1ore the Gudge 3residing over the 3ending action.
- 8
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
,. (he court shall conduct a hearing on the veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1 not later than 3 Gudicial da0s a1ter the
1iling o1 the veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. Be1ore or at the scheduled hearing, the tenant must 3rovide 3roo1 that
the landlord has @een 3ro3erl0 served Cith a co30 o1 the veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. 83on the hearing, i1 it is
determined that the landlord has violated an0 o1 the 3rovisions o1 su@section , the court ma0: Ha? 6rder the landlord to
restore to the tenant the 3remises or essential items or services, or @oth= H@? /Card damages 3ursuant to su@section = and
Hc? EnGoin the landlord 1rom violating the 3rovisions o1 su@section and, i1 the circumstances so Carrant, hold the
landlord in contem3t o1 court. 7. (he 3a0ment o1 all costs and o11icial 1ees must @e de1erred 1or an0 tenant Cho 1iles a
veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. /1ter an0 hearing and not later than 1inal dis3osition o1 the 1iling or order, the
court shall assess the costs and 1ees against the 3art0 that does not 3revail, e+ce3t that the court ma0 reduce them or Caive
them, as Gustice ma0 require.
!RS 336A&7/1 #nlawful removal or e;,lusion of tenant or willful interruption of
essential items or servi,es; pro,edure for e;pedited relief& E. 41 the landlord unlaC1ull0
removes the tenant 1rom the 3remises or e+cludes the tenant @0 @locDing or attem3ting to
@locD the tenantLs entr0 u3on the 3remises, Cill1ull0 interru3ts or causes or 3ermits the
interru3tion o1 an0 essential item or service required @0 the rental agreement or this cha3ter
or otherCise recovers 3ossession o1 the dCelling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-, the
tenant ma0 recover immediate 3ossession 3ursuant to su@section 4, 3roceed under N$"
&/.3&-...4. E+ce3t as otherCise 3rovided in su@section ', the tenant ma0 recover
immediate 3ossession o1 the 3remises 1rom the landlord @0 1iling a veri1ied com3laint 1or
e+3edited relie1 1or the unlaC1ul removal or e+clusion o1 the tenant 1rom the 3remises, the
Cill1ul interru3tion o1 an0 essential item or service or the recover0 o1 3ossession o1 the
dCelling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-. '. / veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1:
Ha? >ust @e 1iled Cith the court Cithin ' Gudicial da0s a1ter the date o1 the unlaC1ul act @0
the landlord, and the veri1ied com3laint must @e dismissed i1 it is not timel0 1iled. 41 the
veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1 is dismissed 3ursuant to this 3aragra3h, the tenant
retains the right to 3ursue all other availa@le remedies against the landlord. H@? >a0 not @e
1iled Cith the court i1 an action 1or summar0 eviction or unlaC1ul detainer is alread0
3ending @etCeen the landlord and tenant, @ut the tenant ma0 seeD similar relie1 @e1ore the
Gudge 3residing over the 3ending action. ,. (he court shall conduct a hearing on the
veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1 not later than 3 Gudicial da0s a1ter the 1iling o1 the
veri1ied com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. Be1ore or at the scheduled hearing, the tenant must
3rovide 3roo1 that the landlord has @een 3ro3erl0 served Cith a co30 o1 the veri1ied
com3laint 1or e+3edited relie1. 83on the hearing, i1 it is determined that the landlord has
violated an0 o1 the 3rovisions o1 su@section , the court ma0: Ha? 6rder the landlord to
restore to the tenant the 3remises or essential items or services, or @oth= H@? /Card damages
3ursuant to su@section = and Hc? EnGoin the landlord 1rom violating the 3rovisions o1
su@section and, i1 the circumstances so Carrant, hold the landlord in contem3t o1 court. E
*urther, !RS 336A&261 'andlordMs re,overy of possession of dwelling unit) E(he
landlord shall not recover or taDe 3ossession o1 the dCelling unit @0 action or otherCise,
including Cill1ul diminution or interru3tion or causing or 3ermitting the diminution or
interru3tion o1 an0 essential item or service required @0 the rental agreement or this
cha3ter, e+ce3t: . B0 an action 1or 3ossession or other civil action or summar0 3roceeding
- 9
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
in Chich the issue o1 right o1 3ossession is determined= !. ;hen the tenant has surrendered
3ossession o1 the dCelling unit to the landlord= or 3. ;hen the tenant has a@andoned the
dCelling unit as 3rovided in N$" &/.4'-E
N$" &/.4&- comes into 3la0 i1 the landlord did taDe Erecover0 o1 3ossessionE o1 m0 1ormer home laC o11ice
at ! $iver $ocD "t. 3rior to @eing legall0 alloCed to do so. (o anal0Je this, one must DnoC Chat t03e o1 service o1
the 6rder o1 "ummar0 Eviction is required. (his @eing a civil matter, the Erendition o1 Gudgment or orderE or
ErenderedE language one 1inds in criminal statutes liDe N$" &9.-- HCherein the deadline 1or 1iling a Notice o1
/33eal 1rom a criminal conviction is set 1orth? is ina33lica@le. (hat @eing said, and as e+3licitl0 set 1orth in N$"
/ letter 1rom the ;ashoe Count0 "heri11Fs 611ice H;C"6? Civil DivisionFs 9iJ "tuchell 3rovides some insight as to
Chether the locDout that tooD 3lace on Novem@er , !- in this case Cas 3ermissi@le.
E"u@Gect: $E: ;C"6 De3ut0 >achemFs E3ersonall0 servedE /11idavit o1 KK!-
Date: (ue, 7 *e@ !-! :4-:39 )-&--
*rom: 9"tuchell.Cashoecount0.us
(o: Jachcoughlin.hotmail.com
CC: mDandaras.da.Cashoecount0.us
>r. Coughlin,
6ur records indicate that the eviction conducted on that da0 Cas 3ersonall0
served @0 De3ut0 >achen @0 3osting a co30 o1 the 6rder to the residence. (he residence
Cas unoccu3ied at the time.
9iJ "tuchell, "u3ervisor ;C"6 Civil "ectionE
2ut sim3l0, the Novem@er , !- locDout, 1or Chich ;C"6 De3ut0 >achem indicates he E3ersonall0 servedE
the 6rder o1 "ummar0 Eviction, Cas not laC1ull0 conducted, and as such is ine11ective and invoDes the 3rovision o1
N$" &/.4&-. ;hen considering that the tenant did 1ile such a com3laint 1or illegal locDout, and the 1act that the
$7C 1ailed to rule on tenants 1iling Hand a good deal o1 other such 1ilings @0 the tenant have languished in the $7C
unruled on des3ite requests 1or su@mission @eing su@mitted...?, the current criminal tres3ass 3roceeding in the $>C in
C$ !,4-' and the 5earing on the 6rder to "hoC Cause currentl0 set 1or >arch !3rd at :-- am in De3artment 7 in
C%)-3,!&, the a33eal 1rom the eviction matter involving $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. in $7C $ev!-)--7-&.
(his Chole @usiness a@out M(he court ma0 thereu3on issue an order directing the sheri11 or consta@le o1 the
count0 to remove the tenant Cithin !4 hours a1ter recei3t o1 the order...N is ina33lica@le to this situation, Chere an
6rder <ranting "ummar0 Eviction Cas signed @0 6cto@er !7th, !-. (hat language is onl0 1ound in situations
- 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ina33lica@le to the current one. N$" 4-.!'3H3?H@?H!?, and N$" 4-.!'3H'?Ha? are the onl0 sections o1 N$" 4- Chere this
MCithin !4 hoursN language occurs, and those situations onl0 a33l0 Chere, in:
4-.!'3H3?H@?H!?: M 3. / notice served 3ursuant to su@section or ! must: ...H@? /dvise the tenant: O. H!? (hat i1 the court
determines that the tenant is guilt0 o1 an unlaC1ul detainer, the court ma0 issue a summar0 order 1or removal o1 the tenant
or an order 3roviding 1or the nonadmittance o1 the tenant, directing the sheri11 or consta@le o1 the count0 to remove the
tenant Cithin !4 hours a1ter recei3t o1 the orderN
and,
4-.!'3H'?Ha?: M'. 83on noncom3liance Cith the notice: Ha? (he landlord or the landlordLs agent ma0 a33l0 @0 a11idavit o1
com3laint 1or eviction to the Gustice court o1 the toCnshi3 in Chich the dCelling, a3artment, mo@ile home or commercial
3remises are located or to the district court o1 the count0 in Chich the dCelling, a3artment, mo@ile home or commercial
3remises are located, Chichever has Gurisdiction over the matter. (he court ma0 thereu3on issue an order directing the
sheri11 or consta@le o1 the count0 to remove the tenant Cithin !4 hours a1ter recei3t o1 the order.N (he Ca0 these summar0
eviction 3roceedings are @eing carried out in $eno 7ustice Court 3resentl0 shocDs the conscience and violates Nevada
laC. (here is not @asis 1or e11ectuating a locDout the Ca0 ;C"6Fs De3ut0 >achem did in this case. (he a@ove tCo
sections containing the MCithin !4 hours o1 recei3tN language are ina33lica@le, as those situations do not invoDe the
3resent circumstances, Chere the (enant did 1ile an /11idavit and did contest this matter to a degree not o1ten seen. (o
require NevadaFs tenants to get u3 and get out MCithin !4 hoursN o1 Mrecei3t o1 the orderN HChat does that even meanP (he
use o1 terms liDe MrenditionN, MrenderedN, Mnotice o1 entr0N, M3ronouncedN, is a@sent here, and this Mrecei3t o1 the orderN
language is something rarel0 1ound elseChere in Nevada laC)see attached D>% statutor0 citations, and in em3lo0ment
laC litigations Chere one must 1ile a Com3laint Cithin 9- da0s o1 Mrecei3tN o1 a $ight (o "ue 9etter, a situation Chich
1olloCs N$C2 'H@?, and N$C2 ,He? in im3uting recei3t o1 such a letter, Chen actual recei3t is not shoCn, @0 a33l0ing a
Mconstructive noticeN standard that relies u3on the da0s 1or mailing e+tension o1 time 1or items served in the mailing,
etc.?. 4n /@raham v. ;oods 5ole 6ceanogra3hic 4nstitute, ''3 *.3d 4 Hst Cir. !--9?, the record did not re1lect Chen
the 3lainti11 received his right)to)sue letter. (he letter Cas issued on Novem@er !4, !--,. (he court calculated that the 9-)
da0 3eriod commenced on Novem@er 3-, !--,, @ased on three da0s 1or mailing a1ter e+cluding "aturda0s and "unda0s.
- 11
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
4n order to @ring a claim under either (itle %44 or the /D/, a 3lainti11 must e+haust administrative remedies and sue
Cithin 9- da0s o1 recei3t o1 a right to sue letter. "ee 4! 8.".C. Q !---e)'H1?H?. "ee BaldCin Count0 ;elcome Center v.
BroCn, 4,, 8.". 47, 4& n., -4 ".Ct. 7!3, &- 9.Ed.!d 9, H9&4?Hgranting 3lainti11 an additional three da0s 1or
mailing 3ursuant to $ule ,?....N ...:#T ECSO "P#T( MACHM ST%'' HAS!-T 'AR!" H%S 'SSO!, AS
J#ST O! $:R#AR( 0<TH, 0130 4A! %! TH A$$%"AK%T MACHM A!" TH ECSO $%'" TO"A(,
H A*A%! N#ATS OPRSO!A''( SRK"P E%TH C%RC#MSTA!CS $AR A$%'" $ROM TH
MA!%!* O$ THAT PHRAS, AS MACHM "%" !OT SRK TH #!"RS%*!" A!(TH%!*,
MARSHA' H('%! MAI EA!T TO AR*# H "%" something $OR MACHM, :#T MACHM "%" !OT
PRSO!A''( SRK" TH #!"RS%*!" A!(TH%!*& EH( "OS MACHM A!" TH ECSO,
RMC, RMC P#:'%C "$!"RS, RJC, H%'', !K !R*(, TC, TC& *T TO C#T A'' THS
COR!RS A!" !OT *O TO JA%'@ EH( "O TH( SM%!*'( HAK A $R PASS TO P'A(
A**RS%K'( %! *R( ARAS EHR TH #!"RS%*!" *TS HA#'" O$$ TO TH S'AMMR
KR( T%M H MAIS ( CO!TACT E%TH CO#RT SC#RT( 4E'', CRTA%!'( !OT A'' O$
TH $%! M! A!" EOM! O! TH KAR%OS# SC#R%T( STA$$S, :#T&&&&8
htt3:KKen.CiDi3edia.orgKCiDiK"erviceRo1R3rocess
E"u@stituted service: ;hen an individual 3art0 to @e served is unavaila@le 1or 3ersonal
service, man0 Gurisdictions alloC 1or su@stituted service. "u@stituted service alloCs the
3rocess server to leave service documents Cith another res3onsi@le individual, called a
3erson o1 suita@le age and discretion, such as a coha@iting adult or a teenager. 8nder
the *ederal $ules, su@stituted service ma0 onl0 @e made at the a@ode or dCelling o1 the
de1endant.S4T Cali1ornia, NeC :orD,S'T 4llinois, and man0 other 8nited "tates
Gurisdictions require that in addition to su@stituted service, the documents @e mailed to
the reci3ient.S'T "u@stituted service o1ten requires a serving 3art0 shoC that ordinar0
service is im3ractica@le, that due diligence has @een made to attem3t to maDe 3ersonal
service @0 deliver0, and that su@stituted service Cill reach the 3art0 and e11ect notice.
S'TE
4 am 3rett0 sure E3ersonall0 servedE means 0ou served the 3erson in 3erson, not that a 3erson Hor ;C"6
De3utee? Cent and 3osted a notice on a door, 3ersonall0 himsel1. "ee, 4 thinD the ;C"6 are thinDing o1 the E3ersonE in
the Cord 3ersonall0 as a33l0ing to the server, Chen in all instances 4 have ever seen it used in the laC, the E3ersonE 3art
o1 E3ersonall0E a33lies to the 3erson @eing served. *urther adding con1usion here is the 1act that some, including those
in the $7C Civil Division *iling 611ice seem to @elieve that the MCithin !4 hoursN o1 Mrecei3t o1 the orderN mentioned
1or serving an 6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction Honl0 Chere the tenant did not 1ile a (enantFs /nsCer, so...not liDe in the
- 12
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
instant case? requires the ;C"6 to e11ect the locDout Cithin !4 hours o1 the ;C"6 receiving the locDout
6rder...otherCise such an 6rder Could @ecome staleP
5oCever, to those Cho Could Gudge or assert some Es3ecial treatmentE is @eing sought, asD 0oursel1 Chether
0ou @rought home Cith 0ou over the last 3- 0ears ever0oneFs overdosing on methadone, or CalDing out o1 oneFs o11ice
a1ter maDing ever0 assurance that suicide Cas not at all a 3ossi@ilit0 onl0 to reveal that, indeed it Cas, or have countless
CeeDends and vacations involve 3hone calls concerning Chether a 3atient is E1ull codeE or Eno codeE...:ou @ring that
home Cith 0ou 1or 3- 0ears and tell me Chat sort o1 com3ensation is a33ro3riate and then com3are it to the managed
care era 1amil0 3h0sicianFs and then Ce can discuss Es3ecial treatmentE. /nd 0ou do that Cithout a drinD in 3- 0ears
and then 0ou can talD. But all this Es3ecial treatmentE discussion seems a @it strained Chen discussing Chether $ichard
<. 5ill com1ort level necessitates e+acting even more mone0 out o1 me Chen it ought @e 1airl0 o@vious that 4 am doing
ever0thing 4 3ossi@l0 can to, @ucDet @0 @ucDet, remove the Cater 3ooling at the @ottom o1 m0 tin0, one 3erson canoe.
/nd Chere this involves a rugged, tall, !3 0ear veteran "argent o1 the $eno 2D Cith 3ale @lue e0es Cho has dou@tless
earned the com3ensation he noC garners, 3erha3s the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 Could @e Cise to Gust let the tra11ic ticDet go.
6r, 3erha3s, not, given the econom0 Ce are all struggling Cith e+acts its 1orces u3on the Gudgment o1 the $eno Cit0
/ttorne0Fs 611ice as Cell, and the0 didnFt get Chere the0 are @0 @eing lightCeights or lacDing in discretion or valor.
>a0@e the @est thing Could @e to Gust hit the 3ause @utton 1or a Chile and see Chether the 3erson o1 inquir0 continues
to suit u3 and shoC u3 and do their @est to 1unction as a legal 3ro1essional an earn an honest living.
N$" 4-.4-- $ules o1 3ractice. (he 3rovisions o1 N$", Nevada $ules o1 Civil 2rocedure and
Nevada $ules o1 /33ellate 2rocedure relative to civil actions, a33eals and neC trials, so 1ar as
the0 are not inconsistent Cith the 3rovisions o1 N$" 4-.!!- to 4-.4!-, inclusive, a33l0 to the
3roceedings mentioned in those sections.
N$" 4-.39- /33ellate court not to dismiss or quash 3roceedings 1or Cant o1 1orm. 4n all
cases o1 a33eal under N$" 4-.!!- to 4-.4!-, inclusive, the a33ellate court shall not dismiss or
quash the 3roceedings 1or Cant o1 1orm, 3rovided the 3roceedings have @een conducted
su@stantiall0 according to the 3rovisions o1 N$" 4-.!!- to 4-.4!-, inclusive= and amendments
to the com3laint, ansCer or summons, in matters o1 1orm onl0, ma0 @e alloCed @0 the court at
an0 time @e1ore 1inal Gudgment u3on such terms as ma0 @e Gust= and all matters o1 e+cuse,
Gusti1ication or avoidance o1 the allegations in the com3laint ma0 @e given in evidence under
the ansCer.
*urther 3ro@lematic Cith 7udge "1erraJJaFs a33roach in $7C $ev!-)--7-& is that, Chile his inter3retation
o1 N$" 4-.!'3 alloCed an eviction @ased onl0 on a No Cause Eviction Notice to somehoC require a rent escroC
de3osit o1 I!,!7' 1or a litigant Cith nothing to s3are, such an a33roach did not alloC 1or that tenant to assert
- 13
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
counterclaims, des3ite the e+3licit authorit0 1or the tenant doing so u3on a court a33l0ing !RS 336A&2/1 A,tions
9ased upon nonpayment of rent) Counter,laim 9y tenant; deposit of rent with ,ourt; =udgment for evi,tion.
4ndeed, the undersigned tenant in that matter did attem3t to assert such counterclaims, hoCever his right to do so Cas
denied. "im3l0 3ut, the landlord Cas a@le to have it his Ca0 in so man0 di11erent Ca0s in this eviction matter. 5e Cas
a@le to 3roceed under a no cause summar0 eviction notice Cherein the non3a0ment o1 rent Cas not alleged Chile at the
same time @ene1iting 1rom the court 1orcing the tenant to de3osit a rent escroC amount o1 I!,!7'. (his a33roach is
1urther underscored @0 the 1act that onl0 - da0s or so a1ter receiving the summar0 eviction order the landlordFs counsel
su@mitted to the tenant a landlordFs a11idavit 1or summar0 eviction @ased on the non3a0ment o1 rent. 4t Could seem
onl0 1air and indeed required @0 N$" &/.49- alloC the tenant to assert counterclaims Chere the tenant is so 1orced
to maDe a rent escroC de3osit. /nd, Chile the 9ease /greement 3rovided that the landlord shall @e, at su@section !&:
06& '%A:%'%T(: management shall not @e lia@le 1or an0 damage or inGur0 to $esident or
an0 other 3erson or to an0 3ro3ert0 occurring on the 3remises or an0 3art thereo1, or in
common ares thereo1, unless su,h lia9ility is 9ased on the negligent a,ts or omission of
management, his agent, or employee...E
7udge "1erraJJa summaril0 ruled that <reen /ction 9aCn "ervice Cas an Einde3endent contractorE and, as
such, "u@section !& o1 the 9ease /greement did not a11ord the tenant an o33ortunit0 to assert counterclaims under N$"
&/.4&-. 5oCever, even i1 the /33ellate District Court revieCing $7C $ev!-)--7& in C%)-3,!& 1inds this so,
the 1act that the revieC is a Ede novoE revieC 3ermits the a33ellate court to consider Chether, even it Cere the case that
the landlordFs landsca3ers Cere Einde3endent contractorsE, that "u@section !& Could still alloC 1or lia@ilit0 1or their acts
to @e accorded to the landlord. $egardless, 7udge "1erraJJaFs ruling on Chether or not lia@ilit0 e+ists or Chether tenant
Cas alloCed to litigate counterclaims in the trial court are sim3l0 not matters Cell suited to summar0 Gudgment, and,
regardless, tenant met his @urden in that regard su11icient to 3reclude such a summar0 dis3osition o1 those matters.
;hile 7udge "1erraJJa ruled that the damage done @0 the landlordFs <reen /ction 9aCn "ervice did not 3resent
an o33ortunit0 1or the tenant to assert counterclaims Heven though su@section !& o1 the 9ease /greement 3rovides so?,
the tenant should have @een a11orded such an o33ortunit0 to so assert such counterclaims, 3articularl0 Chere such a rent
escroC de3osit Cas not onl0 required, @ut then retained @0 the court 1or at least - da0s a1ter signing the 6rder 1or
"ummar0 Eviction. *urther, it is 3recisel0 these t03es o1 am@iguous 3oints o1 contractual inter3retation that are ill)
- 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
suited to dis3osal on summar0 Gudgment: (he @urden o1 3roo1 a33lica@le to a "ummar0 Eviction 2roceeding under N$"
4-.!'3 dictates that, the court Cill alloC @oth 3arties to s3eaD and 3resent evidence on their @ehal1 a1ter Chich the court
Cill determine Chether there is Ma genuine dis3ute o1 material 1acts.N H"ee /nvui, 99C v. <.9. Dragon, 99C in Chich
the Nevada "u3reme Court held that summar0 eviction cases should @e evaluated liDe motions 1or summar0 Gudgment.
in /nvui, 99C v. <.9. Dragon, 99C, !3 Nev. !!, ,3 2.3d 4-' H!--7?, the Nevada "u3reme Court ruled that its
revieC o1 an order granting summar0 eviction under N$" 4-.!'3H,? is Mde novoN @ecause those 3roceedings are
analogous to an order granting summar0 Gudgment under N$C2 ',. 4d. at !', ,3 2.3d at 4-7. Burden o1 3roo1 o1
movant, hearing and determination 2art0 moving 1or summar0 Gudgment has @urden o1 3roving that no tria@le issues
remain. Nevada $ules Civ.2roc., $ule ',. 5arr0 v. "mith, 99', &93 2.!d 37!, Nev. '!&. 4n order to 3revail on his
motion 1or summar0 Gudgment, general 3artner Cas required to demonstrate 1rom record, a11idavits, or other evidence,
a@sence or conclusive 1alsit0 o1 limited 3artnersF claims o1 1raud or misre3resentation in connection Cith dissolution o1
3artnershi3 agreement= although he Cas not required to su@mit a11idavits in su33ort o1 his motion, he Cas required to
3rove Mother indiciaN o1 none+istence o1 1raud. $ules Civ.2roc., $ule ',. >aine v. "teCart, 993, &'7 2.!d 7'', -9
Nev. 7!, rehearing denied. Burden o1 3roving a@sence o1 tria@le 1acts alloCing entr0 o1 summar0 Gudgment is u3on
3art0 moving 1or summar0 Gudgment. $ules Civ.2roc., $ule ',Ha?. Butler v. Bogdanovich, 9&', 7-' 2.!d ,,!, - Nev.
449, rehearing denied. 4n suit against oCner o1 service station 1or death o1 em3lo0ee o1 contractor engaged in alterations
at service station, de1endant Chich moved 1or summar0 Gudgment had @urden o1 esta@lishing that de1endantFs
relationshi3 to deceased Cas tantamount to that o1 em3lo0er so that 3lainti11Fs e+clusive remed0 Cas the 4ndustrial
4nsurance /ct. N$C2 ',H@, c?= N.$.". ,,.-- et seq., ,,.-&'. ;eaver v. "hell 6il Co., 97', '3' 2.!d 7&7, 9 Nev.
3!4. (he @urden o1 esta@lishing the lacD o1 tria@le issue o1 1act is u3on the 3art0 moving 1or summar0 Gudgment.
5idden ;ells $anch, 4nc. v. "tri3 $ealt0, 4nc., 9,7, 4!' 2.!d '99, &3 Nev. 43.
"ee, <omeJ v. 4nde3endence >anagement o1 DelaCare, 4nc., 9,7 /.!d !7, HD.C. !--9?: E1n 9. ;e have said
in another conte+t that a claim o1 Ma retaliator0 motive is a question o1 1act 1or the Gur0 Hor the Gudge in a non)Gur0 trial?,
and, liDe other t03es o1 claims in Chich motive or intent is in issue, is not Cell suited to dis3osition on a motion 1or
summar0 Gudgment.N /rthur :oung U Co. v. "utherland, ,3 /.!d 3'4, 3,& HD.C.993? Hre1erring to a claim o1
retaliator0 action under the DC5$/?= see EdCards, su3ra note &, 3- 8.". /33. D.C. at 4, 397 *.!d at 7-! HM(he
question o1 3ermissi@le or im3ermissi@le 3ur3ose is one o1 1act 1or the court or Gur0VN?. ;e have said the same thing
a@out claims o1 discrimination, see, e.g., 5ollins v. *ederal National >ortgage /ssFn, 7,- /.!d ',3, '79)&- HD.C.!---?,
- 15
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
@ut Ce have, on occasion, u3held a trial court grant o1 summar0 Gudgment in 1avor o1 a de1endant accused o1
discrimination. "ee, e.g., 5amilton v. 5oCard 8niversit0, 9,- /.!d 3-&, 3'), HD.C.!--&?= ;allace v. "Dadden, /r3s,
"late, >eagher U *lom 992, 799 /.!d 3&, 3&, HD.C.!--!?= 5ollins, 7,- /.!d at '7. ;e there1ore do not 1oreclose
the 3ossi@ilit0 that, on a 3ro3erl0 su33orted record, the trial court ma0 dis3ose o1 a de1ense o1 retaliator0 eviction at the
summar0 Gudgment stage. ;hen the statutor0 3resum3tion o1 retaliator0 action has @een triggered, hoCever, the record
Could have to esta@lish, under the standards that govern summar0 Gudgment, that the landlord has re@utted it @0 clear
and convincing evidence.E
4ndeed, this is true Chen considering that a tough choice 1aces the landlord in this matter. 41 the tenant Cas a
commercial tenant, then N$" 4-.!'3 1or@ids 3roceeding under the summar0 eviction 3rocedure 1ound therein Chere
onl0 a No Cause Eviction Notice Cas served Hie, the non)3a0ment o1 rent Cas not alleged?, as Cas the case in that
matter. 5oCever, to the e+tent the landlord Cishes to argue the tenant Cas not a commercial tenant Hdes3ite the 9ease
/greement e+3licitl0 alloCing 1or such use as Cell as local Joning laCs? then the dictates o1 N$" 4-.3&' a33l0, and the
tenant must @e accorded a sta0 o1 eviction u3on de3ositing Cith the court the 3altr0 some o1 I!'-, much less the I!,!7'
Erent escroC de3osit required to 3reserve the right to litigate ha@ita@ilit0 issuesE the $7C continued to hold a1ter the
6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction Cas signed, and 1or Chich the $7C classi1ied it as the E@ond to cover the costs on a33ealE.
4ndeed, !RS 21&765 Stay of e;e,ution upon appeal; duty of tenant who
retains possession of premises to pay rent during stay& 83on an a33eal 1rom an order
entered 3ursuant to N$" 4-.!'3: . E+ce3t as otherCise 3rovided in this su@section, a
sta0 o1 e+ecution ma0 @e o@tained @0 1iling Cith the trial court a @ond in the amount o1
I!'- to cover the e+3ected costs on a33eal. / suret0 u3on the @ond su@mits to the
Gurisdiction o1 the a33ellate court and irrevoca@l0 a33oints the clerD o1 that court as the
suret0Ls agent u3on Chom 3a3ers a11ecting the suret0Ls lia@ilit0 u3on the @ond ma0 @e
served. 9ia@ilit0 o1 a suret0 ma0 @e en1orced, or the @ond ma0 @e released, on motion in
the a33ellate court Cithout inde3endent action.
- 16
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
5oCever, 3lease donFt misunderstand, the undersigned is quite 1ond o1 the e+tremel0 intelligent and charismatic
7udge "1erraJJa and does not mean this Ehindsight)quasi)!-K!- vieC3ointE and overl0 critical tone to indicate a lacD or
res3ect 1or the Court or 7udge "1erraJJa, 3articularl0 Chere $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. and his venera@le associate Case0
BaDer, Esq. do such a 1ine Go@ o1 3resenting their 3ositions, almost machine liDe in their e11icienc0 and clarit0 o1
3resentation... and NevadaFs 9andlord (enant 9aC is so hard to understand that a National >erit *inalist could s3end ,
months stud0ing it night and da0 and still @arel0 understand it...to sa0 nothing o1 Chat is asDed o1 the $eno 7ustice
Court 7udges, Chom must gras3 such a varied cross section o1 the laC on a dail0 @asis, that it literall0 @oggles the mind
the tasD 1aced @0 these mem@ers o1 the 7udiciar0. 4t is certainl0 not a 3osition the undersigned could 1athom 1illing
an0time soon, and most liDel0 never.
!RS 336A&2/1 A,tions 9ased upon nonpayment of rent) Counter,laim 9y tenant;
deposit of rent with ,ourt; =udgment for evi,tion& . 4n an action 1or 3ossession @ased
u3on non3a0ment o1 rent or in an action 1or rent Chere the tenant is in 3ossession, the
tenant may defend and ,ounter,laim for any amount whi,h the tenant may re,over
under the rental agreement, this ,hapter, or other appli,a9le law& E
$ichard 5ill got me arrested 1or !- hours 1or Ga0CalDing on K!K!, signing the criminal com3laint Chich
resulted in the currentl0 3ending criminal case in $>C cr!,4-'...4 Cas 1ilming 1rom a 3u@lic s3ot his contractors
3utting lots o1 m0 3osessions H1ormer, 4 guess, @ut "1erraJJaFs !K!K E6rder $esolving >otion to Contest 2Ersonal
2ro3ert0 9ienE ma0@e @e vulnera@le to a ,-@ voidness set aside as the $7C 1ailed to com3l0 Cith N$" 4-.!'3H7? and H&?Fs
dictates that the $7C set a hearing Cithin - da0s and have the sheri11 served notice thereo1....the $7C seems to onl0
1olloC N$" dictates Chen the0 @ene1it landlords or those Cith @ig mone0 attorne0s is Chat some 3eo3le sa0, 4 hear, not
that 4 Could sa0 an0 shit liDe that, no3e....(hen $ichard 5ill 1iled 1or a stalDingKharassment 6$der against me on ! !
Chile 4 Cas in the squad car at the scene at 43m. 7udge "chroeder got a signed (26 1iled Cithin 4' minutes....the
e+tension hearing Cas 0esterda0, 5ill shoCed u3 said EiFve seen neither hide nor hair o1 him, so 4 am moving to CithdraC
itE...(his a@use o1 3rocess and e+tremel0 du@iousl0 1iled (26 @0 $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. Gust ha33ened to inter1ere Cith m0
a@ilit0 to collect evidence 1or the Crong1ul eviction suit, so 5ill @ought himsel1 an a@use o1 3rocess suit or something....its
Gust @usiness to me, i am not mad at him, @ut he is costing me mone0 and time and energ0. 4 tried to 3ut some o@Gections
on the record at the (26 e+tension hearing HChich last ' seconds? and $7C 7udge "chroeder, snarled Edo 0ou Cant to go
to GailWE, 4 said Eno sir, 0our honorE and 3acDed u3 m0 stu11 and le1t...4 am not messinF Cith 7udge "hroeder.
- 17
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
% might get suspended from the pra,ti,e of law over some of this or otherwise have to report things to the
state 9ar under SCR 333 4,onvi,tion of Bserious ,rimesB8 in,ident to 9eing arrested for trespass at my former law
offi,ethen the RJC seems to figure out that thats a no>no and hurries up to get me served for a hearing 4whether %
li+e it or not or whether it ,omplies with nr,p . or servi,eHnoti,e rules8 to get me 9a,+ the Q0711&&&so the RJC
didn-t need my permission to set that hearing, 9ut then they ,laim the ,ouldn-t ,omply with the Bmandatory hold
hearing on Motion to Contest Personal Property 'ien within 31 days and have noti,e of it served 9y the Sheriff
upon 'andlordB found in !RS 21&0574<8 and 468 9e,ause Byou didn-t give us permission to set the hearingB 4the
Motion to Contest Prsonal Property 'ien was filed 33H3<H33, and they emailed me and Hill ,alled saying a
hearing was on for 33 00 33&&&% showed up for it 9ut it was va,ated or ,an,elled 9e,ause % Bdidn-t give them
permission to set it or go forward with itB or something&&&&so % didn-t get a hearing on the 'ien undtil
30H01H33&&&whereupon SferraGGa e;,eeded his =urisdi,tion under !RS 21&0574<8, 468 reserving all this =ursidi,tions,
ruling on things he wasn-t given authority to, et,&, et,&&&The ,ase is on appeal right now and % am in need of help
with it&&&&:ut there is still a ,han,e 4no ,laim pre,lusion8 to file a wrongful evi,tion lawsuit 4i was not even
permitted to assert ,ounter,laims in the summary evi,tion pro,ess&&&and 9e,ause they only pursued that under a
!o Cause vi,tion !oti,e, 9e,ause they +new alleging non payment would open pandora-s 9o;, they violated !RS
21&057-s di,tate that summary evi,tion pro,eedings are impermissi9le against ,ommer,ial tenants unless non
payment of rent is alleged& They ,an pro9a9ly show it was my home and law offi,e, 9ut&&&% say mi;ed used or even
in,idental use ?ualifies me as a ,ommer,ial tenant& The 'ease Agreement says % ,an use the property for any
purpose and it was a dui ,ounseling s,hool previous to my tenan,y, so it is Gone for ,ommer,ial use, espe,ially
professional offi,e use, et,&&&&

There is all sorts of ,laims against Hill here, a9use of pro,ess 4the phony TPO, RP" Offi,er Carter admitting Hill
pays him money to arrest people 4they will say its was a =o+e, 9ut its not a =o+ing situation when you are arresting
an attorney for trespass after Hill sends a 9ill for the full rental value of the property 4not =ust reasona9le storage
moving and e;penses undre !RS 336a&2.18 Q/11 for !ovem9er, plus H%ll has this ,ontra,tor named Phil who
+eeps su9mitting these =a,+ed up 9ills 4Q3151 to 9oard up the por,h as Breasona9le storage, moving and
inventoryingB despite his not ta+ing an unse,ured window unit a, out of the window&&&and the pla,e was
9urlgariGed on 30H30H33 for a9out Q6,111 or so of personal property8&&&plus withheld my ,lient-s files for . wee+s,
- 18
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
my drivers li,ense for < days&&&$"CPA violations&&&they still haven-t returned the Q<11 se,urity deposit&&&his
"e,larations are full of per=ury,in my opinion, as are his ,ontra,tors&&&
NoC, shortl0 a1ter 4 have @een adGudge a victim o1 domestic violence and granted tCo
di11erent 6rders 1or 2rotection @0 >aster Edmundson Hthis Court re1used to hear an0thing a@out this
in summaril0 den0ing m0 e+cusa@le neglect arguments vis a vis the deadlines 1or 3re)trial
motions...0et 6rmaas and "argent (arter are alloCed to call time out right @e1ore the (rial and
com3are their 3ositions or Econ1erEP?. NoC, aside 1rom having m0 alread0 sDint @anD account
3racticall0 em3tied 3a0ign a I3-- toCing @ill 1or m0 car incurred during this summar0 incarceration,
and having several clientFs cases @adl0 damaged HCh0 this 3unishment could not have @een dela0ed
even a da0 is not clear to me, rather, it is distur@ing...and the e+cuse the lacD o1 concern 1or these
clients @0 shi1ting @lame to the undersigned 1or Jealousl0 advocating on @ehal1 o1 the accused misses
the 3oint and 1urther engages in a EJero sum gameE mindset that $eno and its citiJens do not need
right noC?. 4n his oCn testimon0 "argent (arter admitted to a retaliator0 motive 1or the citation here.
*urther he o3ened the door to several matters this Court clearl0 did not Cant to have see the light o1
da0. (hese include, the 1act that "argent (arter told the accused he DneC he Cas going to turn le1t on
*orrest "t. and head @acD toCards 5illFs laC o11ice, and that is Ch0 he 3ulled the accused over, in
addition to the 1act that the accused, allegedl0 Edid not come to a com3lete sto3 in front o1 the Chite
line, @ut onl0 a1ter the Chite lineE. (his EinchingE into the intersection Cas necessar0 to gain a vieC
o1 Chether an0 cars mgith @e coming even cars going the Crong Ca0 doCn a one Ca0 street liDe
*orrest HdrunD or craJ0 drivers do not cease to e+ist, as "argent (arter im3lied, merel0 @ecause a
street is designated as a Eone Ca0E. 4ts ironic, @ecasue the accused and "argent (arter argued a@out
Chether the rationale "argent (arter 3ro1erred 1or 3ulling the accused over made an0 sense, as,
according to the accused, turning le1t on *orrest to get @acD to 5illFs o11iceC at ,'! *orrest "t Chile
the accused Cas heading east on "t. 9aurence Could have required goign doCn the ECrong Ca0E o1 a
- 19
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
Eone Ca0 street, *orrestE...it Cas at a@out that time that "argent (arter decided he could hear no more
1rom the accused. $egardless, (arter Cas tailing the accused, the accused Cas aCare o1 it, and the
accused care1ull0 o@e0ed all laC o1 tra11ic as he sus3ected (arter Could tr0 to Crite some 3hon0
tra11ic ticDet. (his clearl0 contradicts (arters assertion that he Cas 3arDed and not tailing the
accused, nor had he @egun to, until a1ter Citnessing the alleged E1ailure to come to a com3lete sto3E
violation, Chich included (arterFs highl0 sus3ect testimon0 Chich seemed to de10 the laCs o1 3h0sics
and o3tics, in addition to other laCs.
De1endant 1iles this Honl0 to the e+tent it is even necessar0 and some alternate resolution
cannot @e had...@arring that, 3lease treat this as a Notice o1 /33eal as Cell, though treating this as a
Etolling motionE, N$C2 '!, N$C2 '9Ha?,He?, etc. ma0 also @e a nice a33roach 3reventing the 1ast
3ace a33eals 3roceed at an or o@viating the need 1or me to 1ile such a Notice o1 /33eal? as he Cas
denied his "i+th /mendment $ight (o Counsel H H this "i+th /mendment $ight to Counsel is
mentioned clearl0 in the !--& 9imited 7urisdiction CourtFs Bench BooD 1or Nevada 7udges, along
Cith the !-- "u33lement thereto, and Chile a ver0 learned 7udge liDe 7udge 5oCard ma0 cite to
"cott v. 4llinois 1or su33ort that no such right e+ists Chere incarceration is not actuall0 e11ectuated, it
clearl0 Cas here, 1ive da0s Corth, com3lete Cith a I3-- @ill 1or the undersignedFs car @eing toCed?,
and 1iles this >otion (o "et /side 7udge Nash 5olmes *e@ruar0 !7th, !-! "ummar0 Contem3t
6rder and also to move 1or a continuance Cith res3ect to the ne+t (rial date that Cas mentioned Chile
the undersigned Cas in custod0. "ee E+hi@it .
'*A' AR*#M!T
/33ellant argues that @0 den0ing his request to cross)e+amine Citnesses a@out their 3otential
@ias, the trial court a@ridged his "i+th /mendment right to con1ront the Citnesses against him. Bias
e+ists MChen a Citness has a general Cillingness or motivation to testi10 1alsel0 on the stand.N $ose v.
- 20
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
8nited "tates, &79 /.!d 9&,, 99' HD.C.!--'?. MBias cross)e+amination o1 a main government Citness
is alCa0s a 3ro3er area o1 cross)e+amination and is relevant in assessing the CitnessF credi@ilit0 and
evaluating the Ceight o1 the evidence.N Blunt v. 8nited "tates, &,3 /.!d &!&, &33 HD.C.!--4?=
accord, "cull v. 8nited "tates, ',4 /.!d ,, ,' HD.C.9&9? HMBias is alCa0s a 3ro3er su@Gect o1
cross)e+amination . and the alleged @ias or unrelia@ilit0 o1 a Citness is never a collateral issueN
Hcitations omitted??. 6n the other hand, although the Mo33ortunit0 to cross)e+amine adverse Citnesses
is an inherent com3onent o1 the de1endantFs "i+th /mendment right o1 con1rontation . that right is
su@Gect to reasona@le limits im3osed at the discretion o1 the trial Gudge . to 3revent harassment,
3reGudice, con1usion o1 the issues, or re3etitive, cumulative, or onl0 marginall0 relevant questioning.N
4d. at ,4 Hcitations omitted?. / M3ro3er 1oundationN is required 1or cross)e+amination to esta@lish
@ias, including a 3ro11er o1 1acts su11icient to ena@le the court Mto evaluate Chether the 3ro3osed
question is 3ro@ative o1 @ias.N 7ones v. 8nited "tates, ', /.!d '3, '7 HD.C.9&,?. (he 3ro11er
must include M Xsome 1acts Chich su33ort a genuine @elie1L that the Citness is @iased in the manner
asserted,N id. Hcitation omitted?, or at least Ma XCell)reasoned sus3icionL rather than Xan im3ro@a@le
1light o1 1anc0L to su33ort the 3ro3osed cross)e+amination.N "cull, ',4 /.!d at ,4 Hquoting 8nited
"tates v. 2ugh, 4 8."./33. D.C. ,&, 7, 43, *.!d !!!, !!' H97-??. (his standard is a 1airl0 lenient
one, and an0 decision a@out the adequac0 o1 the 3ro11er lies Cithin the sound discretion o1 the trial
court. BroCn v. 8nited "tates, ,&3 /.!d &, !4)!' HD.C.99,?. *inall0, Chen challenging an
adverse ruling on a 3ro11er o1 Citness @ias, an a33ellant must shoC Mthat he Cas 3rohi@ited 1rom
engaging in otherCise a33ro3riate cross)e+amination designed to shoC a 3rotot03ical 1orm o1 @ias on
the 3art o1 the Citness, and there@0 Xto e+3ose to the Gur0 the 1acts 1rom Chich Gurors . could
a33ro3riatel0 draC in1erences relating to the relia@ilit0 o1 the Citness.L N DelaCare v. %an /rsdall,
47' 8.". ,73, ,&-, -, ".Ct. 43, &9 9.Ed.!d ,74 H9&,? Hcitation omitted?. /33ellant argues that
- 21
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
he Cas not a@le to 3resent to the Gur0 his theor0 o1 de1ense, Chich Cas that the 3olice 3lanted the
evidence allegedl0 1ound on or near him in retaliation 1or his 3ending civil suit, @ecause the trial
court limited his a@ilit0 to cross)e+amine the governmentFs Citnesses. Be1ore the trial @egan, de1ense
counsel 3ro11ered to the court evidence a@out Chich he Cished to cross)e+amine some o1 the
government Citnesses regarding @ias. Counsel e+3lained to the court, a1ter the 3rosecutor o@Gected,
that in an earlier incident 611icers >ason and Branch, Cho Cere also 3art o1 the search Carrant team,
came to a33ellantFs home and @roDe his arm, and that as a result a33ellant 1iled suit.4 De1ense counsel
stated: SBTased on all o1 those 1actors, Chether or not the0 sa0 the0 DneC the o11icers or not, Chether
or not the0 talDed StoT the o11icers or not, it seems to us that a @ias issue e+ists, and the Court should
3ermit this and let the Gur0 decide. S(The Gur0 can sort out Chether or not this in1ormation somehoC
got to 3eo3le Cho Cere 3art o1 the arrest SteamT, and arrested the de1endant. ' (he court ruled: 4n this
case there is no relevance at all @ecause the o11icers that are testi10ing)each one o1 them noC has told
us that the0 had no idea a@out the 3rior incident, the notice or the laCsuit, on the da0 o1 the arrest o1
>r. 5oCard in this case. (o alloC testimon0 a@out that se3arate incident that these o11icers didnFt
even DnoC a@out Could @e con1using, misleading, and 3reGudicial, and 4Fm not going to alloC it., 4t
a33ears to us that the court mistaDenl0 a33lied a 3re)trial credi@ilit0 1inding, on Chich it had relied to
decide the issue o1 3ro@a@le cause, to the se3arate determination o1 the trial)related issue o1 Chether
the de1endant had 3ro11ered su11icient 1acts to Carrant cross)e+amination on 3otential @ias. /t the
su33ression hearing, the court had concluded that 611icer $andol3h, Cho 3re3ared the search Carrant
a33lication, did not DnoC o1 the 3ending civil suit and had not @een directed @0 611icer Branch or
611icer >ason to get a search Carrant 1or a33ellantFs home, so the Carrant Cas valid. (his 1inding,
hoCever, did not 1oreclose the de1ense trial theor0 that the o11icers at the scene Cere @iased @ecause
o1 the laCsuit or ma0 have @een im3ro3erl0 in1luenced @0 611icer Branch HCho Cas in the room
- 22
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
Chen the drugs Cere 1ound on a33ellant? or 611icer >ason HCho Cas 3art o1 the search team?, and
intentionall0 im3licated a33ellant even though Haccording to the de1ense? no drugs Cere actuall0
1ound on his 3erson. C1. "ullivan v. 8nited "tates, 4-4 /.!d '3, ,- HD.C.979? HMSgTreat latitude is
a33ro3riatel0 e+tended to a shoCing o1 a com3laining CitnessF @ias @0 means o1 cross)e+amination
concerning that CitnessF 3ending laCsuit versus the de1endant against Chom he has testi1iedN @ecause
the laCsuit is Mrelevant to a shoCing o1 . his ill)Cill toCard the de1endantN Hcitations omitted??.
/lthough the trial court 1ound, at the su33ression hearing, that 611icer $andol3h Cas credi@le and did
not DnoC o1 the laCsuit at the time he o@tained the search Carrant or the at the time o1 its e+ecution,
and thus concluded that the Carrant Cas valid, it Cas not u3 to the court to determine the credi@ilit0
o1 Citnesses at trial regarding their 3otential @ias. "ee NeCman v. 8nited "tates, 7-' /.!d !4,, !'9
HD.C.997? HM4n evaluating the relia@ilit0 o1 the 3ro11er . the court must not seeD to evaluate the
relia@ilit0 o1 the CitnessN?. Des3ite the courtFs assessment o1 the o11icersF credi@ilit0 in ruling on the
validit0 o1 the Carrant at the su33ression hearing, it Cas error to rel0 on that credi@ilit0 determination
to 3reclude @ias cross)e+amination at trial @ecause MScTonditioning @ias cross)e+amination on the
courtFs a@ilit0 to assess the credi@ilit0 o1 the source o1 the alleged motive runs too close to usur3ing
the Gur0Fs 1unction.N BroCn v. 8nited "tates, 74- /.!d '33, '37 HD.C.999?. /t trial, de1ense counsel
sought to cross)e+amine some o1 the 3olice Citnesses a@out their DnoCledge o1 the civil suit against
the 3olice de3artment and to asD them Chether that DnoCledge in1luenced the e+ecution o1 the search
Carrant. Counsel 3ro11ered 1acts Chich suggested that the Citnesses might @e @iased in the manner
asserted: that 611icers Branch and >ason had 3reviousl0 @een involved in an incident in Chich
a33ellantFs arm Cas @roDen, that the same o11icers H1rom the "i+th District? Cere 3resent at the
e+ecution o1 the search Carrant Chich resulted in a33ellantFs arrest, and that a33ellant had 1iled a civil
suit against the 3olice de3artment, as Cell as 611icers Branch and >ason. (hese 1acts su33orted at
- 23
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
least Ma Cell)reasoned sus3icionN that the o11icers involved in the e+ecution o1 the search Carrant, all
1rom the "i+th District, ma0 have had a motive to testi10 1alsel0, or at least to stretch the truth,
regarding the seiJure o1 drugs 1rom a33ellant. "ince "ergeant <aine0, 611icer $andol3h, and 611icer
BracDett Cere all 3resent Chen some or all o1 those drugs Cere recovered, the court should have
alloCed counsel to cross)e+amine the government Citnesses @e1ore the Gur0 to e+3lore Chat the0
DneC a@out the laCsuit and Chether the0 Cere, during the search, in1luenced in an0 Ca0 in1luenced
@0 that DnoCledge. 6nce counsel made his 3ro11er, the credi@ilit0 o1 the Citnesses Cas 1or the Gur0 to
decide, and cross)e+amination a@out the laCsuit Cas a33ro3riate. /s the "u3reme Court has said: ;e
cannot s3eculate as to Chether the Gur0, as sole Gudge o1 the credi@ilit0 o1 a Citness, Could have
acce3ted this line o1 reasoning had counsel @een 3ermitted to 1ull0 3resent it. But Ce do conclude that
the Gurors Cere entitled to have the @ene1it o1 the de1ense theor0 @e1ore them so that the0 could maDe
an in1ormed Gudgment as to the Ceight to 3lace on Sthe CitnessFT testimon0 Chich 3rovided Ma crucial
linD in the 3roo1 . o1 3etitionerFs act.N Davis v. /lasDa, 4' 8.". 3-&, 37, 94 ".Ct. -', 39 9.Ed.!d
347 H974? Hcitation omitted?. (he trial courtFs concern in this case a@out 3ossi@le Gur0 con1usion Cas
mis3laced @ecause MSaTn0 3otentialit0 o1 con1usion to the Gur0 ma0 @e eliminated @0 3ro3er
instructions.N "cull, ',4 /.!d at ,' H1ootnote omitted?. /33ellant has MstateSdT a violation o1 the
Con1rontation Clause @0 shoCing that he Cas 3rohi@ited 1rom engaging in otherCise a33ro3riate
cross)e+amination designed to shoC a 3rotot03ical 1orm o1 @ias on the 3art o1 the CitnessSesT, and
there@0 Xto e+3ose to the Gur0 the 1acts 1rom Cich Gurors . could a33ro3riatel0 draC in1erences relating
to the relia@ilit0 o1 the Citness SesT.L N %an /rsdall, 47' 8.". at ,&-, -, ".Ct. 43. (he trial court
erred @0 con1using the search Carrant determination Cith the adequac0 o1 the @ias 3ro11er instead o1
considering the 3ro11er se3aratel0, and thus im3ro3erl0 3recluded relevant cross)e+amination as to
@ias. Because the trial courtFs ruling 3revented a33ellant 1rom 3resenting his main de1ense theor0, Ce
- 24
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
cannot 1ind harmless error under Cha3man v. Cali1ornia, 3&, 8.". &, !4, &7 ".Ct. &!4, 7 9.Ed.!d
7-' H9,7?. "ee %an /rsdall, 47' 8.". at ,&4, -, ".Ct. 43 Hthe denial o1 a de1endantFs o33ortunit0
to im3each a Citness 1or @ias is su@Gect to Cha3man harmless error anal0sis?. (he 1act that the
de1ense Cas alloCed to 3resent testimon0 @0 9ester 5oCard that he did not see an0 drugs recovered
1rom a33ellant and that he and a33ellant Cere a@used @0 the 3olice does not alleviate the harm o1
3rohi@iting the relevant and distinct @ias testimon0 a@out the CitnessesF DnoCledge o1 the laCsuit. ;e
reached a similar conclusion in "cull, in Chich Ce held that it Cas not harmless error 1or the trial
court to 3reclude the cross)e+amination o1 Citnesses as to relevant @ias H1ear o1 their oCn
3rosecution? even though it alloCed other cross)e+amination o1 the same Citnesses as to @ias
stemming 1rom a di11erent motivation. M"ince the issue o1 this 3ro3osed cross)e+amination Cas
entirel0 distinct 1rom that alloCed @0 the trial court, central to the Gur0Fs evaluation o1 the credi@ilit0
o1 De0 Citnesses, and admissi@le, its e+clusion Cas constitutional error.N ',4 /.!d at ,,. "ee also
Davis, 4' 8.". at 3&, 94 ".Ct. -' HM;hile counsel Cas 3ermitted to asD Sthe CitnessT Chether he
Cas @iased, counsel Cas una@le to maDe a record 1rom Chich to argue Ch0 Sthe CitnessT might have
@een @iased or otherCise lacDed that degree o1 im3artialit0 e+3ected o1 a Citness at trialN?. (here1ore,
the error cannot @e deemed harmless @e0ond a reasona@le dou@t. 444 /33ellant also argues that the
trial court should not have 3ermitted "ergeant <aine0 to testi10 a@out the results o1 the internal 3olice
investigation a@out the use o1 1orce against 9ester 5oCard. 5e maintains that the admission o1 this
testimon0 denied him a 1air trial @ecause he could not cross)e+amine the Citnesses at the 3olice
de3artment hearing.7 6n this 3oint Ce 1ind no error. ;hile cross)e+amining "ergeant <aine0,
de1ense counsel elicited the 1act that the 3olice de3artment had conducted an internal investigation o1
the earlier incident= the government res3onded on redirect @0 clari10ing that the use o1 1orce Cas
ultimatel0 1ound to have @een Gusti1ied. "uch remedial e11orts are alloCed under the doctrine o1
- 25
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
curative admissi@ilit0. "ee <oines v. 8nited "tates, 9-' /.!d 79', &-- HD.C.!--,?. (hat doctrine
M3rovides that in certain circumstances the 3rosecution ma0 inquire into evidence otherCise
inadmissi@le, @ut onl0 a1ter the de1ense has Xo3ened the doorL Cith regard to this evidence.N >ercer
v. 8nited "tates, 7!4 /.!d 7,, 9! HD.C.999?. (he doctrine is limited, hoCever, and 3ermits
remedial evidence Monl0 to the e+tent necessar0 to remove an0 un1air 3reGudice Chich might
otherCise have ensued 1rom the original evidence.N 4d. Hcitation omitted?. Because de1ense counsel
o3ened the door to evidence a@out the internal 3olice investigation, it Cas not an a@use o1 discretion
1or the trial court to alloC the government to asD 1urther questions on redirect. (hrough its
questioning, the government re1uted the im3lication that "ergeant <aine0 might @e @iased @ecause o1
the investigation. <aine0Fs testimon0 on redirect Cas limited to clari10ing that the 3olice de3artment
routinel0 conducted such investigations Chen 1orce Cas used @0 its o11icers, that he Cas not 1ear1ul o1
@eing im3licated in an0 Crongdoing, and that the investigation concluded that the use o1 1orce in this
instance Cas Gusti1ied. ;hen the government elicits testimon0 on a su@Gect during redirect
e+amination that the de1ense @rought u3 during cross)e+amination, the de1endant Mcannot Cell
com3lain o1 @eing 3reGudiced @0 a situation Chich SheT created,N 9ane0 v. 8nited "tates, '4 /33.
D.C. ',, ,-, !94 *. 4!, 4, H9!3?, @ecause Mthe error that occurred, i1 an0, Cas invited @0 de1ense
counsel.N <onJaleJ v. 8nited "tates, ,97 /.!d &9, &!, HD.C.997?= see 2arDer v. 8nited "tates, 7'7
/.!d !&-, !&,)!&7 HD.C.!---? Hciting <onJaleJ and 9ane0 ?. Because de1ense counsel elicited
testimon0 on the su@Gect in the 1irst instance during his cross)e+amination o1 "ergeant <aine0, the
government Cas entitled on redirect to dis3el an0 3otential 3reGudice and to re1ute, i1 it could, an0
im3lication o1 @ias.N 56;/$D, v. 8N4(ED "(/(E", /33ellee. No. -&)C*)73. /rgued >a0 ,,
!--9. )) /ugust !7, !--9
Court 1inds 3olice chie1 and o11icers investigated man 1or retaliator0 reasons= damages aCarded, hoCever, Cere
e+cessive $aDovich v. ;ade, &9 *.!d 393 H7th Cir. 9&7?.
- 26
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
*ederal a33eals court reverses decision holding 3olice chie1 and o11icers lia@le 1or alleged retaliator0 investigation
$aDovich v. ;ade, &'- *.!d &- H7th Cir. 9&&?.
2rocedural: Evidence
(rial GudgeFs re1usal to alloC a 3lainti11 in an e+cessive 1orce laCsuit to cross e+amine the
de1endant o11icer regarding his 3rior disci3line and conduct, Chich allegedl0 Could have shoCn that
he Cas ha@ituall0 dishonest in his Go@, resulting in his resignation, Cas an a@use o1 discretion,
requiring a neC trial on claims against the o11icer. (he e+cessive 1orce claim against him revolved
around an issue o1 his credi@ilit0, so that @arring this evidence Cas not harmless. /s 1or claims
against the cit0, alleged negligent monitoring o1 an o11icer cannot @e the @asis o1 a 1ederal civil rights
claim, and the 3lainti11 1ailed to esta@lish an0 inadequate training @0 the cit0 on use o1 1orce or
3roviding required medical care. 5inoGosa v. Butler, No. -7)'-',,, !--& 8.". /33. 9e+is !!!&! H'th
Cir.?.
;hen a trial GudgeFs instructions a@out the legal standard 1or e+cessive use o1 1orce Cere correct,
the GudgeFs error concerning instructions a@out the 3ro3er use o1 a 3olice investigatorFs re3ort
concerning the shooting o1 a sus3ect Cere harmless. (he re3ort, containing statements the shooting
o11icer made to a su3ervisor a1ter the shooting, Chile Ehearsa0 Cithin hearsa0E could have 3ro3erl0
@een considered as admissions @0 a 3art0)o33onent in the laCsuit. (he trial court had, hoCever,
alloCed the re3ort to @e entered into evidence, and the statements in the re3ort Cere mostl0 use1ul 1or
3ur3oses o1 im3eachment. /s the 3lainti11Fs attorne0 used the statements 1or that 3ur3ose, an0 error in
instructions concerning the use o1 the re3ort Cere harmless. /licea v. $alston, No. -,)4'!, !--&
8.". /33. 9e+is -73, H8n3u@. 3rd Cir.?.
2ortions o1 a re3ort @0 a 3olice de3artmentFs 4nternal 4nvestigations "ection Chich concluded that
o11icers detaining a man did so Cithout reasona@le sus3icion or 3ro@a@le cause, used e+cessive 1orce,
- 27
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
and Cithheld medical treatment Cas relevant evidence under *ed. $. Evidence 4-, and 3ortions o1
the re3ort Cere admissi@le as an investigative re3ort under *ed. $. Evid. &-3H&?HC?. (he court,
hoCever, granted the cit0Fs motion to e+clude 3ortions o1 the re3ort consisting o1 intervieCs o1 1our
e0eCitnesses HChich it 1ound constituted Edou@le hearsa0E?, and the legal conclusion o1 the cit0Fs
chie1 laC0er. NoCell v. Cit0 o1 Cincinnati, No. :-3cv&'9, !--, 8.". Dist. 9e+is ,&&! H".D. 6hio?.
SNK$T
4n arresteeFs laCsuit against state troo3er 1or alleged e+cessive 1orce used against him during the
arrest, evidence that the troo3er had 1ailed a 3ol0gra3h test given on unrelated criminal charges
@rought against him Cas not admissi@le as evidence, and evidence o1 those unrelated criminal charges
Cere also not relevant to the issue o1 Chether the troo3er had used e+cessive 1orce. 7ur0 verdict in
1avor o1 troo3er u3held on a33eal. CooD v. "tate De3t. o1 2u@lic "a1et0, No. !--' C/ -47', 9!& "o.
!d '&9 H9a. /33. !--,?. SNK$T
4n a laCsuit @0 an arrestee claiming that o11icers used e+cessive 1orce against him, even i1 the
de3artmentFs rules esta@lishing 3rocedures 1or res3onding to domestic violence calls Cas relevant in
some sense, the trial Gudge did not a@use his discretion in e+cluded it 1rom evidence, @ecause it had
the 3otential to con1use or mislead the Gur0 concerning the issues in the case. $u11in v. Cit0 o1
Boston, No. -3)!-!, 4, *ed. /33+. '- Hst Cir. !--'?. SNK$T
Evidence o1 threats that an arrestee allegedl0 made @e1ore his arrest, Chich Cere rela0ed to the
o11icers Cho arrived on the scene Cere admissi@le in e+cessive 1orce laCsuit to shoC o11icersF reason
1or entering a house Cith their Cea3ons draCn and immediatel0 rolling him 1rom the so1a to the 1loor
to handcu11 him. <allagher v. Cit0 o1 ;est Covina, No. -3)''39, 4 *ed. /33+. '77 H9th Cir.
!--'?. SNK$T
- 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
*ederal a33eals court overturns Gur0 verdict in 1avor o1 laC en1orcement de1endants Cho allegedl0
inter1ered Cith the e11orts o1 3rivate 3ersons to rescue a man Cho Gum3ed into a river, and 1ailed to
o11er a reasona@le alternative rescue service. Court holds that Ecumulative)errorE doctrine should
a33l0 to civil cases, and that a neC trial Cas required @ecause o1 a num@er o1 evidentiar0 errors made
@0 the trial court. BecD v. 5aiD, No. -)!7!3 !--4 8.". /33. 9e+is ''9- H,th Cir.?. S!--4 9$ "e3T
4n a laCsuit against a toCn 1or the death o1 a motorist Chose vehicle Cas strucD @0 an o11icerFs car,
the nature o1 the call that the o11icer Cas res3onding to at the time Cas relevant to determining
Chether the o11icer acted in recDless disregard o1 the sa1et0 o1 others, and there1ore Cas admissi@le.
/llen v. (oCn o1 /mherst, 77& N.:.".!d '9& H/.D. 4th De3t. !--4?. SNK$T
2lainti11 Cho Cas shot @0 3olice o11icer could not Cithhold his medical records in a 1ederal civil
rights laCsuit against the cit0 and o11icer on the @asis o1 doctor)3atient 3rivilege or medical records
3rivilege, nor could he assert the right o1 3rivac0 @ased on a 3rovision o1 the Cali1ornia state
constitution to 3revent the disclosure o1 those records. (he 3lainti11, Cho claimed that he Cas shot in
the @acD @ecause the o11icer Cas in 3oor 3h0sical condition and Cas there1ore una@le to 3ursue him
on 1oot, Cas also entitled in the case to the disclosure o1 the o11icerFs medical records, including those
in a CorDersF com3ensation 1ile. 5utton v. Cit0 o1 >artineJ, !9 *.$.D. ,4 HN.D. Cal. !--3?. SNK$T
/rrestee could not success1ull0 seeD damages @ased merel0 on a custodial interrogation Cithout
>irada Carnings Chen none o1 her elicited statements Cere ever used against her at trial. *ederal
a33eals court also overturns I&-,--- malicious 3rosecution aCard to arrestee, Cho claimed that
o11icers 1iled 1alse charges against her and maliciousl0 3ursued them in order to assist her o11icer
@o01riend, Cho she accused o1 domestic a@use. 2lainti11Fs o3ening statement at trial 3ut the question
o1 the de1endant o11icerFs truth1ul character into issue, so it Cas 3reGudicial error to e+clude evidence
o1 that character. $enda v. Aing, #-)!4!, 347 *.3d ''- H3rd Cir. !--3?. S!--4 9$ *e@T
- 29
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
4n case Chere elderl0 cou3le challenged the validit0 o1 search Carrant 1or their home, de1endants
could @e required to either 3roduce a con1idential in1ormant 1or an Ein cham@ersE de3osition, to
reveal his identit0, or to convince the court that, 1or reasons o1 sa1et0, his identit0 need not @e
revealed. 4n the alternative, the de1endants could @e @arred 1rom 3resenting an0 evidence at trial
@ased on the alleged e+istence o1 the in1ormant. "mith v. Cit0 o1 Detroit, No. -)7-74-, !! *.$.D.
'-7 HE.D. >ich. !--3?. S!--3 9$ /ugT
/dmission into evidence o1 a videota3e shoCing the 3lainti11 conducting her dail0 activities
during a trial o1 her claim that she had su11ered serious inGuries 1rom the e+cessive use o1 1orce @0 a
3olice o11icer Cas not im3ro3er and did not constitute Eun1air sur3riseE Chen the 3lainti11Fs attorne0
Cas 1urnished Cith a co30 and given a chance to vieC it 3rior to its admission. >eiselman v. B0rom,
!-7 *. "u33. !d 4- HE.D.N.:. !--!?. SNK$T
/dmission into evidence o1 an audiota3e o1 an arresteeFs conversation Cith a 3olice dis3atcher Cas
not an a@use o1 discretion in a 1ederal civil rights case in Chich the arrestee claimed that she had @een
im3ro3erl0 arrested 1or 3u@lic into+ication. (he audiota3eFs re3roduction o1 the arresteeFs Eh0sterical
conversationE Cith the dis3atcher Cas Eno more 3reGudicialE than the arresting o11icerFs account o1
Eher drunDen @ehavior,E so that the court could not sa0 that its admission Cas so 3reGudicial that it
violated the 3lainti11Fs Esu@stantial rights.E Diamond v. 5oCd, #--),3!3, !&& *.3d 93! H,th Cir.
!--!?. SNK$T
7ur0 Cas 3resumed to have 1olloCed trial GudgeFs instructions that laC0ersF statements and
arguments Cere not evidence, so that alleged misconduct @0 de1endant 3olice o11icersF laC0er in
giving in1erence to the Gur0 a@out items not in evidence during closing arguments Cas insu11icient to
su33ort a reversal o1 the Gur0Fs verdict 1or the de1endants in a homeoCnerFs 1ederal civil rights laCsuit
- 30
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
over alleged unreasona@le search o1 her house under a Carrant. 7ones v. ;illiams, #--)',9!9, 3'
*ed. /33+. 4!4 H9th Cir. !--!?. SNK$T
"tate troo3ers destro0ed ta3es relating to an incident in good 1aith 3ursuant to normal 3ractices
@e1ore an0 litigation Cas 3ending, and additionall0, the 3lainti11s received transcri3ts o1 the ta3es, so
that there could @e no adverse in1erence as to Es3oilation o1 evidenceE in an arresteeFs claim 1or
inGuries. /rrestee could not collect damages 1or his 1all and cracDed sDull Chile restrained at the
3olice station 1olloCing his arrest 1or driving Chile into+icated, @ased on testimon0 @0 3lainti11Fs oCn
e+3ert Citness that he Cas 3ro3erl0 restrained, and that, Chile there Cere alternative restraining
methods, the0 3osed their oCn risDs. $a0mond v. "tate, 74- N.:.".!d 743 H/.D. !--!?. SNK$T
2lainti11 arresteeFs 3rior histor0 o1 drinDing ha@its, oCnershi3 o1 guns, and use o1 3rescri3tion
drugs Cas 3ro3erl0 admitted into evidence Chen the 3lainti11 ansCered questions on those issues on
cross)e+amination Cithout o@Gections. (rial GudgeFs comments a@out arrestee acting as his oCn
laC0er in 1alse arrest laCsuit did not require a neC trial. 6FBrien v. 7ohnson, &-- "o. !d ,4 H9a. /33.
4th Cir. !--?. SNK$T
34':4- *iling o1 Crong1ul death claim !& da0s a1ter arrestee died gave count0 and sheri11Fs
de3artment actual notice that it should not destro0 audio ta3es o1 9 calls and radio transmissions
concerning incident= Cali1ornia a33eals court orders 1urther hearings to determine Chether sanctions
against de1endants in laCsuit are a33ro3riate. Nelson v. "u3erior Court, #B47,-7, -7 Cal. $3tr. !d
4,9 HCal. /33. !--?.
34':4 Evidence that sus3ect, a 3arolee, 3ossessed a gun at the time o11icers tried to detain him
on sus3icion o1 auto the1t, Cas admissi@le in his laCsuit against o11icers 1or shooting and Counding
him= it Cas relevant as tending to su33ort the o11icersF version o1 the incident that he used his vehicle
- 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
as a Cea3on to endanger them in his des3eration to esca3e, Gusti10ing their use o1 deadl0 1orce.
"tevenson v. D.C. >etro3olitan 2olice De3t., !4& *.3d &7 HD.C. Cir. !--?.
343:-' 4ntroduction o1 evidence o1 arresteeFs later second arrest 1or domestic violence Cas no
@asis, in the a@sence o1 3ro3er o@Gection, 1or setting aside Gur0Fs verdict in 1avor o1 arresting o11icers
on his 1alse arrestKe+cessive 1orce claims. 8dem@a v. Nicoli, #--)!4,, !37 *.3d & Hst Cir. !--?.
SNK$T Evidence su33orted Gur0Fs verdict in 1avor o1 o11icers on 1alse arrest claim. Even i1 o11icer
Cas tres3assing on arresteeFs @usiness 3ro3ert0, the 3lainti11Fs action in slamming the door on the
o11icerFs hand Cas an unreasona@le use o1 1orce Chich could su33ort his arrest 1or @atter0. (rial court
erroneousl0 denied de1endantFs request 1or I!7,--- in costs 1or com3uteriJed evidence used 1or
3resentation to Gur0, 1urther hearings on reasona@leness required. Ce1alu v. %illage o1 ElD <rove, No.
9&)!7-&, ! *.3d 4, H7th Cir. !---?.
343:-' *ederal trial court @ars evidence o1 3rior unrelated de3artmental disci3linar0 actions
against o11icer accused @0 arrestee o1 e+cessive use o1 1orce, as Cell as evidence a@out the e+istence
o1 lia@ilit0 insurance= testimon0 a@out Chether the arrestee actuall0 hit his Ci1e @e1ore the 3olice
arrived Cas not relevant to Chether the o11icer used im3ro3er 1orce. >unle0 v. Carlson, !' *. "u33.
!d 7 HN.D. 4ll. !---?.
34:7' /udio ta3e o1 3olice radio, including sound o1 siren in unmarDed car @eing activated, Cas
3ro3erl0 admitted into evidence and shi1ted the @urden to the motorist 3lainti11 to shoC the
inauthenticit0 o1 the ta3e= his mere assertion that he had heard no siren did not create a genuine issue
o1 1act in his laCsuit over the sto3 and search o1 his vehicle. "mith v. Cit0 o1 Chicago, No. 99)!9,',
!4! *.3d 737 H7th Cir. !--?.
3!9:74 Evidence that occu3ants o1 a motor vehicle CorDed in the Eadult entertainment industr0E
and that one o1 them Cas a 3rostitute Cho had CorDed in a legal @rothel Cas irrelevant to issues in
- 32
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
1ederal civil rights laCsuit over o11icerFs detention o1 them 1olloCing a vehicle sto3 and search o1
their 3ossessions= introduction o1 evidence Could also @e 3reGudicial= state laC emotional distress
claim did not alter result. "Dultin v. Bushnell, &! *."u33. !d !'& HD. 8tah !---?.
334:'- *ederal a33eals court u3holds Gur0 verdict in 1avor o1 o11icer Cho used 3olice dog to
su@due an auto the1t sus3ect= 3lainti11Fs tCo 3rior 1elon0 convictions, @ased on no contest 3leas, Cere
3ro3erl0 used to im3each his testimon0= 3lainti11 Cas not entitled to an e+3licit Gur0 instruction
concerning Ealternative courses o1 actionE availa@le to the o11icer or the o11icerFs alleged ElacD o1
3ro@a@le causeE to @elieve that the 3lainti11 Cas armed. BreCer v. Cit0 o1 Na3a, #9&),4,-, !- *.3d
-93 H9th Cir. !---?.
SNK$T E+clusion o1 non3art0 3olice o11icersF testimon0 Chich Cas consistent Cith 3lainti11Fs
version o1 incident in Chich he Cas mistaDenl0 a33rehended @0 de1endant o11icers in grocer0 store
Cas not harmless, Chen detaineeFs 3rinci3al e0eCitness could @e vieCed as un3ersuasive @ecause o1
her alleged @ias against 3olice. ;asserman v. BartholomeC, No. ")&!3&, 9&7 2. !d 74& H/lasDa
999?.
3!7:39 611icer Cas legall0 Gusti1ied in shooting and Dilling a man advancing toCards tCo o11icers
Cith a Dni1e held to his oCn throat Cho had 3reviousl0 sta@@ing his @rother= the 1act that he 3osed a
threat to the o11icers rendered irrelevant an0 evidence o1 3ossi@le alternate strategies o11icers might
have used 3rior to that 3oint, or evidence concerning the o11icerFs 3ast disci3linar0 records or cit0 use
o1 1orce 3olic0. :elloC@acD v. Cit0 o1 "iou+ *alls, #!-79, ,-- N.;.!d ''4 H".D. 999?.
3!7:43 /33eals court u3holds Gur0 verdict in 1avor o1 3olice o11icers in laCsuit over alleged
3ositional as3h0+ia in case Chere the0 used Dneeling CristlocD on distur@ed man to taDe him into
3rotective custod0= use o1 courtroom demonstration o1 Dneeling CristlocD technique Cas 3ro3erl0
admitted into evidence. 7ones v. $alls, #9&)3'4, &7 *.3d &4& H&th Cir. 999?.
- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33-:&3 De3ut0 3ro3erl0 used deadl0 1orce against man advancing on him Cith a 3iece o1 concrete
in his hand= sheri11Fs 1ailure to train de3uties in the use o1 deadl0 1orce against EcraJ0E 3eo3le Cas no
@asis 1or lia@ilit0 Chen general 3olic0 on use o1 deadl0 1orce Cas correct and no shoCing o1 a 3rior
3ro@lem in this area Cas shoCn= @asis 1or e+clusion o1 e+3ert Citness Cas erroneous, @ut Gur0 did not
need e+3ert hel3 to conclude that de3ut0 acted reasona@l0. 2ena v. 9eom@runi, No. 99)43', !--
*.3d -3 H7th Cir. 999?.
33-:&4 7ur0 3ro3erl0 heard evidence o1 alleged a11air @etCeen ma0or and arresteeFs Ci1e, and trial
court 3ro3erl0 declined to instruct Gur0 that arrestee had a dut0 to su@mit to an arrest Cithout
resistance even i1 it Cas unGusti1ied= a33eals court u3holds aCards totaling I4,--- against 3olice
chie1 and ma0or in laCsuit claiming that im3ro3er arrest Cas made Cith e+cessive 1orce @ased on a
3urel0 3ersonal dis3ute @etCeen ma0or and arrestee. <o11 v. Bise, # 9&)!&49, 73 *.3d -,& H&th Cir.
999?.
33:-& 611icerFs unsigned and unsCorn memorandum, 3re3ared 1or 3olice de3artmentFs legal
section, Cas inadmissi@le hearsa0 Chich Cas im3ro3erl0 relied on @0 trial Gudge in granting summar0
Gudgment in malicious 3rosecution case @rought @0 a mem@er o1 a communit0 3olice monitoring
organiJation Cho Cas issued a citation 1or 1olloCing a 3olice vehicle in Chich tCo mem@ers o1 her
grou3 Cere @eing trans3orted 1olloCing their arrest. "iDora v. <i@@s, No. 9&/2),'', 7!, N.E.!d '4-
H6hio /33. 999?.
3!!:' 2lainti11 in civil rights laCsuit concerning his arrest did not im3liedl0 Caive thera3ist)
3atient 3rivilege @0 including a claim 1or emotional distress= medical records during 3lainti11Fs tCo)
0ear con1inement in mental health center a1ter incident not discovera@le. 5ucDo v. Cit0 o1 6aD
*orest, &' *.$.D. '!, HN.D. 4ll. 999?. EditorFs Note: 6ther cases on this issue include: %ander@ilt
v. (oCn o1 ChilmarD, 74 *.$.D. !!' HD. >ass. 997? Hmere assertion o1 emotional damage claim
- 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
does not constitute a Caiver o1 thera3ist)3atient 3rivilege?= and three cases in Chich an im3lied
Caiver Cas 1ound, *o+ v. (he <ates Cor3., 79 *.$.D. 3-3 HD. Col. 99&?, %asconcells v. C0@e+,
9,! *."u33. 7- HD. >d. 997?, and "arDo v. 2enn)Del Director0 Co., 7- *.$.D. !7 HE.D. 2a.
997?.
YNK$Z *ederal trial Gudge im3ro3erl0 determined that he did not have discretion to consider
additional evidence Chen deciding Chether or not to u3hold a magistrateFs recommendation in an
arresteeFs laCsuit against investigating o11icers= he could 3ro3erl0 receive and consider neC evidence
to determine Chether there Cere genuine issues o1 1act that Could de1eat a motion 1or summar0
Gudgment. *reeman v. Count0 o1 Be+ar, #9')'-&& 4! *.3d &4& H'th Cir. 99&?.
3-':77 Convicted ro@@er could not 1ile suit o@Gecting to the disclosure o1 medical records at his
criminal trial Chen he did not contend that he and the 3erson treated 1or gunshot Counds at hos3ital
Cere the same 3erson. <reen v. Coo3er >edical 5os3ital, 9,& *."u33. !49 HE.D. 2a. 997?.
3-7:-9 611icers Cere entitled to good 1aith immunit0 1or seiJure o1 trucD Cith missing %ehicle
4denti1ication Num@er= evidence uncovered @0 their Carrantless search o1 trucD Cas admissi@le
evidence in esta@lishing their de1ense even i1 search Cas illegal= 1ederal a33eals court rules that
e+clusionar0 rule does not a33l0 in 1ederal civil rights laCsuits= o11icers also entitled to o11icial
immunit0 on (e+as state laC claims. ;ren v. (oCe, 3- *.3d '4 H'th Cir. 997?.
3-9:4- Evidence o1 arresteeFs outstanding 3arole Carrant and 3rior drug distri@ution conviction
Cas admissi@le in arresteeFs e+cessive 1orce laCsuit against o11icers= evidence o1 3rior misdemeanor
convictions and other convictions Chich Cere more than ten 0ears old Cas not. Daniels v. 9oiJJo,
9&, *."u33. !4' H".D.N.:. 997?.
3-:'' >an arrested 1or murder and then con1ined, 1or ten 0ears, in 3s0chiatric 1acilit0 Chile
incom3etent 1or trial, entitled to neC trial in civil rights laCsuit against o11icers alleging 1alse
- 35
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
im3risonment and malicious 3rosecution= suit claimed that con1ession to 3olice Cas 3rocured through
3rior ta3ed conversations Cith minister Cho allegedl0 E1edE sus3ect details o1 crime= e+clusion o1
ta3es 1rom evidence Cas reversi@le error. "utDieCicJ v. >onroe Count0 "heri11, - *.3d 3'! H,th
Cir. 997?.
3-:', 2lainti11 in e+cessive 1orce case against 3olice involving E3ositional as3h0+iaE could not
com3el de3osition o1 de1endantsF laC0er regarding his 3ersonal DnoCledge o1 the dangers o1
E3ositional as3h0+iaE Chen 3lainti11 1ailed to shoC that in1ormation Cas uno@taina@le through other
means, relevant and non)3rivileged, and crucial to 3re3aration o1 the case. 7ones v. Bd. o1 2olice
ComFrs o1 Aansas Cit0, >o., 7, *.$.D. ,!' H;.D. >o. 997?.
!9,:!4 4n suit over o11)dut0 o11icerFs shooting o1 3assenger in sto33ed vehicle, trial court did not
err in e+cluding evidence o1 3rior incident in Chich same o11icer shot a sus3ect 1rom another sto33ed
vehicle or in e+cluding evidence o1 4/C2 EmodelE 3olicies concerning tra11ic sto3s @0 o11)dut0
o11icers, Chen issue Cas not Chether sto3 Cas 3ro3er, @ut Chether use o1 1orce against 3assenger
once sto3 Cas made Cas e+cessive "oller v. >oore, &4 *.3d 9,4 H7th Cir. 99,?.
!&7:7! 611icer Cas im3ro3erl0 @arred 1rom testi10ing as e+3ert Citness as to Chether sheri11Fs
alleged 1ailure to train de3uties on 3ro3er retrieval and use o1 shotguns stored in locDed trunDs o1
cruisers created unsa1e CorDing conditions= summar0 Gudgment 1or de1endant sheri11 and count0
overturned in suit @rought @0 de3ut0 shot @0 assailant Chile attem3ting to retrieve shotgun 1rom trunD
<entr0 v. >angum, 4,, ".E.!d 7 H;.%a. 99'?.
!&':37 Cit0 and mental health agenc0 Cas not lia@le 1or o11icerFs shooting o1 3aranoid
schiJo3hrenic as he e+ited his @edroom, allegedl0 advancing on o11icer Cith hatchet raised=
de1endants adequatel0 e+3lained reasons 1or striDing tCo @lacD Gurors, and trial Gudge correctl0
- 36
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
e+cluded evidence Chich Cas not relevant to the case at hand >cAeel v. Cit0 o1 2ine Blu11, 73 *.3d
!-7 H&th Cir, 99,?.
!79:3& E+3ert Citness testimon0 on Ehedonic damagesE Hthe enGo0ment value o1 human li1e?.
@arred @0 trial court in laCsuit over 3olice shooting o1 individual /0ers v. $o@inson, &&7 *."u33.
-49 HN.D.4ll. 99'?.
!&!:&4 Drug evidence 1rom house e+cluded at criminal trial @ecause o1 illegalit0 o1 search Cas
3ro3erl0 introduced into evidence in civil de1amation laCsuit @rought @0 resident against 3olice chie1
Cho allegedl0 told his em3lo0er he Cas a Edrug dealerE= NeC 5am3shire "u3reme Court declines to
a33l0 e+clusionar0 rule in civil de1amation suit "im3Dins v. (oCn o1 Bartlett, ,, /.!d 77! HN5
99'?.
!&,:47 8.". "u3reme Court ado3ts thera3ist)3atient 3rivilege 3rotecting disclosures during
thera30 sessions 1rom com3elled disclosure in court= a11irms ordering o1 neC trial in Chich Gur0
aCarded I'4',--- in 3olice shooting case Chere Gur0 Cas told it could 3resume Cithheld thera30
records Could @e un1avora@le to o11icer 7a11ee v. /llen, , ".Ct. 9!3 H99,?.
YNK$Z "tatement on 9 ta3e Chich allegedl0 descri@ed o11icerFs @eating o1 3lainti11 Cas not
admissi@le into evidence in a@sence o1 an0 shoCing that the 3erson maDing the descri3tion had a 1irst
hand DnoCledge o1 Chat he descri@ed Bemis v. EdCards, 4' *.3d 3,9 H9th Cir. 99'?.
YNK$Z 4t Cas not an a@use o1 discretion to re1use to alloC Citnesses Cho Cere not disclosed in
3lainti11Fs 3retrial list o1 Citnesses to testi10= cit0 3olice de3artment Critten 3olicies Cere not relevant
in 3roving arresteeFs claims against cit0 >arti v. Cit0 o1 >a3leCood, >o, '7 *.3d ,&- H&th Cir.
99'?.
!,9:,7 (a3e recording o1 arrest and alleged @eating o1 arrestee Chich revealed that o11icer
directed a racial e3ithet at arrestee should have @een admitted into evidence as it Cas relevant to the
- 37
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
Gur0Fs tasD o1 deciding Chether 1orce used Cas reasona@le under the circumstances= a33eals court
rules that e+clusion o1 this 3ortion o1 ta3e Cas an a@use o1 discretion requiring a neC trial in civil
rights suit @rought @0 arrestee BroCn v. Cit0 o1 5ialeah, 3- *.3d 433 Hth Cir. 994?.
!,9:74 Evidence o1 3lainti11Fs 3rior criminal convictions Cas 3ro3erl0 admitted into evidence
during his cross)e+amination Chen his direct testimon0 o3ened the door to the evidence Duncan v.
;ells, !3 *.3d 3!! H&th Cir. 994?.
!7!:! De1endant 3olice o11icers had the right, in arresteeFs 1ederal civil rights e+cessive 1orce
suit against them, to cross)e+amine arrestee regarding his 3rior 1elon0 convictions during 3ast ten
0ears= cross)e+amination regarding 1elon0 convictions older than ten 0ears @arred as undul0
3reGudicial Charles v. Cotter, &,7 *."u33. ,4& HN.D.4ll. 994?.
Erroneous admission o1 narcotics in1ormerFs hearsa0 statements into evidence Cas not harmless
and required reversal o1 Gur0 verdict in 1avor o1 arrestee in civil rights suit against narcotics agent
9i33a0 v. Christos, 99, *.!d 49- H3rd Cir. 993?.
(rial court 3ro3erl0 admitted certi1ied records o1 3lainti11Fs ro@@er0 and 3ossession o1 concealed
Cea3ons convictions into evidence, as Cell as evidence o1 his conviction o1 2C2 drug to im3each his
statements, including statments that he had never used 2C2 <ee v. 2ride, 99! *.!d '9 H&th Cir.
993?.
>otorist inGured in collision Cith 3olice vehicle could 3resent evidence, in suit against cit0, that
o11icer allegedl0 attem3ted to inter1ere Cith @0stander attem3ts to aid him 1olloCing the accident=
evidence Cas relevant to issue o1 motoristFs emotional inGuries Creed v. Cit0 o1 Colum@ia, 4!, ".E.!d
7&' H"C 993?.
/rrestee suing o11icers 1or alleged 3rete+tual arrest should have @een alloCed to introduce
evidence o1 3rior incidents Chich Cere too long ago to @e the @asis 1or a suit, @ut Chich still could @e
- 38
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
used to shoC o11icersF alleged retaliator0 motive 1or arresting him $o@@ins v. Cit0 o1 >iami Beach,
,3 "o.!d '&- H*la /33. 993?.
Buestions concerning 3lainti11Fs 3rior 1elon0 convictions Cere clearl0 3ro3er 1or 3ur3oses o1
im3eaching his truth1ulness as a Citness= questions concerning his current incarceration, Chile
generall0 inadmissi@le 1or im3eachment 3ur3oses, Cere alloCa@le 1or the 3ur3ose o1 re1uting his
claim that it Cas the de1endant o11icersF actions that led to his Enegative 3erce3tionE o1 laC
en1orcement <ora v. Costa, 97 *.!d 3!' H7th Cir. 99!?.
(rial court 3ro3erl0 admitted evidence o1 medical records o1 3lainti11 in suit over 1ight Cith 3olice
o11icer= issue o1 Chether 3lainti11 had the a@ilit0 to control his anger and initiated 1ight made
admission to hos3ital DnoCn as treatment center 1or 3s0chiatric 3ro@lems relevant 7ones v. ;il@ur,
,-4 /.!d 779 H$4 99!?.
Evidence o1 charges and conviction o1 ra3e and Didna33ing Chich Cere reason 1or arrest Cere
admissi@le in civil rights laCsuit @rought @0 arrestee 1or alleged e+cessive 1orce 5ernandeJ v.
Ce3eda, &,- *.!d !,- H7th Cir. 9&&?.
2lainti11 sues o11icers 1or e+cessive use o1 1orce in arresting him= no error to admit evidence o1 his
3rior convictions 1or ro@@er0, ra3e and 1orci@le sodom0 7ones v. Bd o1 2olice Commissioners, &44
*.!d '-- H&th Cir. 9&&?. Congressional re3ort on 3olice misconduct inadmissi@le /nderson v. Cit0
o1 NeC :orD, ,'7 *."u33. '7 H".D.N: 9&7?.
"tate trial GudgeFs testimon0 a@out o11icersF credi@ilit0 inadmissi@le in arresteeFs civil rights
laCsuit= o11icers granted neC trial "chultJ v. (homas, &3! *.!d -& H7th Cir. 9&7?.
/rrestee aCarded I',,&- 1or alleged assault @0 o11icers= admission into evidence o1 dismissal o1
charges Cas error @ut cured @0 Gur0 instructions 7ared v. Cit0 o1 NeC :orD, '9 N.:.".!d 77 H/.D.
9&7?.
- 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4n @rutalit0 suit against o11icer, 5aCaii su3reme court admits evidence o1 other Crongs he
committed and character evidence shoCing 3ro3ensit0 1or violence >e0er v. Cit0 and Count0 o1
5onolulu, 73 2.!d 49 H5aCaii 9&,?.
/rgersinger v. 5amlin H4-7 8.". !'? esta@lishes that the right to the assistance o1 counsel,
Chether retained or court a33ointed, is required in all 3rosecutions Chich ma0 result in
im3risonment, unless a com3lete *aretta canvas has @een com3leted and the request 1or Caiving
counsel is granted.
;hile there is a time and 3lace, 3erha3s 1or 6rders 1inding "ummar0 Contem3t under N$"
!!.-3-...3erha3s, the greatest strength a Gudge can demonstrate is the a@ilit0 to shoC a little CeaDness,
to demonstrate something other than ruling Cith an iron hand, to do something other than crush an0
voice o1 dissent in her court. (o strangle out o1 litigants the 1reedom to Jealousl0 adovocate on their
oCn or anotherFs @ehal1 Hin the case o1 licensed attorne0s? is 3erha3s the most heinous, sad, and ugl0
thing a Gudge could do. / Gudge Chom demonstrates an a@ilit0 to oversee that Chich maDes her less
than com1orta@le in her courtroom, that Chich she does not necessaril0 agree Cith, is a Gudge secure
in hher a@ilities and aCare o1 the 3remium on restraint and 3atience called 1or in order 1or a Gudge and
court to transcend 1rom mere de@t collector 1or the Cit0 /ttorne0 to im3artial ar@iter o1 1act and laC.
(o demonstrate otherCise ma0 create an atmos3here Chere court em3lo0ees overste3 their @ounds
and @egin to @ull0 and harass those seeDing to access Gustice, a true violation o1 the trust in Chich the
3u@lic endoCs such 3u@lic servants. Even 3erha3s, Chere >arshals are a@le to Chis3er into 6rmasFs
ear, in o3en court, then Chere the undersigned needs to use the restroom, the Court 6rders him to
leave his note3ad in the courtroom, then the udnersigned is summaril0 interrogated @0 the Court 1rom
the Bench in some Ca0 a@out EdevicesE liDe he is a ma1ia in1ormant @eing rundoCn @0 the Don, then
the undersigned is arrested, stri3 searched, has his 3ro3ert0 con1iscated. /nd its im3ortant 3ro3ert0,
- 40
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
including, @ut not limited to tCo di11erent cell 3hoens. 5oC is the undersigned su33osed to
communicate Cith clientsP *urther, the undersigned is a recent victim o1 domestic violence H*%!)
--&7 and *%!)--&&?, and rendering him more vulnera@le through conversion o1 his means o1
emergenc0 communictions, his cell 3hones, is not Gusti1ied here.
N
;heres De1endant Cent to great lengths to demonstrate to 7udge 5oCard and the $>C that
he is indigent, he, a33arentl0, is not MalloCedN to @e so, so much so that this Court Cent against the
Nevada Court o1 9imited 7urisdiction Bench BooD o1 !--& and its !-- "u33lement in den0ing the
undersigned the his "i+th /mendment $ight (o Counsel, set 1orth e+3licitl0 in several locations in
the Bench BooD and mandator0 authorit0 in the8nited "tates. /rgersinger v. 5amlin, H4-7 8.". !'?.
/ 2etition to 2roceed in 4*2 and receive a co30 o1 the audio recording o1 an0 3roceedings in this
matter is su@mitted along Cith this instant 1iling.
Nevada N$C2 ,-H@?H3? alloCs a 3art0 to move 1or relie1 1rom a Gudgment Chich is void, and
Chile motions made under N$C2 ,-H@? are generall0 required to E@e made Cithin a reasona@le timeE
and to @e adGudicated according to the district courtFs discretion, this is not true in the case o1 a void
Gudgment. Necessaril0 a motion under this 3art o1 the rule di11ers marDedl0 1rom motions under the
other clauses o1 $ule ,-H@?. (here is no question o1 discretion on the 3art o1 the court Chen a motion
is made under Sthis 3ortion o1 the $uleT. Nor is there an0 requirement, as there usuall0 is Chen
de1ault Gudgments are attacDed under $ule ,-H@?, that the moving 3art0 shoC that he has a
meritorious de1ense. Either a Gudgment is void or it is valid. Determining Chich it is ma0 Cell 3resent
a di11icult question, @ut Chen that question is resolved, the court must act accordingl0. B0 the same
toDen, there is no time limit on an attacD on a Gudgment as void. . . . SETven the requirement that the
motion @e made Cithin a Ereasona@le time,E Chich seems literl0 to a33l0 . . . cannot @e en1orced Cith
- 41
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
regard to this class o1 motion. 8nderstanda@l0, the 3arties Cere not attuned to our recent 7aco@s
decision during oral argument. /ccordingl0, it Cas determined at that time to alloC the 3arties to
su33lement their @rie1s in order to determine Cith certaint0 Chether, in 1act, no de1ault had @een
entered against <arcia 3rior to the entr0 o1 the de1ault Gudgment. <arciaFs su33lemental material
su33lied additional evidence that no de1ault Cas ever entered, including an a11idavit @0 ClarD Count0
Court ClerD 9oretta BoCman attesting that no such 1iling e+ists in the case 1ile. $es3ondents also
acDnoCledged that no de1ault Cas ever entered @ut argue in their su33lemental @rie1 that 7aco@s
should not @e a33lied retroactivel0, noting that the de1ault Gudgment at issue herein Cas entered 3rior
to our 7aco@s decision. (his argument is Cithout merit. (he court in 7aco@s determined, consistent
Cith laC 1rom other Gurisdictions, that the de1ault Gudgment entered in 7aco@s Cas void. ;e
accordingl0 ordered the district court to grant relie1 1rom the void Gudgment, des3ite the 1act that the
ruling in 7aco@s Cas, o1 course, 3receded @0 entr0 o1 the de1ault Gudgment against 7aco@s. 41 this case,
rather than 7aco@s, Cere @e1ore us as a case o1 1irst im3ression, Ce Could have reached the same
conclusion. / void Gudgment is void 1or all 3ur3oses and ma0 not @e given li1e under a theor0 @ased
u3on lacD o1 legal 3recedent. <arcia v. 4deal "u33l0 Co., - Nev. 493, &74 2.!d 7'! HNev.
'K9K994?. (he de1ective service rendered the district courtFs 3ersonal Gurisdiction over <assett
invalid and the Gudgment against her void. *or a Gudgment to @e void, there must @e a de1ect in the
courtFs authorit0 to enter Gudgment through either lacD o1 3ersonal Gurisdiction or Gurisdiction over
su@Gect matter in the suit. 2u3hal v. 2u3hal, ,,9 2.!d 9 H4daho 9&3?. 4n 2rice v. Dunn, -, Nev.
--, 7&7 2.!d 7&' H99-?. ;e noC hold that the 1iling o1 a motion to set aside a void Gudgment
3reviousl0 entered against the movant shall not constitute a general a33earance. "ee, e.g., Do@son v.
Do@son, -& Nev. 34,, 349, &3- 2.!d 33,, 33& H99!?. Nonetheless, since the order Cas void, a
Gudgment @ased thereon Could liDeCise @e void.. Nelson v. "ierra Constr. Cor3., 77 Nev. 334, 3,4
- 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.!d 4-!. 8nder N$C2 ,-H@? a motion to set aside a void Gudgment is not restricted to the si+ monthsF
3eriod s3eci1ied in the rule. N$C2 '4Ha? 3rovides that the Cord EGudgmentE as used in these rules
includes an0 order 1rom Chich an a33eal lies. (here1ore there is no merit to a33ellantsF contention
that the motion to vacate the Gudgment Cas not timel0 made. *oster v. 9eCis, 7& Nev. 33-, 37! 2.!d
,79 HNev. ,K9K9,!?. / void Gudgment is su@Gect to collateral attacD= a Gudgment is void i1 the
issuing court lacDed 3ersonal Gurisdiction or su@Gect matter Gurisdiction= "ee 49 C.7.". 7udgments Q
4-, at 79! H947 U su33. 99?= 4, /m.7ur.!d 7udgments QQ ,!)', H9,9 U su33. 99?.
$eno Cit0 /ttorne0Fs ;ong and 6rmaas shoCed a distur@ing lacD o1 concern Cith regard to
the re3orts that an $2D had admitted to taDign @ri@es 1rom $ichard <. 5ill, Esq. *urther, this Corut
e+3loded at the undersigned at one 3oitn in the (rial, threatening to EthroC 0ou in Gail i1 0ou sa0 the
name $ichard 5ill one more timeWE. (his (ra11ic citations Cas issued minutes a1ter the undersigned
Cas told to leave $ichard <. 5illFs laC o11ice @0 $2D "argent (arter HCho didnFt even Crite the ticDet
here, and as such the ,th /mendment right to con1ront the accuser Cas violated @0 the other o11icerF,
the material Citness, not @eing 3resent 1or the (rial. he CasnFt 3resent 1or the ECali1ornia $ollE
either, so its unclear Ch0 its oDa0 1or "argent (arter to have him Crite the ticDet 1or "argent (arter,
Chom admitted he had onl0 Critten one such ticDet in the entire 0ear 3receding his involvment in this
K'K incident. "hortl0 @e1ore "argetn (arter told the undersigned to leave 5illFs laC o11ice
HChere the udnersigned Cent shortl0 a1ter @eing released 1rom a lovel0 3 da0 sta0 in Gail 3ursuant to
5illFs signign a criminal tres3ass Com3laint in cr !,4-' HChere $>C a33ointed de1ender tooD on
re3resentation des3ite a clear con1lict, then (aitel agree to a continuance @ecause 5ill Cas goign to @e
on vacation 1or a month, all Cithout consulting the undersigned client, etc...R?>r. ;ong did e+3ress a
com3lete lacD o1 concern to the undersigned Chen it Cas re3orted to him that a $2D 611icer, Chris
Carter, had admitted to the undersigned that the o33osing counsel in $7C $E%!-)--7-&
- 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
summar0 eviction 1rom a commercial tenanc0 laC o11ice Chere non 3a0ment o1 rent Cas not alleged
Hin violation o1 N$" 4-.!'3Fs e+3ress dictate against such actions? had 3aid mone0 to $2D 611icer
Carter to arrest the undersigned Ha @ri@e?. >r. ;ong indicated a com3lete lacD o1 consternation in
this regard and e+3ressed that he intended to conduct Jero 1olloC u3 Cith res3ect to that trou@ling
@reach o1 the 3u@lic trust, even though, as a $eno Cit0 /ttorne0, >r. ;ong liDel0 has a dut0 to do so
and his 1ailure to Cill augur strongl0 toCard a 1inding that the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 is lia@le 1or an0
$2D misconduct on a negligent hiring, training, and su3ervision claim and that the $eno Cit0
/ttorne0 is aCare o1 and, in 1act, rati1ies or endorses such @ri@e taDing @0 the $2D 1rom $ichard <.
5ill, Esq, o33osing counsel in that $7C eviction matter.
8nder 1ederal laC, as Cell as the laC o1 some states, the mis@ehavior that 3ermits summar0
action must in addition 3resent an imminent threat to the administration o1 Gustice= it must
immediatel0 im3eril the Gudge in the 3er1ormance o1 his or her Gudicial dut0 or constitute an actual
o@struction o1 Gustice. 8.". v. (urner, &! *.!d ''! Hth Cir. 9&7? Hattorne0Fs 3osing o1 single
question to Citness a@out race o1 certain individuals, though in clear violation o1 ver@al court order,
did not so o@struct Gustice as to ena@le court to resort to summar0 3rocedure 1or contem3t under
*ederal $ule o1 Criminal 2rocedure 4!H@??= 4n re 5olloCa0, 99' *.!d -&- HD.C. Cir. 993? Hattorne0
3ursued lines o1 questioning ruled out @0 Gudge?.;itnessFs re1usal to ansCer questions the court
orders him to ansCer is contumacious conduct Chich ma0 su@Gect Citness to summar0 3unishment
1or criminal contem3t under Direct contem3t Gusti10ing summar0 dis3osition is con1ined to
e+ce3tional circumstances involving acts threatening the Gudge, disru3ting the hearing, or o@structing
court 3roceedings. $ule 4!. 4n re Bo0den, ,7' *.!d ,43 H'th Cir. 9&!?. Because summar0 contem3t
3rocedure 1ills a need 1or the immediate 3enal vindication o1 the dignit0 o1 the court, its a33lication is
con1ined to unusual situations Chere the courtFs instant action is necessar0 to 3rotect the Gudicial
- 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
institution itsel1. 4n re <usta1son, ,9 *.!d 3'4, '& /.9.$. *ed. H9th Cir. 9&-?, on rehFg, ,'- *.!d
-7 H9th Cir. 9&?.
N$" !!. -3-. "ummar0 3unishment o1 contem3t committed in immediate vieC and
3resence o1 court= a11idavit or statement to @e 1iled Chen contem3t committed outside
immediate vieC and 3resence o1 court= disquali1ication o1 Gudge:
M. 41 a contem3t is committed in the immediate vieC and 3resence o1 the court or Gudge at
cham@ers, the contem3t ma0 @e 3unished summaril0. 41 the court or Gudge summaril0 3unishes
a 3erson 1or a contem3t 3ursuant to this su@section, the court or Gudge shall enter an order
that:
Ha? $ecites the 1acts constituting the contem3t in the immediate vieC and 3resence o1 the court
or Gudge=
H@? *inds the 3erson guilt0 o1 the contem3t= and
Hc? 2rescri@es the 3unishment 1or the contem3t...N
'4 /9$ !!7, Necessit0 and "u11icienc0 o1 >aDing and $ecording "u@sidiar0 or Detailed
*indings "u33orting /dGudication o1 Direct Contem3t.
"tatute 3roviding that in all cases o1 contem3t arising Cithout immediate vieC and 3resence o1
court, Gudge o1 court in Chose contem3t de1endant is alleged to @e, shall not 3reside at such
trial over o@Gection o1 de1endant, is constitutional. N.C.9.9!9, Q &943. >cCormicD v. "i+th
7udicial Dist. Court in and 1or 5um@oldt Count0, 9'-, !& 2.!d 939, ,7 Nev. 3&. Contem3t
*or 3ur3oses o1 statute governing summar0 contem3t 3roceedings 1or direct contem3t committed
in GudgeFs 3resence, Chich requires court to Menter an order,N Chile a trial courtFs oral
contem3t order is immediatel0 en1orcea@le, a Critten order including the statuteFs required elements
must @e 3rom3tl0 entered. 5ouston v. Eighth 7udicial Dist. Court e+ rel. Count0 o1
ClarD, !--,, 3' 2.3d !,9, !! Nev. '44.
/33ro3riate remed0 1or attorne0 Cho had @een 1ound in direct contem3t o1 court in divorce
3roceeding in Chich he re3resented Ci1e, Chere contem3t order had @een 1ound to @e insu11icient
@0 "u3reme Court, in that it did not contain a su11icient statement concerning Chat conduct
Cas held to @e contem3tuous, Cas to 3ermit trial court to enter amended order, given that
"u3reme CourtFs o3inion addressed issue o1 1irst im3ression and announced standard 1or contents
- 45
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
o1 Critten contem3t order. 5ouston v. Eighth 7udicial Dist. Court e+ rel. Count0 o1
ClarD, !--,, 3' 2.3d !,9, !! Nev. '44.
%%%& CO!C'#S%O!
4n accordance Cith the 1oregoing, it is res3ect1ull0 requested that this Court enter its 6rder den0ing all relie1
requested @0 the o33osing 3art0 and granting all relie1 requested @0 the undersigned, in addition to an0 other relie1 this
Court deems a33ro3riate, including either setting aside the 6rder 1or 5earing on >otion to "hoC Cause and or 3ending or
vacating such hearing during the 3endenc0 o1 the criminal tres3ass 3roceeding stemming 1orm the same ne+us o1 1acts in
$>C C$ !,4-', es3eciall0 considering a conviction ma0 require re3orting to the "tate Bar o1 Nevada under "C$
..
A$$%RMAT%O! Pursuant to !RS 07/:&171
(he undersigned does here@0 a11irm that the 3receding document does not contain the social
securit0 num@er o1 an0 3erson.
D/(ED this >arch 7, !-!
KsK Zach Coughlin, signed electronicall0
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
/33ellant
- 46
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
PROO$ O$ SRK%C
4, Zach Coughlin, declare:
6n this date, 4, >r. Zach Coughlin served the 1oregoing document @0 1a+ing and
serving u3on registered e1ilers via electronicall0 1iling:
$ichard <. 5ill, Esq. and
Case0 BaDer, Esq.
,'! *orest "t.
$eno, N% &9'-3
/ttorne0s 1or $es3ondent >att >erliss, >D
D/(ED this >arch 7, !-!.
KsK Zach Coughlin, signed electronicall0
Zach Coughlin, Esq., /33ellant
P
- 47

3 7 12 0204 1708 MTN Set Aside Order To Show Cause, Continue Stay Hearing CV11-03628-2753310 (MTN Alter or Amend Judgment)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

3 7 12 0204 1708 MTN Set Aside Order To Show Cause, Continue Stay Hearing CV11-03628-2753310 (MTN Alter or Amend Judgment)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi