9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 Roa Vol 3 Coughlin V WLS Appeal of cv11-01896

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Sup. Ct. Case No. 60302
Plaintiff, Case No. CV11-01896
vs. Dept. 6

WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL,
Defendants.
/

RECORD ON APPEAL

VOLUME 3 OF 5

DOCUMENTS

APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Zachary Coughlin
P.O. Box 60952
Reno, NV 89506

Gary Fuller, Esq. for Committee to Aid
Abused Women
100 W. Liberty Street, Suite 800
Reno, NV 89501

Brian Gonsalves, Esq. for Crisis
Intervention
P.O. Box 907
Kings Beach, CA 96143

Joseph P. Garin, Esq. & Shannon D.
Nordstrom, Esq for Washoe Legal
Services; Paul Elcano; Todd Torvinen;
Karen Sabo; Jon Sasses; Marc
Ashley; Kathy Breckenridge; Caryn
Sternlight
9080 West Post Rd., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148

****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CV11-01896
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Official File Stamp: 12-16-2011:09:09:50
Clerk Accepted: 12-16-2011:09:40:14
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title:
ZACH COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Motion
-**Continuation
Filed By: JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ for TAHOE
WOMEN'S SERVICES
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. for KATHY
BRECKENRIDGE, PAUL ELCANO, KAREN
SABO, JON SASSER
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH
COUGHLIN
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
PROPER PERSON
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES
TODD TORVINEN
V3.501
MARC ASHLEY
PAUL ELCANO
CARYN STERNLIGHT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
SHANNON NORDSTROM, ESQ
V3.502
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-16-2011:11:01:28
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
-**Continuation
WOMEN'S SERVICES
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. for MARC ASHLEY,
KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, PAUL ELCANO,
KAREN SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES
TODD TORVINEN
V3.503
PAUL ELCANO
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.504
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:25:47 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2656091
V3.505
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
0
11
a"
oj
12 08

:n3;:!;
13
tl
cn
"'8

Z &:l
14 o +-> ... ('1")
U
0) 0
\:i t:..
15 o 0)

(1)0
Zoo
16 \:in a::
0
<n
.e-
17
H
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2290
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNON D. NORDSTROM
Nevada Bar No. 8211
9080 West Post Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
(702) 382-1500
(702)382-1512 - fax
, jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
. snordstrom@lipsonneilson.com
Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services,
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Jon Sasser,
Marc Ashley, and Kathy Breckenridge
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs. )l
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada
Corporation,KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, )
Individually and in her capacity as Board )
President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, )
Individually and in his capacity as WLS )
Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually)
and in his capacity as Executive Director of )
WLS, DOES 1-100, Individually and in their )
capacity as members of the BOARD OF )
DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES, CARYN STERN LIGHT,
Individually and in her capacity as WLS )
attorney, JON SASSER, Individually and in )
his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO, )
attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and )
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA )
LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as )
WLS employee, )
Defendants.
)
)
-----------------------------)
CASE NO.: CV11-01896
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANT WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT
SERVICE OF PROCESS
V3.506
1 DEFENDANT WASHOE LEGAL SERVICE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT
2 SERVICE OF PROCESS
3
4 Defendant WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada Corporation, ("Defendant")1 byand
5 through its counsel of record LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C., hereby
6 submits DEFENDANT WASHOE LEGAL SERVICE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON
7 SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF
8 PROCESS ("Motion") under NRCP 4 and NRCP 12(b)(4).
9 This Motion is based upon the Memorandum of Point and Authorities, the exhibits
10 attached hereto, the pleadings and papers on file, and any oral argument that may be
11 presented in this matter.
12
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Dated this 20
th
day of December, 2011
By:
LIPSON NEILSON COLE SELTZER

Joseph P. Garin (Bar No. 6653)
Shannon D. Nordstrom (Bar No. 8211)
(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Jon
Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Kathy Breckenridge
1 Defendant has not appeared in this action, as it has not been properly served. Defendant is making this
28 limited appearance to ensure that it is not prejudiced by Plaintiff's failure in providing proper service of process.
Defendant has authorized this limited appearance.
-2-
V3.507
."
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
3 1. introduction
4 Plaintiff Zach Coughlin was formerly employed as an attorney for WLS. Plaintiff has
5 filed two lawsuits against WLS, among others, attempting to assert claims for wrongful
6 termination:
7
8
9
10
11
Zach Cough/in v. Washoe Lega/ SeIVices, et. at.
Case No.: CV11-01896
Hon. Brent Adams
Filed: June 27,2011
and
Zachary Cough/in v Washoe Lega/ SeIVices, et. at.
Hon. Steven P. Elliott
Filed: June 30, 2011
c3 8 12 Docket Reports, attached hereto as Exhibit "1."

E Jl 813 Plaintiff is an attorney licensed in the State of Nevada. Defendant Washoe Legal
"'iU ..cr OC) L/")

14 Services employed Plaintiff from August 29,2007 through May 11, 2009, however ultimately
u :g
,,0
t3:> t:::.. 15 terminated Plaintiff, for cause, as a result of his unprofessional and unacceptable conduct in

.:"a; 16 his employment. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case on June 27, 2011 against several
o
<n
3' 17 defendants, including Washoe Legal Services. Accordingly, Plaintiff had until October 28,
18 2011 to serve the Defendants in this case- 120 days after the filing of the Complaint.
19 On December 9,2011, Plaintiff presumably made an attempt to serve Defendant via
20 its registered agent, Defendant Paul Elcano. Such attempt at service is untimely and improper
21 leading Defendant to seek a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to NRCP 4 and
22 NRCP 12(b)(4).
23 2.
24
Plaintiff's Non-Service of Process Warrants Dismissal of the Complaint
Pursuant to NRCP 4, a Plaintiff must serve a summons and complaint within 120 days
25 of the filing of the Complaint. NRCP 4(i) provides, in relevant part:
26
27
28
If service of a summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within
120 days after the filing of a complaint, the complaint shall be dismissed as to
that defendant without prejudice upon the court's own initiative with notice to
such party or upon motion, unless the party on whose behalf such service was
required files a motion to enlarge time for service and shows good cause why
such service was not made within that period.
- 3 -
V3.508
cj

f
08
o(l ....
...

Vlg:;>,,;,

O.j..l ....C'l"'l
U aN'
,Po. OJ 0

'"
!';::I ...l

Zo
,:fO-
0
'"
.g..
...:i
2 Here, Plaintiff failed to effectuate service of the summons and complaint on Defendant
3 within the mandated 120 days of his filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on
4 June 27; 2011. In effect, Plaintiff had until October 28, 2011 to serve Defendant. Plaintiff
5 ignored NRCP 4(i)'s mandate and waited over four (4) weeks after the service deadline to
6 attempt service on Defendant. Notably, Plaintiff had not moved for an enlargement of time in
7 which to effectuate service. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to effectuate service of process and
8 Defendant is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff's Com plaine
9 3.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff's Attempted Service Upon Washoe Legal Services Is Insufficient Under
NRCP4
NRCP 4(g) specifically states,
"The person serving the process shall make proof of service thereof to the court
promptly and in any event within the time during which the person served must respond
to the process. Proof of service shall be as follows:
(1) If served by the sheriff or deputy, the affidavit or certificate of such sheriff or
deputy; or,
(2) If bv anv other person, the affidavit thereof; or
(3) In case of publication, the affidavit of the publisher, foreman or principal
clerk, or other employee having knowledge thereof, showing the same, and an
affidavit of a deposit of a copy of the summons in the post office, if the same
shall have been deposited; or,
(4) The written admission of the defendant.
In case of service otherwise than by publication, the certificate or affidavit shall state
the date, place and manner of service. Failure to make proof of service shall not affect
21 the validity of the service. (Emphasis added)
22 In this case, Plaintiff failed to comply with NRCP 4(g)'s mandate that an affidavit be
23 filed with the court to evidence proper service of process. Plaintiff has only provided a
24 declaration of service which is insufficient under the Rule's mandate. Proof of Service, filed
25 December 10, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit "2."
26 III
27
28
2 Plaintiff has failed to properly serve all Defendants and the summons has expired per NRCP 4(i).
Accordingly, for the sake of judicial economy, the Court should dismiss this action in its entirety as to all other
Defendants.
-4-
V3.509
Importantly, NRCP 4 imputes a burden on a Plaintiff to properly provide service to a
2 Defendant to satisfy due process concerns. Here, Plaintiff's disregard for the Rule's
3 requirements leaves in unclearwhetherthese requirements were satisfied, leading Defendant
4 to conclude they were not and that this case should properly be dismissed.
5 4. Defendants Actual Notice Does Not Constitute Process .
6 Any assertion by Plaintiff that Defendant has actual notice of this lawsuit, and
7 knowledge of this case excuses proper service of process, misses the point. The Nevada
8 Supreme Court has long acknowledged that notice of a litigation is not a substitute for proper
9 service of process. C.H.A Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Engineers, Inc., 794 P.2d 707,
10 709 (Nev. 1990). Similarly, Defendant's notice of this litigation does not excuse Plaintiff's non-
11 service of process.
12 5.
13
Conclusion
Plaintiff has failed to properly effectuate service and process on Defendant Washoe
14 Legal Services and all remaining Defendants. Plaintiff's failure to comply with NRCP 4
15 warrants a dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to NRCP 4 and NRCP 12(b)(4). Accordingly,
16 Defendant Washoe Legal Services respectfully requests this Court dismiss the Complaint, in
17 . its entirety, as to itself and all remaining Defendants.
18 Dated this 20
th
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:
& GARIN,E...C
r / ~ ~
(702) 382-1500
V3.510
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cj
11

12 08

::i'S
13 Nu)(;O
.:n ..cr 00

o '
N
14
u Cl
oP-o ,,0
lfj>!:::'-
15

"0
zoo
16
0
'"
3"
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
(Pursuant to NRS 2398.030)
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, Defendant
Washoe Legal Service's Motion to Dismiss for Non-Service of Process, and in the
Alternative, Insufficient Service of Process, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not
contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 20
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
- 6 -
V3.511
cj
p.;
,g"
oj
<..?8

i:J '5;:!;
tlCl)"'8
oJ "d" 00 U"l

o ti [lr'rr-,
U 0 gbN"
.p-< ,,0

o " gj

"0
Zoo

0
<J)
.9-
"""
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
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I certify that on the 20
th
day of December 2011, I served a true and correct copy of
Defendant Washoe Legal Service's Motion to Dismiss for Non-Service of Process, and
in the Alternative, Insufficient Service of Process, upon the following parties, via first class
mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Zach Coughlin
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
Attorney for Plaintiff, In Pro Per
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.
- 7 -
V3.512
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
No,1 Docket Reports on 2 pages
3
CV11-01955 and
CV11-01896
4 No.2 Proof of Service, filed 2 pages
December 10,2011
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
11
,if
'" 12 08

..... '5 ""
13 ljUlO::8
'V-d'COLr)
o '

14 o ... rtj
u 13
,,0

15
o " gj
"gje;J:>-1
"0
Zoo
16 \:I"g
0
'"
3'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8 -
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:25:47 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.513
." "1
I IT "1"
V3.514
Docket Report Results
Repprt Selectipn Crjteria
CaselD: CV11-01896
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case oescriptipn
Case 10: CV11-01896 -ZACH COUGHLlNVS. WASHOE LEGAL
Filing
Date:
SERVICES ETAL.(06)
Monday, June 27th, 2011
Type: WT - TORTS-WRONGFUL TERMINATION
Status: EVNTCLOSEO - Event Closed
Related Cases
No related cases found.
Case Eyent SchedYle
No case events oore found.
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
Expn
Type ID
Date
1 Judge J2Q
Name'
ADAMS,
HONORABLE
BRENT
HOme
.

(e) Copyright2001 Allilialed CO!11luler SyskllT'S,lnc.ACSand the ACSlogo are registered trade!T'arks.
This oontains !rade wcrets and Is subjectlo a confidentiality agreerrent The unauthorized
possession, USB, reproduction, dislribution, display, or disclosure of this rrelerlal or the information contained herein is prohibited.
Mi rights reserved. User Nollor official use.
V3.515
Report Selection Criteria
Case 10: CV11-01955
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case Description
Case 10: CV11-01955-ZACHARYCOUGHLlNVS. WASHOE LEGAL
SRVC, ET AL(D10)
Filing Thursday, June 30th, 2011
Date:
Status: INITIAL - Case initiated.
Relgted Cases
No related cases VLere found.
Case Event Schedyle
No case events Mere found.
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
1

Expn
Type
Date
Judge

,.,'EyOOrSbtieaullt
10
D10
M3ooO'ilSweCtjOil'
.
Name
ELLIOTT,
HONORABLE
STEVEN P.
.
.
(c) Copyrlght2001 Affiliated COlT\luter SystelTE, Inc.ACS and the N:,S logo are registered traderrarks.
This contains trade secrets and is subJect to a confidentiality agreerrent The unauthorized
possession, use, reproduction, distribution, dlsplaY,or disclosure ofthlsrrelerial or the information contained herein is prohibited.
AlI.rights reserved. User Accsptsl,Aqrees to Disclalrrer.Not for official use.
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:25:47 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.516
EXHIBIT "2"
V3.517

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
" :J
CODE 4085
F I LED
Electronically
12-10-2011 :04:45:30 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
( / 'I
2 c
V
\
Petitioner(s),
---------------_----__
Case No. ? l./ / /-CJ I'r, f6
Dept. No. Deb
SUMMONS
13 TO THE DEFENDANT: YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU
WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND IN WRITING WITHIN 20 DAYS.
1 14 READ THE INFORMATION BELOW VERY CAREFULLY.
15 A civil complaint or petition has been filed by the plaintiff(s) against you for the relief as set forth in that
16 document (see complaint or petition). When service is by publication, add a brief statement of the object of the
action. See Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(b).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The object of this action is: _______________________ __
1. If you intend to defend this lawsuit, you must do the following within 20 days after service of
this summons, exclusive of the day of service:
a. File with the Clerk of the Court, whose address is shown below, a fonnar written
answer to the complaint or petition, along with the appropriate filing fees, in
accordance with the rules of the Court. and;
b. Serve a copy of your answer upon the attorney or plaintiff(s) whose name and address
is shown below.
2. Unless you respond, a default will be entered upon application of the plaintiff( s) and this Court may
enter a judgment against you for the relief demanded in the
Dated this I y:h day of (Dcio b'-"..
Issued on behalf of Plaintiff(s):

26 Address:
27
28
Revised 6123/10 AA
V3.518
1
2
3
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL SERVICE
(fa be fined out and signed by the person who served the Defendant or Respondent)
STATEOF Nevada )
4 ----------------
)
5 COUNTY OF Washoe )
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, \ , '. ' , ~ ~ ~ , ~ , , : 0{ '\ '. " ", , declare:
(Name of person who completed service)
1. That I am not a party to this action and I am over 18 years of age:
2. That I personally served a copy of the Summons, the Complaint, and the
the Summons and Complaint
fonowing documents: _________________________ _
. ,
I '
v .
Paul Elcano personally and as registered agent of WLS
upon . at the following
(Name of Defendant or Respondent wbo was served)
location: 299 S. Arlington Ave., Reno, NV 89501
on the _9_t_h ___ day of December
.20
11
----
(Month) (Year)
This document does not contain the Social Security Number of any person.
I declare, under penalty of petjmy under the law of then State of Nevada, that the foregoing is true
and correct,
Revised 912712010 AA
(Signature of person who completed service)
{.
I
2
" i
\
SUMMONS. COMPLATh,
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:27:29 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.519
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
11
p..;
..
08 12

l:i'S ;:!:
13
tJ (I) .. 8
Qj"'O Lf"I

14
o t.:
U 0
.1"< <1) 0

15
'"
>-l
'"'0
Zoo
16 Q.g
0
'"
.E<
'""'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2290
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNOND.NORDSTROM
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
snordstrom@lipsonneilson.com
. Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services,
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
)
vs. )
Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, )
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT, )
Individually and in her capacity as WLS
WLS employee, )
Defendants.
)
)
-----------------------------)
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANT PAUL ElCANO'S
MOTION TO DISMISS"FOR NON
SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT
SERVICE OF PROCESS
V3.520
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
11
'E
o
08 12

'" '5
13 CfJ. o:! 8
"U"'CfIXll./')
o ,

14 0"-' .. ("I')
U :g
OJ 0
c:l t; >- t;.,
15 o OJ gj

(1)0
Zoo
16
0
'" 0..
;.:::l
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT PAUL ELCANO'S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT
SERVICE OF PROCESS
Defendant Paul Elcano, individually and in his capacity as Executive Director of WLS,
("Defendant")1 by and through its counsel of record LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER &
GARIN, P.C., hereby submits DEFENDANT PAUL ELCANO'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
NONSERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF
PROCESS ("Motion") under NRCP 4 and NRCP 12(b)(4).
This Motion is based upon the Memorandum of Point and Authorities, the exhibits
attached hereto, the pleadings and papers on file, and any oral argument that may be
presented in this matter.
Dated this 20
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
1 Defendant has not appeared in this action, as he has not been properly served. Defendant is making this
limited appearance to ensure that he is not prejudiced by Plaintiff's failure in providing proper service of process.
Defendant has authorized this limited appearance.
- 2 -
V3.521
2
3 1. Introduction
4 Plaintiff Zach Coughlin was formerly employed as an attorney for WLS. Plaintiff has
5 filed two lawsuits against Paul Elcano, among others, attempting to assert claims for wrongful
6 termination:
7
8
9
10
11
Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services, et. al.
Hon. Brent Adams
and
Zachary Coughlin v Washoe Legal Services, et. al.
12 Docket Reports, attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
13 Plaintiff is an attorney licensed in the State of Nevada. Defendant Washoe Legal
14 Services employed Plaintiff from August 29, 2007 through May 11, 2009, however ultimately
15 terminated Plaintiff, for cause, as a result of his unprofessional and unacceptable conduct in
16 his employment. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case on June 27,2011 against several
17 defendants, including Paul Elcano. Accordingly, Plaintiff had until October 28,2011 to serve
18 the Defendants in this case- 120 days after the filing of the Complaint.
19 On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff potentially made an attempt to serve Defendant by
20 leaving process under a mat on Defendant's front porch. Since leaving process under a mat
21 on Defendant's front porch is not an approved method of service of Nevada Rule of Civil
22 Procedure 4, Defendant sought a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to NRCP
23 12(b)(4) and/or NRCP 4(i). This Motion is pending before this Court.
24 On December9, 2011, Plaintiff presumably made a second attemptto serve Defendant.
25 Such attempt at service, however, is untimely and improper leading Defendant to seek a
26 second Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(4) and NRCP 4.
27 / / I
28 / / /
- 3 -
V3.522
2. Plaintiff's Non-Service of Process Warrants Dismissal of the Complaint
2 Pursuant to NRCP 4, a Plaintiff must serve a summons and complaint within 120 days
3 of the filing of the Complaint. NRCP 4(i) provides, in relevant part:
4
5
6
7
8
If service of a summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within
required files a motion to enlarge time for service and shows good cause why
Here, Plaintiff failed to effectuate service of the summons and complaint on Defendant
within the mandated 120 days of his filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on
9
June 27,2011. In effect, Plaintiff had until October 28, 2011 to serve Defendant. Plaintiff
10
Defendant is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaine
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
III
Plaintiff's Attempted Service Upon Paul Elcano Is Insufficient Under NRCP 4
NRCP 4(g) specifically states,
"The person serving the process shall make proof of service thereof to the court
promptly and in any event within the time during which the person served must respond
to the process. Proof of selVice shall be as follows:
(1) If served by the sheriff or deputy, the affidavit or certificate of such sheriff or
deputy; or,
(2) If bv any other person, the affidavit thereof; or
(3) In case of publication, the affidavit of the publisher, foreman or principal
clerk, or other employee having knowledge thereof, showing the same, and an
affidavit of a deposit of a copy of the summons in the post office, if the same
shall have been deposited; or,
(4) The written admission of the defendant.
In case of service otherwise than by publication, the certificate or affidavit shall state
the date, place and manner of service. Failure to make proof of service shall not affect
the validity of the service. (Emphasis added)
2 Plaintiff has failed to properly serve all Defendants and the summons has expired per NRCP 4(i).
Accordingly, for the sake of judicial economy, the Court should dismiss this action in its entirety as to al/ other
Defendants.
- 4 -
V3.523
In this case, Plaintiff failed to comply with NRCP 4(g)'s mandate that an affidavit be
2 filed with the court to evidence proper service of process. Plaintiff has only provided a
3 declaration of service which is insufficient under the Rule's mandate. Proof of Service, filed
4 December 10, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit "2."
5 Importantly, NRCP 4 imputes a burden on a Plaintiff to properly provide service to a
6 Defendant to satisfy due process concerns. Here, Plaintiff's disregard for the Rule's
7 requirements leaves in unclear whether these requirements were satisfied, leading Defendant
8 to conclude they were not and that this case should properly be dismissed.
9 4.
10
Defendants Actual Notice Does Not Constitute Process
Any assertion by Plaintiff that Defendant has actual notice of this lawsuit, and
12 Supreme Court has long acknowledged that notice of a litigation is not a substitute for proper
13 service of process. C.H.A Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Engineers, Inc., 794 P.2d 707,
14709 1990). Similarly, Defendant's notice of this litigation does not excuse Plaintiff's non-
16 5.
17
Conclusion
Plaintiff has failed to properly effectuate service and process on Defendant Paul Elcano
18 and all remaining Defendants. Plaintiff's failure to comply with NRCP 4 warrants a dismissal
19 ofthe Complaint pursuantto NRCP 4 and NRCP 12(b)(4). Accordingly, Defendant Paul Elcano
20 respectfully requests this Court dismiss the Complaint, in its entiretv, as to itself and all
21 remaining Defendants.
22 Dated this 20
th
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:

(702) 382-1500
V3.524
<J
p.;
i
'" D8
c(l'";;
tdl!
N VJ .0- 25
"5 "of 00 U'l

o ,.

"O.;,..J ... rf")
U 0
'" 0
\:i > t::.-
o 0)

"'0
Zoo

0
'"
j'
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
AFFIRMATION
Paul Elcano's Motion to Dismiss for Non-Service of Process, and in the Alternative,
Insufficient Service of Process, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the
Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 20
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
- 6 -
V3.525
0

l?8

..::
" "0 '"

o ,
,," i<l
"0 "-' .",('t')
U :s
IlJO
t3:>t::-

"0
Zoo
.,f a::
0
en

2 I certify that on the 20
th
day of December 2011, I served a true and correct copy of
3 Defendant Paul Elcano's Motion to Dismiss for Non-Service of Process, and in the
4 Alternative, Insufficient Service of Process, upon the following parties, via first class mail,
5 postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
lsI Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 7-
V3.526
1
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
No.1 Docket Reports on 2 pages
3
CV11-01955 and
CV11-01896
4 No.2 Proof of Service, filed 2 pages
December 10, 2011
5
6
7
8
9
10
<)
11
p.;

12 C)8

tJ s .....
13 .:3(/);;:8
Qj .-cf!X) \J')
o .,
&3
14 o 01-1 ... rI")
U
nP-< '" 0
> t:,.
15
'" e3
....
"'0
Zrs:>
16 t:f :
..
0
'" p...
;.::l
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8 -
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:27:29 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.527
." "1
I IT "1"
V3.528
Repprt Selectipn Crjteria
CaselD: CV11-01896
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case oescriptipn
Case 10: CV11-01896 -ZACH COUGHLlNVS. WASHOE LEGAL
Filing
Date:
SERVICES ETAL.(06)
Status: EVNTCLOSEO - Event Closed
Related Cases
No related cases found.
Case Eyent SchedYle
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
Expn
Type ID
Date
1 Judge J2Q
Name'
ADAMS,
HONORABLE
BRENT
HOme
.

(e) Copyright2001 Allilialed CO!11luler SyskllT'S,lnc.ACSand the ACSlogo are registered trade!T'arks.
This oontains !rade wcrets and Is subjectlo a confidentiality agreerrent The unauthorized
possession, USB, reproduction, dislribution, display, or disclosure of this rrelerlal or the information contained herein is prohibited.
Mi rights reserved. User Nollor official use.
V3.529
Case 10: CV11-01955
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case Description
Case 10: CV11-01955-ZACHARYCOUGHLlNVS. WASHOE LEGAL
SRVC, ET AL(D10)
Date:
Status: INITIAL - Case initiated.
Relgted Cases
No related cases VLere found.
Case Event Schedyle
No case events Mere found.
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
1

Expn
Type
Date
Judge

,.,'EyOOrSbtieaullt
10
D10
M3ooO'ilSweCtjOil'
.
Name
ELLIOTT,
HONORABLE
STEVEN P.
.
.
(c) Copyrlght2001 Affiliated COlT\luter SystelTE, Inc.ACS and the N:,S logo are registered traderrarks.
This contains trade secrets and is subJect to a confidentiality agreerrent The unauthorized
possession, use, reproduction, distribution, dlsplaY,or disclosure ofthlsrrelerial or the information contained herein is prohibited.
AlI.rights reserved. User Accsptsl,Aqrees to Disclalrrer.Not for official use.
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:27:29 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.530
EXHIBIT "2"
V3.531

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
" :J
CODE 4085
F I LED
Electronically
12-10-2011 :04:45:30 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
( / 'I
2 c
V
\
Petitioner(s),
---------------_----__
Case No. ? l./ / /-CJ I'r, f6
Dept. No. Deb
SUMMONS
13 TO THE DEFENDANT: YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU
WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND IN WRITING WITHIN 20 DAYS.
1 14 READ THE INFORMATION BELOW VERY CAREFULLY.
15 A civil complaint or petition has been filed by the plaintiff(s) against you for the relief as set forth in that
action. See Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(b).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The object of this action is: _______________________ __
a. File with the Clerk of the Court, whose address is shown below, a fonnar written
accordance with the rules of the Court. and;
b. Serve a copy of your answer upon the attorney or plaintiff(s) whose name and address
is shown below.
2. Unless you respond, a default will be entered upon application of the plaintiff( s) and this Court may
enter a judgment against you for the relief demanded in the
Dated this I y:h day of (Dcio b'-"..

26 Address:
27
28
Revised 6123/10 AA
V3.532
1
2
3
(fa be fined out and signed by the person who served the Defendant or Respondent)
STATEOF Nevada )
4 ----------------
)
5 COUNTY OF Washoe )
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, \ , '. ' , ~ ~ ~ , ~ , , : 0{ '\ '. " ", , declare:
(Name of person who completed service)
1. That I am not a party to this action and I am over 18 years of age:
the Summons and Complaint
fonowing documents: _________________________ _
. ,
I '
v .
Paul Elcano personally and as registered agent of WLS
upon . at the following
(Name of Defendant or Respondent wbo was served)
location: 299 S. Arlington Ave., Reno, NV 89501
on the _9_t_h ___ day of December
.20
11
----
(Month) (Year)
I declare, under penalty of petjmy under the law of then State of Nevada, that the foregoing is true
and correct,
Revised 912712010 AA
(Signature of person who completed service)
{.
I
2
" i
\
SUMMONS. COMPLATh,
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-20-2011:09:30:18
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
WOMEN'S SERVICES
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, KATHY
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
V3.533
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.534

- 1 -
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
3785
BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845
Attorney for Defendant
Crisis Intervention Services


ZACHARY COUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et. al.,

Defendants

Dept. No.: 6
CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
QUASH SERVICE AND TO DISMISS
Defendant Crisis Intervention Services, incorrectly named as Tahoe Womens Services,
submits the following reply in support of Crisis Intervention Services Motion to Quash Service
and to Dismiss.
Defendant also opposes the various motions that Plaintiff included in his opposition to
Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND.
This Defendant was served with a Summons for this action and numerous other
documents. While the Summons was printed in a regular size font and was legible, the vast
majority of the other documents served were completely illegible.
Defendant filed its Motion to Quash Service and to Dismiss on November 28, 2011. In
its Motion, Defendant sought to have the attempted service quashed and the complaint dismissed
with prejudice because: 1) Service was improper and insufficient because Plaintiff served
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:37:36 PM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.535

- 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
obviously illegible documents printed in a miniscule font, and 2) Plaintiff is impermissibly
pursuing duplicative litigation against this Defendant. Defendant also sought an award of
attorneys fees and costs pursuant to NRS 7.085.
After filing the Motion to Dismiss, defense counsel obtained a legible copy of the
Complaint. This Defendant is not named as a defendant in this action and is not mentioned
anywhere in the body of the Complaint.
Even though this Defendant is not named or mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiff filed
an opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss on December 15, 2011.
1
Plaintiffs opposition
did not dispute the facts in Defendants Motion (e.g., that Plaintiff had shrunk the documents
down to a tiny font before serving them, that Plaintiff is pursuing duplicative lawsuits against
this Defendant, etc.). Nor did the opposition provide any explanation or justification for
Plaintiffs conduct (e.g., why Plaintiff shrank the documents to such a tiny font, why Plaintiff is
simultaneously pursuing duplicative suits against this Defendant, why Plaintiff is asserting a
wrongful termination suit against a non-profit for which he has never worked, etc.). The
opposition also did not provide any argument to challenge Defendants request for an award of
attorneys fees and costs.
Defendant now submits this reply brief in response to Plaintiffs opposition. As
discussed below, since Plaintiff has provided no real opposition to anything in Defendants
Motion and since Defendant is not mentioned anywhere in the Complaint, Defendant asks that its
Motion to Quash Service and to Dismiss be granted, that the attempted be service be quashed,
that this suit be dismissed with prejudice, and that Defendant be awarded the costs and fees
incurred in defending this suit.
1. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Has Provided No Real
Opposition to Defendants Motion.
Plaintiff has not submitted any real opposition to Defendants Motion. For example,
Plaintiff did not dispute that he shrank the documents to a tiny font before serving them or that

1
Plaintiffs first opposition was entitled, Opposition to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss and all Defendants
Motion to Quash Service, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond / Continuance; Opposition to Motion to Tax
Costs Simultaneously Seeking Extensions of Time or Continuance to Respond.
V3.536

- 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
he is pursuing duplicative litigation against this Defendant. Plaintiff also failed to present any
explanation or justification for his conduct.
Plaintiff did not present any argument to dispute that that the documents served were
illegible, except in his Index to Exhibits where Plaintiff makes the wholly unsupported
allegation that the illegibility of the documents was caused by defense counsel receiving the
documents via fax from his client. Defense counsel did not receive the documents via fax. In
fact, defense counsel does not even have a fax machine. The bold manner in which Plaintiff has
fabricated this false assertion and submitted it to this Court supports Defendants argument that
the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice and Defendant should be awarded its
attorneys costs and fees.
2. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed With Prejudice and Defendant Should
be Awarded Its Attorneys Fees and Costs Pursuant to Local Rule 21(4).
Defendants Motion argued that the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice
because Plaintiff, an attorney licensed in Nevada, knew or should have known that shrinking
documents to the point that the text was obviously illegible, then serving those illegible
documents, was an inappropriate litigation tactic. Plaintiff has provided no meaningful
opposition to this argument. Plaintiff has only asserted the false fabrication about a fax machine
which defense counsel does not have.
Plaintiff admits that he shrank the documents to a tiny font before serving them. This is a
violation of Nevada District Court Rule 12(1) which requires the font size of all pleadings and
papers to be no smaller than a 10 point font. The tiny font size in Plaintiffs shrunken documents
is a mere fraction of a 10 point font and therefore a violation of DCR 12(1).
Local Rule 10(1) is clear that the pages of the summons and complaint must be 8 1/2 x
11 inches in size and legible. It is also common sense and common professional courtesy not
to alter documents before serving them. The documents served to this Defendant were
approximately 3 inches high by 2 inches wide and completely illegible, in plain violation of
Local Rule 10(1). Local Rule 21(4) and NRCP 37 provide that violations of Local Rule 10(1)
are grounds for sanctions which can include dismissing a complaint with prejudice and other just
V3.537

- 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
orders.
According to the Complaint at page 7:1-5, Plaintiff has already been sanctioned once by
the Nevada Courts in a different matter.
2
Plaintiffs shrinking of the service documents then
submitting a false argument to this Court in this case is sufficient grounds for Plaintiff to be
sanctioned again such that his Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice and Defendant
should be awarded its attorneys fees and costs.
3. Defendant Should Be Awarded its Costs and Attorneys Fees Pursuant to
NRS 7.085.
Defendants Motion argued that Defendant should be awarded its attorneys fees and
costs pursuant to NRS 7.085 for three reasons: 1) Plaintiff is simultaneously pursuing duplicative
lawsuits against this Defendant thereby doubling Defendants initial filing fees and unreasonably
increasing Defendants attorneys fees and costs, 2) Plaintiffs two suits against this Defendant
are not well grounded in fact because Plaintiff is asserting wrongful termination claims against a
non-profit for which he has never worked, and 3) Plaintiff served obviously illegible documents
which Plaintiff, a licensed attorney, knew or should have known could not have possibly
constituted proper service.
As discussed above, Plaintiff admitted that he shrank the service documents to an
impermissibly tiny font in violation of D.C.R. 12(1). Plaintiffs opposition does not provide any
explanation as to why Plaintiff is pursuing two of the same baseless suits against this Defendant.
Nowhere in the opposition does Plaintiff articulate any cause of action against this Defendant or
explain how he can pursue a wrongful termination claim against a non-profit for which he has
never worked. Moreover, now that defense counsel has had the opportunity to review a legible
copy of the Complaint, it is apparent that this Defendant is not named as a defendant in this
action and is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the Complaint. Even though this Defendant
is not mentioned anywhere in the Complaint, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Summons and

2
Plaintiff (Zachary Coughlin) was sanctioned in Second Judicial District Court Family Division Case No. DV08-
01168. The court found that Mr. Coughlins presentation of the case and arguments in support thereof to be
unfounded in fact, unwarranted by existing law, unreasonable and vexatious throughout this entire proceeding.
See page 12:4 to 13:17 of the Order After Trial attached hereto as Exhibit 2. According to the Complaint at page
24:1-3, this sanction ultimately led to the termination of Plaintiffs employment which is the basis of this suit.
V3.538

- 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
possibly other documents for this suit and Plaintiff is opposing this Defendants Motion to
Dismiss. Plaintiffs position is untenable.
In the case at hand, Plaintiff has unreasonably filed and maintained this suit against this
Defendant and should be required to pay the costs and attorneys fees caused by his conduct
pursuant to NRS 7.085.
4. Service Must be Quashed.
Defendants Motion sought to have service quashed because the service of
inappropriately tiny documents does not constitute proper service or proper service of process.
Plaintiffs opposition does not provide any argument as to why service should not be quashed.
Plaintiffs attempt at service must therefore be quashed.
5. Opposition to Plaintiffs Motions.
Plaintiff apparently attempted to include a number of motions in his opposition. Plaintiff
did not develop any of these motions, did not cite any Rules or law to support these motions and
wholly failed to properly brief any of these purported motions. In that Plaintiff may be seeking
some kind of continuance or extension of time to respond to Defendants Motion, that request
must be denied. Plaintiff has already filed his opposition to Defendants Motion and the time for
opposing Defendants Motion has long since run.
6. Defendants Attorneys Fees and Costs.
The total amount of costs this Defendant has incurred in defending this suit is $233.12,
which consists of $213.00 initial filing fee, $3.12 mailing costs, and $17.00 copy costs. A
memorandum of costs is attached hereto.
The total amount of attorneys fees this Defendant has incurred in defending this suit to
date is: $1,062.50. The declaration of defense counsel Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., is attached
hereto.
//
//
//
//
V3.539

- 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
III. CONCLUSION
Every dollar that Crisis Intervention Services spends defending Plaintiffs baseless and
procedurally improper lawsuits is a dollar that is stolen from victims of child abuse and domestic
violence. Plaintiff is unreasonably pursuing and maintaining this lawsuit against this Defendant.
Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed with prejudice and Crisis Intervention Services should
be awarded the attorneys fees and costs it incurred in defending Plaintiffs wasteful suit. Crisis
Intervention Services Motion to Quash Service and to Dismiss must be GRANTED.

The undersigned does hereby affirm that pursuant to NRS 239B.030, the preceding
document entitled Reply in Support of Crisis Intervention Services Motion to Quash Service and
to Dismiss and the documents attached thereto do not contain the social security number of any
person.

DATED: December 20, 2011.

By:__________________________________
BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ., SBN 9815
Attorney for Defendant Crisis Intervention
Services

V3.540

- 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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Joseph P. Garin, Esq., for Marc Ashley, Washoe Legal Services, Kathy Breckenridge,
Paul Elcano, Karen Sabo and Jon Sasser.
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Committee to Aid Abused Women.


________________________________________________
Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq.

V3.541

- 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
INDEX OF EXHIBITS

1. Declaration of Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq.
2. Order After Trial.
V3.542

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:37:36 PM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.543

- 1 -
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
1520
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845


ZACHARY COUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants

Dept. No.: 6
DECLARATION OF BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ.
I, Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., do affirm under penalty of perjury that the assertions of this
Declaration are true and correct.
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of Nevada and the attorney
of record for Defendant Crisis Intervention Services in Case Nos. CV11-01955 and CV11-
01896.
2. To date, in defending Defendant Crisis Intervention Services in both suits, I
charged said Defendant at a rate of $125.00 per hour for 17 hours which equals a total billed
amount of $2,125.00, half of which is $1,062.50.
3. In my opinion, the above hours were reasonably and necessarily incurred to
defend Crisis Intervention Services and the hourly rate of $125.00 per hour is reasonable.
4. A fair and reasonable value of the services rendered to Crisis Intervention
Services in Case No. CV11-01896 from the beginning of this case to date is $ 1,062.50.
V3.544

- 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
5. The total amount of costs incurred by Crisis Intervention Services and me in
defense of this suit is $233.12, which consists of $213.00 initial filing fee, $3.12 mailing costs,
and $17.00 copy costs. The number of pages copied or printed was 68, charged at 25 cents per
page, which is a reasonable charge per page.
6. I did not receive the documents served to Crisis Intervention Services by fax.
They were personally handed to me. I do not have a fax machine in my office or in my home.
The undersigned does hereby affirm that pursuant to NRS 239B.030 this document does
not contain the social security number of any person.


By:__________________________________

V3.545
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 2
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:37:36 PM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.546
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 2
1 CODE: 1845
2
3
4
5
6
7 IN THE FAMILY DIVISION
8 OF mE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
10
ASHWIN JOSHI,
11
12 Plaintiff, Case No. DVOS-O1168
vs.
13 Dept. No. 14
14 BHARTI JOSHI,
Defendantl Counterc laimant.
15 /
16
ORDER AFTER TRIAL
17
18 A Complaint for Divorce was filed by ASHWIN JOSHI (hereinafter Mr. Joshi), by
and through his attorney, JOHN P. SPRINGGA TE, ESQ., on July 8, 2008. An Answer and
19
Counterclaim was filed by BHARTI JOSHI (hereinafter 'Ms. Joshi'), by and through her
20
attorney of record, ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, ESQ., on July 18, 2008. Argument was
21
heard on March 12, 2009 and March 17, 2009. Mr. Joshi was present and represented by
22
John P. Springgate, Esq.; and Ms. Joshi, was present and represented by Zachary B.
23
Coughlin, Esq., of Washoe Legal services.
24
All testimony and arguments having been heard, all pleadings on file having been
25
read, all exhibits, tapes, and notes having been reviewed, the Court finds and Orders as
26
follows.
27
III
28
/11
FILED
Electron)cally
04-13-2009:09:23:48 AM
Howard W. Conyers
Clerk of the Court
lransaction # 706269
1
V3.547
1 CODE: 1845
2
3
4
5
6
F I L ED
Electronically
04-13-2009:09:23:48 AM
Howard W. Conyers
Clerk of the Court
6 OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICf COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
10
11
ASHWIN JOSHI,
12 Plaintiff, Case No. DV08-01168
VS.
13 Dept. No. 14
14 BHARTI JOSHI,
15
Defendant/ Counterclaimant.
~ /
16
ORDER AFI'ER TRIAL
17
16
A Complaint for Divorce was filed by ASHWIN JOSHI (hereinafter Mr. Joshi), by
and through his attorney, JOHN P. SPRINGGATE, ESQ., on July 8, 2OOS. An Answer and
19
20
21
22
John P. Springgate, Esq.i and Ms. Joshi, was present and represented. by Zachary B.
23
Coughlin, Esq., of Washoe Legal Services.
24
25
26
27
28
follows.
11/
III
1 ~DINGS OF FACf
2 1. The parties were married May 11,1987, in Bombay, India.
3 2. The parties have two children, both of whom are now adults.
4 Although Mr. Yoshi has no obligation to support said children any longer
5 pursuant to NRS 125.510(9)(b), Ms. Yoshi requests the financial assistance of Mr. Yoshi so
6 as to provide for the children's continuing education. (Answer, pg. 2, lines 16-18).
7 The Court notes that on August 1, 2008, Mr. Joshi filed a 'Motion For Return Of
8 Personal Property' requesting that Ms. Joshi return his passport, green card and social
9 security card. On August 7, 2008, Ms. Joshi, by and through her attorney of record,
10 Mr. Coughlin, filed an Opposition to the return of Mr. Joshi's passport citing case law
11 involving minor children and their support. Ms. Yoshi filed said opposition while
12 acknowledging the parties' children were both over eighteen years of age at the time. On
13 August 18,2008, Judge Schumacher ordered Ms. Joshi to immediately return Mr. Joshi's
14 passport within five days.
15 3. There is community property to be divided.
16 In Mr. Joshi's Complaint filed July 8, 2008, he indicated there was community
17 property and debts which should be divided by the Court.
18 Ms. Joshi filed an Answer and Counterclaim on July 18, 2008, indicating the
19 parties' community property should be equitably divided, including Ms. Joshi's
20 "women's wealth", the vehicles in each party's possession, the vehicles in their children's
21 possession, and "the money the [Ms. Yoshi] earned while working for Legendary Luxury
22 Camping Safari in Houston Texas which was automatically deposited in [Mr. Yoshi's]
23 account every month for two and one-half years, [and] which [Mr. Yoshi] told [Ms. Yoshi]
24 he would give to her." (Answer, pg. 2, lines 21-26).
25 The Court notes the following information has been provided and has been taken
26 into consideration on this issue:
27 a. "Women's Wealth" Pro~e!:!): - The parties agreed that the parties'
28 community interest in the "woman's wealth" jewelry (location unknown) belongs to Ms.
2
V3.548
FINDINGS OF FACT
2 1. The parties were married May 11, 1987, in Bombay, India.
3 2. The parties have two children, both of whom are now adults.
20 "women's weal th", the vehicles in each party's possession, the vehicles in their cl:illdren's
21 possession, and "the money the [Ms. Yoshi] earned while working for Legendary Luxury
23 account every month for two and one-half yE'ars, [and] which [Mr. Yoshi] told [Ms. Yoshi]
27 a. "Women's Wealth" Property - The parties agreed that the parties'
28 community interest in the "woman's wealth" jewelry (location unknown) belongs to Ms.
2
V3.549

,
Joshi. Mr. Joshi stated that he would contact his relatives, who may have some of the
2 property, and will request its immediate return to Ms. Joshi.
3 b. Mr. Joshi's Vehicle Mr. Joshi introduced evidence that the balance
4 on his 2005 Chevrolet Blazer is $15,009.75 as of March 6, 2009. (Trial Exhibit" A"); and
5 Kelley Blue Book value for the Blazer is $10,910 (Exhibit "B"). Therefore, a deficit in the
8 amount of approximately $4,100.00 exists on the vehicle. At the condusion of trial, Mr.
7 Joshi requested that he be awarded the Chevrolet Blazer.
8 Ms. Joshi presented no evidence on this issue. To the Court's knowledge, Ms.
9 Joshi conducted no discovery on this issue.
10 c. Ms, loshi's Vehicle. There was no evidence introduced regarding the
11 value of Ms. Joshi's car.
12 d. Son's Vehicle - Mr. Joshi testified that his adult son is presently
13 driving the Jeep Grand Cherokee and is making the payments for the car directly to the
14 tender, dear Star Financial. Both parties testified that Ms. Joshi and the parties' son are
15 named on the title. No evidence was presented regarding the balance owed on the Jeep
1& Grand Cherokee.
17 Ms. Joshi presented no evidence on this issue. To the Court's knowledge,
18 Ms. Joshi conducted no discovery on this issue.
.9 e. Dauwter's Vehicle - Mr. Joshi testified that the parties' adult
20 daughter drives and makes payments on the Honda Accord and that title is held in the
21 name of both Mr. Joshi and the parties' daughter.
22 Ms. Joshi testified that she made a payment of $6,000.00 on her credit card for said
23 automobile and the present balance on the credit card was approximate1y $5,000.00.
24 However, Ms. Joshi presented no evidence to corroborate this contention. Ms. Joshi did
25 not specify a date on which said debt was incurred, she did not provide evidence of any
26 payments made on said credit card, and she did not present evidence of any credit card
27 with a balance in the amount of$5,OOO.OQ remaining thereon
28 Ms. Joshi presented no further evidence on this issue.
3
1 e. London Bank Account - Mr. Joshi testified that that he did not know
2 if Ms. Joshi's earnings from Tanzania were placed in a London bank account. Mr. Joshi
3 testified he did not control Ms. Joshi's money at that time.
4 Ms. Joshi presented no evidence that her earnings were placed in a London bank
5 account. To the Court's knowledge, Ms. Joshi conducted no discovery on this issue.
6 f. Communit~ Bank Accounts - Ms. Joshi testified that she requested
7 access to the bank accounts from Mr. Joshi, but that he would not let her see the bank
8 statements. Further, Ms. Joshi testified that she did have her own credit and she did have
9 access to Mr. Joshi's credit card statements.
10 There was no further evidence presented as to the conununity bank accounts.
11 4. There is community debt to be divided.
14 a. General Credit Card Debt. Mr. Joshi testified that he owes
15 approximately $15,650 in credit card debt (Trial Exhibit "E"), and argued the charges
16 were incurred for community expenses, holidays, family expenses and household
17 expenses.
18 Ms. Joshi presented no evidence regarding community credit card debt.
19 b. Best Bu~ CreditC~d Qg~! - Mr. Joshi stated that the parties
20 purchased a computer and T. V. at Best Buy for approximately $1,314.00. Mr. Joshi
21 testified Ms. Joshi has both of these items.
22 Mr. Joshi requested he be awarded the computer presently in Ms. Joshi's
23 possession and that she retain the T.V.
24 Ms. Joshi presented no evidence on this issue.
25 c. Medic~l ~Q! - Mr. Joshi testified he owes $6,735.00 to St. Mary's
26 Hospital for surgery in May 2008 (Trial Exhibit "F") and $500.00 to REMSA (Trial Exhibit
27 "G").
28 At trial, Mr. Joshi offered to pay these community debts.
4
V3.550
e. London Bank AccoWlt - Mr. Joshi testified that that he did not koow
2 if Ms. Joshi's earnings from Tanzania were placed in a London bank accoWlt. Mr. Joshi
3 testified he did not control Ms. Joshi's money at that time.
s accoWlt. To the Court's knowledge, Ms. Joshi conducted no discovery on this issue.
6 f. Community Bank Accounts - Ms. Joshi testified that she requested
10 There was no further evidence presented as to the conununity bank accounts.
11 4. There is community debt to be divided.
14 a. General Credit Card Debt - Mr. Joshi testified that he owes
15 approximately $15,650 in credit card debt (Trial Exhibit liE"), and argued the charges
17 expenses.
19 b. Best Buy Credit Card Debt - Mr. Joshi stated that the parties
20 purchased a computer and T.V. at Best Buy for approximately $1,314.00. Mr. Joshi
22 Mr. Joshi requested he be awarded the computer presently in.Ms. Joshi's
25 c. Medical Debt - Mr. Joshi testified he owes $6,735.00 to St. Mary's
26 Hospital for surgery in May 2008 (Trial Exbibit"F") and $500.00 to REMSA (Trial Exhibit
27 "G").
4
8 .
3 d. FamiI~ DeQt - there are two debts owing to family members or on
4 behalf of family members that were presented at trial.
5 Mr. Joshi introduced evidence at trial regarding a $5,000.00 debt to Rod and
6 Meena Fowler (Trial Exhibit"H/') in the form of a letter from Rod and Meena Fowler.
7 The letter states that the parties owe money in the amount of $6/000.00, which was '/long
8 overdue" by approximarely six (6) years, for money loaned to Mr. Joshi's mother when
9 she was ill. The letter references a I' copy of your letter a~eeing to pay us back" I but did
10 not attach a copy of said letter. At trial, Mr. Joshi testified that he did not have a copy of
11 the referenced letter. MS. Joshi testified that this debt was '1 made up."
12 Mr. Joshi testified regarding a debt of approximately $5,000 owing to a family
13 member by the name of Ashik Nanaby (SP?)I for buying plane tickets for the Joshi family
14 to come to the Unites States in 2001. Ms. Joshi testified that she could not obtain any
15 information regardmgtrus debt as the other party '1 wanted to stay out of the divorce."
17 e. GeneraLCommun.!tx Debt - Mr. Joshi testified that he pays
18 approximately $600 per month for community debts, excluding his car and insurance.
19 Ms. Joshi presented no evidence regarding general community debt.
20 Mr. Joshi offered to pay the community debt in his name that he had been paying
21 and take an unequal division of community debt.
22 5. Ms. Joshi requests spousal support.
23 Specifically, Ms. Joshi requested spousal support Iluntil her death or remarriagel
24 whichever occurs first." (Answer, p. 3, lines 5-6).
27 Mr. Joshi is 51 years of age and Ms. Joshi is 46 years of age. The parties moved to
28 the United States from Tanzania in 2001.
5
V3.551

3 d. Family Debt - there are two debts owing to family members or on
S Mr. Joshi introduced evidence at trial regarding a $5,000.00 debt to Rod and
6 Meena Fowler (Trial Exhibit "H") in the form of a letter from Rod and Meena Fowler.
7 The letter states that the parties owe money in the amount of $6,000.00, which was "long
8 overdue" by approximately six (6) years, for money loaned to Mr. Joshi's mother when
9 she was ill. The letter references a "copy of your letter agreeing to pay us back", but did
11 the referenced letter. Ms. Joshi testified that this debt was "made up."
13 member by the name of Ashik Nanaby (sp?), for buying plane tickets for the Joshi family
14 to come to the Unites States in 2001. Ms. Joshi testified that she could not obtain any
15 information regarding this debt as the other party "wanted to stay out of the divorce."
17 e. General Community Debt Mr. Joshi testified that he pays
18 approximately $600 per month for community debts, excluding his car and insurance.
23 Specifically, Ms. Joshi requested spousal support "until her death or remarriage,
5
Ms. Joshi is a college graduate and has worked continuously since the parties
moved to the United States. Ms. Joshi is presently employed by Raley's as a
pharmaceutical technician and earned approximately $29,500.00 in 2008. Ms. Joshi has
testified she has raised the parties' children and thereby has foregone educational
opportunities and has put her dreams aside.
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
Mr. Joshi testified he is a high school graduate. Mr. Joshi is employed as a catering
manager. In 2008, Mr. Joshi earned approximately $41,500.00 while working for two
companies - American Bar and Restaurant and Sierra Sport Service. At trial, Mr. Joshi
introduced his W-2 from American Bar and Restaurant reflecting earnings of $4,157.
(Trial Exhibit "C"); and his W-2 from Sierra Sport Service in the amount of $37/504.18
(Trial Exhibit "D"). Mr. Joshi testified that business is slow and he is presently working
for only one company - American Bar and Restaurant. Mr. Joshi testified he has only two
weeks of work scheduled for March, 2009; and he filed for unemployment benefits in
March, 2009.
Mr. Joshi requested the Court consider his net income after deducting taxes, factor
in the present $600 per month he is presently paying for community debt, and set off any
alimony responsibility by his assumption of an unequal distribution of community debt.
Further, to protect Ms. Joshi in the event Mr. Joshi filed for bankruptcy, Mr. Joshi
suggested that the court maintain jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support for five
years.
5. Ms. Joshi requests reasonable attorney's fees be paid to Washoe Legal
Services for the services of Mr. Coughlin. Mr. Joshi requests reasonable attorney's fees be
paid to his attorney, Mr. Springgate.
The Court notes the following information has been provided and has been taken
into consideration on this issue:
On July 18, 2008, Mr. Coughlin filed a Statement of Legal Aid Representation
which states Defendant is receiving II free legal assistance" from Washoe Legal Services
pursuant to NRS 12.015:
6
V3.552
2 moved to the United States. Ms. Joshi is presently employed by Raley's as a
3 pharmaceutical technician and earned approximately $29,500.00 in 200ft Ms. Joshi has
4 testified she has raised the parties' children and thereby has foregone educational
5 opportunities and has put her dreams aside.
6 Mr. Joshi testified he is a high school graduate. Mr. Joshi is employed as a catering
7 manager. In 2008, Mr. Joshi earned approximately $41,500.00 while working for two
8 companies - American Bar and Restaurant and Sierra Sport Service. Attrial, Mr. Joshi
9 introduced his W-2 from American Bar and Restaurant reflecting earnings of $4,157.
10 (Trial Exhibit "C"); and his W-2 from Sierra Sport Service in the amount of $37,504.18
11 (Trial Exhibit "0"). Mr. Joshi testified that business is slow and he is presently working
12 for only one company - American Bar and Restaurant. Mr. Joshi testified he has only two
13 weeks of work scheduled for March, 2009; and he filed for unemployment benefits in
14 March, 2009.
15 Mr. Joshi requested the Court consider his net income after deducting taxes, factor
16 in the present $600 per month he is presently paying for community debt, and set off any
17 I alimony responsibility by his assumption of an unequal distribution of community debt.
18 I Further, to protect Ms. Joshi in the event Mr. Joshi filed for bankruptcy, Mr. Joshi
19 suggested that the court maintain jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support for five
20 years.
21 5. Ms. Joshi requests reasonable attorney's fees be paid to Washoe Legal
22 Services for the services of Mr. Coughlin. Mr. Joshi requests reasonable attorney's fees be
23 paid to his attorney, Mr. Springgate.
26 On July 18, 2008, Mr. Coughlin filed a Statement of Legal Aid Representation
27 which states Defendant is receiving "free legal assistance" from Washoe Legal Services
28 pursuant to NRS 2 0 1 5 ~
6
On October 3, 2008, Judge Jordan presided over the parties' Case Management
Conference. At that hearing, the parties were unable to reach a settlement. Further, on
March 12, 2009, Judge Gardner conducted a Settlement Conference for approximately one
and one-half hours, prior to starting the trial at approximately 3;00 pm. The parties did
not agree on settlement and trial was commenced.
In his closing argument at trial, Mr. Coughlin, on behalf of Ms. Joshi, stated that he
did not understand and could not agree with equalizing debt when one party ended up
with a nicer car. He stated that he had "crunched the numbers" and could not see it the
other way. Mr. Coughlin cited an ALR article regarding community debt and stated his
client" does not have much for the creditors to take." He requested that his client assume
one.half the community debt and that the Court find Plaintiff s two $5,000 debts to family
members and friends as Mr. Joshi's separate debts. Mr. Coughlin stated his client is being
asked to "foot the bill" for Plaintiff's debts and referenced that Ms. Joshi is a caring and
committed mother.
Mr. Joshi testified that he had paid Mr. Spring gate $4,000.00 since July, 2008,
for attorney's fees and costs.
Mr. Joshi requested that Mr. Coughlin personally pay his attorney's fees for 4.15
hours of trial at the rate of $225 per hour pursuant to NRS 7.085. Mr. Springgate testified
Mr. Coughlin had not conducted any discovery, had produced no evidence regarding
Ms. Joshi's community debts other than her Financial Declaration on file, had presented
no evidence regarding alimony J and had acted in a vexatious and unreasonable manner
in representing Ms. Joshi in this divorce proceeding.
CONCLUSIQ~S OF LAW
1. Ongoing SuEErt for the Adult Children's Education-
Pursuant to NRS 125.510(9)(b), except where a contract providing otherwise has
been executed pursuant to NRS 123.080, the obligation for care, education, maintenance
and support of any minor child created by any order entered pursuant to this section
ceases: (a) Upon the death of the person to whom the order was directed; or (b) When
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
7
V3.553
2 Conference. At that hearing. the parties were unable to reach a settlement. Further, on
3 March 12, 2009, Judge Gardner conducted a Settlement Conference for approximately one
4 and one-half hours, prior to starting the trial at approximately 3:00 pm. The parties did
5 not agree on settlement and trial was conunenced.
6 In his closing argument at trial, Mr. Coughlin, on behalf of Ms. Joshi, stated that he
7 did not understand and could not agree with equalizing debt when one party ended up
8 with a nicer car. He stated that he had "crunched the numbers" and could not see itthe
9 other way. Mr. Coughlin cited an ALR article regarding community debt and stated his
10 client /I does not have much for the creditors to take." He requested that his client assume
11 one-half the community debt and that the Court find Plaintiff s two $5,000 debts to family
12 members and friends as Mr. Joshi's separate debts. Mr. Coughlin stated his client is being
13 asked to "foot the bill" for Plaintiff's debts and referenced that Ms. Joshi is a caring and
14 committed mother.
15 Mr. Joshi testified that he had paid Mr. Spring gate $4,000.00 since July, 2008,
16 for attorney's fees and costs.
17 Mr. Joshi requested that Mr. Coughlin personally pay his attorney's fees for 4.15
18 hours of trial at the rate of $225 per hour pursuant to NRS 7.085. Mr. Springgate testified
19 Mr. Coughlin had not conducted any discovery, had produced no evidence regarding
20 Ms. Joshi's community debts other than her Financial Declaration on file, had presented
21 no evidence regarding alimony, and had acted in a vexatious and unreasonable manner
22 in representing Ms. Joshi in this divorce proceeding.
23 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
24 1.
Ongoing Support for the Adult Children's Education-
25 Pursuant to NRS 125.510(9)(b), except where a contract prOViding otherwise has
26 been executed pursuant to NRS 123.080, the obligation for care, education, maintenance
27 and support of any minor child created by any order entered pursuant to this section
28 ceases: (a) Upon the death of the person to whom the order was directed; Or (b) When
7
1
2
3 There has been no
continuing support of the parties' adu]t children. As there has been no legal basis 4
5
6
7
8
9
provide for the adult children's education.
2. CS)mmuni~ PrEert~ /Deb! -
Pursuant to NRS 125.150(1 )(b) and Putrennan v. Putrennan, 113 Nev. 606, 939 P.2d
the Court shall ensure an equal disposition of the
estate, absent compelling reasons justifying an unequal distribution. The
community
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a.
customary
b.
conununity
debt of approximately $4,100.00.
c.
d.
by Ms. Joshi justifying a request for evidence presented
" - The parties have agreed that the parties'
entirely to Ms. Joshi according to
beliefs, and thereby should be declared her sole and separate property.
property to Ms. Joshi as soon as possible.
Mr. Loshi's Verocle - The 2005 Chevrolet Blazer shall be considered
As the car is worth $10,910.00 but there is $15,009.75 due and owing
consider Mr. Joshi's assumption of this asset as an undertaking
Ms. loshi's V ehic!~
considered her sole and
- Ms. Joshi's car shall be
Ms. Joshi shall be responsible for any debt remaining thereon. As
Son's Vehi~~
- As the only evidence presented on this issue was the
yments thereon, this
the community.
among
8
V3.554
1 the child reaches 18 years of age if he is no longer enrolled in high school, otherwise,
2 when he reaches 19 years of age.
3 There has been no evidence presented by Ms. Joshi justifying a request for
4 continuing support of the parties' adult children. As there has been no legal basis
presented to make such a finding., the Court denies Ms. Joshi's request that Mr. Joshi
6 financially provide for the adult children's education.
7 2. Community Property/Debt-
8 Pursuant to NRS 125.150(1)(b) and Putterman v. Puttmnan, 113 Nev. 606, 939 P.2d
9 1047 (1997), in granting a divorce, the Court shall ensure an equal disposition of the
10 conununity estate, absent compelling reasons justifying an unequal distribution. The
11 Court must make written findings as to why such a division is appropriate.
12 a. "Women's Wealth" -The parties have agreed that the parties'
13 community interests in the "women's wealth" belongs entirely to Ms. Joshi according to
14 their customary beliefs, and thereby should be declared her sole and separate property.
15 As such, Mr. Joshi is ordered to contact any and all relatives who may have this property
16 and immediately rehtm said property to Ms. Joshi as soon as possible.
17 b. Mr. Ioshi's Vehicle - The 2005 Chevrolet Blazer shall be considered
18 Mr. Joshi's sole and separate property. Mr. Joshi shall be responsible for the debt
19 remaining thereon. As the car is worth $10,910.00 but there is $15,009.75 due and owing
20 on said car, the Court will consider Mr. Joshi's assumption of this asset as an undertaking
21 of community debt of approximately $4,100.00.
22 c. Ms. Joshi's Vehicle - Ms. Joshi's car shall be considered her sole and
23 separate property. Ms. Joshi shall be responsible for any debt remaining thereon. As
24 there was no evidence presented as to its value (either positive or negative), the Court is
25 unable to determine a value for this community asset.
26 d. Son's V ehicle- As the only evidence presented on this issue was the
27 fact that the parties' adult son drives this vehicle and makes the payments thereon, this
28 asset will not be divided among the community.
8
e. Q~yghter's Vehis.le - The only evidence presented on this issue was
fact that the parties' adult daughter drives this car and makes payments thereon. Ms.
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
f.
g.
h.
i. Television - Ms. Joshi is awarded the television purchased at Best
It is the Court's understanding this television is currently in Ms. Joshi's possession.
j. General Credit Card Debt - The evidence presented indicates a
Mr. Joshi agreed to be responsible for this
separately responsible for this debt.
k. BestBu): Credit Card Debt
solely and
computer
Mr. Joshi agreed to be responsible for this debt at tria].
London Bank Account - there was no evidence presented to the
there is no factual basis to support an
As exists. such,
Communi~ Bank Accounts - there was no evidence presented as to
community bank accounts. As such, there is no factual basis to support
it as a community asset.
ComEuter - Mr. Joshi is awarded the computer purchased at Best
deliver said computer to Mr. Springgate's office on or before Friday,
debt at trial. As such, Mr. Joshi shall be
- The evidence presented indicates there
As such, Mr. Joshi shall be
9
V3.555
1 e. Daughter's Vehicle - The only evidence presented on this issue was
2 the fact that the parties' adult daughter drives this car and makes payments thereon. Ms.
3 Joshi presented no evidence of a balance owing on the car or its fair market value.
4 Thereby, this car will not be divided as a conununity asset.
5 f. London Bank Account - there was no evidence presented to the
6 Court verifying said bank account exists. As such, there is no factual basis to support an
7 order dividing it as a community asset.
s g. Community Bank Accounts - there was no evidence presented as to
9 the existence of community bank accounts. As such, there is no factual basis to support
10 an order dlviding it as a community asset.
11 h. Computer - Mr. Joshi is awarded the computer purchased at Best
12 Buy. Ms. Joshi shall deliver said computer to Mr. Springgate's office on or before Friday,
13 April1?, 2009, at 5:00pm
14 i. Television - Ms. Joshi is awarded the television purchased at Best
15 Buy. It is the Court's understanding this television is currently in Ms. Joshi's possession.
16 j. General Credit Card Debt - The evidence presented indicates a
17 general debt of approximately $15, 650.00 which has been expended for community
18 purposes.
19 Mr. Joshi agreed to be responsible for this debt at trial. As such, Mr. Joshi shall be
20 solely and separately responsible for this debt.
21 k. Best Buy Credit Card Debt - The evidence presented indicates there
22 is a debt of approximately $1,314,00 outstanding for the purchase of the television and
23 computer
26 //1
Z1 II/
26
9
1. 1
Medical Debt - As Mr. }oshihas offered to pay these debts, he shall
evidence presented as to
for the Joshi family.
~
10
V3.556
1. Medical Debt - As Mr. Joshi has offered. to pay these debts, he shall
2 be solely and separately responsible for the payment of $6,735.00 to St.Mary's Hospital;
3 and $500.00 to Remsa.
4 m. Family Debt - There was no documentary evidence presented as to
5 the debt owing to Ashik Nanaby (sp?) for buying plane tickets for the Joshi family.
6 Further, as the only evidence provided regarding the $5,000.00 debt to Rod and Meena
7 Fowler indicates said debt was incurred for the benefit of Mr. Joshi's mother. As
8 Mr. Joshi has agreed to take on both of these debts, they shall henceforth be his sale and
9 separate responsibility .
10 TI. General Community Debt - There was no evidence other than
11 testimonial evidence to establish community debts. As Mr. Joshi has offered to pay any
12 remaining community debt in his name that is hereafter outstanding, said debt shall be
13 the sole and separate responsibility of Mr. Joshi.
14 The Court notes Mr. Joshi has likely incurred an unequal distribution of the
15 community debt in this case. The Court finds his testimonial acquiescence at trial to take
16 on this debt is a compelling reason to make an unequal distribution of the community
17 debt.
18 3. Spousal Support -
19 The statutory mandate for alimony is that it be "just and equitable."
20 NRS 125.150(1)(a). Alimony is an equitable award to serve the post-decree needs and
21 rights of the fanner spouse. Wolff v. Wolff. 112 Nev. 1355, 929 P.2d 916 (1996). AJthough
22 post-decree incomes need not be equalized, in marriages of some duration, alimony may
23 be used to narrow large gaps between the post-divorce earning capacities of the parties
24 and to allow the recipient spouse to live" as nearly as possible to the station in life
25 enjoyed before the divorce." Shydler v. Shydler, 114 Nev. 192,196954 P.2d 37, 39 (1998).
26 The individual circumstances of each case will determine the appropriate amount and
27 length of any alimony award. Id.
28
10
Pursuant
Ms. Joshi presented no evidence in support of her request for alimony other than
3
4
The Court finds that the parties 9
11
12
~ NRS 125.150(8)(k. 16
17 Based upon the
Attornex's Fees 4.
This Court enjoys discretion to award attorney's fees in a divorce action. (~
pursuant to 21
27
28
are eleven (11) factors the court shall consider in
to NRS 125.150(8), there
to any of the eleven reference There was no
approximately the same amount,
approximately $3,125 per month
presently
earn
March 2009. fu NRS 125.150(8)(a. The
and Ms. Joshi has always been employed during that
years
law, this Court does not and the evidence
presented applicable
Also,
Finally, pursuant to NRS 7.085, if a court
maintained or defended a civil action or proceeding
and such action or defense is not well-grounded in fact or is not State
11
V3.557
Pursuant to NRS 125.150(8), there are eleven (11) factors the court shall consider in
2 awarding alimony.
3 Ms. Joshi presented no evidence in support of her request for alimony other than
4 her own testimonial evidence that she raised the parties' children, had foregone
5 educational opporturuties, and put her dreams on hold while married. Ms. Joshi testified
6 that she is healthy and has always worked. There was no reference to any of the eleven
7 factors in NRS 125.150(8) in Ms. Joshi's presentation and argument in support of an
B award of spousal support
9 The Court finds that the parties presently earn approximately the same amount,
10 Ms. Joshi earns $2,458 per month and Mr. Joshi earned approximately $3,125 per month
11 in 2008, but testified he is working substantially les.. .. in 2009 and has filed for
12 unemployment benefits the begirming of March 2009. (See NRS 125.150(8)(a.The
13 parties have been married 21 years and Ms. Joshi has always been employed during that
14 time. (See NRS 125.150(8)(d). Ms. Joshi obtained a college degree prior to marriage and
15 Mr. Joshi has a high school degree. (See NRS 125.150(8)(h) . Both parties are healthy and
16 able to work. (See NRS 125.150(8){k)).
17 Based upon the evidence presented and the applicable law, this Court does not
18 believe Ms. Joshi is entitled to an award of alimony.
19 4. Attorney's Fees
20 This Court enjoys discretion to award attorney's fees in a divorce action. (See
21 NRS 125.150(3); Lovev. Love, 114 Nev, 572, 959 P.2d 523 (1998).) Also, pursuant to
22 NRS 18.010(2)(b), the court has authority to order attorney's fees "when the court finds
23 that the .. . defense of the opposing party was brought or maintained without reasonable
24 ground or to harass the prevailing party.n Finally, pursuant to NRS 7.085, if a court
25 finds that an attorney has: (a) filed, maintained or defended a civil action or proceeding
26 in any court in this State and such action or defense is not well-grounded in fact or is not
27 warranted by existing law or by an argument for changing the existing law that is made
28 in good faith; or (b) unreasonably and vexatiously extended a civil action or proceeding
11
1
2
At trial, Mr. Springgate stated that Mr. Coughlin had conducted no discovery in
In addition, Mr. Coughlin
6
7
throughout trial.
The Court notes that there were well over 40 objections during four (4) hours of
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Springgate.
The Court notes that at one point, after an exhibit had been admitted,
Coughlin could not find the copy provided by Mr. Springgate in discovery.
My understanding is that you are supposed to provide a copy."
asked if he had the copy of the document, Mr. Coughlinstated,"I do not know. I
to quit
personally to pay the
failed to present one documentary piece of evidence
Mr. Coughlin was overruled on every objection except one and argued
rulings. Mr. Coughlin was admonished approximately 15 times
Mr.
Springgate to provide a copy at the time he is
" Mr. Coughlin cited no rule and then
Mr. Springgate to the arguments
replied
The had to Mr. located. Court admonish
the point and that the exhibit had been
arguing
admitted.
12
V3.558
before any court in this State, the court require the attorney personally to pay the
2 additional costs, expenses and attorney's fees reasonably incurred because of such
:3 conduct.
4 At trial, Mr. Springgate stated that Mr. Coughlin had conducted no discovery in
5 this case. In addition, Mr. Coughlin failed to present one documentary piece of evidence
6 at trial on behalf of Ms. Joshi's claims. Mr. Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court
7 throughout trial and made sarcastic, derogatory remarks to the Court, Mr. Springgate,
8 and Mr. Joshi throughout trial.
9 The Court notes that there were well over 40 objections during four (4) hours of
10 trial. Mr. Springgate's objections were well-founded and continuously sustained except
11 in one instance. Mr. Coughlin was overruled on every objection except one and argued
12 with the Court over most rulings. Mr. Coughlin was admonished approximately 15 times
13 by the Court to quit arguing, to ask specific questions, to discontinue asking questions
14 calling for a legal conclusion, and to refrain from making degrading remarks to both Mr.
15 Joshi and Mr. Springgate.
16 The Court notes that at one point, after an exhibit had been admitted,
17 Mr. Coughlin could not find the copy provided by Mr. Springgate in discovery. Mr.
18 Coughlin demanded a copy be provided at trial, stating" am I supposed to be rilling
19 through my papers? My understanding is that you are supposed to provide a copy."
20 When asked if he had the copy of the document, Mr. Coughlin stated, "I do not know. I
21 could spend my time and mental energy looking around for Mr. Springgate' s document
22 like I am his assistant, or we could ask Mr. Springgate to provide a copy at the time he is
23 seeking adnUssion like I believe the rule states." Mr. Coughlin cited no rule and then
24 proceeded to interrupt the proceedings twice approximately five (5) minutes and twelve
25 (12) minutes post ruling to reargue the point. Mr. Springgate replied to the arguments
26 by referencing when exactly the copy had been provided to Mr. Coughlin during
27 discovery and where the copy could be located. The Court had to admonish Mr.
28 Coughlm to quit arguing the point and rreiterate that the exhibit had been admitted.
12
Coughlin filed an Answer Mr. 1
2
antagonistic presentation of the case that resulted in a shift from a fairly simple divorce
For all these reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Coughlin's presentation of the case
in support thereof to be unfounded in fact, unwarranted by existing law,
and vexatious throughout this entire proceeding.
5. PreEaration of the Decr~
Mr. Springgate shall prepare the decree of divorce consistent with this
m decision. Mr. Springgate shall tender his proposed decree to Mr.
WDCR 9, within 20 days from the date of this order.
Dated:
and Counterclaim on Ms. Joshi's behalf that
sheet;
of $934 within 30 days of amount
13
V3.559
Mr. Coughlin filed an Answer and Counterclaim on Ms. Joshi's behalf that
2 included allegations unsupported by law; and filed an Opposition to the request for
3 return of Mr. Joshi's passport without any factual or legal basis. Further, at trial, Mr.
4 Coughlin presented almost no evidence to support Ms. Joshi's requests and claims.
5 The most troubling aspect of this case was Mr. Coughlin's rude, sarcastic and
6 disrespectful presentation at trial; Mr. Coughlin's inability to understand a balance sheet;
7 his failure to conduct discovery; and his lack of knowledge with regard to the rules of
8 evidence and trial procedure. All of this was compounded with a continuously
9 antagonistic presentation of the case that resulted in a shift from a fairly simple divorce
10 case to a contentious divorce tria11asting an excessive amount of time.
11 For all these reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Coughlin's presentation of the case
12 and arguments in support thereof to be unfounded in fact, unwarranted by existing law,
13 unreasonable, and vexatious throughout this entire proceeding.
14 Based upon the foregOing, Mr. 5pringgate's request that Mr. Coughlin personally
15 pay Mr. Joshi 4.15 hours at the rate of $225 per hour for the cost of the trial is GRANTED.
16 Mr. Coughlin shall submit a check to Mr. Joshi in the amount of $934 within 30 days of
17 this Order.
18 5. Preparation of the Decree -
19 Mr. 5pringgate shall prepare the decree of divorce consistent with this
20 memorandum decision. Mr. Springgate shall tender his proposed decree to Mr.
21
Coughlin. pursuant to WOCR 9, within 20 days from the date of this order.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS 50 ORDERED.
Dated: April ~ 2009. ~ ( ~
~ J ~ _
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2 Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the Second Judicial
3 District Court and that on the -~ day of April, 2009, lelectronically filed the
4 with the Oerk of the Court System which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
5 following:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Document: ORDER AFTER TRIAL
JOHN P. SPRINGGA TE FSQ
ZACHARY B. COUGHUN F5Q
foregoin
Assistant
14
V3.560
3 District Court, and that on the l\3 day of April, 2009, lelectronically filed the foregoin
4 with the Oerk of the Court System which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
5 following:
6
7 Document: ORDER AFTER TRIAL
8
9 JOHN P. SPRINGGATE ESQ
ZACHARY B. COUGHUN ESQ
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~ ~
Admit:fu;trative AsslStant
14

- 1 -
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
3860
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845


ZACHARY COUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants

Dept. No.: 6
REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION
With the motion, opposition and reply having been filed, it is requested that Crisis
Intervention Services Motion to Quash Service and to Dismiss filed on November 28, 2011, in
the above entitled matter be submitted to the Court for decision.
The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of this request has been served to all
counsel of record.
The undersigned does hereby affirm that pursuant to NRS 239B.030 this document does
not contain the social security number of any person.

By:__________________________________
Services
F I L E D
Electronically
12-20-2011:09:41:38 PM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.561

- 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
I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
Joseph P. Garin, Esq., for Marc Ashley, Washoe Legal Services, Kathy Breckenridge,
Paul Elcano, Karen Sabo and Jon Sasser.
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Committee to Aid Abused Women.


________________________________________________
V3.562
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-20-2011:09:40:51
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
V3.563
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.564
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-21-2011:11:44:52
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Reply
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
Filed By: BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
V3.565
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.566
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-21-2011:11:46:41
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Request for Submission
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.567
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.568

SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
The undersigned, (who nows submits this filing, or some iteration of it for the
THIRD time, due to its previous incarnations being rejected by the E!le" staff,
despite whatever #R$% &(e' might say, and for which, not a single member of the
filing office staff has ever e"pressed the slightest bit of in(uisitiveness with regard to
what that rule and, say, the )hitman or *ullivan cases might say about all the
+,ic,ing bac, out- the filing office and e!le" staff parta,es in', while still desiring
some sort of e"tension or continuance allowing for time to file a more pronounced
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS %age .
/012&
3ach $oughlin, Es(4
5.6 #4 7irginia *t4 80
Reno, #7 59&:.
Tele; 66&00916<6
!a"; 92911662:0
3ach$oughlin=hotmail4com
>ttorney for %laintiff $oughlin
3>$H>R? @>RAER $BCDHEI#F
%laintiff4
v4
)ashoe Eegal *ervices, et al,
Defendants4
$ase #o; $7..:.591
Dept #o; 1
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO
ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
I# THE *E$B#D GCDI$I>E DI*TRI$T $BCRT B! THE
*T>TE B! #E7>D> I# >#D !BR
THE $BC#T? B! )>*HBE
F I L E D
Electronically
12-22-2011:04:55:10 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.569
Bpposition and to avoid the undue burden brought about by the circumstances set
forth in the undersigned December .2
th
, 0:.. Hotion, hereby supplements the
previously submitted filings see,ing relief from the dismissal and opposing all of the
Defendants various attempts to avoid litigating this case on substantive grounds4
>ttached as Exhibit 1 are two Efle" emails to the undersigned establishing receipt of
an iterations of this motion dated December .1
th
, 0:.., and a notice that that
attempted filing was rejected on December .9
th
, 0:..4 The undersigned as,s,
respectfully, that the date of receipt be used under a relation bac, theory as the filing
date for this instant pleading to the e"tent it would be necessary to avoid any
limitations period running or otherwise preclude the arguments herein made by the
undersigned from being considered or to preclude a finding of any admission as to
the positions argued by the various opposing counsel4 !urther, the undersigned as,s
the court to note that he is not, in all li,elihood, going to ever be allowed to collect
attorneyIs fees in this matter as a pro se attorney litigant, and to that e"tent, the e!le"
staff should, perhaps, not apply the rigourous rejection criteria normally applied to
attorneys with respect to the undersignedIs submission in this matter4 E"hibit 0 is
some more emails related to Efle" rejections, seemingly in contravention of #R$%
&(e'4
Incorporated by reference herein are those arguments previously filed in this
matter related to the negligence and delay on the the part of the )ashoe $ounty
*heriffIs Bffice in carrying out the I%! Brder as to service of the *ummons and
$omplaint in this matter4
!urther, )E*Is counselIs misleading arguments and partial snapshots of the
doc,et aside, it is not at all clear what filing date is accorded to the $omplaint in this
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS %age 0
V3.570
matter4 Indeed, that very mur,iness, and the potential pitfalls associated with it to
plaintiffIs attempts to access justice, necessitated the duplicative filings in this matter
and $7..:.9&&, a circumstance for which plaintiff was e"tremely conscientious in
attempting to avoid causing the various defendants undue e"pense by filing and
e"tensively research motion see,ing to consolidate the two cases and ma,ing diligent
in(uiry with the )D$ filing office staff, Gudge *teinheimerIs >dministrative
>ssistant, and various other legal authorities4 It simply was not clear to counsel what
filing date would be accorded the $omplaint upon the occurrence of either the
granting or the denial of Plaintiff's IFP in this matter, an inee, a re!ie" of the
o#$et in #!11%&1'() sho"s a filin* ate of A+*+st 11, ,&11 for the -om.laint/
0LS's #o+nsel 1arin atta#he an exhibit in his re#ent Motion to Dismiss "hi#h
is.la2e 3+st the first s#reen or .a*e or so of the o#$et, an "hi#h i inee
#ontain a line reain* 4 Filin* Date5 Mona2 , 6+ne 06th, 0:..-4444however, that
does note tell the whole story, and certainly does not indicate what was giving a
+!iling Date- of Gune 06
th
, 0:..444rather, a closer review of the doc,et reveals that the
I!% was not granted until >ugust 9
th
, 0:.., and the $omplaint was not seemingly
issued a filing date until; +..>CD0:.. :5;<6 >H $omplaint $ivil $BCDHEI#,
3>$H Entry; $BH%E>I#T !BR D>H>DE*; *EJC>E H>R>**HE#TF
R>$I>E DI*$RIHI#>TIB#F TBRTIBC* $B#*TRC$TI7E DI*$H>RDE I#
7IBE>TIB# B! %C@EI$ %BEI$?F @RE>$H B! EH%EB?HE#T $B#TR>$T,
)RITTE#, BR>E, BR IH%EIEDF I#TE#TIB#>E I#!EI$TIB# B!
EHBTIB#>E DI*TRE**F *E$4 .95< *T>TE >$TBR $I7IE RIDHT*
7IBE>TIB#*F )HI*TEE@EB)ER RET>EI>TIB#F %C#ITI7E D>H>DE*
GCR? TRI>E DEH>#DED (*$>##ED IH>DE RE!EE$T* H>##ER I#
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS %age <
V3.571
)HI$H DB$CHE#T )>* RE$EI7ED 5..0:.. *$'-4
!urther, there now e"ists photographic evidence that Howard %atric, Gac,son
served Gessica DarKae and @erta Hann the *ummons and $omplaint in the related
matter $7..:.9&& on >ugust 09
th
, 0:..4
It simply was not clear enough to the undersigned to be worth ris,ing much to
guess how a filing date would be determined in the )D$ vis a vis rules re(uiring
that upon completion of the administrative process and the EEB$Ls issuance of a
#otice of Right to *ue, an employee has 9: days within which to bring a lawsuit in
federal or state court, #R* M 0<<4.1:(.'(b'F 20 C4*4$4 M0:::e&(e'(.'F 09 C4*4$4
M101(d' (0'4 #R$% < hold that N> civil action is commenced by filing a complaint
with the court4N %laintiff made diligent in(uiries and performed research which yield
mi"ed answers and nothing of any too much certainty4
$BH%E>I#T !BR D>H>DE*; *EJC>E H>R>**HE#TF R>$I>E
DI*$RIHI#>TIB#F TBRTIBC* $B#*TRC$TI7E DI*$H>RDE I#
7IBE>TIB# B! %C@EI$ %BEI$?F @RE>$H B! EH%EB?HE#T $B#TR>$T,
)RITTE#, BR>E, BR IH%EIEDF I#TE#TIB#>E I#!EI$TIB# B!
EHBTIB#>E DI*TRE**F *E$4 .95< *T>TE >$TBR $I7IE RIDHT*
7IBE>TIB#*F )HI*TEE@EB)ER RET>EI>TIB#F %C#ITI7E D>H>DE*
GCR? TRI>E DEH>#DED (*$>##ED IH>DE RE!EE$T* H>##ER I#
)HI$H DB$CHE#T )>* RE$EI7ED 5..0:.. *$'
The undersigned feels it necessary to underscore to this honorable $ourt; please
do not assume that dismissing this case will not result in the end of my ability to
access justice in connection with the wrongful termination etc from )E*4 The
V3.572
associated case, cv..:.9&& may well be dismissed as well, largely due to the
)ashoe $ounty *heriffIs Bffice failure to even attempt to serve the complaints
provided to it, even where some authority e"ists to support the notion that %laintiff
went above and beyond by printing out copies of the complaints and summons (and
there were some copies of the $omplaints in these matters that were one page per
page full reproductions, ie, not all of them are attac,able under the various
defendants legibility arguments, for which no real citation to any useful authority has
been provided444Donsalves cites )D$R for the 54& by .. inch re(uirement for the
motions submitted to the )D$, but fails to bring to the court any authority as to what
an +original copy- is, etc4, etc4 Darin merely pasted the @lac,Is Eaw Dictionary for
the word +copy-4 I actually spent about 2 hours researching the issue and if given the
time could provide the court with some real insight into the issue4 However, please
understand, this case $7..:.591 may be my last and only chance to litigate this
matter, and a review of the record will show that beyond securing an I!% in cv..
:.591 and providing lots of materials to the )$*B in plenty of time for them to be
served or corrected, the undersigned also arranged for three other instances where
private individuals, all over .5, non parties, and residents of #evada served or
attempted to serve )E* and Elcano, and in some cases, Torvine4 @eyond HR4
Gac,sonIs %roof of *ervice, the doc,et will reveal two other gentleman served Elcano
and )E*, with !itKhenry also serving Torvien4 Herely dismissing without prejudice
may be (uite prejudicial considering the 9: days to file from +receipt- of the EEB$Is
Right to *ue Eetter issue, particularly where refiling would result in a later filing date
being secured, outside of the 9: day limitations period4
Bne would thin, such august institutions entrusted with such prestigious wor, as
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS %age &
V3.573
performing legal aid for the indigent would perhaps ta,e a less corporate law firm
win at all costs approach to disposing of a matter that invo,es an in(uiry as to
whether these institutions commit acts so counter to their very reasons for e"isting,
ie, sanctioning discrimination, censuring free speech, +tentfolding- (to use a term
Elcano favors' in the face of political pressure (and there is much evidence to be
presented that a cabal of far left +womenIs rights organiKations- (though whose
rights and interests these groups actually fight for is up for debate, as, in my
e"perience, they sometimes pressure the very women they are ostensibly +helping- or
into doing things these women e"pressly do not want to do or feel is in their own best
interest to dothe client involved in the Tahoe )omenIs *ervices interference
indicated e"actly that to me and told Elcano that she felt li,e the Tahoe )omenIs
*ervices +advocate- was pressuring her to do things she did not want to do'4444rather
some individuals in these groups see, to force their own personal political bents and
ideologies upon these women' pressured Elcano into firing the %laintiff, whether any
legitimate reason for doing so e"isted or not'4 Bpposes Tahoe )omenIs *ervices
Hotion to Dismiss and Hotions to Ouash *ervice as well as all of $>>)Is, and
)E* Hotions, as the arguments and circumstances are substantially similar in
opposing all of their various Hotions4 In addition, the undersigned as,s the court to
consider the e"tent to which the )ashoe $ounty *heriffIs Bffice was re(uired to
effectuate service in $7..:.591 (though a different matter than this case, to be
sure' in combination with the diligent efforts the undersigned too in see,ing to get an
Brder $onsolidating these two substantially similar matters and setting forth the
circumstances that re(uired these multiplicative filings4
Hy recent e"periences in the *ummary Eviction %roceeding incident to a #o
V3.574
$ause Eviction #otice against the commercial lease under which I rented a home law
office in Reno Gustice $ourt case Rev0:..::.6:5 really illustrate to me the need for
tenantIs rights advocacy in our community4 I personally was able to wor, at )E* for
about .5 months or so and I heard a lot more +no- +canIt- +wonIt- +your wrong- +sir,
listen to me, you arenIt- and all other types of dismissive commentary instead of
aggressive tenantIs rights advocacy4 Reno is about to become Eas 7egas in that
regard (actually, it already is pretty much, or worse, because at least in Eas 7egas
they follow G$R$% RCEE 5<, and printPpublish and get approved by the #evada
*upreme $ourt the +boot the tenant out as (uic,ly and cheaply and with as litigation
supply demand ris, reward costs to the landlord as possible- rule that they want to
use, li,e G$RE7 22, whereas in the RG$, just loo, at what happens in the 56 page
E"hibit . attachment to my recent filing4 I was evicted in RG$ Rev0:..::.6:5
from a commercial tenancy where a #o $ause Eviction #otice was all that was
served, which is prohibited by #R* 2:40&<, then, a +rent escrow- deposit of /0,06&
was forced upon me, in violation of #R* 2:40&<(1', >nvui, and DlaKier, then I was
denied my statutory right to hearing within .: days in response to my ..P.1P..
Hotion to $ontest %ersonal %roperty lien4 The RG$ finally got a hearing set, for
.0P0:P.., e"actly one day after Richard D4 Hill, Es( and $asey @a,er, Es(, informed
me, in writing, that they and their @everly Hills H* graduate $alifornia
#eurosurgeon client would dispose of my property (which includes client files and
pretty much everything I own in the world because the )$*B came and changed the
loc,s prior appropriate service of the eviction Brder if #R$% 1(e'Is dicate allowing <
days for mailing where personal service is not affected is read to view those < days as
a +less than .. days- timeframe and therefore re(uires counting only nonjudicial days
V3.575
in that calculus, vis a vis the .:P06P.. *ummary Eviction Brder, which was not
personally served on me, despite what the )$*B >ffidavit of *ervice says, and
which, if signed on .:P06P.., and the RG$ is not open on !ridayIs, under #R$% 1(e',
could not have been served on me until after the time at which the loc,out occurred,
if the +< days for mailing- language under #R$% 1(e' does not count nonjudicial
days4 >s, such, to the e"tent service has not been properly performed, the
undersigned again, the the e"tent such a Hotion or Re(uest is deemed to have not
been made so far, see,s an e"tension of time to so serve and or amend the $omplaint
to add necessary parties4
+#G$R$% 5<; RCEE* @? GC*TI$E $BCRT* Each justice or
justice court in a township with more than one justice, by action of a
majority of the justices thereof, may from time to time ma,e and
amend the rules governing its practice not inconsistent with these
rules4 $opies of rules and amendments so made by any justice court
shall upon their promulgation be furnished to the *upreme $ourt, but
shall not become effective until after approval by the *upreme $ourt
and publication4 In all cases not provided for by these rules the justice
courts may regulate their practice in any manner not inconsistent with
these rules4-

Rules of %ractice for the *econd Gudicial District $ourt of the *tate of #evada, Rule
.0(.:' provides;

.:4 Drop bo" filing4
(a' %apers eligible for filing4 >ll papers and pleadings, including motions,
oppositions and replies may be filed in the drop bo" located outside the $ourt $ler,Ls
Bffice, with the e"ception of filings which re(uire the payment of filing fees4 !ilings
which re(uire the payment of filing fees must be made directly with the $ourt $ler,Ls
Bffice4
V3.576
(b' %rocedure4 %apers may be filed in the drop bo" during all hours the courthouse
is open4 %apers must be date and time stamped prior to being placed in the drop bo"4
Drop bo" filings shall be deemed filed as of the date and time noted on the paper or
pleading4 If a drop bo" filing has not been date and time stamped, the paper or pleading
shall be deemed filed at the time it is date and time stamped by the $ourt $ler,4
I would li,e my efiling subscription charges waived in light of the $ourtIs failure to
comply with )D$R .0(.:'4 %lease let me ,now in writing the decision on that re(uest4
!urther, #R$% &(e' holds that;
N(e' !iling )ith the $ourt Defined4 The filing of pleadings and other papers with the
court as re(uired by these rules shall be made by filing them with the cler, of the court,
e"cept that the judge may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the
judge shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the
cler,4 > court may by local rule permit papers to be filed, signed or verified by electronic
means that are consistent with technical standards, if any, that the Gudicial $onference of
the Cnited *tates establishes4 > paper signed by electronic means in compliance with the
local rule constitutes a written paper presented for the purpose of applying these rules4
The cler, shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely
because it is not presented in proper form as re(uired by these rules or any local rules or
practices4N

The filing officer cler,Is in the 0nd Gudicial District $ourt for )ashoe $ounty, and
the managers, supervisors, and administrators regularly refuse filing in contravention of
V3.577
#R$% &(e'4 !urther, the drop bo" re(uired by )D$R .0(.:' is no more4 The drop bo"
was removed about 1 months ago4 The efiling fee tripled, about si" months ago, on Guly
., 0:..4 The connection is hard to ignore4 I seriously, seriously doubt the drop bo" was
as underutiliKed as I have heard suggested4 I would imagine the hard wor,ing, dedicated
filing office staff may actually prefer having the drop bo" to cut down on the lines4
#onetheless, I would be surprised if the dictates of )D$R .0(.:' were rendered null by
any under use4
)ith regard to the )D$ filing officeP e!le" staff refusing to file papers submitted for
filing, please consider;
*ullivan v4 Eighth Gudicial Dist4 $ourt In and !or $ounty of $lar,, 9:2 %40d .:<9,
... #ev4 .<16 (#ev4, .99&'; +This proper person petition for a writ of mandamus see,s
an order from this court directing the Eighth Gudicial District $ourt to file petitionerIs
application to proceed in forma pauperis and his civil complaint4 . Bn Guly 0&, .99&, we
ordered the state to file an answer to this petition4 The stateIs answer was filed on >ugust
.., .99&4 0 Documentation submitted by petitioner to this court establishes that petitioner
submitted to the cler, of the district court for filing an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and a civil complaint on Hay .&, .99&4 >lthough the application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis was in proper form and was sworn to under penalty of perjury,
the cler, of the district court did not file that application4 < The failure to file the
application was in violation of the clear statutory mandate that such an application be
filed4 #R* .04:.&(.' provides that NQaRny person 444 may file an affidavit Qsee,ing leave to
proceed without payment of feesR4N !urther, we have repeatedly instructed the cler, of the
Eighth Gudicial District $ourt that such documents must be filed4 *ee @owman v4 District
$ourt, .:0 #ev4 262, 605 %40d 2<< (.951' (cler, has a ministerial duty to accept and file
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS %age .:
V3.578
documents if those documents are in proper formF cler, must not e"ercise any judicial
discretion'F @arnes v4 District $ourt, .:< #ev4 169, 625 %40d 25< (.956' (prisonerIs right
of access to court cannot be denied on basis of indigency'F Huebner v4 *tate, .:6 #ev4
<05, 5.: %40d .0:9 (.99.' (cler, must create an accurate record of all pleadings
submitted for filing, whether or not the documents are actually filed'F )hitman v4
)hitman, .:5 #ev4 929, 52: %40d .0<0 (.990' (cler, has no authority to return
documents submitted for filingF instead, cler, must stamp documents that cannot be
immediately filed Nreceived,N and must maintain such documents in the record of the
case'F Donoho v4 District $ourt, .:5 #ev4 .:06, 520 %40d 6<. (.990' (the cler, of the
district court has a duty to file documents and to ,eep an accurate record of the
proceedings before the court'F Drey v4 Drey, ... #ev4 <55, 590 %40d &9& (.99&' (cler, of
district court admonished for failure to ,eep accurate record of documents submitted for
filing'4 %etitioner alleges that the district court has refused to file his application and has
returned it with directions to provide more information regarding employment4 Indeed,
petitioner has attached to his petition for a writ in this court his original application as it
was returned to him4 >ttached to the top of the document is a NpostitN note with the
handwritten notation; Napplication denied incomplete infoemployment currently4N 2 The
state informs us that the note was written by Nthe chief judge4N In addition, petitioner
alleges, and the allegation is apparently true, that along with his NdeniedN application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, his civil complaint was returned to him unfiled4
!inally, petitioner alleges, and has attached documentation to support the allegation, that
judgesI law cler,s often return to prisoners unfiled motions along with letters purporting
to rule on the legal sufficiency of those motions4 The state argues in its answer to this
petition that NpetitionerIs application 444 was denied on the basis that the address of the
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS %age ..
V3.579
%etitioner which was later given to the $ourt by %etitioner 444 did not appear to be a jail
and that such information was contrary to the information shown in the application which
stated that the %etitioner was in prison4 The Iout of jailI address suggested an ability of the
%etitioner to be employed4N This vague reference to an Nout of jailN address is not
e"plained in the documents before this court4 #evertheless, the stateIs assertion that
petitionerIs application was denied is incorrect4 The handwritten notation on petitionerIs
unfiled application clearly does not constitute a proper judicial disposition of that
application4 !urther, the action of the cler, of the district court in returning petitionerIs
application and civil complaint to him unfiled is in direct violation of this courtIs
instructions to the cler, of the district court in )hitman v4 )hitman, .:5 #ev4 929, 52:
%40d .0<0 (.990'4 This court has several times confirmed the absolute obligation of the
district courts to file documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of citiKens to
access to the courts, whether indigent or not4 @arnes v4 District $ourt, .:< #ev4 169, 625
%40d 25< (.956'F Huebner v4 *tate, .:6 #ev4 <05, 5.: %40d .0:9 (.99.'4 Indeed, in
Donoho v4 District $ourt, .:5 #ev4 .:06, 520 %40d 6<. (.990', a case directly analogous
to this case, we held that the cler, of the district court violated the rights of an indigent
party when she neglected to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a
motion for relief from a default judgment4 *pecifically, we stated; NQTRhe cler, Qof the
district courtR had an absolute duty to file the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and to clearly stamp the date of receipt of the other documents on the
documents4 !urther, the cler, had a duty to ,eep an accurate record of the case pending
before the district court4N Id4 at .:09, 520 %40d at 6<< (citation omittedF emphasis added'4
Thus, petitionerIs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be filed4 If, on
subse(uent review of the application, the district court determines that petitioner has not
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS %age .0
V3.580
shown he is indigent, the district court may order petitioner to provide further information
or may deny the application in an appropriately filed written order4 If, on the other hand,
the district court grants the application, the district court must then proceed to re(uire the
filing of petitionerIs other documents and to consider them in due course4 Donoho, .:5
#ev4 at .:<:, 520 %40d at 6<<4 Bf course, for statute of limitations purposes, the
complaint would have to be considered filed on the date of actual receipt by the cler, of
the district court4 To continue the analysis, with respect to petitionerIs civil complaint
which he is attempting to file concurrently, the district court cler, had an absolute
obligation to stamp the document NreceivedN and to record the date on which the
document was in fact received at the courthouse4 *ee Huebner v4 *tate, .:6 #ev4 <05, 5.:
%40d .0:9 (.99.'4 This the cler, of the district court did4 However, the cler, then had a
duty to maintain a copy of the received document in the record of the case, whether or not
the document is ever filed4 )hitman v4 )hitman, .:5 #ev4 929, 52: %40d .0<0 (.990'4
This, the cler, neglected to do4 )hile Huebner dealt with the timeliness of a notice of
appeal, the rationale compelling this courtIs ruling in Huebner, that all documents must be
mar,ed received and dated, applies with e(ual force to a partyIs submission of a
complaint4 NThe legal rights of the parties to litigation, whether acting in proper person or
through counsel, often turn on the date of receipt by the cler, of the district court of
documents and pleadings4N Huebner, .:6 #ev4 at <<:, 5.: %40d at .0..4 >s with a notice
of appeal, the untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from hearing the
matter on its merits4 It is the responsibility of the cler, of the district court to ,eep an
accurate record of all documents submitted to her, whether or not they are filed4 >s in
Huebner, ambiguities regarding when documents were received or filed must ultimately
be resolved in favor of the party submitting them4 Id4 at <<0, 5.: %40d at .0.04 The issue
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS %age .<
V3.581
presently before this court is not whether petitionerIs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is sufficient to establish petitionerIs indigence4 !urther, we are not now
concerned with the merits of petitionerIs civil complaint4 )e are vitally concerned,
however, with the preservation of the constitutional right of access to the courts and with
the protection of the constitutional right to due process of law4 > writ of mandamus is
available to compel the performance of an act which the law re(uires as a duty resulting
from an office, trust or station4 #R* <24.1:4 The cler, of the district court has an absolute
duty to file petitionerIs application and to properly receive and ,eep a record of
petitionerIs complaint4 >ccordingly, we grant this petition for a writ of mandamus4 1 The
cler, of this court shall serve a copy of petitionerIs application and complaint on the cler,
of the district court forthwith4 The cler, of this court shall also issue a writ of mandamus
compelling the cler, of the district court to file petitionerIs application, and to receive
petitionerIs complaint4 These documents will be considered to have been filed and
received on Hay .&, .99&4 . %etitioner also see,s a writ of prohibition
enjoining the district court, the cler, of the district court and her employees from denying
prisoners access to the courts in the future4 )e deny petitionerIs re(uest for a writ of
prohibition4 0 $ause appearing, we grant petitionerIs proper person re(uest for leave to
file a reply to the stateIs answer4 The cler, of this court shall file the reply, entitled
NpetitionerIs reply to petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition,N which was received
by this court on >ugust 0., .99&4 < >lthough the document was entitled NapplicationN
rather than Naffidavit,N it was sworn to under penalties of perjury, provided information
concerning petitionerIs financial condition and clearly sought a judicial ruling regarding
the (uestion of whether petitioner would be allowed to proceed with a civil action
without the payment of fees4 Thus, any deviation as to form was not significant enough to
V3.582
justify the cler,Is failure to file the document4 The
cler, of the court has no discretion to ma,e any judicial ruling regarding the legal
sufficiency of a document4 )hen a document in proper form is submitted to the cler,, the
cler, has a ministerial duty to file that document4 2 )e note that petitioner is presently an
inmate at the #evada *tate %rison, and that his affidavit filed in this court in support of
this petition states that he is currently unemployed and has no prison job4 He also avers
that his only asset is /14&6 in his prison account4 & Bne such letter from a law cler, to an
inmate states; N>ttached please find your Hotions to %roceed in !orma %auperis which
you recently submitted4 #R* .04:.& re(uires an indigent litigant to set forth Iwith
particularity facts concerning his income, property, and other resources 444I ?our
application to proceed sets forth this information very generally4N N%lease resubmit the
Hotion with a more particular statement regarding your finances and any property you
own4444N >lthough this letter does not directly deny the motion, it clearly has the effect of
denying the motion without filing4 Bf course, li,e the cler, of the district court, a judgeIs
law cler, lac,s judicial authority4 1 The state represents that Nthe District $ourt will file
the %etitionerIs complaint upon submittal by the petitioner4N This statement was based on
the stateIs view that we determined in our Brder to *how $ause that petitioner should be
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis4 )e, however, e"press no opinion regarding the
merits of petitionerIs application or complaint4 )e merely determine that the application
should have been filed and judicially resolved, and the complaint should have been
properly received4 )e note that petitioner has sent the original documents to this court,
and thus may not be in a position to resubmit them4 >lso, for statute of limitations
purposes, the documents must be considered filed as of the date of original receipt4 Thus,
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS %age .&
V3.583
we have determined that this petition must be granted4- >nother very important and
instructive case is )hitman v4 )hitman, .:5 #ev4 929, 52: %40d .0<0 (#ev4, .990'; +Bn
rehearing, appellant has submitted documents that conclusively demonstrate that
appellant submitted a timely notice of appeal to the cler, of the district court4 >lthough
the cler, of the district court stamped the notice of appeal NreceivedN on December <:,
.99., the cler, did not file the notice of appeal4 Instead, the cler, of the district court
returned appellantIs notice of appeal to appellant because it was not accompanied by a
filing fee and, although the notice was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis, appellantIs affidavit in support of that motion was apparently
not signed4 $onse(uently, there is no record of the submission of appellantIs timely notice
of appeal4 )e note that the cler, of the district court filed appellantIs motion for leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis on the date of receipt, December <:, .99., and that
the district court eventually granted that motion4 )e have previously stated that Nit is
e"tremely important that the cler, of the district court ,eep an accurate record of the date
of receipt of every document submitted to the cler,, regardless of whether the document
is in the appropriate form4 Indeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the cler, of the
district court to neglect this ministerial duty4N Huebner v4 *tate, .:6 #ev4 <05, <<:, 5.:
%40d .0:9, .0.. (.99.' (footnote omitted'4 In this case, the cler, of the district court has
failed to ,eep any record of the date of receipt of appellantIs notice of appealF instead, the
cler, stamped the document NreceivedN and returned it to appellant4 The cler, of the
district court had no authority to ta,e such action4 >lthough the cler, of the district court
had no duty to file appellantIs notice of appeal before appellant paid the re(uisite filing
fee or was relieved of the duty to pay the filing fee by order of the district court, see #R*
.94:.<(0', the cler, had a duty to receive the document and to ,eep an accurate record of
V3.584
the case pending before the district court4 %articularly in this case it was essential that the
notice of appeal be retained in the record, because we have held that a notice of appeal is
effective on the date of receipt by the district court cler,4 *ee Huebner v4 *tate, Q.:5 #ev4
9&0R .:6 #ev4 <05, 5.: %40d .0:9 (.99.'4 Rather than returning the notice of appeal to
appellant, the cler, of the district court should have retained the notice of appeal in the
record, and should have informed appellant by letter of any perceived deficiencies in the
document4 2 >ppellant could then have ta,en whatever action was appropriate to pursue
his appeal4 In light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant timely submitted to the
cler, of the district court a notice of appeal from an appealable order of the district court,
and that appellantIs timely notice of appeal is not contained in the record due to the
inappropriate action of the district court cler,4 >ccordingly, we grant appellantIs petition
for rehearing, and we proceed to address the merits of this appeal4- Id4 >t .0<0.0<24
*ee, also, @arnes v4 Eighth Gudicial Dist4 $ourt of *tate of #ev4, In and !or $lar, $ounty,
625 %40d 25<, .:< #ev4 169 (#ev4, .956'4-
AFFI7MATION P+rs+ant to N7S ,8(9/&8&
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document
does not contain the social security number of any person4
D>TE THI*; December 00, 0:..,
Sincerely,

PsP 3ach $oughlin, signed electronically
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
%laintiff
V3.585
Proof of Ser!i#e5
Bn December 0.st, 0:.., I, 3ach $oughlin filed eletronically the
foregoing document, and E!ilers were served electronically, including;
@rian Donsalves, Es(
%4B4 @o" 9:6
Aings @each, $>91.2<
>ttorney for Tahoe )omenIs *ervices
$ommittee to >id >bused )omen
Dary !uller, Es(4 >ttorney for Defendant $>>)
)ashoe Eegal *ervices
Goe Darin, Es(4 >ttorney for Defendant )E*
D>TE THI*; December 0., 0:..,
SPsP 3ach $oughlin
3ach $oughlin
%laintiff
V3.586
I#DEJ TB EJHI@IT*
.4 E"hibit .F eightythree (5<' pages of emails from )D$Is efle" email
account efle"=washoecourts4us showing receipt of $oughlinIs Bpposition to Hotion
originally submitted to Efle" on .0P.1P.. and subse(uent rejection notice of that
filing from Efle", and third rejection of $ouglinIs attempt to submit a filing to the
$ourt and other stuff too4
V3.587

F I L E D
Electronically
12-22-2011:04:55:10 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.588
Received Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 -
Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT -
Opposition to Mtn, was received

From: eflex@washoecourts.us
Sent: Fri 12/16/11 10:44 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com

To: Zach Barker Coughlin, Esq. zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Date: 2011-12-16 22:24:24.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) -
WT - Opposition to Mtn, was received by Second Judicial District Court - State of
Nevada.
Case Number: CV11-01896

Case Type: Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT
Document Type: Opposition to Mtn
Document Type: **Continuation
Page 1of 1 Hotmail Print Message
12/21/2011 http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=8410e4da-287a-11e...
V3.589
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 -
Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT -
Opposition to Mtn, was rejected

Sent: Mon 12/19/11 2:12 PM

Date: 2011-12-16 22:24:24.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful
termination) - WT - Opposition to Mtn, was rejected by Second Judicial District
Court - State of Nevada.

Reason(s) for rejection:
Mr. Coughlin, On Friday 12/16/11, the court made an exception for the filing of
your exhibit in CV11-01955. The court did not receive the CD by noon as
indicated in your CV11-01955 filing. It will be necessary for you to submit the
appropriate paper filing in the filing office that contains your CD. In addition,
this filing is being rejected as it does not comply with WDCR 10(9) - A
docoument cannot contain multiple documents in one filing unless pleaded in
the alternative nor does your filing comply with WCDR 10(6) - Exhibits must
contain divider pagers - exhibit 4 does not have a cover sheet. If you have any
questions, please call Lori at 328-3114.
Page 1of 1 Hotmail Print Message
V3.590
RE: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: ARB09-00710 - Arbitration - AZ -
Not/Stay Pend BK Not All Deft, was rejected
From: Franden, Craig (craig.franden@washoecourts.us)
Sent: Mon 11/28/11 12:50 PM
Cc: Wise, Julie (Julie.Wise@washoecourts.us); Zion, Andrew (Andrew.Zion@washoecourts.us)
1 attachment
2007-03 MATTER OF ADOPTING THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT ELECTRONIC FILING RULES
ADKT404.pdf (831.2 KB)
Mr. Coughlin,

I have aached Administrave Order 2007-03, adopng ADKT 404 for your review. Please see Rule 8 (b)
allowing for rejecon of documents.

Also, discussion regarding removal of the drop box began in March 2010 due to the diminished use. Rule 10
states that the drop box may be used. It is not stated that the Court shall provide a drop box for your use.

Thank you,
Craig Franden
Acng Court Administrator

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 12:35 PM
To: eflex; cfranden@mail.co.washoe.nv.us
Subject: RE: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: ARB09-00710 - Arbitration - AZ - Not/Stay Pend BK Not All Deft,
was rejected
Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=a4...
1 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.591
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Licensed in Nevada and USPTO
2 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.592
address:
Thas was an impressive "catch" on Andrew's part, to notice that the wrong
name was in the "body". However, I am not certain that denying my filing
of "kicking it back out" is permissible under Nevada law. Normally, I
wouldn't say anything, but given the Second Judicial District Court's status as
the "team captain" of Nevada's District Court, I feel compelled to.
Rules of Practice for the Second Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada, Rule 12(10) provides:
10. Drop box filing.
(a) Papers eligible for filing. All papers and pleadings, including
motions, oppositions and replies may be fIled in the drop box located
outside the Court Clerk's Office, with the exception of filings which
require the payment of filing fees. Filings which require the payment of
filing fees must be made directly with the Court Clerk's Office.
(b) Procedure. Papers may be fIled in the drop box during all hours
the courthouse is open. Papers must be date and time stamped prior to
being placed in the drop box. Drop box fIlings shall be deemed fIled as of
the date and time noted on the paper or pleading. If a drop box filing has
not been date and time stamped, the paper or pleading shall be deemed
fIled at the time it is date and time stamped by the Court Clerk.
I would like my efiling subscription charges waived in light of the Court's
failure to comply with WDCR 12(10). Please let me know in writing the
decision on that request.
Sullivan v. Eighth J udicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark, 904 P.2d 1039, 111 Nev.
1367 (Nev., 1995): This proper person petition for a writ of mandamus seeks an order from
this court directing the Eighth J udicial District Court to file petitioner's application to
3 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.593
Further, NRCP See) holds that:
"(e) Filing With the Court Defined. The filing of pleadings and other
papers with the court as required by these rules shall be made by filing them
with the clerk of the court, except that the judge may permit the papers to be
filed with the judge, in which event the judge shall note thereon the filing
date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk. A court may by
local rule permit papers to be filed, signed or verified by electronic means
that are consistent with technical standards, if any, that the Judicial
Conference of the United States establishes. A paper signed by electronic
means in compliance with the local rule constitutes a written paper presented
for the purpose of applying these rules. The clerk shall not refuse to accept
for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not
presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or
practices. II
The filing officer clerk's in the 2nd Judicial District Court for Washoe
County, and the managers, supervisors, and administrators regularly refuse
filing in contravention ofNRCP See). Further, the drop box required by
WDCR 12(10) is no more. The drop box was removed about 6 months ago.
The efiling fee tripled, about six months ago, on July 1, 2011. The
connection is hard to ignore. I seriously, seriously doubt the drop box was as
underutilized as I have heard suggested. I would imagine the hard working,
dedicated filing office staff may actually prefer having the drop box to cut
down on the lines. Nonetheless, I would be surprised if the dictates of
WDCR 12(10) were rendered null by any under use.
With regard to the WDC filing office/ eFlex staff refusing to file papers
submitted for filing, please consider:
proceed in forma pauperis and his civil complaint. 1 On J uly 25, 1995, we ordered the state
to file an answer to this petition. The state's answer was filed on August 11, 1995. 2
Documentation submitted by petitioner to this court establishes that petitioner submitted to
the clerk of the district court for filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a
civil complaint on May 15, 1995. Although the application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis was in proper form and was sworn to under penalty of perjury, the clerk of the
district court did not file that application. 3 The failure to file the application was in
violation of the clear statutory mandate that such an application be filed. NRS 12.015(1)
provides that "[a]ny person ... may file an affidavit [seeking leave to proceed without
payment of fees]." Further, we have repeatedly instructed the clerk of the Eighth J udicial
District Court that such documents must be filed. See Bowman v. District Court, 102 Nev.
474, 728 P.2d 433 (1986) (clerk has a ministerial duty to accept and file documents if those
documents are in proper form; clerk must not exercise any judicial discretion); Barnes v.
District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748 P.2d 483 (1987) (prisoner's right of access to court cannot
be denied on basis of indigency); Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991)
(clerk must create an accurate record of all pleadings submitted for filing, whether or not
the documents are actually filed); Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232
(1992) (clerk has no authority to return documents submitted for filing; instead, clerk must
stamp documents that cannot be immediately filed "received," and must maintain such
documents in the record of the case); Donoho v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027, 842 P.2d
731 (1992) (the clerk of the district court has a duty to file documents and to keep an
accurate record of the proceedings before the court); Grey v. Grey, 111 Nev. 388, 892 P.2d
595 (1995) (clerk of district court admonished for failure to keep accurate record of
documents submitted for filing). Petitioner alleges that the district court has refused to file
his application and has returned it with directions to provide more information regarding
employment. Indeed, petitioner has attached to his petition for a writ in this court his
4 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.594
original application as it was returned to him. Attached to the top of the document is a
"post-it" note with the handwritten notation: "application denied incomplete
info-employment currently." 4 The state informs us that the note was written by "the chief
judge." In addition, petitioner alleges, and the allegation is apparently true, that along with
his "denied" application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, his civil complaint was
returned to him unfiled. Finally, petitioner alleges, and has attached documentation to
support the allegation, that judges' law clerks often return to prisoners unfiled motions
along with letters purporting to rule on the legal sufficiency of those motions. The state
argues in its answer to this petition that "petitioner's application ... was denied on the basis
that the address of the Petitioner which was later given to the Court by Petitioner ... did not
appear to be a jail and that such information was contrary to the information shown in the
application which stated that the Petitioner was in prison. The 'out of jail' address suggested
an ability of the Petitioner to be employed." This vague reference to an "out of jail" address
is not explained in the documents before this court. Nevertheless, the state's assertion that
petitioner's application was denied is incorrect. The handwritten notation on petitioner's
application. Further, the action of the clerk of the district court in returning petitioner's
application and civil complaint to him unfiled is in direct violation of this court's
instructions to the clerk of the district court in Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840
P.2d 1232 (1992). This court has several times confirmed the absolute obligation of the
district courts to file documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of citizens to
access to the courts, whether indigent or not. Barnes v. District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748
P.2d 483 (1987); Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991). Indeed, in Donoho
v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027, 842 P.2d 731 (1992), a case directly analogous to this case,
we held that the clerk of the district court violated the rights of an indigent party when she
neglected to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for relief
5 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.595
from a default judgment. Specifically, we stated: "[T]he clerk [of the district court] had an
absolute duty to file the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to clearly stamp
the date of receipt of the other documents on the documents. Further, the clerk had a duty to
keep an accurate record of the case pending before the district court." Id. at 1029, 842 P.2d
at 733 (citation omitted; emphasis added). Thus, petitioner's application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis must be filed. If, on subsequent review of the application, the district
court determines that petitioner has not shown he is indigent, the district court may order
petitioner to provide further information or may deny the application in an appropriately
filed written order. If, on the other hand, the district court grants the application, the district
court must then proceed to require the filing of petitioner's other documents and to consider
them in due course. Donoho, 108 Nev. at 1030, 842 P.2d at 733. Of course, for statute of
limitations purposes, the complaint would have to be considered filed on the date of actual
receipt by the clerk of the district court. To continue the analysis, with respect to petitioner's
civil complaint which he is attempting to file concurrently, the district court clerk had an
absolute obligation to stamp the document "received" and to record the date on which the
document was in fact received at the courthouse. See Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810
P.2d 1209 (1991). This the clerk of the district court did. However, the clerk then had a duty
to maintain a copy of the received document in the record of the case, whether or not the
document is ever filed. Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992). This,
the clerk neglected to do. While Huebner dealt with the timeliness of a notice of appeal, the
rationale compelling this court's ruling in Huebner, that all documents must be marked
received and dated, applies with equal force to a party's submission of a complaint. "The
legal rights of the parties to litigation, whether acting in proper person or through counsel,
often turn on the date of receipt by the clerk of the district court of documents and
pleadings." Huebner, 107 Nev. at 330, 810 P.2d at 1211. As with a notice of appeal, the
untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from hearing the matter on its merits.
6 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.596
It is the responsibility of the clerk of the district court to keep an accurate record of all
documents submitted to her, whether or not they are filed. As in Huebner, ambiguities
regarding when documents were received or filed must ultimately be resolved in favor of
the party submitting them. Id. at 332, 810 P.2d at 1212. The issue presently before this court
is not whether petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient to
establish petitioner's indigence. Further, we are not now concerned with the merits of
petitioner's civil complaint. We are vitally concerned, however, with the preservation of the
constitutional right of access to the courts and with the protection of the constitutional right
to due process of law. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act
which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. NRS 34.160. The
clerk of the district court has an absolute duty to file petitioner's application and to properly
receive and keep a record of petitioner's complaint. Accordingly, we grant this petition for a
writ of mandamus. 6 The clerk of this court shall serve a copy of petitioner's application and
complaint on the clerk of the district court forthwith. The clerk of this court shall also issue
a writ of mandamus compelling the clerk of the district court to file petitioner's application,
and to receive petitioner's complaint. These documents will be considered to have been
filed and received on May 15, 1995. --------------- 1 Petitioner also seeks a writ of
prohibition enjoining the district court, the clerk of the district court and her employees
from denying prisoners access to the courts in the future. We deny petitioner's request for a
writ of prohibition. 2 Cause appearing, we grant petitioner's proper person request for leave
to file a reply to the state's answer. The clerk of this court shall file the reply, entitled
"petitioner's reply to petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition," which was received
by this court on August 21, 1995. 3 Although the document was entitled "application"
rather than "affidavit," it was sworn to under penalties of perjury, provided information
concerning petitioner's financial condition and clearly sought a judicial ruling regarding the
question of whether petitioner would be allowed to proceed with a civil action without the
7 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.597
payment of fees. Thus, any deviation as to form was not significant enough to justify the
clerk's failure to file the document. The
8 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.598
clerk of the court has no discretion to make any judicial ruling regarding the
legal sufficiency of a document. When a document in proper form is
submitted to the clerk, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file that document. 4
We note that petitioner is presently an inmate at the Nevada State Prison, and
that his affidavit filed in this court in support of this petition states that he is
currently unemployed and has no prison job. He also avers that his only asset
is $6.57 in his prison account. 5 One such letter from a law clerk to an inmate
states: "Attached please find your Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
which you recently submitted. NRS 12.015 requires an indigent litigant to set
forth 'with particularity facts concerning his income, property, and other
resources .. .' Your application to proceed sets forth this information very
generally." "Please resubmit the Motion with a more particular statement
regarding your fmances and any property you own .... " Although this letter
does not directly deny the motion, it clearly has the effect of denying the
motion without filing. Of course, like the clerk of the district court, a judge's
law clerk lacks judicial authority. 6 The state represents that "the District
Court will file the Petitioner's complaint upon submittal by the petitioner."
This statement was based on the state's view that we determined in our Order
to Show Cause that petitioner should be allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis. We, however, express no opinion regarding the merits of
9 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.599
petitioner's application or complaint. We merely determine that the
application should have been filed and judicially resolved, and the complaint
should have been properly received. We note that petitioner has sent the
original documents to this court, and thus may not be in a position to
resubmit them. Also, for statute of limitations purposes, the documents must
be considered filed as of the date of original receipt. Thus, we have
determined that this petition must be granted." Another very important and
instructive case is Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (Nev.,
1992): "On rehearing, appellant has submitted documents that conclusively
demonstrate that appellant submitted a timely notice of appeal to the clerk of
the district court. Although the clerk of the district court stamped the notice
of appeal "received" on December 30, 1991, the clerk did not file the notice
of appeal. Instead, the clerk of the district court returned appellant's notice of
appeal to appellant because it was not accompanied by a filing fee and,
although the notice was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis, appellant's affidavit in support of that motion was
apparently not signed. Consequently, there is no record of the submission of
appellant's timely notice of appeal. We note that the clerk of the district court
filed appellant's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis on
the date of receipt, December 30, 1991, and that the district court eventually
granted that motion. We have previously stated that "it is extremely important
that the clerk of the district court keep an accurate record of the date of
10 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.600
receipt of every document submitted to the clerk, regardless of whether the
document is in the appropriate form. Indeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty
for the clerk of the district court to neglect this ministerial duty." Huebner v.
State, 107 Nev. 328, 330, 810 P.2d 1209, 1211 (1991) (footnote omitted). In
this case, the clerk of the district court has failed to keep any record of the
date of receipt of appellant's notice of appeal; instead, the clerk stamped the
document "received" and returned it to appellant. The clerk of the district
court had no authority to take such action. Although the clerk of the district
court had no duty to file appellant's notice of appeal before appellant paid the
requisite filing fee or was relieved of the duty to pay the filing fee by order of
the district court, see NRS 19.013(2), the clerk had a duty to receive the
document and to keep an accurate record of the case pending before the
district court. Particularly in this case it was essential that the notice of appeal
be retained in the record, because we have held that a notice of appeal is
effective on the date of receipt by the district court clerk. See Huebner v.
State, [108 Nev. 952] 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991). Rather than
returning the notice of appeal to appellant, the clerk of the district court
should have retained the notice of appeal in the record, and should have
informed appellant by letter of any perceived deficiencies in the document. 4
Appellant could then have taken whatever action was appropriate to pursue
his appeal. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant timely
submitted to the clerk of the district court a notice of appeal from an
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Licensed in Nevada and USPTO
** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the
contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited
11 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.601
and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the
sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone
other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable
privilege.
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:53:14 -0800
Subject: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: ARB09-00710 - Arbitration - AZ - Not/Stay Pend BK Not All Deft, was
rejected
Date: 2011-11-24 23:38:19.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: ARB09-00710 - Arbitration - AZ - Not/Stay Pend
BK Not All Deft, was rejected by Second J udicial District Court - State of
Nevada.
Case Number: ARB09-00710
Case Type: Arbitration - AZ
Document Type: Not/Stay Pend BK Not All Deft
In your body you have Peter Eastman - he is not part of this case please
update for filing. Andrew @ 328-3115
12 of 12 12/22/2011 3:31 AM
V3.602
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts
(Wrongful termination) - WT - Mtn for Extension of Time, was rejected
(Wrongful termination) - WT - Opposition to Mtn, was rejected
Sent: Wed 12/21/11 1:12 PM
Date: 2011-12-21 01:33:01.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT
- Mtn for Extension of Time, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of
Nevada.

Document Type: Mtn for Extension of Time
Mr. Coughlin, your filing is being rejected as it does not comply with WCDR 10(9) - A
document cannot contain multiple documents in one filing unless the document is
being pled in the alternative. If you have any questions please call Lori at 328-3114
Sent: Mon 12/19/11 2:12 PM
Date: 2011-12-16 22:24:24.0
- Opposition to Mtn, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada.

Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=7e...
V3.603
Mr. Coughlin, On Friday 12/16/11, the court made an exception for the filing of your
exhibit in CV11-01955. The court did not receive the CD by noon as indicated in your
CV11-01955 filing. It will be necessary for you to submit the appropriate paper filing in
the filing office that contains your CD. In addition, this filing is being rejected as it does
not comply with WDCR 10(9) - A docoument cannot contain multiple documents in one
filing unless pleaded in the alternative nor does your filing comply with WCDR 10(6) -
Exhibits must contain divider pagers - exhibit 4 does not have a cover sheet. If you have
any questions, please call Lori at 328-3114.
Sent: Thu 12/15/11 9:29 AM
Date: 2011-12-15 03:58:20.0

Each exhibit (with there cover page) needs to come over as a continuation. thanks - Mia
328-3148
Sent: Thu 12/15/11 9:29 AM
Date: 2011-12-15 03:55:07.0
V3.604
(Wrongful termination) - WT - Summons Filed, was rejected

Document Type: Non-Opposition
Each exhibit (with there cover page) needs to come over as a continuation. thanks - Mia
328-3148
Sent: Thu 12/15/11 8:49 AM
Date: 2011-12-15 00:12:26.0

1.) Exhibits need to be sent over as continuations. 2.) Since the exhibits needs to be
attached into 2 continuation files please attach a second ?exhibit one? cover page on
the second continuation. Thank you, Matthew @328-3115
Sent: Fri 12/09/11 11:02 AM
V3.605
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: cv1103051 - Appeal from Lower Court:
Justice Court Civil Appeal - CA - Appeal From Justice's Court, was
rejected
Date: 2011-12-09 06:25:37.0
- Summons Filed, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada.

Document Type: Summons Filed
Pages within documents must be orginial. Please resubmit Summons with original
"affidavit of service" attached. Any questions call Annie @ 328-3112
Sent: Mon 12/05/11 2:57 PM
Date: 2011-12-05 12:35:58.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: cv1103051 - Appeal from Lower Court: Justice Court Civil
Appeal - CA - Appeal From Justice's Court, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court
- State of Nevada.

Case Type: Appeal from Lower Court: Justice Court Civil Appeal - CA
Document Type: Appeal From Justice's Court
Zach, please go to Reno Justice Court pay to the $216 for the filing fee, see Karen
Stancil. They in turn will send the money and the appeal to District Court for filing. Any
questions call Annie @ 328-3112.
Sent: Wed 11/30/11 8:33 AM
V3.606
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-03126 - Other Civil Filing: Other
Civil Matters - GC - Request for Submission, was rejected
Date: 2011-11-30 05:56:27.0

Please make exhibit one its own PDF file and attach as a continuation to your
supplemental - Andrew @ 328-3115
Sent: Wed 11/30/11 8:29 AM
Date: 2011-11-30 05:55:02.0

Your exhibit one needs to be its own pdf file, then attached as a continuation to your
supplement. So after you enter in your supplement in eflex you browse and attach your
supplemental PDF and then press add then go back up top to your document category
drop down and pick "others" then in the document type will be "continuation" then you
browse and attach your exhibit one with cover page then press add and then submit
your filing. also you can look on our website and download the user guide for the eflex.
Andrew @ 328-3115
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 10:57 AM
V3.607
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-03126 - Other Civil Filing: Other
Civil Matters - GC - Amended Answer, was rejected
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: ARB09-00710 - Arbitration - AZ -
Not/Stay Pend BK Not All Deft, was rejected
Date: 2011-11-29 00:11:39.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: CV11-03126 - Other Civil Filing: Other Civil Matters - GC -
Request for Submission, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada.

Case Type: Other Civil Filing: Other Civil Matters - GC
Document Type: Request for Submission
Zach when the motion is fixed please resubmit the request for submit - Andrew @
328-3115
Sent: Tue 11/29/11 10:21 AM
Date: 2011-11-28 23:50:01.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: CV11-03126 - Other Civil Filing: Other Civil Matters - GC -
Amended Answer, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada.

Case Type: Other Civil Filing: Other Civil Matters - GC
Document Type: Amended Answer
Zach sorry but the black box that you put on the upper right hand side of the pleading
is covering the new file stamp. Please move the box for filing. Also through the efling
system we don't have the ablitiy to stamp or mark as received. Thanks Andrew @
328-3115
Sent: Mon 11/28/11 8:53 AM
V3.608
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: FV05-04296 - Support/Custody
/Visitation - CU - Mtn Ord Shortening Time, was rejected
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-03051 - Appeal from Lower Court:
Justice Court Civil Appeal - CA - Mtn for Reconsideration, was rejected
Date: 2011-11-24 23:38:19.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: ARB09-00710 - Arbitration - AZ - Not/Stay Pend BK Not All
Deft, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada.

Case Number: ARB09-00710
Case Type: Arbitration - AZ
Document Type: Not/Stay Pend BK Not All Deft
In your body you have Peter Eastman - he is not part of this case please update for
filing. Andrew @ 328-3115
Sent: Tue 11/22/11 9:12 AM
Date: 2011-11-22 01:12:04.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: FV05-04296 - Support/Custody/Visitation - CU - Mtn Ord
Shortening Time, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada.

Case Number: FV05-04296
Case Type: Support/Custody/Visitation - CU
Document Type: Mtn Ord Shortening Time
Reason(s) for rejection: Missing motion/opposition form - Andrew @ 328-3115
Sent: Tue 11/22/11 9:12 AM
V3.609
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: DV08-01168 - Marriage Dissolution
Case: Divorce - Without Children - DO - Master's Recommendation/Ord,
was rejected
Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: Filing ID 1102535 - Employment Torts
(Wrongful termination) - WT - Mtn Proceed Forma Pauperis, was rejected
Date: 2011-11-21 23:45:01.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: CV11-03051 - Appeal from Lower Court: Justice Court Civil
Appeal - CA - Mtn for Reconsideration, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court -
State of Nevada.

Case Type: Appeal from Lower Court: Justice Court Civil Appeal - CA
Document Type: Mtn for Reconsideration
Missing case number and dept number on pleading and you have a page 30 that is
blank, are you missing a page if not please remove for filing. Andrew @ 328-3115
Sent: Thu 7/21/11 4:07 PM
Date: 2011-07-21 15:32:37.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: DV08-01168 - Marriage Dissolution Case: Divorce - Without
Children - DO - Master's Recommendation/Ord, was rejected by Second Judicial District
Court - State of Nevada.

Case Number: DV08-01168
Case Type: Marriage Dissolution Case: Divorce - Without Children - DO
Document Type: Master's Recommendation/Ord
Orders needs to be hand/paper delivered to court for Judge to sign - Andrew @
328-3115
Sent: Tue 6/28/11 10:24 AM
V3.610
(Wrongful termination) - WT - Complaint - Civil, was rejected
Date: 2011-06-28 00:17:27.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: Filing ID 1102535 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) -
WT - Mtn Proceed Forma Pauperis, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State
of Nevada.

Document Type: Mtn Proceed Forma Pauperis
Document Type: Complaint - Civil
This is being rejected for the following: 1) An IFP for this case has already been filed as
of 6/27/11, you cannot re-submit a new one. 2) You cannot E-FILE an IFP. It needs to be
paper filed. 3) When e-filing documents, they must come in separately. and 4) Your
exhibits in your complaint need to be scanned separately (with there cover sheet) and
sent over as continuations to your PDF document. - Mia 328-3148
Sent: Tue 6/28/11 10:07 AM
Date: 2011-06-27 22:47:25.0
WT - Complaint - Civil, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada.

This is being rejected for the following reasons: 1) The IFP has already been filed for this
case as of 6/27/11, this will generate a new case. 2) There is no payment method. We
need a payment method in order to charge the fee. 3) Each exhibits (with their cover
sheet) need to be scanned in separately and sent over as a continuation to the PDF
document. - thanks - Mia 328-3148
V3.611
Sent: Tue 6/28/11 8:54 AM
Date: 2011-06-27 22:50:20.0
of Nevada.

Status set by Administrator: Please submit again and do not add any attorneys as
parties. Bar numbers entered with incorrect names causes the filing to not process
correctly. The Filing Office will add the attorney during the review/approval process.
Thank you, Cindy 775-328-3569
Sent: Mon 6/27/11 5:58 PM
Date: 2011-06-27 03:52:33.0
of Nevada.

V3.612
(Wrongful termination) - WT - Acceptance of Arb Decision, was rejected
(Wrongful termination) - WT - Complaint - Civil, was rejected
Status set by Administrator: Please submit filing again - it did not process correctly.
Should be ok with a second try. Thank you, Cindy 328-3569
Sent: Mon 6/27/11 9:22 AM
Date: 2011-06-26 23:48:56.0
WT - Acceptance of Arb Decision, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State
of Nevada.

Document Type: Acceptance of Arb Decision
Document Type: Complaint - Business Court
Please file the motion to proceed in forma pauperis in paper form, also the complaint is
due at that time - Andrew @ 328-3115
Sent: Mon 6/27/11 9:19 AM
Date: 2011-06-25 23:54:51.0
V3.613
Case: Divorce - Without Children - DO - Master's Rpt/Recommend
/Ord/CYC, was rejected
Case: Divorce - Without Children - DO - Notice, was rejected

An electronically signature needs to be /S/ the the name of pltf, also we need a notary
for the first pleading filed in by a party, please provide a notary and original signature.
ANdrew @ 328-3115
Sent: Mon 12/28/09 12:36 PM
Date: 2009-12-28 12:24:16.0
Children - DO - Master's Rpt/Recommend/Ord/CYC, was rejected by Second Judicial
District Court - State of Nevada.

Document Type: Master's Rpt/Recommend/Ord/CYC
Reason(s) for rejection: Orders need to be hand delivered to court for judge to sign. Andrew @ 328-3115
Sent: Wed 10/28/09 8:44 AM
Date: 2009-10-27 16:24:40.0
V3.614
Case: Divorce - Without Children - DO - Opposition to Mtn, was rejected
Children - DO - Notice, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada.

Document Type: Notice
This document was filed in the wrong court. Please send to Supreme Court as per your
heading on the pleading.
Sent: Mon 6/01/09 7:49 AM
Date: 2009-05-29 22:52:01.0
Children - DO - Opposition to Mtn, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State
of Nevada.

Document is missing required Motion/Opposition form and payment information. Any
questions, call Michelle 328-3107
V3.615
RE: Dear Mr. Conyers
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 10/27/11 2:31 AM
To: howard.conyers@washoecourts.us
Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=f0...
1 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.616
Dear Mr. Conyers,
I am writing to express my concern over the repeated practice of filing office
personnel closing the filing office prior to the official U.S. time reaching 5
p.m. PST. This has happened on a number of occasions that I know of.
Further, the clocks on the walls are clearly about 5 minutes fast.
Additionally, Ru1es of Practice for the Second Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada, Ru1e 12. Motions; points and authorities and decisions.
1. Except as provided in Rule 1, all motions shall be accompanied by
points and authorities and any affidavits relied upon. Motions for support or
allowances and opposition thereto in divorce and separate maintenance
actions shall include disclosure of the fmancial condition of the respective
parties upon a form approved by the court pursuant to Rule 40 of these rules.
2. The responding party shall file and serve upon all parties, within 10
days after service of a motion, answering points and authorities and counter-
affidavits.
3. The District Attorney's Office shall have 21 days to respond to any
motions to seal criminal records pursuant to NRS 179.245.
4. The moving party may serve and file reply points and authorities
within 5 days after service of the answering points and authorities. Upon the
expiration of the 5-day period, either party may notify the filing office to
submit the matter for decision by filing and serving all parties with a written
request for submission of the motion on a form supplied by the filing office.
The original of the submit form shall be delivered to the filing office. Proof
of service shall be attached to the motion and response.
5. Decision shall be rendered without oral argument unless oral argument
is ordered by the court, in which event the individual court department shall
set a date and time for hearing.
6. All discovery motions shall include the certificate of moving counsel
2 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.617
certifying that after consultation with opposing counsel, they have been
unable to resolve the matter.
7. Except by leave of the court, all motions for summary judgment must
be submitted to the court pursuant to subsection 4 of this rule at least 30 days
prior to the date the case is set for trial.
8. The rehearing of motions must be done in conformity with D.C.R. 13,
Section 7. A party seeking reconsideration of a ruling of the court, other than
an order which may be addressed by motion pursuant to N.R.C.P. 50(b),
52(b), 59 or 60, must file a motion for such relief within 10 days after service
of written notice of entry of the order or judgment, unless the time is
shortened or enlarged by order. A motion for rehearing or reconsideration
must be served, noticed, filed, and heard as is any other motion. A motion for
rehearing does not toll the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal from a
fmal order or judgment.
9. If a motion for rehearing is granted, the court may make a final
disposition of the cause without reargument, or may restore it to the calendar
for reargument or resubmission, or may make such other orders as are
deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case.
fa) Papers eligible for fIling. All papers and pleadings. including
motions. oppositions and replies may be fIled in the drop box located
outside the Court Clerk's Office. with the exception of filings which
require the payment of filing fees. Filings which require the payment of
not been date and time stamped. the paper or pleading shall be deemed
However, NRCP 5(e) holds that:

Continuation of Exhibit 1
F I L E D
Electronically
12-22-2011:04:55:10 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.618
3 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.619
"(e) Filing With the Court Defined. The filing of pleadings and other
for filine any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not
practices. "
filing in contravention ofNRCP 5(e). Further, the drop box required by
WDCR 12(10) is no more. This has cost me a lot of money and I would like
to be compensated for that. I informed your Assistant Clerk of Court Julie
Wise and Supervisor Michell Purdee about this and she indicated that the fact
that the Court had "published a message about that in the Writ" seemed to
make irrelevant that the Nevada Supreme Court requires a drop box. The
appearance created by tripling the e-filing fees at roughly the same time the
drop box for after hours filing ceased to be is troubling, particularly
considering that (for a variety of reasons historical, legal, political, economic,
and otherwise) the court is, in fact, open "after hours" due to the marriage
license office being statutorily required to remain open late into the night.
I would think that a Qui Tam, Whistle Blower, or Class Action lawsuit could
wind up being very, very expensive for the Court and that a settlement of
$80,000 would be very fair to a person with the requisite standing, a ripe
issue, and the legal know-how to get a Rule 23 class certified and off the
ground, and any negligent hiring, training, supervision or other concerns
could be addressed. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. I never
received a response to any of my written inquiries.
4 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.620
With regard to the WDC fIling office staff refusing to fIle papers
submitted for riling, please consider:
Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark, 904
P.2d 1039, 111 Nev. 1367 (Nev., 1995): "This proper person petition for a
writ of mandamus seeks an order from this court directing the Eighth
Judicial District Court to fIle petitioner's application to proceed in forma
pauperis and his civil complaint. 1 On July 25, 1995, we ordered the state
to fIle an answer to this petition. The state's answer was fIled on August
11, 1995. 2 Documentation submitted by petitioner to this court
establishes that petitioner submitted to the clerk of the district court for
filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil complaint
on May 15, 1995. Although the application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis was in proper form and was sworn to under penalty of perjury,
the clerk of the district court did not fIle that application. 3 The failure
to fIle the application was in violation of the clear statutory mandate that
such an application be filed. NRS 12.015(1) provides that "[a]ny person
... may fIle an affidavit [seeking leave to proceed without payment of
fees]." Further, we have repeatedly instructed the clerk of the Eighth
Judicial District Court that such documents must be fIled. See Bowman
v. District Court, 102 Nev. 474, 728 P.2d 433 (1986) (clerk has a
ministerial duty to accept and file documents if those documents are in
proper form; clerk must not exercise any judicial discretion); Barnes v.
District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748 P.2d 483 (1987) (prisoner's right of
access to court cannot be denied on basis of indigency); Huebner v. State,
107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991) (clerk must create an accurate record
of aU pleadings submitted for filing, whether or not the documents are
actually fIled); Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992)
(clerk has no authority to return documents submitted for filing; instead,
clerk must stamp documents that cannot be immediately fIled
5 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.621
"received," and must maintain such documents in the record of the
case); Donoho v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027,842 P.2d 731 (1992) (the
clerk of the district court has a duty to me documents and to keep an
accurate record of the proceedings before the court); Grey v. Grey, 111
Nev. 388, 892 P.2d 595 (1995) (clerk of district court admonished for
failure to keep accurate record of documents submitted for filing).
Petitioner alleges that the district court has refused to file his application
and has returned it with directions to provide more information
regarding employment. Indeed, petitioner has attached to his petition for
a writ in this court his original application as it was returned to him.
Attached to the top of the document is a "post-it" note with the
handwritten notation: "application denied incomplete info-employment
currently." 4 The state informs us that the note was written by "the chief
judge." In addition, petitioner alleges, and the allegation is apparently
true, that along with his "denied" application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, his civil complaint was returned to him unmed. Finally,
petitioner alleges, and has attached documentation to support the
allegation, that judges' law clerks often return to prisoners unmed
motions along with letters purporting to rule on the legal sufficiency of
those motions. The state argues in its answer to this petition that
"petitioner's application ... was denied on the basis that the address of
the Petitioner which was later given to the Court by Petitioner .. did not
appear to be a jail and that such information was contrary to the
information shown in the application which stated that the Petitioner
was in prison. The 'out of jail' address suggested an ability of the
Petitioner to be employed." This vague reference to an "out of jail"
address is not explained in the documents before this court. Nevertheless,
the state's assertion that petitioner's application was denied is incorrect.
The handwritten notation on petitioner's unmed application clearly does
not constitute a proper judicial disposition of that application. Further,
the action of the clerk of the district court in returning petitioner's
application and civil complaint to him unmed is in direct violation of this
6 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.622
court's instructions to the clerk of the district court in Whitman v.
Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992). This court has several
times confirmed the absolute obligation of the district courts to fIle
documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of citizens to
access to the courts, whether indigent or not. Barnes v. District Court,
103 Nev. 679, 748 P.2d 483 (1987); Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810
P.2d 1209 (1991). Indeed, in Donoho v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027,842
P.2d 731 (1992), a case directly analogous to this case, we held that the
clerk of the district court violated the rights of an indigent party when
she neglected to fIle a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
a motion for relief from a default judgment. Specifically, we stated:
"[T]he clerk [of the district court] had an absolute duty to fIle the motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to clearly stamp the date of
receipt of the other documents on the documents. Further, the clerk had
a duty to keep an accurate record of the case pending before the district
court." Id. at 1029, 842 P.2d at 733 (citation omitted; emphasis added).
Thus, petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
must be fIled. If, on subsequent review of the application, the district
court determines that petitioner has not shown he is indigent, the district
court may order petitioner to provide further information or may deny
the application in an appropriately fIled written order. If, on the other
hand, the district court grants the application, the district court must
then proceed to require the fIling of petitioner's other documents and to
consider them in due course. Donoho, 108 Nev. at 1030, 842 P.2d at 733.
Of course, for statute of limitations purposes, the complaint would have
to be considered fIled on the date of actual receipt by the clerk of the
district court. To continue the analysis, with respect to petitioner's civil
complaint which he is attempting to fIle concurrently, the district court
clerk had an absolute obligation to stamp the document "received" and
to record the date on which the document was in fact received at the
courthouse. See Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991).
This the clerk of the district court did. However, the clerk then had a
7 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.623
duty to maintain a copy of the received document in the record of the
case, whether or not the document is ever filed. Whitman v. Whitman,
108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992). This, the clerk neglected to do. While
Huebner dealt with the timeliness of a notice of appeal, the rationale
compelling this court's ruling in Huebner, that all documents must be
marked received and dated, applies with equal force to a party's
submission of a complaint. "The legal rights of the parties to litigation,
whether acting in proper person or through counsel, often turn on the
date of receipt by the clerk of the district court of documents and
pleadings." Huebner, 107 Nev. at 330,810 P.2d at 1211. As with a notice
of appeal, the untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from
hearing the matter on its merits. It is the responsibility of the clerk of the
district court to keep an accurate record of all documents submitted to
her, whether or not they are filed. As in Huebner, ambiguities regarding
when documents were received or filed must ultimately be resolved in
favor of the party submitting them. Id. at 332,810 P.2d at 1212. The
issue presently before this court is not whether petitioner's motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient to establish petitioner's
indigence. Further, we are not now concerned with the merits of
petitioner's civil complaint. We are vitally concerned, however, with the
preservation of the constitutional right of access to the courts and with
the protection of the constitutional right to due process oflaw. A writ of
mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the
law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. NRS
34.160. The clerk of the district court has an absolute duty to file
petitioner's application and to properly receive and keep a record of
petitioner's complaint. Accordingly, we grant this petition for a writ of
mandamus. 6 The clerk of this court shall serve a copy of petitioner's
application and complaint on the clerk of the district court forthwith.
The clerk of this court shall also issue a writ of mandamus compelling
the clerk of the district court to file petitioner's application, and to
receive petitioner's complaint. These documents will be considered to
8 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.624
have been filed and received on May 15, 1995. --------------- 1 Petitioner
also seeks a writ of prohibition enjoining the district court, the clerk of
the district court and her employees from denying prisoners access to the
courts in the future. We deny petitioner's request for a writ of
prohibition. 2 Cause appearing, we grant petitioner's proper person
request for leave to file a reply to the state's answer. The clerk of this
court shall file the reply, entitled "petitioner's reply to petition for writs
of mandamus and prohibition," which was received by this court on
August 21,1995.3 Although the document was entitled "application"
rather than "affidavit," it was sworn to under penalties of perjury,
provided information concerning petitioner's financial condition and
clearly sought a judicial ruling regarding the question of whether
petitioner would be allowed to proceed with a civil action without the
payment of fees. Thus, any deviation as to form was not significant
enough to justify the clerk's failure to file the document. The
clerk of the court has no discretion to make any judicial ruling regarding
the legal sufficiency of a document. When a document in proper form is
submitted to the clerk, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file that
document. 4 We note that petitioner is presently an inmate at the Nevada
State Prison, and that his affidavit filed in this court in support of this
petition states that he is currently unemployed and has no prison job. He
also avers that his only asset is $6.57 in his prison account. 5 One such
letter from a law clerk to an inmate states: "Attached please find your
Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis which you recently submitted.
NRS 12.015 requires an indigent litigant to set forth 'with particularity
facts concerning his income, property, and other resources ... ' Your
application to proceed sets forth this information very generally."
"Please resubmit the Motion with a more particular statement regarding
your finances and any property you own .. " Although this letter does not
directly deny the motion, it clearly has the effect of denying the motion
without filing. Of course, like the clerk of the district court, a judge's law
9 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.625
clerk lacks judicial authority. 6 The state represents that "the District
Court will file the Petitioner's complaint upon submittal by the
petitioner." This statement was based on the state's view that we
determined in our Order to Show Cause that petitioner should be
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. We, however, express no opinion
regarding the merits of petitioner's application or complaint. We merely
determine that the application should have been filed and judicially
resolved, and the complaint should have been properly received. We note
that petitioner has sent the original documents to this court, and thus
may not be in a position to resubmit them. Also, for statute of limitations
purposes, the documents must be considered filed as of the date of
original receipt. Thus, we have determined that this petition must be
granted." Another very important and instructive case is Whitman v.
Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (Nev., 1992): "On rehearing,
appellant has submitted documents that conclusively demonstrate that
appellant submitted a timely notice of appeal to the clerk of the district
court. Although the clerk of the district court stamped the notice of
appeal "received" on December 30,1991, the clerk did not file the notice
of appeal. Instead, the clerk of the district court returned appellant's
notice of appeal to appellant because it was not accompanied by a filing
fee and, although the notice was accompanied by a motion for leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, appellant's affidavit in support of
that motion was apparently not signed. Consequently, there is no record
of the submission of appellant's timely notice of appeal. We note that the
clerk of the district court filed appellant's motion for leave to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis on the date of receipt, December 30, 1991, and
that the district court eventually granted that motion. We have
previously stated that "it is extremely important that the clerk of the
district court keep an accurate record of the date of receipt of every
document submitted to the clerk, regardless of whether the document is
in the appropriate form. Indeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the
clerk of the district court to neglect this ministerial duty." Huebner v.
10 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.626
this case, the clerk of the district court has failed to keep any record of
the date of receipt of appellant's notice of appeal; instead, the clerk
stamped the document "received" and returned it to appellant. The
clerk of the district court had no authority to take such action. Although
the clerk of the district court had no duty to file appellant's notice of
appeal before appellant paid the requisite filing fee or was relieved of the
duty to pay the riling fee by order of the district court, see NRS
19.013(2), the clerk had a duty to receive the document and to keep an
accurate record of the case pending before the district court. Particularly
in this case it was essential that the notice of appeal be retained in the
record, because we have held that a notice of appeal is effective on the
date ofreceipt by the district court clerk. See Huebner v. State, [108 Nev.
952] 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991). Rather than returning the notice
of appeal to appellant, the clerk of the district court should have retained
the notice of appeal in the record, and should have informed appellant
by letter of any perceived deficiencies in the document. 4 Appellant could
then have taken whatever action was appropriate to pursue his appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant timely submitted to
the clerk ofthe district court a notice of appeal from an appealable order
of the district court, and that appellant's timely notice of appeal is not
contained in the record due to the inappropriate action of the district
court clerk. Accordingly, we grant appellant's petition for rehearing, and
we proceed to address the merits of this appeal." Id. At 1232-1234. See,
also, Barnes v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev., In and For
Clark County, 748 P.2d 483, 103 Nev. 679 (Nev., 1987)."
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: howard.conyers@washoecourts.us; courtadmin@washoecourts.us
Subject: Dear Mr. Conyers
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:37:52 -0700
October 17, 2011
Dear Washoe District Court Administration and Howard W. Conyers, District Court Administrator,
I am writing again to express my concern related to an apparent widespread tendency amongst court personnel
to call in a Deputy at the drop of a hat or the faintest hint of questioning of their opinion on procedure or court
policies. I have witnessed a number of incidents where Deputy's are called in to a situation before any rationale
reason for doing so arose, seemingly retaliatory purpose by various court staff and or Deputys. I have witnessed
an individual who was behaving reasonably be told to watch their step by a Deputy in a hostile, aggressive and
threatening tone. I have witnessed filing office clerks refuse to accept documents for filing or even to mark them
received, in direct contravention of the express dictates found within the Whitman decision of the Nevada
Supreme Court.
I have also witnessed many instances where court personnel, in my opinion, do a very fine job. I am particularly
impressed by Karen Stancil's work in the Civil Division of the Reno Justice Court. Law library employee Timothy
Prentiss and Nikki Britt generally do a very admirable job. However, Myndi Clive was seemingly permitted to
behave in a belligerent way towards library patrons for an extended period of time, as did the former head law
librarian Sandra Merz, continually asserting a devotion to policies allegedly found in the contract between
Washoe County and Westlaw that are apparently in direct opposition to the policies actually found within that
contract, and creating the appearance that the public is being milked for copying charges. Further, the policy of
charging $1.00 a page for documents in the public record departs markedly from the $0.08 cents a page charged
members of the public seeking such documents from federal courts.
Today, at the Family Court Self Help Center, I witness an individual request to see a copy of the M2 Temporary
Child Support Motion Packet, then receive a copy of it from the desk clerk and told that he may review it, then
have the clerk arbitrarily and capriciously changed her mind, apparently, letting the gentlemen review no more
than approximately the first page or two of a approximately 40 page packet, then refuse to clarify to the
gentleman why she was demanding the M2 packet back, then quickly a deputy was called in who placed his
11 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.627
hand on the gentlemen, would not remove it upon being asked to do so, and who made no attempt to ascertain
the reasonableness of the desk clerk's specious consternation. I can think of a number of other times where
Deputies have been called in in situations where doing so was not at all reasonable.
I do understand, especially in the context of the tragic events surrounding the Darren Mack domestic relations
matter, that maintaining order and safety in the courts is of paramount concern. However, I believe there may
currently be a situation where court personnel take a Stalinist era Russia approach to dealing with the public,
whose filing fees and taxes pay salaries and pensions, which currently compare quite favorably to what most
members of the general public are able to command from the public sector.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is
privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken
in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in
error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and
destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver
of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we
inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed in
this communication.
12 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.628

13 of 13 12/22/2011 4:02 AM
V3.629
formal written complaint regarding filing office
Sent: Tue 6/28/11 12:47 AM
To: michelle.purdy@washoecounty.us; courtadmin@washoecourts.us; howard.conyers@washoecourts.us;
julie.wise@washoecourts.us

Dear Mrs. Purdy, et al,
This correspondence is sent memorializing and referencing our conversations today in person and on the
phone. I wish to make a written complaint about the incident last week wherein, I believe, and I could be wrong
here, that NRCP 5(e)which states "The clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that
purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or
practices..." was violated. Rather the clerk felt the need to go get an armed Sheriff's Deputy to confront me when
I querried her as to why she was refusing to accept my filing of a Complaint and In Forma Pauperis motion, or
alternatively, a complaint alone. I entered the filing office prior to 5 pm and was called to the desk to conduct
business. I asked if I could just file the Complaint alone and pay the filing fee and she still refused, saying that by
that point, it would be too much work for her to process the payment or turn this or that machine on. She did
not crack a sheet of paper out of the stacks forming my original and copy of my Complaint, yet indicated, due to
noncomformance with WDCR 10, she was refusing to file my Complaint, which likely cause a filing deadline to be
missed and time barred forever a lawsuit. I spoke with you about this today at the filing office and later on the
phone. At the filing office you seemed very, very interested to know the name and identity of this clerk, however,
when I called you a short time later on the phone, you still did not know the name of the clerk, seemingly
confused enough to believe it may have been Mia, despite the fact that the clerk named Mia had been able to
give you somewhat specific details about the entire incident and who was involved. Shortly after you indicated
to me that some sections of WDCR 10 are just not relevant anymore or even enforced, such as hold punching, or
exhibit tabbing, etc., I indicated that I wasn't sure whether hole punching was the basis for the clerk's refusal, Mia
interjected that it was not. I asked Mia what exactly was the basis for the refusal, given that she seemed rather
sure as to what was not the basis for the refusal. Mia stated that it was for lack of an Affirmation page. I
indicated that that was strange, given the clerk did nto crack a paper off the stack, so I had to wonder how she
would ascertain whether or not there was an affirmation page. Further, it is my understanding that such an
affirmation can be one of the last lines before the signature and does not necessarily need its own form page.
Perhaps that is where cracking the stack of papers before summarily dismissing a citizens right to rile a
document would be helpful, rather than the clerk appearing to display aghast horror at the prospect of working
even a single minute past 5 pm (much like old time cinema depictions of vampires being aware of a coming
sunrise).

Do you intend to ascertain this clerk's identity, I would like to know it and I would like some follow up from you,
Mr. Conyers, the person you cited to as your supervisor, Julie Wise Assistant Clerk of Court who greeted me with
a bemused, pained expression when she was retrieved to deal with me and my annoying filing deadline issues,
and whom I spoke with last week during this indicent (while the clerk apparently got up an unilaterally made the,
what I consider to be extremely passive aggresive and unprofessional decision to escalate the situation rather
than have a dialogue by seeking to inject an armed guard into the mix). When I mentioned to Julie some of the
exigencies involved in attempting to file a Complaint to avoid the running of a statute of limiations and the
problems associated with her clerk's approach, and whether Julie was going to take any sort of further inquiry
after her cursory dismissal of my attempts to file and then later seek her contribution to the matter, Julie
mentioned that she would not be looking at my documents or considering the matter further as, "she trusted her
clerks opinions on the matter", no matter that, at this point, Julie Wise was aware that I am a licensed attorney in
the State of Nevada and, presumably, like Ms. Wise, have a JD and may have a clue or two, hopefully, about the
ins and outs of filing something with a court. Perhaps, it is the fact that the clerk makes so much more money
Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=57...
1 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.630
FW: another complaint
then me, in all likelihood, that lead Ms. Wise to lean so heavily on that clerk's legal opinions. I remember this
clerk from the family court and found her to be snide, abrasive, giving off an air that she was doing us all a great
big favor by showing up, bemusingly condescending, and not all that interested in the law or the vital role she
could play in carrying out the orderly administration of justice even back then. I have rarely, if ever filed any sort
of complaint like this in my life. However, to the extent you become at all aware of some of the things I have
encountered in the professional world, I certainly am no stranger to people feeling free to call my bosses or the
masters of my universe up with their opinions and constructive feedback. I then indicated to Julie that her clerk
had not even cracked one sheet of paper off the stacks of paper forming my Complaint or its copy, not to
mentione my In Forma Pauperis petition. I cannot imagine how Mia, nor Julie, nor this unidentified Clerk may be
able to have such strong feelings as to the noncomformance of the documents I attempted to file without so
much as touching them or sorting through even one page out of the stack.

Today, this clerk and a male clerk were absent for the first 10 minutes I waited in line. Then they returned,
appeared to get ready to go to work, then the male clerk put on some very jocular looking dark sunglasses and a
jean jacket and seemed to entice the clerk I had an incident with last week to. apparently, GO ON ANOTHER
BREAK. I watched my clock and they were gone for over 30 minutes, leaving and returing together, starting at
3:21 p.m. Perhaps this was their lunch hour, perhaps they weren't on a break at all, but it may bear some further
inquiry. Regardless, while those seeking to file documents waited in line complaining aloud about how some of
the clerks seemed to take their breaks together, rather than stagger their breaks, and thereby cause the line in
the filing office to ebb even further out the entry door (as was the case today for the entire time I was there.. I
do recognize that there are court and filing office employees who are dedicated and talented with respect to
their jobs.

I appreciate your response to my concerns and whether you will do or offer anything to make up for the wrongs I
perceive to have been done here.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin
Sent: Tue 6/28/11 1:51 PM
To: howard.conyers@washoecourt.us; howard.conyers@washoecourts.us; howard.conyers@washoecounty.us;
courtadmin@washoecourts.us
To: howard.conyers@washoecourt.us
Subject: another complaint
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:46:29 -0700
Dear Mr. Conyers,
I would like to hereby make another formal written complaint to you regarding Myndi Clive for her recent
behavior towards me at the Washoe County Law Library. Further, I would like to make a similar complaint
against any library personnel who felt it was appropriate to call in approximately 6-7 different sheriffs deputies
during my stay one day approximately one month ago at the WCLL rather than tell me, person to person, prior
to involving 6-7 armed guards, about some vague, arcane, "grey area" rule that the library staff was not even
2 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.631
Questions regarding e-filing
sure was a rule exactly. I assume you can get details regarding the involved WCLL staff's view of this interaction
prior to my explaining further. Please however, clarify to me in writing the exact policy on gathering information
off of Westlaw or Lexis in the libary and whether the contract between Washoe County and West or Elsevier
mandates that the library staff charge and monitor the content of all copies made, and, in fact, insist that
photocopies be the only means of gathering information off of these subscriptions services, or whether that is
merely a libary policy that either court or library staff have added to interactions with patrons. Ms. Clive and
libary staff have continually informed members of the public that they are barred by these contracts from letting
anyone "download" (whatever that means given that anything viewed at all off the internet has been
"downloaded") anything off of Westlaw, despite the fact that the contract between the County and Westlaw
specifically allows such copying if used within the context of one's own work product or legal proceedings.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
Tel: 775 338 8118.
Sent: Tue 6/28/11 7:54 PM
To: eflex@washoecourts.us; courtadmin@washoecourts.us; courttech@washoecourts.us

Dear Court Administration and eFlex Support,

Please allow me to ask some questions. Are you and the associated staff aware of NRCP 5(e)
"Filing With the Court Defined. The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as
required by these rules shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court, except that
the judge may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the judge shall
note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk. A court may
by local rule permit papers to be filed, signed or verified by electronic means that are
consistent with technical standards, if any, that the Judicial Conference of the United States
establishes. A paper signed by electronic means in compliance with the local rule constitutes a
written paper presented for the purpose of applying these rules. The clerk shall not refuse to
accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in
proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or practices."

3 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.632
How does the practice of "kicking back out" pleadings attorneys or non-attorneys submit
comply with the dictates found in NRCP 5(e)? How does NRCP 5(e) relate to the following,
found in the eFlex User Guide "Documents submitted for electronic filing will be forwarded to
a Clerks queue for review and approval. If one of multiple documents in a submission
package is rejected, the entire package will be rejected. Rejected filings mustl include a reason
and may be corrected and then re-submitted." Does the Washoe County eFlex user guide
have the force of law behind it? That is, does it hold the same weight and authority as the
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure?
I have received various emails from individuals corresponding to me via eFlex. They set forth
various reasons why these individuals are, perhaps, violating NRCP 5(e) by refusing to file
something presented for filing, and thereby refusing to afford such a filing a filing date.
One came from Cindy Fladager:

Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: Filing ID 1102534 - Employment Torts (Wrongful
termination) -
WT - Mtn Proceed Forma Pauperis, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of
Nevada.
Reason(s) for rejection: Status set by Administrator: Please submit again and do not add any
attorneys as parties. Bar numbers entered with incorrect names causes the filing to not
process correctly. The Filing Office will add the attorney during the review/approval process.
Thank you, Cindy 775-328-3569

I am not sure what to do should I be suing another attorney and that attorney was, therefore,
a "party"? Am I not allowed to add someone as a party merely because they
are an attorney? Further, a great deal of care was taken to look up each and every bar number
for each and every attorney added as a party, yet, no mention is made of any instance where
"Bar numbers entered with incorrect names causes the filing to not process correctly". Could
you provide that information?

And in another email from "Mia", who provides only a first name like a representative I might
talk to on the phone from T-Mobile, yet who is apparently deciding whether or not I can
secure a filing date and avoid the running of a statute of limitations:
"Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: Filing ID 1102535 - Employment Torts (Wrongful
termination) -
Nevada.
Reason(s) for rejection: This is being rejected for the following: 1) An IFP for this case has
already been filed as of 6/27/11, you cannot re-submit a new one. 2) You cannot E-FILE an IFP.
It needs to be paper filed. 3) When e-filing documents, they must come in separately. and 4)
4 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.633
Your exhibits in your complaint need to be scanned separately (with there (sic) cover sheet)
and sent over as continuations to your PDF document. - Mia 328-3148"
termination) -
Reason(s) for rejection: This is being rejected for the following reasons: 1) The IFP has already
been filed for this case as of 6/27/11, this will generate a new case. 2) There is no payment
method. We need a payment method in order to charge the fee. 3) Each exhibits (with their
cover sheet) need to be scanned in separately and sent over as a continuation to the PDF
document. - thanks - Mia 328-3148
termination) -
Nevada.
Reason(s) for rejection: Status set by Administrator: Please submit filing again - it did not
process correctly. Should be ok with a second try. Thank you, Cindy 328-3569

Does the above indicate that when and if I "submit the filing again" I will get a new filing
date? Is it my job to resubmit filings in every instance, or does, perhaps, the filing office need
to do this occasionally? How exactly did it "not process correctly"?
Then, I receive:
termination) -
WT - Acceptance of Arb Decision, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of
Nevada.
Document Type: Acceptance of Arb Decision
Document Type: Complaint - Business Court
Reason(s) for rejection: Please file the motion to proceed in forma pauperis in paper form,
also the complaint is due at that time - Andrew @ 328-3115.
I am not sure if this "Andrew" is the filing office clerk who just the other day put on some
wacky bright purple rimmed and very dark lens sunglasses while behind the filing desk and
seemingly entreated a filing clerk who just got back from a break to keep him company on
another break 45 seconds after she sat back down to her desk and appeared to be getting
ready to tackle some of the line of would be filers that stretched outside the door. If Andrew is
5 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.634
that person, he and the other clerk, after he put on his jean jacket and adjusted his wacky
sunglasses, left the filing office and only returned after a full half hour had passed. However,
could you or someone please indicate why it is that once again I was denied my apparent
right under NRCP 5(e) to secure a filing date, but rather had my submission and attempted
filing rejected because, although the drop down menus within eFlex contain an entry for an
"In Forma Pauperis" Motion, "Andrew" insisted I file it in paper form. Why is that?

Another:
termination) - WT - Complaint - Civil, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of
Nevada.
Reason(s) for rejection: An electronically signature needs to be /S/ the the name of pltf, also
we need a notary for the first pleading filed in by a party, please provide a notary and original
signature. ANdrew @ 328-3115
Does this notarization requirement for the first pleading filed in by a party apply when it is an
attorney filing in the pleading via eFlex, with its associated password protection? Even if so,
does the lack of notarization allow contravening NRCP 5(e), apparently?
Would it be possible to get a copy of Nevada Supreme Court ADK No. 404, Order Adopting
Nevada Electronic Filing Rules filed. December 29, 2006 and effective March 1? If not, where
could I get a copy of that document?
Further, can you indicate whether there is a rule or policy in place regarding eFlex wherein
attorneys must submit Exhibits as separate files or pdfs? That is, if an entire complaint or other
pleading, plus the Index to Exhibits, plus the cover pages for the Exhibits and the Exhibits
themselves can all fit in one pdf, can the attorney load that singular document or must the
attorney break these up into 4 or 5 pdfs? The eFlex guid does state that "
Exhibits
Documents containing tabbed exhibits will follow the same procedure as described for
documents exceeding 4 MB in size, using the *Continuation document type.
Each exhibit must be added as a separate file using the *Continuation document type.
A label page is required as the first page of the exhibit. This page will be blank except for an
exhibit label approximately two inches from the top and bottom, i.e., Exhibit 1, along with
header/footers, if any.
Exhibits should be labeled numerically and not alphabetically.
An Index of Exhibits should be included with a description of each exhibit.
Pages of documents including tabbed exhibits should be ordered as follows:
First file added from browser using a document code:
Document including filers signature
Any certificate of mailing
Affirmation
Index of Exhibits
6 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.635
Second file (or group of files) added from browser using *Continuation document type."
However, the "User Manual" link at the eFlex site indicates that:
"How do I include paper exhibits (scanning)?
Many times you will need to include some paper documents such as a copy of a contract, a
copy of a bounced check, or some other item in your submission. You must scan these types
of paper exhibits into electronic format.
Is there a limit on how big a document can be?
The court has established a 2 megabyte limit size to each document. Generally, a 200 page
document printed to PDF in black and white will be less that 2 megabytes if the document
does not have images, graphs, or pictures.
What do I do if my document is too larger?
If you have created a document that is over 200 pages and is larger than 2 Megabytes in size
you need to split the document up into volumes, sections, or chapters. The efiling system has
the ability to load attachments or continuation of documents and identify that they are
associated with a previously included document. Make sure you always include the main
document first when you split a document into smaller sections. "
I can appreciate that having filers follow such a practice may aid in the orderly administration
of justice and conservation of judicial resources. However, is it your and the filing offices
stance that the eFlex User Guide, or perhaps something codified elsewhere, allows the clerks
of the Second Judicial District Court to ignore NRCP 5(e) and make it such that something as
vital as avoiding a statute of limitations expiration and securing a filing date should come
down to whether the clerk at the filing office views, say, the distance between the two holes
punched on one's papers to be outside the acceptable range? Or, that NRCP 5(e), can be
ignored because an attorney submitted a singular pdf that contained two exhibits within it in
addition to the pleading itself? I guess I just wonder whether these form requirements are
legal requirements the violation of which can cost someone the ability to secure a filing
deadline, or whether they are merely preferences of the clerks that would make their jobs go
more smoothly. A lot can be riding on the answer to that. Please indicate which is the case.

Along the same lines, the "Online Help" section of the eFlex site indicates that:

"eFiling a new case
The first button on the Home page links you to the process to efile a New Cases. You can also
get to the process through the menu eFile. Following is a description of what might occur.
Prior to starting this process you will have prepared your documents.
You select the option on the home page to create a New Case and you answer the questions
in a series of screens about court and case type information.
One screen there are two buttons to add party information. The first adds party information of
the people you represent. The second button adds all other parties. This will present the 'Add
Party' screen.
7 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.636
statue of limitations deadline missed after Washoe clerk refuses to accept
Complaint filing
Continue adding parties until you have added all the parties on the case. Remember to fill out
all the fields you have and not just the required fields. "
However, the "User Guide" indicates, on page 11 of 43, under Section 4 "Adding a New Case"
that:
"Note: Add only the first plaintiff listed in the case caption on the initiating document. The
Filing Office will add all remaining parties and attorneys in Clerk Review."

So, the "Online Help" say to add ALL the parties, or that you may, and the "User Guide" says
to "add only the firest plaintiff listed". Filing Office Clerk "Mia" sent me an email today wherein
she said she was denying or "kicking back out" my filing, and refusing to give me a filing date
when I really, really need one to avoid the running of a statute of limitations deadline,
because of something like, the exhibits not being added as separate pdfs to the eFlex system,
but rather included in one PDF with the complaint?

Has my registered email account recently had the "Expiration Date" altered in any way? My
account originally was approved 1/7/2009, why would it be expiring in the middle of a year?
Under what authority was this Expiration Date recently changed if it was changed?

Today, my user profile indicates:
Date Approved: 2009-01-07 14:22:29:000
Expiration Date: 07/31/2011
Shouldn't my Expiration date be around 1/7/2012? If it was changed, under what authority
was that done?

Thank you for your attention to these matters and answers to my questions.

Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
Sent: Tue 6/28/11 11:16 PM
To: marshal@willicklawgroup.com; eflexsupport@washoecourts.us; courtadmin@washoecounty.us;
courtadmin@washoecourts.us
8 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.637

"It seems whenever the courts make an improvement, it's for them and not the public... the
solution is to improve the system based on what the public needs, not to suit court employees.,,,
It is the bureaucratic arrogance of not even attempting to satisfy the duty to the public (and the Bar),
while remaining obsessed with internal budgets and making things easier for those running the
system, that is so maddening..."
- Marshall Willick, the most respected attorney in Nevada.
Dear Court Administration and Filing Office Supervisors,
In an effort to be more informed and educated and less critical of some of the matters I have previously
raised, I have done some research:
I still am not sure how NRCP 5(e), WDCR 10(11), and NEFR 15 as a whole do not contradict each
other.
NEFR Rule 15. System or user filing errors.
(a) Failure of electronic filing or service. When electronic filing does not occur due to technical
problems, the court clerk may correct the problem. Technical problems include:
(1) An error in the transmission of the document to the electronic filing system or served party
that was unknown to the sending party;
(2) A failure to process the electronic document when received by the electronic filing system;
(3) Erroneous exclusion of a party from the service list; or
(4) Other technical problem experienced by the filer with the electronic filing system.
9 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.638
(b) Time of filing of delayed transmission. Unless the technical failure prevents timely filing or
affects jurisdiction, the court must deem a filing received on the day when the filer can
satisfactorily demonstrate that he or she attempted to file or serve the document. The time for
response is calculated from the time the document is correctly transmitted. When the technical
failure prevents timely filing or affects jurisdiction, the issue shall come before the court upon
notice and opportunity to be heard. The court may upon satisfactory proof enter an order
permitting the document to be filed as of the date and time it was first attempted to be sent
electronically.
I will need to research further the extent to which the above quote applies or analogizes to the filing
offices refusal to file the complaint and IFP, as well as the Complaint alone wherein I stated that I
would pay the filing fee and that I needed to secure a filing date that day. It is my contention that the
clerks refusal to let me file my Complaint, even where I stated I would not pay and avoid the problems
associated with submitting an IFP MAY HAVE RESULTED IN A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
FILING DEADLINE BEING MISSED, THEREBY INAPPROPRIATELY PREVENTING ME FROM
SEEKING REDRESS IN COURT. Please indicate whether the filing office will do or intends to do
anything (within the confines of any and all applicable rules) to see to it that I be granted the filing date
of the day for which I originally attempted to secure a filing date for the Wrongful Termination case, ie,
Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services, forming the backdrop of the several emails and correspondences I
have sent in the past several days.
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: Filing ID 1102534 -Reason(s)for rejection: Please submit again and
do not add any attorneys as parties. Bar numbers entered with incorrect names causes the filing to not
process correctly. The Filing Office will add the attorney during the review/approval process. Thank
you, Cindy 775-328-3569
"Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: Filing ID 1102535 -
Reason(s) for rejection: This is being rejected for the following: 1) An IFP for this case has already
been filed as of 6/27/11, you cannot re-submit a new one. 2) You cannot E-FILE an IFP. It needs to be
paper filed. 3) When e-filing documents, they must come in separately. and 4) Your exhibits in your
complaint need to be scanned separately (with there (sic) cover sheet) and sent over as continuations to
your PDF document. - Mia 328-3148"

Please inquire with Mia and any other relevant or appropriate 2nd Judicial agent how Mia's dictate that
10 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.639
I need to "paper file" an IFP relates to Nevada Electronic Filing Rule (NEFR) Rule 5. "Electronic
filing system requirements. Any system for the electronic submission of documents adopted by a
district, justice or municipal court must conform to the following minimum requirements:... (h)
Electronic acceptance of payments. A court may establish a means to accept payments of fees,
fines, surcharges, and other financial obligations electronically, including the processing of
applications to waive fees. Any such system developed must include auditing controls consistent
with generally accepted accounting principles and comply with any AOC technical standards
that may be adopted."

Also, NEFR 10(b) holds that "Rule 10. Payment of filing fees.
(b) Waiver of fees. Anyone entitled to waiver of nonelectronic filing fees will not be charged
electronic filing fees. The court or clerk shall establish an application and waiver process consistent
with the application and waiver process used with respect to nonelectronic filing and filing fees."

Rule 11. Signatures.
(a) Deemed signed. Every document electronically filed or served shall be deemed to be signed by
the registered user submitting the document. Each document must bear that persons name, mailing
address, telephone number, and bar number if applicable. Where a statute or court rule requires a
signature at a particular location on a form, the persons typewritten name shall be inserted. Otherwise,
a facsimile, typographical, or digital signature is not required.
(b) Documents under penalty of perjury or requiring signature of notary public.
(1) Documents required by law to include a signature under penalty of perjury, or the
signature of a notary public, may be submitted electronically, provided that the declarant or
notary public has signed a printed form of the document. The printed document bearing the
original signatures must be scanned and electronically submitted for filing in a format that
accurately reproduces the original signatures and contents of the document.
(2) By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer verifies that the signatures are
authentic.

NEFR Rule 14. Access to electronic documents; confidential information.
(a) Electronic access. Except as provided in these rules, a court must provide registered users in a
case with access to electronic documents to the same extent it provides access to paper documents.
Electronic access to such documents is required for registered users who are parties or attorneys on a
case. A court may provide electronic access to registered users who are not parties or attorneys on
a case.
As a form of redress for the several incidences between myself, the filing office, and the Washoe
County Law Library staff, I am seeking approval from the Clerk of Court or individual with authority
11 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.640
to do so, to allow me what is provided for in NEFR 14(a), wherein " A court may provide electronic
access to registered users who are not parties or attorneys on a case." Please indicate whether
this accomodation will be forthcoming. One matter that contributed to the incident at the Washoe
County Law Library concerns the policy of the 2nd Judicial DC of charging $1 per page to make a
copy of a pleading, freely available to the public, in the public record. Please provide some insight into
the source of authority for so high a charge, and the source of authority or Court Order wherein
individuals are barred from making their own copies of such public records, taking photographs of, or
download or emailing copies of such records to themselves. It is my understanding that, aside from the
interior of courtrooms and employees only areas (such as, of course, judicial chambers, etc.) that the
inside of a courthouse is a public place and that forbidding the use of cameras of any kind is
unconstitutional. It has been mentioned to me that their might be some sort of a court order sanctioning
this practice, however, I have been unable to receive any information related to accessing or reviewing
this court order or the source from which is emanates from either Mr. Conyers or any Sheriff's Office
agents connected with the Court. Further, a greenback a page is a charge that wrecks shop on the
conscience, and an affront to the public and its right to access the public record. Even the publishers
and distributors of college textbooks are offended by this one. Discovery rules would never permit
charging an opposing party such a cost and the Court should not be permitted to charge Washoe
County's citizens such a cost either. I can find nothing in NEFR that authorizes charging either
attorneys or the general public $1.00 a page for copies of something in the public record, nor which
sanctions banning cameras from the courthouse and prevents the public or attorneys from copying or
taking photographs or scanning either materials in the public record or books in the library. Please do
confirm that, I can't bring a scanner into the library either, right? Is it still legal to bring a yellow legal
pad and pen into the libary and copy word for word, some quotation, Bartleby the Scrivener-Style,
before Gutenberg's invention of movable type took words out of the sole possession of monastic
scriveners and placed them before the wider public? Is it okay to bring my own yellow legal pad or
must I purchase special yellow legal pads at an inordinately inflated price from the Court"s
Administration?

I do appreciate the fact that, apparently, Mr. Willick has a lot more to complain about in Clark County
in these regards and that Washoe County is looked to as a "grass is greener over there" sort of place. I
appreciate your attention to and answers to the questions and requests raised herein.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin

12 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.641
Dear Mr. Conyers
Sent: Mon 10/17/11 10:37 AM
To: howard.conyers@washoecourts.us; courtadmin@washoecourts.us
1 attachment
october 17 2011 letter to washoe district court.pdf (43.3 KB)
October 17, 2011
Dear Washoe District Court Administration and Howard W. Conyers, District Court Administrator,
I am writing again to express my concern related to an apparent widespread tendency amongst court personnel
to call in a Deputy at the drop of a hat or the faintest hint of questioning of their opinion on procedure or court
policies. I have witnessed a number of incidents where Deputy's are called in to a situation before any rationale
reason for doing so arose, seemingly retaliatory purpose by various court staff and or Deputys. I have witnessed
an individual who was behaving reasonably be told to watch their step by a Deputy in a hostile, aggressive and
threatening tone. I have witnessed filing office clerks refuse to accept documents for filing or even to mark them
received, in direct contravention of the express dictates found within the Whitman decision of the Nevada
Supreme Court.
I have also witnessed many instances where court personnel, in my opinion, do a very fine job. I am particularly
impressed by Karen Stancil's work in the Civil Division of the Reno Justice Court. Law library employee Timothy
Prentiss and Nikki Britt generally do a very admirable job. However, Myndi Clive was seemingly permitted to
behave in a belligerent way towards library patrons for an extended period of time, as did the former head law
librarian Sandra Merz, continually asserting a devotion to policies allegedly found in the contract between
Washoe County and Westlaw that are apparently in direct opposition to the policies actually found within that
contract, and creating the appearance that the public is being milked for copying charges. Further, the policy of
charging $1.00 a page for documents in the public record departs markedly from the $0.08 cents a page charged
members of the public seeking such documents from federal courts.
Today, at the Family Court Self Help Center, I witness an individual request to see a copy of the M2 Temporary
Child Support Motion Packet, then receive a copy of it from the desk clerk and told that he may review it, then
have the clerk arbitrarily and capriciously changed her mind, apparently, letting the gentlemen review no more
than approximately the first page or two of a approximately 40 page packet, then refuse to clarify to the
gentleman why she was demanding the M2 packet back, then quickly a deputy was called in who placed his
hand on the gentlemen, would not remove it upon being asked to do so, and who made no attempt to ascertain
the reasonableness of the desk clerk's specious consternation. I can think of a number of other times where
13 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.642
Deputies have been called in in situations where doing so was not at all reasonable.
I do understand, especially in the context of the tragic events surrounding the Darren Mack domestic relations
matter, that maintaining order and safety in the courts is of paramount concern. However, I believe there may
currently be a situation where court personnel take a Stalinist era Russia approach to dealing with the public,
whose filing fees and taxes pay salaries and pensions, which currently compare quite favorably to what most
members of the general public are able to command from the public sector.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock St.
Reno, NV 89501
775 338 8118
Licensed in Nevada
this communication.

14 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.643
Emergency Appeal attached. IFP motion for Appeal attached.
Sent: Fri 10/28/11 10:54 PM
To: eflex@washoecourts.us; courtadmin@washoecourts.us
2 attachments
marked as received by M. Purdy Mtn and Affid proceed on appeal IFP Merliss v Coughlin eviction.pdf
(64.9 KB) , Emergency Appeal marked as received M. Purdee WDC filing office attempt to submit with
IFP.pdf (142.1 KB)
15 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.644
16 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.645
Thursday. The filing office signed and dated that document but refused to
retain the hard copy as welL.! am attaching that to this email also.
Additionally, Rilles of Practice for the Second Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada, Rille 12(10) provides:
(a) Papers eligible for filing. All papers and pleadings. including
motions. oppositions and replies may be fIled in the drop box located
outside the Court Clerk's Office. with the exception of rilings which
require the payment of riling fees. Filings which require the payment of
not been date and time stamped. the paper or pleading shall be deemed
I would like my efiling subscription charges waived in light of the Court's
failure to comply with WDCR 12(10). Please let me know in writing the
decision on that request.
Further, NRCP 5(e) holds that:
n(e) Filing With the Court Defined. The filing of pleadings and other
17 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.646
for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not
practices. "
filing in contravention ofNRCP 5(e). Further, the drop box required by
WDCR 12(10) is no more. The drop box was removed about 6 months ago.
The efiling fee tripled, about six months ago, on July 1,2011. The
connection is hard to ignore. I seriously, seriously doubt the drop box was as
underutilized as I have heard suggested. I would imagine the hard working,
dedicated filing office staff may actually prefer having the drop box to cut
down on the lines. Nonetheless, I would be surprised if the dictates of
WDCR 12(10) were rendered null by any under use.
With regard to the WDC fIling office staff refusing to fIle papers
submitted for riling, please consider:
Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark, 904
P.2d 1039, 111 Nev. 1367 (Nev., 1995): "This proper person petition for a
writ of mandamus seeks an order from this court directing the Eighth
Judicial District Court to fIle petitioner's application to proceed in forma
pauperis and his civil complaint. 1 On July 25, 1995, we ordered the state
to fIle an answer to this petition. The state's answer was fIled on August
11, 1995. 2 Documentation submitted by petitioner to this court
establishes that petitioner submitted to the clerk of the district court for
filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil complaint

Cont i nuat i on of Exhi bi t 1
F I L E D
Electronically
12-22-2011:04:55:10 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.647
second continuation of exhibit 1
20 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.648
a duty to keep an accurate record of the case pending before the district
court." Id. at 1029, 842 P.2d at 733 (citation omitted; emphasis added).
Thus, petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
must be fIled. If, on subsequent review of the application, the district
court determines that petitioner has not shown he is indigent, the district
court may order petitioner to provide further information or may deny
the application in an appropriately fIled written order. If, on the other
hand, the district court grants the application, the district court must
then proceed to require the fIling of petitioner's other documents and to
consider them in due course. Donoho, 108 Nev. at 1030, 842 P.2d at 733.
Of course, for statute of limitations purposes, the complaint would have
to be considered fIled on the date of actual receipt by the clerk of the
district court. To continue the analysis, with respect to petitioner's civil
complaint which he is attempting to fIle concurrently, the district court
clerk had an absolute obligation to stamp the document "received" and
to record the date on which the document was in fact received at the
courthouse. See Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991).
This the clerk of the district court did. However, the clerk then had a
duty to maintain a copy of the received document in the record of the
case, whether or not the document is ever fIled. Whitman v. Whitman,
108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992). This, the clerk neglected to do. While
Huebner dealt with the timeliness of a notice of appeal, the rationale
compelling this court's ruling in Huebner, that aU documents must be
marked received and dated, applies with equal force to a party's
submission of a complaint. "The legal rights of the parties to litigation,
whether acting in proper person or through counsel, often turn on the
date of receipt by the clerk of the district court of documents and
pleadings." Huebner, 107 Nev. at 330,810 P.2d at 1211. As with a notice
of appeal, the untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from
hearing the matter on its merits. It is the responsibility ofthe clerk ofthe
district court to keep an accurate record of aU documents submitted to
her, whether or not they are fIled. As in Huebner, ambiguities regarding
21 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.649
when documents were received or fIled must ultimately be resolved in
favor of the party submitting them. Id. at 332,810 P.2d at 1212. The
issue presently before this court is not whether petitioner's motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient to establish petitioner's
indigence. Further, we are not now concerned with the merits of
petitioner's civil complaint. We are vitally concerned, however, with the
preservation of the constitutional right of access to the courts and with
the protection of the constitutional right to due process of law. A writ of
mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the
law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. NRS
34.160. The clerk of the district court has an absolute duty to fIle
petitioner's application and to properly receive and keep a record of
petitioner's complaint. Accordingly, we grant this petition for a writ of
mandamus. 6 The clerk of this court shall serve a copy of petitioner's
application and complaint on the clerk of the district court forthwith.
The clerk of this court shall also issue a writ of mandamus compelling
the clerk of the district court to fIle petitioner's application, and to
receive petitioner's complaint. These documents will be considered to
have been fIled and received on May 15, 1995. --------------- 1 Petitioner
also seeks a writ of prohibition enjoining the district court, the clerk of
the district court and her employees from denying prisoners access to the
courts in the future. We deny petitioner's request for a writ of
prohibition. 2 Cause appearing, we grant petitioner's proper person
request for leave to fIle a reply to the state's answer. The clerk of this
court shall fIle the reply, entitled "petitioner's reply to petition for writs
of mandamus and prohibition," which was received by this court on
August 21,1995.3 Although the document was entitled "application"
rather than "affidavit," it was sworn to under penalties of perjury,
provided information concerning petitioner's financial condition and
clearly sought a judicial ruling regarding the question of whether
petitioner would be allowed to proceed with a civil action without the
payment of fees. Thus, any deviation as to form was not significant
22 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.650
enough to justify the clerk's failure to fIle the document. The
clerk of the court has no discretion to make any judicial ruling regarding
the legal sufficiency of a document. When a document in proper form is
submitted to the clerk, the clerk has a ministerial duty to fIle that
document. 4 We note that petitioner is presently an inmate at the Nevada
State Prison, and that his affidavit fIled in this court in support of this
petition states that he is currently unemployed and has no prison job. He
also avers that his only asset is $6.57 in his prison account. 5 One such
letter from a law clerk to an inmate states: "Attached please find your
Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis which you recently submitted.
NRS 12.015 requires an indigent litigant to set forth 'with particularity
facts concerning his income, property, and other resources ... ' Your
application to proceed sets forth this information very generally. "
"Please resubmit the Motion with a more particular statement regarding
your finances and any property you own .. " Although this letter does not
directly deny the motion, it clearly has the effect of denying the motion
without filing. Of course, like the clerk of the district court, a judge's law
clerk lacks judicial authority. 6 The state represents that "the District
Court will fIle the Petitioner's complaint upon submittal by the
petitioner." This statement was based on the state's view that we
determined in our Order to Show Cause that petitioner should be
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. We, however, express no opinion
regarding the merits of petitioner's application or complaint. We merely
determine that the application should have been fIled and judicially
resolved, and the complaint should have been properly received. We note
that petitioner has sent the original documents to this court, and thus
may not be in a position to resubmit them. Also, for statute of limitations
purposes, the documents must be considered fIled as of the date of
original receipt. Thus, we have determined that this petition must be
granted." Another very important and instructive case is Whitman v.
Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (Nev., 1992): "On rehearing,
23 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.651
appellant has submitted documents that conclusively demonstrate that
appellant submitted a timely notice of appeal to the clerk of the district
court. Although the clerk of the district court stamped the notice of
appeal "received" on December 30,1991, the clerk did not file the notice
of appeal. Instead, the clerk of the district court returned appellant's
notice of appeal to appellant because it was not accompanied by a filing
fee and, although the notice was accompanied by a motion for leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, appellant's affidavit in support of
that motion was apparently not signed. Consequently, there is no record
of the submission of appellant's timely notice of appeal. We note that the
clerk of the district court filed appellant's motion for leave to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis on the date of receipt, December 30, 1991, and
that the district court eventually granted that motion. We have
previously stated that "it is extremely important that the clerk of the
district court keep an accurate record of the date of receipt of every
document submitted to the clerk, regardless of whether the document is
in the appropriate form. Indeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the
clerk of the district court to neglect this ministerial duty." Huebner v.
this case, the clerk of the district court has failed to keep any record of
the date of receipt of appellant's notice of appeal; instead, the clerk
stamped the document "received" and returned it to appellant. The
clerk of the district court had no authority to take such action. Although
the clerk of the district court had no duty to file appellant's notice of
appeal before appellant paid the requisite filing fee or was relieved of the
duty to pay the riling fee by order of the district court, see NRS
19.013(2), the clerk had a duty to receive the document and to keep an
accurate record of the case pending before the district court. Particularly
in this case it was essential that the notice of appeal be retained in the
record, because we have held that a notice of appeal is effective on the
date ofreceipt by the district court clerk. See Huebner v. State, [108 Nev.
952] 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991). Rather than returning the notice
24 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.652
this communication.

25 of 25 12/22/2011 3:56 AM
V3.653
FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Sent: Tue 12/20/11 3:03 AM
To: lmatheus@washoecourts.us
1 attachment
exhibit 2 8 29 11 service of Summons and Complaint on WLS et al by Howard Patrick
Jackson_mpeg4.mp4 (2.4 MB) ,
Dear Ms. Matheus,
Apparently I heard you wrong when you spelled your name for me or maybe I have the
wrong person, hopefully, you are the "Lori" that I spoke with on Friday. Please find
attached Exhibit 2, and I will file the cd tomorrow, I sent you an email about this today,
found below, but it was returned. Please let me know, should I refile the pleading I filed at
about 5:05pm on Friday, 12 16 11, or....?
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473
privilege.
Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=ad...
1 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.654

To: eflex@washoecourts.us; cfranden@mail.co.washoe.nv.us; courtadmin@washoecourts.us
Subject: FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:56:42 -0800
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
privilege.

From: postmaster@washoecourts.us
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:05:07 -0800
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
2 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.655
Thi s i s an aut omat i cal l y gener at ed Del i ver y St at us Not i f i cat i on.
Del i ver y t o t he f ol l owi ng r eci pi ent s f ai l ed.
l mat hews@washoecour t s. us
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
To: lmathews@washoecourts.us
Subject: FW: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT -
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:05:00 -0800
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
privilege.
3 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.656
RE: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts

Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:12:24 -0800
Subject: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT -
Date: 2011-12-16 22:24:24.0

Mr. Coughlin, On Friday 12/16/11, the court made an exception for the filing of your
exhibit in CV11-01955. The court did not receive the CD by noon as indicated in your
CV11-01955 filing. It will be necessary for you to submit the appropriate paper filing in
the filing office that contains your CD. In addition, this filing is being rejected as it does
not comply with WDCR 10(9) - A docoument cannot contain multiple documents in one
filing unless pleaded in the alternative nor does your filing comply with WCDR 10(6) -
Exhibits must contain divider pagers - exhibit 4 does not have a cover sheet. If you have
any questions, please call Lori at 328-3114.
Sent: Wed 12/21/11 2:12 PM
To: eflex@washoecourts.us; lori.matheus@washoecourts.us; cfranden@mail.co.washoe.nv.us;
courtadmin@washoecourts.us; courttech@washoecourts.us
4 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.657
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
privilege.
5 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.658
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:12:34 -0800
Subject: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT - Mtn for
Extension of Time, was rejected
Date: 2011-12-21 01:33:01.0
Subject: Your electronic filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT - Mtn for
Extension of Time, was rejected by Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada.

Case
Number:
CV11-01896
Document
Type:
Mtn for Extension of Time
Document
Type:
**Continuation
Reason(s) for
rejection:
Mr. Coughlin, your filing is being rejected as it does not comply with WCDR 10(9) - A document
cannot contain multiple documents in one filing unless the document is being pled in the
alternative. If you have any questions please call Lori at 328-3114
From: Wise, Julie (Julie.Wise@washoecourts.us)
Sent: Wed 12/21/11 4:41 PM
Cc: Franden, Craig (craig.franden@washoecourts.us); Matheus, Lori (Lori.Matheus@washoecourts.us)
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
I am in receipt of your email regarding the rejection of an e-filed document into case CV11-01896.
Specifically, your document is titled:
ALL PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INCLUDING: SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS and all Defendants Motions to Quash Service, MOTION
6 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.659
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND/CONTINUANCE; OPPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
TAX COSTS SIMULTANEOUSLY SEEKING EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR CONTINUANCE TO
RESPOND.
Upon review of your document, I believe the Filing Office correctly rejected this filing pursuant to
WCDR 10(9) A document cannot contain multiple documents in one filing unless the document is
being pled in the alternative. For further guidance, the Law Library should be able to provide reference
materials for your review.
If you wish to appeal this decision, please contact Craig Franden, Acting Court Administrator/Clerk of
Court.
Thank you,
J ulie

From: Matheus, Lori
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Wise, J ulie
Mtn for Extension of Time, was rejected
J ulie,
Here is the email Zach sent. Let me know what you would like me to do.
Lori
To: eflex; Matheus, Lori; cfranden@mail.co.washoe.nv.us; CourtAdmin; Court Tech
7 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.660
Subject: RE: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT -
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
8 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.661
privilege.
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:12:34 -0800
Subject: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT - Mtn
for Extension of Time, was rejected
Date: 2011-12-21 01:33:01.0
WT - Mtn for Extension of Time, was rejected by Second J udicial District Court - State
of Nevada.
Case
Number:
CV11-01896
Document
Type:
Document
Type:
**Continuation
Reason(s)
for
rejection:
document cannot contain multiple documents in one filing unless the document is being
pled in the alternative. If you have any questions please call Lori at 328-3114
9 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.662
Sent: Wed 12/21/11 6:46 PM
To: julie.wise@washoecourts.us; cfranden@mail.co.washoe.nv.us
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
privilege.
Subject: RE: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT - Mtn
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:41:54 -0800
From: Julie.Wise@washoecourts.us
10 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.663
CC: craig.franden@washoecourts.us; Lori.Matheus@washoecourts.us
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
RESPOND.
Court.
Thank you,
J ulie

From: Matheus, Lori
To: Wise, J ulie
J ulie,
11 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.664
Lori
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
12 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.665
Nevada Bar No: 9473
privilege.
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:12:34 -0800
Date: 2011-12-21 01:33:01.0
of Nevada.
Case
Number:
CV11-01896
Document
13 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.666
FW: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts
Type:
Document
Type:
**Continuation
Reason(s)
for
rejection:
Sent: Wed 12/21/11 9:31 PM
To: cfranden@mail.co.washoe.nv.us
Dear Acting Clerk of Court Franden,
I was told to contact you if I wish to appeal Ms. Wise's decision. I am doing so, respectfully, here now.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
14 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.667
privilege.
Subject: RE: Rejection Notice: Your filing, Re: CV11-01896 - Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT - Mtn
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:41:54 -0800
From: Julie.Wise@washoecourts.us
CC: craig.franden@washoecourts.us; Lori.Matheus@washoecourts.us
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
RESPOND.
Court.
Thank you,
15 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.668
J ulie

From: Matheus, Lori
To: Wise, J ulie
J ulie,
Lori
16 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.669
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
privilege.
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:12:34 -0800
17 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.670
Date: 2011-12-21 01:33:01.0
of Nevada.
Case
Number:
CV11-01896
Document
Type:
Document
Type:
**Continuation
Reason(s)
for
rejection:
18 of 18 12/22/2011 3:59 AM
V3.671
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-22-2011:08:45:56
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Opposition to Mtn
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
V3.672
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.673

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
3795
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge,
J on Sasser, and Marc Ashley
IN THE SECOND J UDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE,
Individually and in her capacity as Board
President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN,
Individually and in his capacity as WLS
Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually
and in his capacity as Executive Director of
WLS, DOES 1-100, Individually and in their
capacity as members of the BOARD OF
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT,
attorney, J ON SASSER, Individually and in
his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO,
attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA
LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as
WLS employee.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANT KATHY
BRECKENRIDGES REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR NONSERVICE OF PROCESS,
AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
INSUFFICIENT PROCESS
/ / /
F I L E D
Electronically
12-27-2011:02:02:10 PM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.674

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
DEFENDANT KATHY BRECKENRIDGES REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR NONSERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
This Motion is based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the exhibits
Dated this 27
th
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
J oseph P. Garin (Bar No. 6653)
(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy
Breckenridge, J on Sasser, and Marc Ashley
1. Introduction
Plaintiffs Opposition(s) to Defendant Kathy Breckenridges (Defendant) Motion to
Dismiss for Insufficient Process provide no true opposition.
Defendant filed her Motion to Dismiss on November 28, 2011. Accordingly, Plaintiff
had until December 15, 2011 to timely file his Opposition. On December 15, 2011, Plaintiff
presumably filed his first Opposition to Defendant Kathy Breckenridges Motion to Dismiss.
1

The Motion is two sentences in length and devotes no attention to the issue before the Court
on why Defendant was not properly served.
1
Plaintiffs first Opposition is titled, Opposition to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss and all Defendants
- 2 -
V3.675

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
On December 22, 2011, Plaintiff arguably filed a second Opposition to Defendants
Motion.
2
Not only was this Opposition untimely, but it failed to assert any legal argument or
explanation for insufficient process on Defendant. The Opposition consists of seventeen pages
that mainly argues that the Court Clerk improperly rejected Plaintiffs filings and that the Court
needs an improved filing system.
Given Plaintiffs failure to oppose Defendants Motion, this Court should grant the Motion
and dismiss the Complaint against Defendant Kathy Breckenridge.
2. Plaintiff concedes that Defendants Motion should be granted.
Plaintiff is an attorney in the State of Nevada and concedes understanding that service
of process and process is governed by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4. However, Plaintiff
does little in either Opposition, the latter being untimely, to explain why Defendant was not
properly served under NRCP 4. Plaintiff concedes that the Motion should be granted by
avoiding Defendants arguments and raising tangential matters that have nothing to do with
what is before the Court.
3
In fact, all Plaintiff alleges is that untimeliness of his Opposition is
the Courts fault and that he has spent four hours researching the issue of process and can
provide the Court some real insight into the issue, failing to explain this alleged insight.
In his Opposition(s), Plaintiff manages to make sparse conclusory statements that
process is sufficient under NRCP 4 for all Defendants, and places blame on the Washoe
County Sheriffs Office for any failure to timely complete service on any defendants. Plaintiff
does nothing to explain how his arguments correspond and pertain to Defendant Kathy
Breckenridge, he does nothing to develop his arguments, and overall, fails to address the
issues before this Court. Importantly, Plaintiff disregards that pursuant to NRCP 4, it is a
plaintiffs obligation to provide proper process on a defendant; any desire to place blame on
another is simply improper. Plaintiff had the ability to file a motion to enlarge time for service
2
Plaintiffs second Opposition is titled, Supplement to Opposition to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss.
3
There is no Motion to Tax Costs presently before this Court, but Plaintiff argues an Opposition. Moreover,
in the second opposition, Plaintiff attaches email correspondence unrelated to the present case in Exhibit 1.
- 3 -
V3.676

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
before the 120 day deadline. Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in the State of Nevada and is or
should be familiar with these procedural requirements.
A partys failure to oppose contentions can be construed as an admission to their merit.
See Polk v. State, 126 Nev. Adv. Op 19, 233 P.3d 357 (2010). Given Plaintiffs failure to make
any true opposition against Defendants Motion, Plaintiff has conceded Defendants arguments
and, for this reason alone, the Court is justified in granting Defendants Motion. An extension
to respond and file a fourth Opposition is baseless and unwarranted.
3. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, this Court should find that Plaintiff failed to properly effectuate
service on Defendant Kathy Breckenridge, and dismiss the Complaint pursuant to NRCP 4 and
12(b)(3).
Dated this 27
th
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
- 4 -
V3.677

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
AFFIRMATION
(Pursuant to NRS 239B.030)
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, DEFENDANT
KATHY BRECKENRIDGES REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
NONSERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT PROCESS, filed
in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 27
th
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
th
day of December, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of
DEFENDANT KATHY BRECKENRIDGES REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR NONSERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT
PROCESS, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
/s/ Nancy Cooper
_______________________________________
An Employee of
- 5 -
V3.678

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
3795
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
J on Sasser, and Marc Ashley
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT,
WLS employee.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANT KAREN SABOS REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR INSUFFICIENT PROCESS
/ / /
F I L E D
Electronically
12-27-2011:02:06:45 PM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.679

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
DEFENDANT KAREN SABOS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
This Motion is based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the exhibits
Dated this 27
th
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
1. Introduction
Plaintiffs Opposition(s) to Defendant Karen Sabos (Defendant) Motion to Dismiss
for Insufficient Process are untimely and provide no true opposition.
Defendant filed her Motion to Dismiss on November 21, 2011. Accordingly, Plaintiff
had until December 12, 2011 to timely file his Opposition. On December 15, 2011, Plaintiff
presumably filed his first Opposition to Defendant Karen Sabos Motion to Dismiss.
1
The
Motion is two sentences in length and devotes no attention to the issue before the Court on
why Defendant was not properly served.
1
Plaintiffs first Opposition is titled, Opposition to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss and all Defendants
- 2 -
V3.680

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
On December 22, 2011, Plaintiff arguably filed a second Opposition to Defendants
Motion.
2
Not only was this Opposition also untimely, but it failed to assert any legal
argument or explanation for insufficient process on Defendant. The Opposition consists of
seventeen pages that mainly argues that the Court Clerk improperly rejected Plaintiffs
filings and that the Court needs an improved filing system.
Given Plaintiffs failure to oppose Defendants Motion, this Court should grant the
Motion and dismiss the Complaint against Defendant Karen Sabo.
2. Plaintiff concedes that Defendants Motion should be granted.
Plaintiff is an attorney in the State of Nevada and concedes understanding that
service of process and process is governed by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
However, Plaintiff does little in either Opposition, albeit untimely, to explain why Defendant
was not properly served under NRCP 4. Plaintiff concedes that the Motion should be
granted by avoiding Defendants arguments and raising tangential matters that have
nothing to do with what is before the Court.
3
In fact, all Plaintiff alleges is that untimeliness
of his Opposition is the Courts fault and that he has spent four hours researching the issue
of process and can provide the Court some real insight into the issue, failing to explain
this alleged insight.
In his Opposition(s), Plaintiff manages to make sparse conclusory statements that
process is sufficient under NRCP 4 for all Defendants, and places blame on the Washoe
County Sheriffs Office for any failure to timely complete service on any defendants.
Plaintiff does nothing to explain how his arguments correspond and pertain to Defendant
Karen Sabo, he does nothing to develop his arguments, and overall, fails to address the
issues before this Court. Importantly, Plaintiff disregards that pursuant to NRCP 4, it is a
plaintiffs obligation to provide proper process on a defendant; any desire to place blame on
another is simply improper. Plaintiff had the ability to file a motion to enlarge time for
2
Plaintiffs second Opposition is titled, Supplement to Opposition to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss.
3
There is no Motion to Tax Costs presently before this Court, but Plaintiff argues an Opposition. Moreover,
in the second opposition, Plaintiff attaches email correspondence unrelated to the present case in Exhibit 1.
- 3 -
V3.681

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
service before the 120 day deadline. Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in the State of Nevada
and is or should be familiar with these procedural requirements.
A partys failure to oppose contentions can be construed as an admission to their
merit. See Polk v. State, 126 Nev. Adv. Op 19, 233 P.3d 357 (2010). Given Plaintiffs
failure to make any true opposition against Defendants Motion, Plaintiff has conceded
Defendants arguments and, for this reason alone, the Court is justified in granting
Defendants Motion. An extension to respond and file a fourth Opposition is baseless and
unwarranted.
3. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, this Court should find that Plaintiff failed to properly
effectuate service on Defendant Karen Sabo, and dismiss the Complaint pursuant to NRCP
4 and NRCP 12(b)(3).
Dated this 27
th
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
- 4 -
V3.682

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
AFFIRMATION
Karen Sabos Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Process, filed in Case No. CV11-
01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 27
th
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
th
day of December, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of
DEFENDANT KAREN SABOS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
INSUFFICIENT PROCESS, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
/s/ Nancy Cooper
_______________________________________
An Employee of
- 5 -
V3.683
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-27-2011:14:10:51
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.684
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.685
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-27-2011:14:21:03
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.686
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.687
F I L E D
Electronically
12-27-2011:04:41:02 PM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.688
cj
p.;
d'
'0
oj
c.J8

tj'S ....
NU):;:O

VJg>'"";"
o.rp:: Z
'0
U ,,0 bN"
0) 0
C t; > b

erg
0
'"

H
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
3860
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Service
and Paul Elcano
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
vs. )
DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL )
SERVICES, CARYN STERN LICHT, )
WLS employee, DOES and ROES 1-100, )
COMMITTEE TO AID ABUSED WOMEN, )
TAHOE WOMEN'S SERVICES. )
Defendants.
)
)
--------------------------------------)
DEPT. NO.: 10
28 III
V3.689
cj
p.;
,"
"
08

tJ ';1 'i"
Nlf.JC;O
-0",00

Z &l
0""" "ttj
u 0 SnN
,,0.. v 0
G

Vo
ZW

0
'"
,f
....
2 It is requested that DEFENDANT KATHY BRECKENRIDGE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
3 FOR NON SERVICE OF PROCESS, filed November 28,2011, Opposition(s) having been filed
4 December 15 and 22, 2011, and Reply brief having been filed December 27, 2011, be
5 submitted to the Court for decision.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of this request has been served on all
parties.
Dated this 27th day of December, 2011
By:

(702) 382-1500
Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services
and Paul Elcano
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, Request for
Submission, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of
any person.
By:

(702) 382-1500
and Paul Elcano
- 2 -
V3.690
u
p.;
(:I'
'\:1
"
08

\0..1 ,,.... ""'"
'" ;:l_
N(/)o-8

Vl8>'"7
Z
0: Ul"('<"")
U,,&

"'0
Zro

0
0..
;.::l
2 I certify that on the 27th day of December, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of
3 Request for Submission, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
4 addressed as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C,
- 3 -
F I L E D
Electronically
12-27-2011:04:44:28 PM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Court
V3.691
u
p.;
.
'" 08

iJ '3 ..;-
N(I)8.0
'"d"00

JP:; z
'0
u 0
"p.. Q) 0
> t:.,
w

I'l" ;
0
en

.....
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
3860
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Service
and Paul Elcano
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
vs.
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
COMMITTEE TO AID ABUSED WOMEN, )
Defendants.
)
)
---------------------------)
DEPT. NO.: 10
28 III
V3.692
u
p..;

'" 08

J::;' "00 0
0)"0 en
(/)8>--;"
oIp;Zi;3
-a t; If.J'' ('l")
U,."o bbN
1l.) 0
ti>t:--

0)0
Zoo

0
'h
.q.
.....
2 It is requested that DEFENDANT KAREN SABO'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON
3 SERVICE OF PROCESS, filed November 21, 2011, Opposition(s) having been filed
4 December 15 and 22, 2011, and Reply brief having been filed December 27, 2011, be
5 submitted to the Court for decision.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
parties.
By:

(702) 382-1500
and Paul Elcano
AFFIRMATION
any person.
By:

(702) 382-1500
and Paul Elcano
- 2 -
V3.693
0
p.;
c:f
'\:1
oj
08

ti;3 "'"
Nlf.l;;::g

Corp:; Z &J
'0

> c
,.;Jl3j
255

0

2 I certify that on the 27th day of December, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-28-2011:09:48:17
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.694
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.695
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 12-28-2011:09:49:30
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.696
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.697

OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, OR, PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE; REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
The undersigned, desiring some sort of extension or continuance allowing for
time to file a more pronounced Opposition to opposing counsel's recent Motion for
Attorney's Fees, files this Opposition to all such attorney's fees requests by any of the
opposing counsels. The undersigned has recently been forced to moe again,
howeer, the place he moed to resulted in domestic iolence!attac"s against the
undersigned to be detailed later, howeer, the police were inoled.
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES#age $
%&'()
*ach +oughlin, ,sq.
-$. /. 0irginia 1t. 2&
3eno, /0 -4)5$
Tele6 ..)7&&47'.8.
Fax6 4(47''.7.(5&
*ach+oughlin9hotmail.com
Attorney for #laintiff +oughlin
*A+:A3; <A3=,3 +O>?:@A/B
#laintiff.
.
Cashoe @egal 1erices, et al,
Defendants.
+ase /o6 +0$$75$-4'
Dept /o6 '
OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES, OR, PLED IN
THE ALTERNATIVE; REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
A/ T:, 1,+O/D E>DA+AA@ DA1T3A+T +O>3T OF T:,
1TAT, OF /,0ADA A/ A/D FO3
T:, +O>/T; OF CA1:O,
F I L E D
Electronically
01-07-2012:12:00:23 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
V3.698
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 2!"#$$
does not contain the social security number of any person.
DAT, T:A16 Eanuary ', &5$&
Sincerely,

!s! *ach +oughlin, signed electronically
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
#laintiff
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES#age &
V3.699
Proo% o% S&r'()&*
On Eanuary ', &5$&, A, *ach +oughlin deposited in the mail a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Opposition to6
<rian ?onsales, ,sq
#.O. <ox 45.
=ings <each, +A4'$(8
Attorney for Tahoe Comen's 1erices
,7Filers were sered electronically, including6
+ommittee to Aid Abused Comen
?ary Fuller, ,sq. Attorney for Defendant +AAC
Cashoe @egal 1erices
Eoe ?arin, ,sq. Attorney for Defendant C@1
DAT, T:A16 Eanuary ', &5$&
F!s! *ach +oughlin
*ach +oughlin
#laintiff
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES#age 8
V3.700
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-09-2012:09:28:06
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.701
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.702
F I L E D
Electronically
01-09-2012:11:04:08 AM
Clerk of the Court
V3.703
0
p.;
Q
0
" os

00
\-I ...... -:;j-

-=5 --0" 00

-0 c-<")

;:;>L
w e3 .
11

c.:
0
c..
H
3860
2 JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
3 SHANNON D. NORDSTROM
Nevada Bar No. 8211
4 9080 West Post Road, Suite 100
(702)382'- 1500
(702)382-1512 -fax
MarcAshley, and Kathy Breckenridge
9
10
COUNTY OF WASHOE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ZACH COUGHLIN,
vs.
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada )
19 WLS, DOES 1-100, Individually and in their )
20
DIRECTORS OFWASHOE LEGAL )
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLICHT, )
21 Individually and in her capacity as WLS )
22 his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO, )
23 attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and )
24 . LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as )
25 COMMITTEE TO AID ABUSED WOMEN, )
26
27
28
Defendants.
)
)
-----------------------------)
DEPT. NO.: 10
V3.704
0
p.;
0
0
';:::
'" 08

t) ';:1 ::t
NC/.)O\O

(/) g
Z
'0 Ul"{'<'")
" 0
'-'0P-
0
> t:-
0 v

"'0
Zoo

0
R
-l
1
It is requested that DEFENDANT JON SASSER'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON
.. 2SERYICEOF PROCESS, having beenfiled,served electronically and by mail upon Plaintiff,
3 on December 16, 2011, and no opposition having been filed, be submitted to the Court for
4 decision.
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
. Dated this 9
th
day of January, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
AFFIRMATION
any person.
Dated this 9
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
- 2 -
V3.705
cj
p..;
c"
';:1
'" 08
0(3'''''
Boo
t1 -5 """ .
N(/)(;O

"0
UnO &,FJ'
"p....:..(.::i,) 0
1J>t:.-

Z6H
t::f2<
0
&
,...1
th
day of January, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of
. 2 Request for Submission, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
3. addressed as follows:
4
5
6
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
and by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
.'. 28
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women; and
Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., for Defendant Crisis Intervention Services
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
F I L E D
Electronically
01-09-2012:11:15:39 AM
Clerk of the Court
V3.706
0
p..;
,0"
'P
'" 0g

\-; ....... ...q-
<1.) ;:l .-
NU)o.O
..:!:::: "co 0
<1.)-0 U")

z
0: urc-<"l
U;...,O
00
>L.

:-;::I, H
Vo
Zoo
'crg
0
R

2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3860
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
LasVegas, Nevada 89148
(702) 382-1500
(702)382-1512 - fax
,jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
AttorneysforDefendants Washoe Legal Services,
Paul Elcano,Todd Torvinen, Karen Saba, Jon Sasser,
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
vs. )
DEPT. NO.: 10
24 LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as )
25 ,COMMITTEE TOAID ABUSED WOMEN, )
26
27
28
Defendants.
)
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------)
III
V3.707
u

'i:!
'" 08

\-; . ..-. """
<.J " ..... '.
N(/Jo..O

U) c:::l h... ...-l
Oi""""l

o Ul ...
U 0 &,FJ
"p.... v 0

"'0
Zoo
... g
0
0.,
>-1
It is requested that DEFENDANT MARC ASHLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON
--- -- --------- --
2 SERVICE OF PROCESS, having been filed, served electronically and by mail upon Plaintiff,
3 on December 16, 2011, and no opposition having been filed, be submitted to the Court for
4 decision.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20,
23
24
25
26
27
28
parties.
Dated this 9
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
AFFIRMATION
any person.
Dated this 9
th
By:

Shannon D, Nordstrom (Bar No. 8211)
(702) 382-1500
- 2 -
V3.708
1 certify that on the 9
th
4
5
6
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
7
8
9
10
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-09-2012:11:19:10
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.709
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.710
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-09-2012:11:32:58
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.711
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.712
F I L E D
Electronically
01-10-2012:02:54:28 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.713
13860.. . .
2 JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
4 9080 West Post Road, Suite 100
5 . (702)382-1500
(702) 382-1512- fax
6 jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
7 Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Jon Sasser,
8
9
10
COUNTY OF WASHOE
11
12 ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
vs.
SERVICES, a Nevada
16 Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, )
17 President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, )
18 Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually)
19 WLS, .DOES 1-100, Individually and in their )
capacIty as members of the BOARD OF )
20 DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL )
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLICHT, )
.25 COMMITTEE TO AID ABUSED WOMEN, )
26
27
28
Defendants.
)
)

/11
DEPT. NO.: 6
V3.714
0
p..;

OJ
08

';3
NU)O\O
..:::: "'00 0
v'"d Lf")

z
o t; uf'\
u"d:
gt;>c
cr. &3.

z:95
c"g
0
.&

It is requested that DEFENDANT WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES' MOTION TO DISMISS
2 FORNON-SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THEAL TERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT SERVICE
3 OF PROCESS, having been filed, served electronically and by mail upon Plaintiff, on
4 December 20, 2011, and no opposition having been filed, be submitted to the Court for
5 decision.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
..
28

Dated this 10
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Kathy BreckenridgE
AFFIRMATION
any person.
Dated this 10
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
- 2 -
V3.715
th
6
7
Zach Coughiin
Reno, NV 89501
8
9
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 ...
25
26
27
. 28
BrianA. Gonsalves, Esq., for Defendant Crisis Intervention Services
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
F I L E D
Electronically
01-10-2012:02:55:12 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.716
3860
2 JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
4 9080VVest Post Road, Suite 100
LasVegas,Nevada 89148
5 (702)
(702) 382-1512 - fax
8
COUNTY OF WASHOE
11
12 ZACH COUGHLIN,
vs.
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
17 President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, )
19WLS; .DOES 1-100, Individually and in their )
25 COMMITTEE TO AID ABUSED WOMEN, )
26
27
Defendants.
)
)

DEPT. NO.: 6
V3.717
.0
p.;
..
08

NCI)O\O
.=: "000
V"'J

z
"0
u"d:
.tj > t::-

OH ..
Zoo
t::....
g
0
if,
.&
....:1
It is requested that DEFENDANT PAUL ELCANO'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON
2 SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF
3 PROCESS, having been filed, served electronically and by mail upon Plaintiff, on December
4 20, 2011, and no opposition having been filed, be submitted to the Court for decision.
5 The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of this request has been served on all
6 parties ...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Dated this 10
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
AFFIRMATION
(Pursuant toNRS 239B.030)
any person.
Dated this 10
th
&

(702) 382-1500
- 2 -
V3.718
u

.so
..,
" tJg

\-{ ......
'" ::>,-<
NC/)C\D

C/) (5).'7
z
......... ,,('!')
o ':I) en .
U 0
0::>"
>- t.:-
" tf)
13

0
.&
....1
th
4
5
6
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C .
- 3 -
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-10-2012:15:19:55
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.719
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.720
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-10-2012:15:21:55
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.721
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.722
F I L E D
Electronically
01-11-2012:04:20:41 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.723
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
Code 3370
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Case No. CV11-01896
Plaintiff,
Dept. No.6
v.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et ai,
Defendants.
----------------------------,
ORDER
There are currently eight motions pending before this Court. All eight motions ar
premised upon Plaintiff Zachary Coughlin's ("Plaintiff") failure to timely serve Defendants i
this action.
1
N.R.C.P. 4(i) provides in relevant part:
"If a service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a
defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the
action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice
upon the court's own initiative with notice to such party or upon
motion, unless the party on whose behalf such service was
required files a motion to enlarge the time for service and shows
good cause why such service was not made within that period."
Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 27, 2011. Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 4(i), Plaintiff would
have 120 days to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants or until October 25,
2011. Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants Paul Elcano ("Elcano"), Todd Torvine
("Torvinen"), Jon Sasser ("Sasser"), Marc Ashley ("Ashley"), Karen Sabo ("Sabo"), Kath
Breckenridge ("Breckenridge"), Washoe Legal Services ("WLS") and Crisis Intervention
Services ("CIS") within the mandated time period. In addition, Plaintiff failed to file a motio
1 The Court need not address Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs attempted service of process was insufficient since
the Court has already determined that it was untimely.
-1-
V3.724
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
to enlarge time for service or show good cause as to why service was not made within th
statutory period.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants Elcano, Torvinen, Sasser, Ashley, Sabo,
WLS, CIS and Breckenridge's motion(s) to dismiss without prejudice.
2
DATED: This [ ~ a y of January, 2012.
DISTRICT JUDGE
28 2 Although CIS sought dismissal with prejudice, the Court may dismiss an action without prejudice when service is
untimely. See N.R.C.P. 4(i). In addition, CIS's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied at this time because the
Court dismissed this action on procedural grounds without analyzing the merits of Plaintiffs case.
-2-
V3.725
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
I certify that I am an employee of THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT;
that on the fl1:f1 day of January, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ.
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
And, I deposited in the County mailing system for postage and mailing with the
United States Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true and correct copy of the attached
document addressed as follows:
Gary M. Fuller, Esq.
PO Box 2838
Reno, NV 89505
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-11-2012:16:21:21
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Ord Granting Mtn
Filed By: Heidi Boe
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.726
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.727
F I L E D
Electronically
01-12-2012:02:46:58 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.728
2540
2 P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNOND. NORDSTROM
. Nevada8arNo. 8211
49080West Post Road, Suite 100
5 (702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
7
AttOrneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services,
8 Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge,
JonSasser,and Marc Ashley
9
10
11
COUNTY OF WASHOE
12
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
vs. )
SERVICES,CARYN STERN LIGHT, )
SASSER, Individually and in )
Individ ually and in her capacity as WLS )
WLSemployee, )
26
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

DEPT. NO.: 6
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
V3.729
2 NOTICE is hereby given that an Orderwas filed granting Defendants Elcano, Torvinen,
3 Sasser, Ashley, Sabo, WLS, CIS and Breckenridge's motion(s) to dismiss on January 11,
4 2012, acopyofwhich is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
5 [)ated this 12th day of January, 2012.
6
7
8
9
10
By:
& GARIN,e..,C .
~ / ~ ~
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, and Marc Ashley
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, NOTICE OF
ENTRY OF ORDER, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security
18
19
26
27
Numberofany person.
Dated this 12th day of January, 2012.
By:
& GARIN,e..,C
~ / ~ ~
(702) 382-1500 .
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, and Marc Ashley
- 2 -
V3.730
I certify that on the 12th day of January, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Notice
of Entry of Order, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
4 a$follows:
5 Zach Coughlin
6 Reno, NV 89501
19
20
24
25
andbyusing the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
lsi Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
V3.731
1
3
4:
5
8
9
10
22
23
26
27
28
EXHIBIT INDEX
No.1 Order 3 pages
L ~ ________________ ____________________ __________________
- 4 -
F I L E D
Electronically
01-12-2012:02:46:58 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.732
EXHIBIT "1"
V3.733
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code 3370
F I LED
Electronically
01-11-2012:04:20:41 PM
Clerk of the Court
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Case No. CV11-01896
Plaintiff,
Dept. No.6
v.
Defendants.
__________________________
ORDER
this action.
1
Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 27,2011. Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 4(i), Plaintiff would
have 120 days to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants or until October 25.
("Torvinen"), Jon Sasser ("Sasser"), Marc Ashley ("Ashley"). Karen Sabo ("Sabo"), Kath
Breckenridge ("Breckenridge"), Washoe Legal Services ("WLS") and Crisis Interventio
Services ("CIS") within the mandated time period. In addition, Plaintiff failed to file a ITIOfio
I The Court need not address Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's attempted service of process was insufficient since
-1-
V3.734
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
statutory period.
2
DATED: This fI-t1'ttay of January, 2012.
DISTRICT JUDGE
untimely. See N.R-C.P. 4(i). In addition, CIS's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied at this time because the
Court dismissed this action on procedural grounds without analyzing the merits of Plaintiff's case.
-2-
V3.735
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
that on the H11'l day of January, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
PO Box 2838
Reno, NV 89505
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-12-2012:14:48:05
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Notice of Entry of Ord
-**Continuation
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
V3.736
PAUL ELCANO
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.737
F I L E D
Electronically
01-13-2012:11:13:25 AM
Clerk of the Court
V3.738
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2540
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et. aI.,
Defendants
Case No.:
Dept. No.:
CVII-OI896
6
TO: Plaintiff Zachary Coughlin and to all other parties and their attorneys.
You and each of you will please take notice that on January 11,2012, the Court in the
above entitled action entered its Ordelj a copy of which is appended hereto.
The undersigned does hereby affirm that this document and any documents attached
hereto do not contain the social security number of any person.
DATED: January 12,2012.
By: . ~ 4 ~
Services
- I -
V3.739
2 Case No.: CVII-OI896
3 I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed this Notice of Entry of Order with
4 the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which served the following parties
5 electronically:
6 Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff.
7 Joseph P. Garin, Esq., for Marc Ashley, Washoe Legal Services, Kathy Breckemidge,
8 Paul Elcano, Karen Sabo and Jon Sasser.
9 Gary Fuller, Esq., for Committee to Aid Abused Women.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that on this date I deposited for mailing a true copy of
this Notice of Entry of Order addressed to:
Counsel for Plaintiff
Zachary Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
16 DATED: January 12,2012.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 -
V3.740
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code 3370
FILE D
Electronically
01-11-2012:04:20:41 PM
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 6 B 5 5 7
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Case No. CV11-01896
Plaintiff,
Dept. No.6
v.
Defendants.
-----------------------,
ORDER
premised upon Plaintiff Zachary Coughlin's ("Plaintiff') failure to timely serve Defendants i
this action.
1
Breckenridge ("Breckenridge"), Washoe Legal Services ('WLS") and Crisis Interventio
I The Court need not address Defendants' argwnent that Plaintiff's attempted service of process was insufficient since
the Court has already detennined that it was untimely.
-1-
V3.741
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
statutory period.
2
DATED: This ~ a y of January, 2012.
DISTRICT JUDGE
Court dismissed this action on procedural grounds without analyzing the merits of Plaintiffs case,
-2-
V3.742
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
that on the I l{11 day of January, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
PO Box 2838
Reno, NV 89505
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-13-2012:11:13:52
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Notice of Entry of Ord
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.743
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.744
F I L E D
Electronically
01-18-2012:04:00:52 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.745
2290
2 JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
490SQWest Post Road, Suite 100
LasNegas, Nevada 89148
5 (702)38Z-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
6jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
7
Marc Ashley, Kathy Breckenridge, and Caryn Sternlicht
9
11
COUNTY OF WASHOE
12
16

Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs. )
18 President ofWLS, TODD TORVINEN, )
Individually and in his capacity as )
21 DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
22 Individually and in her capacity as WLS
23 his capacity asWLS agent, KAREN SABO, )
24 Individually and )
m his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA )
25 LOPEZ; Individually and in her capacity as )
WLS employee, )
26
27
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANT CARYN STERN LICHT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON
SERVICE OF PROCESS
V3.746
DEFENDANT MARC ASHLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS
Defendant CARYN STERNLICHT, individually and in her capacity as Washoe Legal
4 Services attorney, ("Defendant")1 by and through her counsel of record LIPSON, NEILSON,
5 COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C., hereby submits DEFENDANT CARYN STERNLlCHT'S
6 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS ("Motion") under NRCP 4 and
7NRCP12(b)(4).
8 This Motion is based upon the Memorandum of Point and Authorities, the exhibits
9 attached hereto, the pleadings and papers on file, and any oral argument that may be
10 presented in this matter.
18
19
23
24
25
26
27
Dated this 18
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
Sasser, Marc Ashley, Kathy Breckenridge, and
Caryn Sternlicht
1 Defendant has not appeared in this action, as she has not been properly served. Defendant is making
28 this limited appearance to ensure that she is not prejudiced by Plaintiff's failure in providing proper service of
process. Defendant has authorized this limited appearance.
- 2 -
V3.747
0
p.;
c"
'0
"
08

".. ...... v
(0.) .........
NC/)C\O
:.::: "'00 0
u""d . If)

z
o t; (.I)"
u o t:oN'
",P-. v 0
C t; > t:>.
0 QJ
u; [3
'B ...l

0
R
;.::l
2
3 1. Introduction
4. Plaintiff Zach Coughlin was formerly employed as an attorney for WLS. Plaintiff has
5 filedtvv0 lawsuits against Caryn Sternlicht, among others, attempting to assert claims for
6 wrongful termination:
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Lega/ SeIVices, et. at.
Hon. Brent Adams
and
Zachary Coughlin v Washoe Lega/ SeIVices, et. at.
Docket Reports, attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
.. Plaintiff is an attorney licensed in the State of Nevada. Defendant Washoe Legal
Services employed Plaintiff from August 29,2007 through May 11,2009, however ultimately
terminated Plaintiff, for cause, as a result of his unprofessional and unacceptable conduct in
his employment. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case on June 27, 2011 against several
defendants, including Defendant Caryn Sternlicht. Accordingly, Plaintiff had until October25,
2011 to serve the Defendants in this case- 120 days after the filing of the Complaint.
As of January 16, 2012, Plaintiff did not properly serve Defendant, leading Defendant
to seek a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to NRCP 4 and NRCP 12(b)(4).
Plaintiff's Non-Service of Process Warrants Dismissal of the Complaint
Pursuant to NRCP 4, a Plaintiff must serve a summons and complaint within 120 days
of thefiling of the Complaint. NRCP 4(i) provides, in relevant part:
If serVice of a summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within
. required files a motion to enlarge time for service and shows good cause why
- 3 -
V3.748
Here, Plaintiff failed to effectuate service of the summons and complaint on Defendant
withinthemandated 120 days of his filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on
. ' .. "' .
3 June 27,2011. In effect, Plaintiff had until October 25, 2011 to serve Defendant. Plaintiff
4 ignored NRCP 4(i)'s mandate and failed to make any attempt to serve Defendant. Notably,
5 Plaintiff has not moved for an enlargement of time in which to effectuate service. Therefore,
6 Plaintiff failed to effectuate service of process and Defendant is entitled to dismissal of
7 .Plaintiff's Complaint.
Defendants Actual Notice Does Not Constitute Process
Any assertion by Plaintiff that Defendant has actual notice of this lawsuit, and
Supreme Court has long acknowledged that notice of a litigation is not a substitute for proper
service of process. C.H.A Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Engineers, Inc., 794 P.2d 707,
13709 (Nev. 1990). Similarly, Defendant's notice of this litigation does not excuse Plaintiff's non-
15 4.
16
Conclusion
Plaintiff has failed to properly effectuate service and process on Defendant Caryn
17Sternlicht and all remaining Defendants. Plaintiff's failure to comply with NRCP 4 warrants a
18 dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to NRCP 4 and NRCP 12(b)(4). Accordingly, Defendant
19 Caryn Sternlicht respectfully requests this Court dismiss the Complaint, in its entirety, as to
20 herselfand all remaining Defendants.2
21 / /I ..
23
24
25
26
27
28
II/
11/
II I
III
///
2 For the sake of judicial economy, the Court should order that all other defendants are dismissed per
NRCP 4(i).
- 4 -
V3.749
<J
p.;
<:1
.1'1
'" 08

....
Q) ;:::l
N U) C\o
"'00 0
v-""O Lf)

-0 .i.r.,,("l")
U , . ..,0
.... - (!J a
<:1
>- t::-
O OJ

OJ
z6
o .... g
0
<n
.&
>-<
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
25
26
27
Dated this 18
th
By:

9080 West Post Road,Suite 100
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, Defendant Caryn
Sternlicht's Motion to Dismiss for Non-Service of Process, filed in Case No. CV11-01896,
doesnotcontain the Social Security Number of any person.
. Datedlhis 18
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
V3.750
0
.p.;
c:f
'0
"
08

t "3 :!"
Nu)o.O
"00 0
u"d U")

z
o
U 0
oP-<

'-'0
Zoo
c:,,"g
Si
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
23
24
th
day of January 2012, I served a true and correct copy of
DefendantCaryn Sternlicht's Motion to Dismiss for Non-Service of Process, upon the
f()lIowing parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
.' Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., for Defendant Crisis Intervention Services
lsI Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 6 -
V3.751
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
c:"

o 12
c<1,Boo
tj '3
N(/)C\.O

(f)t5:>'-;"
Z iod
-0 t; Uj" tf')

Z?Z
":5':

&
21
22
23
24
26
27
No.1
EXHIBIT INDEX
Docket Reports on
CV11-01955 and
CV11-01896
- 7 -
2 pages
F I L E D
Electronically
01-18-2012:04:00:52 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.752
....... ~ ..
E HIBIT "1"
V3.753
Docket aport esults
Case ID: CV11-01896
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case Description
Case ID: CV11-01896 -ZACH COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL
Filing
Date:
SERVICES ETAL.(06)
Status: EVNTCLOSED - Event Closed
Related Cases
No related cases Vlere found.
Case Eyent Schedule
No case events \<\ere found.
Case Parties
Seq#
Bexpn
Type ID
Assoc Date
1
D
Judge 06
! I
Name
ADAMS,
HONORABLE
BRENT
HOme

l';Npjy"-SeWbtf; RepbtfSjleCti9b.
'Scfietlijle'
(c) Copyright 2001 AffiHa\ed COi'llluter Systarrs, Inc. ACSand the ACS logo are registered lraderrerks.
This contains trade secrets and is subject to a confidentiality agreement The unaulhor1zed
possession, use, reproduction, distribution, display, or disclosure oflhis rmterial orilla information contained herein is prohibited.
M rights reserved. User Acceplsl,AQree$ to Disclairrer. Nol for oflidal use.
V3.754
CasalD: CV11-01955
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case Description
Case ID: CV11-01955 - ZACHARY COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL
SRVC, ET AL(D10)
Filing Thursday J June 30th, 2011
Date:
Type: WT - TORTSWRONGFUL TERMINATION
Status: INITIAL .. Case Initiated
Related Cases
No related cases W3re found.
Case Event ScheduJe
Case Parties
Seq# Assoc
lexpn!
Date
Type 10 Name
1 Judge D10 ELLIOTT,
HONORABLE
STEVEN P ..
k'searttfHome
,,'ReJafe:a--eaM.

,.iEvQIohecuJe "@%i1"Pjr'tli:S
(c) Copyright2001 Affiliated COl'l'lluter Systerm, Inc.ACS and the ACS logo are registered iradelTBrks.
This contains trade secrets and is subject to a confidentiality agreerrent The unaulhorizad
posseSSion, use, reproduction, distrlbuHon, display, or disclosure oflhis rmterial or the inforrmlion contained herein is prohibited
.AJ1.nghts reserved, User PcooptsiAgrees to Disclali'rer. Not for official use.
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-19-2012:08:09:56
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn to Dismiss
-**Continuation
WOMEN'S SERVICES
SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
V3.755
PAUL ELCANO
CARYN STERNLIGHT
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.756
F I L E D
Electronically
01-23-2012:04:48:25 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.757
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cj
~
11
.
'" os
12
c:1'Boo
::J .;3 ;!
13
NCI)C\O
~ ""0"00 ~
en ~ >- ~
. f ~ Z &:1
14 o ~ r.n"C'Ij
U 0 gbN"
"P-. vO
t1 >- ~
15
3 j
"'0
Zoo
~ ~
16
0
on
.S<
....:1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1950
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
)
Plaintiff,
~
~
vs. )
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada ~
SERVICES, CARYN STERN LIGHT, )
WLS employee, )
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
-----------------------------)
/II
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANTS' VERIFIED
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
V3.758
DEFENDANTS' VERIFIED MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
2 Defendants Washoe Legal Services, a Nevada Corporation; Paul Elcano, individually
3 and in his capacity as Executive Director of WLS; Kathy Breckenridge, individually and in her
4 capacity as Board President ofWLS; Todd Torvinen, individually and in his capacity as WLS
5 Board Member; Jon Sasser, individually and in his capacity as WLS agent; Karen Sabo,
6 individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney; and Marc Ashley, individually and in his
7 capacity as WLS attorney ("Defendants"), by and through their attorneys of record, Lipson,
8 Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., respectfully submit their Memorandum of Costs as
9 follows:
10
11
12
13
a.
c.
Filing Fees
Copies
TOTAL
14 STATE OF NEVADA
15 COUNTY OF CLARK
16
)
)ss
)
$1,491.00 (for all seven Defendants)
$98.35
$1589.35
1
17
18
19
Shannon D. Nordstrom, being duly sworn, states he has personal knowledge of the
above costs and disbursements expended that the items contained in the above memorandum
are true and correct to the best of the Affiant's knowledge and belief, and that these costs and
22
23
and sworn to before me
24 this 0<:3rLclay of January, 2012.

27
28
1 Transaction cost file lists are attached.
- 2 -
By'
NANCY 1 COOPER
N@m"1/' Public State of Nevl'J\dc
No. 9u -2075-1
l\Jiy 15, 2[H;1
V3.759
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u

11
."
'" 08
12
cOEoo

13
NUJo,O
..=: "00 0
v"Cl u-,

O)"p; z
14 <3 urt<'l
u"d:
t1>t:,
15 ;q
H

.:"5:
16

J
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document,DEFENDANTS'
VERIFIED MEMORANDUM OF COSTS, filed in Case No. CV11-0 1896, does not contain the
Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 23
th
By:

(702) 382-1500
Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal SelVices,
Paul E/cano, Todd TOlVinen, Karen Sabo, Jon
Caryn Sternlicht
- 3 -
V3.760
1 EXHIBIT INDEX
2
1 Exhibit 1 1 Billing Details 13 pages
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
p..;
11
.gn
oj
08
12

13
'U ..
oo

U) ...... T"""'C
0 .... ,
Z
14 '0 cn"t<i
u"P:
ij
15

"'0
Zoo

16
0
'"
.8-

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
V3.761
0
p..;
.::
"q
" 08

'S :!
N{/)C\O
--or-co

"0 t: VJ" ('<')
U ,,0 &,N'
"i-'-! v 0

"'0
Zoo

0
0..
;.:j
2
3
th
Defendants' Verified Memorandum of Costs via the ECF system which served the following
4
parties electronically:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 5 -
F I L E D
Electronically
01-23-2012:04:48:25 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.762
EXH I IT "1"
V3.763
eFlex Page 1 of1
Home eFile Cases My Profile Log Out user: Joseph P. Garin
Filing Charges
Filing Charges
Report Month November
November 2011 Charges for Joseph P. Garin
Case Title My Case # Court Case #
CV11-01896
CV11-01955
CV11-01896
CV11-01896 f
CV11-01955
CV11-01896
CV11-01955
CV11-01955
CV11-01955
CV11-01955
RENEW-2011
Description
Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT
Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - wr
Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - wr
Ernp!oymentTorts (Wrongful termination) - WT
Empffiyment Torts (Wrongful termination) - wr
... Date Account Authorization Code Fee
$213.00
$243.00
$213.00
$213.00
$213.00
$213.00
$243.00
$213.00
$213.00
$213.00
11-15-2011:09:12 X9921
11-15-2011:10:01 X9921
11-15-2011:10:35 X9921
11-22-2011:09:00 X9921
11-28-2011:12:56 X9921
11-28-2011:01:13 X9921
11-28-2011:01:46 X9921
11-28-2011:03:02 X9921
11-28-2011:03:18 X9921
11-28-2011:03:51 X9921
ZACH COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES IT AL.(06)
ZACHARY COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SRVC, IT AL(OI0)
ZACH COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES IT AL.(D6)
ZACH COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES IT AL.(06)
ZACHARY mUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SRVC, IT AL(OI0)
ZACH mUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES IT AL.(06)
ZACHARY mUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SRVC, IT AL(OI0)
ZACHARY COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SRVC, IT AL(OlO)
EFILE SUBSCRIPTION FEE 2011 Breach of Contract: Other ContractsjAcct/Judgment - m 11-28-2011:04:31 X9921
User Manual I terms of use I privacy policy I payment policy I support I contact us I about Tybera Development Group, Inc.
2 1 ~ 1 Tybera Development Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
httos:1 Iwceflex. washoecourts. coml accounting
11111515586293
11111515592832
11111515597496
11112216683424
11112817402999
11112817405307
11112817411868
11112817420028
11112817421574
11112817424709
11112817428300 $300.00
Total Charges: $2,490.00
112312012
V3.764
eFlex
Home eFile Cases My Profile log Out user: Joseph P. Garin
Filing Charges
Filing Charges
Report Month December
December 2011 Charges for Joseph P. Garin
Case Title My Case # Court Case # Description .&Date Account Authorization Code
ZACH COUGHUN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL.(D6) CV11-01896 II EmploymentTorts (Wrongful termination) - wr 12-16-2011:09:41 X9921
ZACH COUGHUN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
ZACH COUGHUN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
CVll-01896 Q Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT 12-16-2011:11:02 X9921
CVll-01896 Ii Employment Torts (Wrongful termination) - WT 12-20-2011:09:32 X9921
User Manua! I terms of use I privacy policy I payment policy I Sllpport I contact us I aboutTybera Development Group, Inc.
2001-10 Tybera Development Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
https:llwceflex.washoecourts.comlaccounting
11121620531397
11121620542278
11122021123783
Total Charges:
Page 1 of 1
Fee
$213.00
$213.00
$213.00
$639.00
112312012
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-23-2012:16:52:17
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Memorandum of Costs
-**Continuation
WOMEN'S SERVICES
BRECKENRIDGE, PAUL ELCANO, CARYN
STERNLIGHT, KAREN SABO, JON SASSER
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
V3.765
PAUL ELCANO
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.766
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: 2450
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV BA No: !4"#
$422 E. !th %t. &2
eno, NV '!5$2
(ele: ""5)##')'$$'
*a+: !4!),,")"402
ZachCoughlin-hotmail.com
Atto.ne/ 0o. 1lainti00 Coughlin
2N (3E %EC4ND 56D2C2A7 D2%(2C( C46(
4* (3E %(A(E 4* NEVADA
2N AND *4 (3E C46N(8 4* 9A%34E
ZAC3 C46:372N;

1lainti00.
<s.
9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, a Ne<ada
Co.=o.ation, >A(38 BEC>EN2D:E,
2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as Boa.d
1.esident o0 97%, (4DD (4V2NEN,
2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97% . Boa.d
?em@e., 1A67 E7CAN4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as E+ecuti<e Di.ecto. o0 97%,
D4E% $)$00, 2ndi<iduall/ and in thei. ca=acit/
as mem@e.s o0 the B4AD 4* D2EC(4%
4* 9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, CA8N
%(EN72:3(, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/
as 97% atto.ne/, 54N %A%%E, 2ndi<iduall/
and in his ca=acit/ as 97% agent, >AEN
%AB4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97%
atto.ne/, ?AC A%37E8, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/, ZANDA
741EZ; 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as
97% em=lo/ee;
De0endants.
A
A
A
A
A
A CA%E N4: CV$$)0$'!,
DE1(. N4: ,
?4(24N (4 %E( A%2DE 4DE
:AN(2N: DE*ENDAN(% E7CAN4,
(4V2NEN, %A%%E, A%37E8, %AB4,
97%, C2% AND BEC>EN2D:EB%
?4(24NC%A (4 D2%?2%%
?4(24N (4 %E( A%2DE 4DE :AN(2N: DE*ENDAN(% E7CAN4, (4V2NEN,
%A%%E, A%37E8, %AB4, 97%, C2% AND BEC>EN2D:EB% ?4(24NC%A (4 D2%?2%%
1lease note the unde.signed has attem=ted to su@mit this motion 0o. 0iling nume.ous times, @ut it has
@een .eDected each time, des=ite NC1 5CeA, 9hitman, %ulli<an, and Donoho. (hats Ehat 2 E.ote
=.o@a@l/ the 0i0th o. si+th time the 9DC 0iling o00ice .eDected m/ su@mission. (hen it ha==ened
- $F!# -
?4(24N (4 %E( A%2DE 4DE :AN(2N: DE*ENDAN(% E7CAN4, (4V2NEN, %A%%E, A%37E8, %AB4,
97%, C2% AND BEC>EN2D:EB% ?4(24NC%A (4 D2%?2%%
F I L E D
Electronically
01-26-2012:01:53:51 AM
Clerk of the Court
V3.767
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
again. And 2 E.ote this: 17EA%E N4(E: (32% A((E?1(, 2* %6CCE%%*67 9277 ?A>
AB46( (32% *2*(3 4 %2G(3 (2?E 2 3AVE A((E?1(ED (4 :E( (32% ?4(24N 1A%%
(3E :A(E>EE1E% (4 56%(2CE 2N (3E *272N: 4**2CE, 72>E ?%. 742 ?A(3E6%,
934? D4E% A E?A>AB7E 54B 2N(E1E(2N: AND A11782N: 9DC $0, 4NE 4*
(3E *2NE%( 67E% EVE ?ADE, 932C3 2N N49 9A8 2% 4N C4N(AVEN(24N 4*
NC1 5CeA, AND 932C3 C7EA78 %3467D BE A1172ED 46( 4* N493EE 2N EVE
?4E CEA(2VE AND 2NVEN(2VE 9A8%, 1A(2C67A78 (4 EA778 (2?E
%EN%2(2VE ?4(24N% 93EE 72(2:AN(% AND 4 C72EN(% A**A2% 3AVE A
%6B%(AN(2A7 72>E72344D 4* BE2N: 1E56D2CED %3467D AN A((E?1( A(
ACCE%%2N: 56%(2CE BE B>2C>ED BAC> 46(B B8 (3E *272N: 4**2CE, 932C3 A1172E%
9DC $0 92(3 E?A>AB7E DEG(E2(8, 1A(2C67A78 A:A2N%( %474
1AC(2(24NEB%, B6( N4( A( A77 (4 A 7E%%E DE:EE D4E% 2( :E( A1172ED (4
(3E DE16(8 D2%(2C( A((4NE8% AND B2: ?4NE8 7A9 *2?%, AND 2N N4 9A8
D4E% (3E EH62E?EN(, *46ND 2N 9DC $0, 16( 2N(4 7A9 B8 (3E %61E?E
C46( 4* NEVADA, (3A( (3E 2ND 56D2C2A7 D2%(2C( C46( %3467D 3AVE AN
A*(E 346% D41B4G NECE%%A278 ?EAN (3A( (3E 9DC NEED% (4 A1178
9DC $0 A:A2N%( 2(%E7*.
(he most .ecent attem=t to get this =leading 0iled .esulted in this e+change:
E: eDection Notice: 8ou. 0iling, e: CV$$)0$'!, ) Em=lo/ment (o.ts
C9.ong0ul te.minationA ) 9( ) ?tn to %et Aside Dec.ee, Eas .eDectedI
*.om: Zach Coughlin CJachcoughlin-hotmail.comA %ent: (hu $F2,F$2
$:0' A? (o: e0le+-Eashoecou.ts.us; lo.i.matheus-Eashoecou.ts.us
Dea. ?s. ?atheus, 2 .e<ieE the =d0 2 su@mitted 0o. this and 2 do not see the
=.o@lem /ou mentioned. Can /ou con0i.m that the .ationale /ou =.o<ided
0o. .eDecting m/ attem=t to access the cou.ts Eas in 0act co..ect. 20 /ou
Ee.e not co..ect, then 2 @elie<e the document should @e 0iled, Eill /ou
con0i.m that Eith /ou. su=e.<iso. =leaseI 20 /ou then come u= Eith a neE
.eason to .eDect the document, Eould /ou =lease =.o<ide a citation to some
- 2F!# -
V3.768
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
autho.it/ in su==o.t o0 an/ contention /ou might then maKe that the 0iling
o00ice gets multi=le chances at @at to .eDect a su@mission, as, 2 am su.e /ou
ha<e noticed, o0ten 0ilings do manage to sneaK th.ough Eithout @eing
.eDected, @ut the cou.t does not Lun0ileL them. 2n that .ega.d, 2 @elie<e that
an/ neE .ationale /ou might =.o<ide 0o. .eDecting the su@mission at issue,
Eould @e one /ou missed Ehile at the =late, and the.e0o.e, im=e.missi@le.
(o hold othe.Eise, 2 @elie<e, Eould @e tantamount to a==l/ing the .ules,
such as 9DC in a manne. that a00ects a dis=a.ate im=act o. dis=a.ate
t.eatment u=on litigants, =e.ha=s @ased u=on thei. inclusion in a =.otected
class, o. =e.ha=s, @ased u=on some .etaliato./ moti<e, Ehich, o0 cou.se, is
clea.l/ im=e.missi@le. Zach Coughlin, Esq. $422 E. !th %t. &2 EN4, NV
'!5$2 tel: ""5 ##' '$$' 0a+: !4! ,," "402 ZachCoughlin-hotmail.com
Ne<ada Ba. No: !4"# MM NoticeMM (his message and accom=an/ing
documents a.e co<e.ed @/ the elect.onic...
Date: 9ed, 25 5an 20$2 $$:5!:$! )0'00 *.om: e0le+-Eashoecou.ts.us
(o: Jachcoughlin-hotmail.com %u@Dect: eDection Notice: 8ou. 0iling, e:
CV$$)0$'!, ) Em=lo/ment (o.ts C9.ong0ul te.minationA ) 9( ) ?tn to
%et Aside Dec.ee, Eas .eDected (o: Zach Ba.Ke. Coughlin, Esq.
Jachcoughlin-hotmail.com *.om: e0le+-Eashoecou.ts.us Date:
20$2)0$)24 20:#5:22.0 %u@Dect: 8ou. elect.onic 0iling, e: CV$$)
0$'!, ) Em=lo/ment (o.ts C9.ong0ul te.minationA ) 9( ) ?tn to %et
Aside Dec.ee, Eas .eDected @/ %econd 5udicial Dist.ict Cou.t ) %tate o0
Ne<ada. Case Num@e.: CV$$)0$'!, Case (/=e: Em=lo/ment (o.ts
C9.ong0ul te.minationA ) 9( Document (/=e:?tn to %et Aside Dec.ee
Document (/=e: MMContinuation easonCsA 0o. .eDection: Document
does not com=l/ Eith 9CD $0. 7ines o0 =ages must @e num@e.ed in the
le0t ma.gin o. on legal =leading =a=e.. 20 /ou ha<e an/ questions, =lease
call 7o.i at #2')#$$4.L
(his ?otion is made =u.suant to the autho.ities discussed @eloE, including Ne<. . Ci<. 1. 5!,
and is su==o.ted @/ the attached ?emo.andum o0 1oints and Autho.ities, the Decla.ation o0 Zacha./
B. Coughlin, Esq., the =a=e.s and =leadings on 0ile he.ein, and an/ o.al a.gument this cou.t ma/
alloE, as it is @eing .equested.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
An A==lication 0o. 2*1 status Eas 0iled along Eith a =.o=osed Com=laint on 5une 2"th, 20$$.
(he 2*1 Eas 0inall/ g.anted August ', 20$$, and the Com=liant Eas stam=ed Eith a 0iling date o0
- #F!# -
V3.769
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
August $$, 20$$ and ente.ed in the DocKet in this matte. on that date as Eell. $20 da/s 0.om August
$$, 20$$ is Decem@e. !, 20$$, Ehich ha==ens to @e the da/ that (.a<is %he.man, o<e. $' /ea. old
non =a.t/ .esident o0 9ashoe Count/ se.<ed 1aul Elcano and 97% Cgi<en Elcano is 97%Bs .egiste.ed
agentA Eith the %ummons and Com=laint in this matte., and =.oo0 o0 the same Eas 0iled on Decem@e.
$0, 20$$. *u.the., B.ecKen.idge Eas se.<ed @/ the 9C%4 on $$F$5F$$ in CV$$)0$'!, C@ut that
same A00ida<it o0 %e.<ice, 0iled onl/ in CV$$)0$'!, also indicates B.ecKen.idge Eas se.<ed the
%ummons and Com=laint 0o. CV$$)0$!55 as Eell, @ut the 9C%4 did not manage to 0ile an A00ida<it
o0 %e.<ice attesting to that in CV$$)0$!55, so the case against he. the.e got dismissed. 9hat is
inte.esting is that the =eo=le Eho Ee.e not su@Dect to and 4.de. 0.om the Chie0 5udge, De=a.tment
*ou., indicating that the/ should se.<e =.ocess =u.suant to an 2*1 4.de. Cie, me, and m/ .agtag g.ou=
o0 .andom 0.iends, st.ange.s, etcA manage to do a much, much mo.e tho.ough Do@ than the g.ou= o0
9C%4 De=uties Eith .athe. nice sala.ies managed to do Cie, the g.ou= Eho Ee.e getting =aid quite
Eell, Eith a nice 1E% =lan to @ootA. (o to= it o00, >a.en %a@o Eas se.<ed something 0.om CV$$)
0$'!, Ca %ummonsI a co=/ o0 the Com=laintIA its Dust that the 9C%4 0iled the A00ida<it o0 %e.<ice
attesting to that in the wrong case CV$$)0$!55 on $$F22F$$ Cthe A00ida<it 0o. %a@o Eas 0iled in
CV$$)0$!55 @ut indicates ?s. %a@o Eas se.<ed: LL7ocation: 9ashoe 7egal %e.<ices 2!! % A.lington
A<enue eno, N8 '!50$ Date: $$$$,F20$$ (ime: $$ :04A? (he documentCsA se.<ed Ee.e:
%6??4N%: C418 4* CA%E CV$$)0$!55 AND C418 4* %6??4N%, CA%E CV$$)0$'!,LA.
(his Cou.tBs 5anua./ $$, 20$$ 4.de. held that: L 1lainti00 0iled a com=laint on 5une 2",20$$.
1u.suant to N..C.1. 4CiA, 1lainti00 Eould ha<e $20 da/s to se.<e the summons and com=laint on
De0endants o. until 4cto@e. 25, 20$$. 1lainti00 0ailed to se.<e De0endants 1aul Elcano CLElcanoLA,
(odd (o.<ine CL(o.<inenLA, 5on %asse. CL%asse.LA, ?a.c Ashle/ CLAshle/LA, >a.en %a@o CL%a@oLA,
>ath/ B.ecKen.idge CLB.ecKen.idgeLA, 9ashoe 7egal %e.<ices CL97%LA and C.isis 2nte.<ention
- 4F!# -
V3.770
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
%e.<ices CLC2%LA Eithin the mandated time =e.iod. 2n addition, 1lainti00 0ailed to 0ile a motion to
enla.ge time 0o. se.<ice o. shoE good cause as to Eh/ se.<ice Eas not made Eithin the statuto./
=e.iod. Acco.dingl/, the Cou.t g.ants De0endants Elcano, (o.<inen, %asse., Ashle/, %a@o, 97%, C2%
and B.ecKen.idgeBs motionCsA to dismiss Eithout =.eDudice.2 *N 2: Although C2% sought dismissal
Eith =.eDudice, the Cou.t ma/ dismiss an action Eithout =.eDudice Ehen se.<ice is untimel/. %ee
N..C.1. 4CiA. 2n addition, C2%Bs .equest 0o. atto.ne/Bs 0ees and costs is denied at this time @ecause the
Cou.t dismissed this action on =.ocedu.al g.ounds Eithout anal/Jing the me.its o0 1lainti00s case.L
2 donBt @elie<e an/ o0 the 0actual 0indings in that 4.de. a.e accu.ate, as all o0 those indi<idualsF
entities Ee.e se.<ed Cma/@e not @/ the 9C%4, @ut 2 got (.a<is %he.man to se.<e 97% and Elcano on
Decem@e. !, 20$$, Ehich is not too late conside.ing the Com=laint is 0ile stam=ed August $$, 20$$,
and 2 had 5e.ome *itJhen./ se.<e (odd (o.<inen Cand attem=t to se.<e 97% and Elcano @/ lea<ing a
.eal nice co=/ o0 the %ummons and Com=laint unde. ElcanoBs home doo. matA on 4cto@e. 2"th, 200$
CEhich, again, 2 do not @elie<e is outside the $20 da/s alloEed unde. NC1 4, as the 0iling o00ice Eill
not issue a %ummons in a case Ehe.e the 2*1 is still =ending...as such, the 2*1 onl/ @eing g.anted on
August ' and the Com=laint stam=ed in on August $$, 20$$....maKes the *itJhen./ se.<ice on
4cto@e. 2"th, 20$$ onl/ some "" da/s o. so into the $20 da/ =e.iod alloEed unde. NC1 $20.
*u.the., 2 @elie<e a ca.e0ul .e<ieE o0 the =leadings Eill .e<eal a ?otion 0o. E+tension o0 (ime to
E00ectuate %e.<ice Eas 0iled, as Eas a ?otion to Consolidate these cases on 4cto@e. 5, 20$$. 1lease
set aside the dismissal.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
%ee N..C.1. 4CiA. 2n addition, C2%Bs .equest 0o. atto.ne/Bs 0ees and costs is denied at this time
@ecause the Cou.t dismissed this action on =.ocedu.al g.ounds Eithout anal/Jing the me.its o0
1lainti00s case. %o said this Cou.t. 2t seemed :a.in asKed 0o. sanctiosn too...@oth o0 Ehich amount
- 5F!# -
V3.771
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 mo.e than a Ls=ecial a==ea.anceL and the.e0o.e these =a.ties ha<e Eai<ed an/ se.<ice o0 =.ocess
.equi.ement and a.e noE in this litigation. And a de0ault is a==.o=.iate to ente. as the/ ha<e 0ailed
to 0ile and AnsEe. to the Com=laint Eithin 20 da/s o0 se.<ice.
*ailu.e to maKe legi@le co=/ o0 com=laint 0o. se.<ice 2n the 0olloEing case the cou.t 0ound
that the 0ailu.e o0 cou.t =e.sonnel to maKe a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint 0o. se.<ice on a de0endant
su==o.ted its a==a.ent holding that the.e Eas good cause unde. ule 4CDA o0 the *ede.al ules o0 Ci<il
1.ocedu.e 0o. a =lainti00Bs 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e =.ocess. 9he.e a com=laint, alleging em=lo/ment
disc.imination, =hotoco=ied @/ cou.t =e.sonnel 0o. se.<ice on an em=lo/e. on @ehal0 o0 a 0o.me.
em=lo/ee =.oceeding =.o se and in 0o.ma =au=e.is, =.o<ed too 0aint 0o. the em=lo/e. to .ead, the
cou.t in ?c>enJie < Amt.aK ? o0 E C$!!0, %D N8A """ * %u== $$$!, 0ound that the 0ailu.e o0 cou.t
=e.sonnel to maKe a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint 0o. se.<ice su==o.ted its im=licit holding that the.e
Eas good cause unde. ule 4CDA o0 the *ede.al ules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e 0o. the =lainti00Bs 0ailu.e to
timel/ se.<e a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint. (he cou.t stated that, although the a.gument that se.<ice
should not @e deemed e00ecti<e unless the com=laint is legi@le is o.dina.il/ a st.ong one, the.e Eas
little Dusti0ication 0o. dismissing the =lainti00Bs com=laint on that g.ound, @ecause the de0ect in se.<ice
Eas att.i@uta@le to cou.t =e.sonnel. (he cou.t also noted that the em=lo/e., Eho had ad<ised the
em=lo/ee o0 the illegi@ilit/ o0 the com=laint @ut had 0ailed to so ad<ise the 6nited %tates ma.shal o.
the cou.t, notEithstanding the em=lo/e.Bs KnoEledge that the em=lo/ee Eas =.oceeding =.o se, Eas
=a.tl/ to @lame 0o. the dela/ in se.<ice.
2t sim=l/ Eould not @e all that 0ai. to sa/ NC1 4CiA gi<e the 1lainti00 $20 da/s to e00ectuate
se.<ice o0 =.ocess Ehen the Com=laint Eas not e<en gi<en a 0iling date in the docKet 0o. CV$$)0$'!,
until August $$ CDe=a.tment 4 tooK 0.om the su@mission o0 the 2*1 on 5ul/ 2"th, 20$$ until August !,
20$$ to issue the 4.de. :.anting 2*1, and this occu..ed du.ing a =e.iod Ehe.e the 9DC Eas
- ,F!# -
V3.772
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
changing the 2*1 0o.m it maKes a<aila@le to the =u@lic and the 0iling o00ice actuall/ .e0used to acce=t
an ea.lie. attem=ted su@mission o0 the 1etition 0o. 2*1 and =.o=osed Com=liant, citing .ationale @oth
<ague and cont.adicto./ and .elated to 9DC $0. (his Cou.t 5anua./ $$th, 20$2 4.de. indicates
that the e+=i.ation o0 $20 da/s C0.om the 5une 2"th date Ehen the Com=laint Eas stam=ed L.ecei<edL
@/ the 0iling o00ice as the =.o=osed =leading called 0o. unde. N% $2.0$5A Eould @e 4cto@e. 25th,
20$$.
Action o0 cou.t o. cle.K o0 cou.t as constituting o. su==o.ting 0inding o0 Lgood cause,L unde. .ule 4CDA
o0 *ede.al ules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e, 0o. 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e =.ocess u=on de0endant. $0' A.7..
*ed. ',2 C4.iginall/ =u@lished in $!!2A.
(he unde.signed sEea.s he Eas unde. the im=.ession that L0ile stam=edL co=/ o0 the
Com=laint ma/ @e .equi.ed 0o. se.<ice, though no =.ecise autho.it/ eithe. Ea/ has @een 0ound in that
.ega.d, the unde.signed did go to s=ecial t.ou@le to t./ to get all de0endants a L0ile stam=edL co=/ o0
the Com=laint, and the.e0o.e, the unde.signed did not @elie<e he Eas e<en a@le to seeK to se.<e the
De0endants Eith the Com=laint in CV$$)0$'!, =.io. to, at the ea.liest, the August ', 20$$ 4.de.
g.anting the 2*1, and mo.e liKel/, not until the August $$, 20$$ docKet ent./ Ehe.ein the Com=laint,
com=lete Eith a 0ile stam=ing o0 August $$, 20$$ Eas ente.ed in the .eco.d.
E00o.ts o0 =lainti00 o. =lainti00Bs agent 0o. se.<ice o0 =.ocess as constituting o. su==o.ting 0inding o0
Lgood cause,L unde. ule 4CDA o0 *ede.al ules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e, 0o. 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e =.ocess
u=on de0endant, $$$ A.7.. *ed. 50#
- "F!# -
V3.773
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
NC1 4CiA: LCiA %ummons: (ime 7imit 0o. %e.<ice. 20 a se.<ice o0 the summons and com=laint is not
made u=on a de0endant Eithin $20 da/s a0te. the 0iling o0 the com=laint, the action shall @e dismissed
as to that de0endant Eithout =.eDudice u=on the cou.tNs oEn initiati<e Eith notice to such =a.t/ o.
u=on motion, unless the =a.t/ on Ehose @ehal0 such se.<ice Eas .equi.ed 0iles a motion to enla.ge the
time 0o. se.<ice and shoEs good cause Eh/ such se.<ice Eas not made Eithin that =e.iod. 20 the =a.t/
on Ehose @ehal0 such se.<ice Eas .equi.ed 0ails to 0ile a motion to enla.ge the time 0o. se.<ice @e0o.e
the $20)da/ se.<ice =e.iod e+=i.es, the cou.t shall taKe that 0ailu.e into conside.ation in dete.mining
good cause 0o. an e+tension o0 time. 6=on a shoEing o0 good cause, the cou.t shall e+tend the time
0o. se.<ice and set a .easona@le date @/ Ehich se.<ice should @e made.L
N% $2.0$5 Actions in<ol<ing indigent =e.sons. $. An/ =e.son Eho desi.es to =.osecute o. de0end a
ci<il action ma/: CaA *ile an a00ida<it Eith the cou.t setting 0o.th Eith =a.ticula.it/ 0acts conce.ning
the =e.sonNs income, =.o=e.t/ and othe. .esou.ces Ehich esta@lish that the =e.son is una@le to
=.osecute o. de0end the action @ecause the =e.son is una@le to =a/ the costs o0 so doing; o. C@A %u@mit
a statement o. othe.Eise indicate to the cou.t that the =e.son is a client o0 a =.og.am 0o. legal aid. 2. 20
the cou.t is satis0ied that a =e.son Eho 0iles an a00ida<it =u.suant to su@section $ is una@le to =a/ the
costs o0 =.osecuting o. de0ending the action o. i0 the cou.t 0inds that a =e.son is a client o0 a =.og.am
0o. legal aid, the cou.t shall o.de.: CaA (he cle.K o0 the cou.t: C$A (o alloE the =e.son to commence o.
de0end the action Eithout costs; and C2A (o 0ile o. issue an/ necessa./ E.it, =.ocess, =leading o. =a=e.
Eithout cha.ge. C@A (he she.i00 o. othe. a==.o=.iate =u@lic o00ice. Eithin this %tate to maKe =e.sonal
se.<ice o0 an/ necessa./ E.it, =.ocess, =leading o. =a=e. Eithout cha.ge. #. 20 the =e.son is .equi.ed to
ha<e =.oceedings .e=o.ted o. .eco.ded, o. i0 the cou.t dete.mines that the .e=o.ting, .eco.ding o.
t.ansc.i=tion o0 =.oceedings Eould @e hel=0ul to the adDudication o. a==ellate .e<ieE o0 the case, the
- 'F!# -
V3.774
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
cou.t shall o.de. that the .e=o.ting, .eco.ding o. t.ansc.i=tion @e =e.0o.med at the e+=ense o0 the
count/ in Ehich the action is =ending @ut at a .educed .ate as set @/ the count/. ...L
N% $2.0$5 does not sa/ Lthis Cou.t shall gi<e the 1lainti00, Ehom Eas g.anted an 2*1, the tasK and
e+=ense o0 =.e=a.ing Lse.<ice =acKetsL 0o. the %he.i00, Ehom shall @eha<e in an inc.easingl/
demanding manne. toEa.d the 1lainti00 and act as i0 the/ a.e doing the 1lainti00 a 0a<o. in e00ectuating
se.<ice o0 =.ocess and as thought the/ onl/ ha<e to do it i0 the 1lainti00 asKs .eall/ nicel/ and
genu0lects a @unch....L 2ndeed, ?c>enJie seems to maKe clea. that, at least in some Du.isdictions, the
Cou.t and %he.i00 handle all the =hotoco=/ing and deli<e.ing to the %he.i00 that Ehich is necessa./ to
e00ectuate se.<ice. *u.the., the.e a.e some highl/ =e.sonal, in0lammato./, and sensiti<e 0acts .elated
to the unde.signed .elationshi= Eith the 9ashoe Count/ %he.i00Bs 400ice that ma/ @a.e on the
9C%4Bs 0ailu.e to co..ectl/ com=l/ Eith the 4.de. :.anting 2n *o.ma 1au=e.is status to the
unde.signed. 3oEe<e., these 0acts a.e o0 such a natu.e that =.udence dictates onl/ going into them
Ee.e a@solutel/ necessa./. %u00ice to sa/, it is highl/ cu.ious that the 9C%4Bs, gi<en the time 0.ame
in Ehich it occu..ed, onl/ manged to 0ile 2 A00ida<its o0 %e.<ice in this case, CV$$)0$'!,, Ehe.es
some nine =ages o0 A00ida<its o0 %e.<ice Ee.e 0iled in the L.elatedL case C0o. Ehich the unde.signed
0iled an 4cto@e. 5, 20$$ ?otion to ConsolidateA, CV$$)$0!55, a case 0o. Ehich the unde.signed
sc.a=ed togethe. e<e./ last dime he had in the Eo.ld and =aid the 0iling 0ee in 0ea. that the 2*1 in this
matte. Eould @e denied and, acco.ding to 0iling o00ice =e.sonnel and De=a.tment 4 Administ.ati<e
Assistant, should the 21* @e denied Ehe.e, in the inte.im, the .unning o0 the a==lica@le statute o0
limitations should occu., as Eould ha<e @een the case he.e should the 2*1 ha<e @een denied and
should the unde.signed ha<e 0ailed to 0ile in CV$$)$0!55 C(itle V22 alloEs !0 da/s to 0ile 0.om
L.ecei=tL o0 the EE4CBs ight to %ue 7ette., a situation made all the mo.e con0using gi<en the
- !F!# -
V3.775
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
EE4CBs 0ailu.e to =.o=e.l/ u=date the unde.signed mailing in0o.mation u=on a E.itten notice o0
Change o0 Add.ess @eing con0i.med .ecei<ed @/ the EE4C EeeKs =.io. to the mailing o0 the ight (o
%ue 7ette., and the 6%1% ceasing to 0o.Ea.d to the unde.signed the o.iginal ight (o %ue 7ette., @ut
.athe. .etu.n it to the EE4C Eith the Lno longe. at this add.essL /elloE sticKe. and notice o0 the
.eci=ients neE add.ess Cas is the 6%1% custom u=on the e+=i.ation o0 $2 months 0.om the 0iling o0 an
400icial Change o0 Add.ess 0o.m Eith the 6%1%A.
Filing a request to ro!ee" in #or$a aueris
L Deli<e.ing o. 0iling a motion o. a==lication to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is, along Eith the 0i.st
com=laint, to the dist.ict cou.t tolls the !0)da/ statute o0 limitations 0o. 0iling a com=laint 0olloEing
the .ecei=t o0 the Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ CommissionBs CEE4CA .ight)to)sue lette..O $P ?o.e
s=eci0icall/, tolling has @een =e.mitted Ehe.eQ Q a (itle V22 =lainti00 0iled an in 0o.ma =au=e.is
=etition on the '!th da/ o0 the !0)da/ limitations =e.iod and 0iled the com=laint 0i<e da/s late., Ehen
lea<e to =.oceed Eas g.anted.O 2P Q a =lainti00 0iled a timel/ cha.ge Eith the a==.o=.iate state agenc/
and a timel/ (itle V22 com=laint, Ehich Eas .eDected 0o. 0ailu.e to =a/ 0iling 0ees, onl/ $$! da/s
ela=sed @etEeen the date he .ecei<ed his .ight)to)sue notice and the date he 0iled his success0ul
motion 0o. .econside.ation o0 the in 0o.ma =au=e.is denial, and the de0endants Ee.e not signi0icantl/
=.eDudiced @/ the additional 2! da/s.O#P (he 0iling o0 a .equest to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is along
Eith an a==lication 0o. a==ointed counsel tolls the time =e.iod 0o. a 0ede.al em=lo/ee to 0ile his (itle
V22 action.O4P 4@se.<ation: 9ith .ega.d to the time limit 0o. 0iling a disc.imination action against a
0ede.al go<e.nment agenc/, once a =lainti00 has 0iled his com=laint and a =etition to =.oceed in 0o.ma
=au=e.is Eithin the limitation =e.iod, the =e.iod is tolled 0o. =u.=ose o0 .elation @acK to alloE se.<ice
o0 summons and the com=laint at a late. date.O5P 4the.Eise, the dela/ in deciding to g.ant the =etition
- $0F!# -
V3.776
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
could easil/ consume the enti.e =e.iod and maKe im=.actica@le the 0iling o0 in 0o.ma =au=e.is
=etitions in such suits.O,P 3oEe<e., tolling o0 the !0)da/ =e.iod Eas .e0used Ehe.e the =lainti00 0iled a
.equest to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is on the ''th da/ o0 the 0iling =e.iod since the dela/ in 0iling the
action Eas not due solel/ to ci.cumstances @e/ond the =lainti00Bs cont.ol.O"P Additionall/, the 0iling o0
a .ight)to)sue lette. and a motion to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is did not toll the time limit since these
=a=e.s Ee.e not a com=laint, and the.e Eas no allegation that the =lainti00 had .ecei<ed inadequate
notice o0 the time .equi.ements o. had @een misled @/ the de0endant o. the cou.t.O'P A (itle V22
com=laint that is accom=anied @/ a .equest 0o. lea<e to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is is 0iled 0o. the
=u.=oses o0 the !0)da/ statute o0 limitations Ehen it is o.iginall/ .ecei<ed @/ the cle.K o0 the cou.t,
and denial o0 a .equest to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is does not a00ect timel/ 0iling Ehe.e the .equi.ed
0ee is =aid Eithin a .easona@le time a0te. denial.O!P C6?67A(2VE %6117E?EN( Cases: (itle
V22Bs !0)da/ statute o0 limitations =e.iod Eas equita@l/ tolled @etEeen time that 0o.me. em=lo/ee
0iled his a==lication to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is and the time the Cou.t .uled on the a==lication. El
<. Belden, #,0 *. %u==. 2d !0 CD.D.C. 2004A. 1e.iod o0 !0 da/s, du.ing Ehich claimant unde.
Ame.icans Eith Disa@ilities Act CADAA must 0ile suit u=on .ecei=t o0 .ight to sue lette. 0.om Equal
Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission CEE4CA, Eas equita@l/ tolled, Ehe.e claimant su@mitted
timel/ com=laint, togethe. Eith .equest to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is, cou.t .etu.ned com=laint,
asKing 0o. additional in0o.mation in su==o.t o0 0o.ma =au=e.is .equest to @e su@mitted Eithin $5 da/s,
and claimant su@mitted in0o.mation Eithin that deadline @ut outside o0 !0 da/ =e.iod. 7eClai. <.
9ells *a.go BanK 2oEa, N.A., 2!$ *. %u==. 2d '"# C%.D. 2oEa 200#A. OEND 4* %6117E?EN(P
O*N$P 4casio <. *ashion 2nstitute o0 (echnolog/, ! *ed. A==+. ,, C2d Ci.. 200$A; BaKe. <. 7a
Cum@.e ?anagement Co., 2nc., ! *ed. A==+. "52 C!th Ci.. 200$A; 8el<e.ton <. Blue Bell, 2nc., 5#0 *.
%u==. "0$ CE.D. N.C. $!'2A. O*N2P Huiles <. 4B3a.e 3ilton, 5"2 *. %u==. ',, CN.D. 2ll. $!'#A. O*N#P
- $$F!# -
V3.777
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
4.tiJ <. Cla.ence 3. 3acKett, 2nc., 5'$ *. %u==. $25' CN.D. 2nd. $!'4A. O*N4P 8nclan <. De=a.tment
o0 Ai. *o.ce, !4# *.2d $#'', 20 *ed. . %e.<. #d $2!0 C5th Ci.. $!!$A; 9a..en <. De=a.tment o0
A.m/, '," *.2d $$5,, $# *ed. . %e.<. #d 2#$ C'th Ci.. $!'!A. O*N5P 1aulK <. De=a.tment o0 Ai.
*o.ce, Chanute Ai. *o.ce Base, '#0 *.2d "!, ' *ed. . %e.<. #d $$'# C"th Ci.. $!'"A. O*N,P 1aulK <.
De=a.tment o0 Ai. *o.ce, Chanute Ai. *o.ce Base, '#0 *.2d "!, ' *ed. . %e.<. #d $$'# C"th Ci..
$!'"A. O*N"P 9est0ield <. hodes)1e.due *u.nitu.e Co. o0 :.eens@o.o, N.C., 2nc., $0! *..D. $0,
C9.D. N.C. $!'5A. O*N'P Ellis <. 6.%. ?a.shal %e.<ice, 40 *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $#$5, 40
Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R#,2,', $!', 97 ''"# C9.D. ?o. $!',A. O*N!P ounds <. ?ilEauKee
Count/ Communit/ Co..ectional Cente., ',2 *. %u==. 2#2 CE.D. 9is. $!!4A; A com=laint in a (itle
V22 action Eas 0iled in a timel/ manne., des=ite the 0act that the cou.t cle.K held the com=laint in
a@e/ance =ending a decision @/ the cou.t on the =lainti00Bs a==lication to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is,
@ecause the com=laint Eas 0iled Ehen .ecei<ed @/ the cle.KBs o00ice 0o. 0iling and not Ehen the cle.K
o00iciall/ 0iled the com=laint a0te. the cou.t acted on the =lainti00Bs a==lication. B/a.s <. Cit/ o0
9ate.@u./, ,# *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA ,"#, $!!# 97 5$#2"# CD. Conn. $!!#A.L
45C Am. 5u.. 2d 5o@ Disc.imination S $!,0.
NC1 67E #. LC4??ENCE?EN( 4* AC(24N A ci<il action is commenced @/ 0iling a
com=laint Eith the cou.t.L
Em=lo/ee timel/ 0iled (itle V22 com=laint @/ su@mitting it along Eith a==lication to =.oceed
in 0o.ma =au=e.is Eithin !0)da/ =e.iod a0te. .ecei<ing .ight)to)sue lette. 0.om Equal Em=lo/ment
4==o.tunit/ Commission CEE4CA, e<en though he did not =a/ 0iling 0ee until a0te. =e.iod had
e+=i.ed. 2' 6.%.C.A. S $!$4: Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, S "0,CeA, as amended, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C
0AC $A. BaKe. <. 7a Cum.e, ! *ed.A==+. "52, 200$ 97 5""02, CC.A.! CCal.A C200$A: L(his dis=osition
- $2F!# -
V3.778
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
is not a==.o=.iate 0o. =u@lication and ma/ not @e cited to o. @/ the cou.ts o0 this ci.cuit e+ce=t as ma/
@e =.o<ided @/ !th Ci.. . #,)#. MM$ 7este. 5. BaKe. a==eals =.o se the dist.ict cou.tBs o.de.
dismissing Eith =.eDudice his em=lo/ment disc.imination action @.ought unde. (itle V22 o0 the Ci<il
ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C. SS 2000e)$ to 2000e)$". 9e ha<e Du.isdiction =u.suant to 2' 6.%.C. S
$2!$, and Ee .e<ieE de no<o. 9illiamson <. :ene.al D/namics Co.=., 20' *.#d $$44, $$4! C!th
Ci..2000A. 9e .e<e.se and .emand. (he dist.ict cou.t concluded that BaKe.Bs com=laint 0ailed to state
a claim 0o. .elie0 @ecause he 0ailed to 0ile his com=laint Eithin !0 da/s o0 his .ecei=t o0 the Notice o0
the ight to %ue, as .equi.ed @/ 42 6.%.C. S 2000e)5C0AC$A. 3oEe<e., =.io. to the e+=i.ation o0 the !0)
da/ limitations =e.iod, BaKe. deli<e.ed his com=laint and an a==lication to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is
CT2*1UA to the dist.ict cou.t cle.KBs o00ice. (he dist.ict cou.t lodged BaKe.Bs com=laint at the same time
it acce=ted BaKe.Bs 2*1 a==lication. A0te. the dist.ict cou.t denied lea<e to =.oceed 2*1, BaKe. =aid
the 0iling 0ee, and the dist.ict cou.t 0iled the =.e<iousl/ lodged com=laint. A com=laint is conside.ed
0iled Ehen it is =laced in =ossession o0 the cle.K o0 the cou.t. Cint.on <. 6nion 1ac. .. Co., '$#
*.2d !$", !20 C!th Ci..$!'"A. (he 0iling 0ee =.esc.i@ed @/ 2' 6.%.C. S $!$4 is not a Du.isdictional
.equi.ement. %ee id. (hus, @ecause BaKe. timel/ su@mitted his com=laint, the dist.ict cou.t e..ed @/
dismissingM"5# on statute o0 limitation g.ounds. %ee id....L C.A.! CCal.A,200$. BaKe. <. 7a Cum@.e
?anagement Co., 2nc. ! *ed.A==+. "52, 200$ 97 5""02, CC.A.! CCal.AA.
L1lainti00VA==ellant ode.icK C. ?ann 0iled a ci<il action Eithin the go<e.ning statute o0
limitations @ut then did not se.<e =.ocess Eithin $20 da/s o0 0iling, as .equi.ed Ca@sent time
e+tensionA @/ *ed..Ci<.1. 4CmA. ?ann then mo<ed 0o. an e+tension o0 time to se.<e De0endantV
A==ellee Ame.ican Ai.lines, Eas g.anted additional time @/ the dist.ict cou.t, and e00ected se.<ice
Eithin the Dudiciall/ e+tended time. 9e conside. C$A Ehethe. the 0ailu.e to se.<e =.ocess Eithin the
initial $20Vda/ =e.iod causes the statute o0 limitations to .un again and C2A Ehethe. the dist.ict cou.t
- $#F!# -
V3.779
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
ma/ e+tend the time to se.<e =.ocess, unde. ule 4CmA, a0te. the $20 da/s ha<e e+=i.ed Ehen the
statute o0 limitations Eould othe.Eise @a. the .e)0iling o0 the suit i0 the dist.ict cou.t had declined
e+tension o0 time and had dismissed the suit....4n ?a/ #0, 200$, ?ann 0iled an amended com=laint
and the dist.ict cou.t issued a summons. 4n 5une 4, 200$, ?ann se.<ed on De0endant Ame.ican
Ai.lines the o.iginal com=laint, the amended com=laint, the o.iginal summons, and the su@sequent
summons. Ame.ican Ai.lines late. mo<ed to dismiss =u.suant to *ed..Ci<.1. $2C@AC5A and C@AC,A,
alleging inadequate and untimel/ se.<ice o0 =.ocess and lacK o0 =e.sonal Du.isdiction. (he dist.ict
cou.t g.anted the motion and dismissed the case Eith =.eDudice, a==a.entl/ @elie<ing that com=liance
Eith the statute o0 limitations as =.o<ided @/ 42 6.%.C. S 2000eV5C0AC$A is linKed to se.<ice o0 =.ocess
Eithin the $20Vda/ =e.iod set out in ule 4CmA: 2n this case, =lainti00Bs o.iginal com=laint Eas timel/
0iled, on the '!th da/ o0 the M$0!0 !0 da/ =e.iod. *iling a com=laint gi<es a =lainti00 $20 da/s to
com=lete se.<ice o0 =.ocess acco.ding to *ed..Ci<.1. 4CmA. 2n this case =lainti00 0ailed to timel/
se.<e and e+ =a.te mo<ed the cou.t 0o. an e+tension o0 time to com=lete se.<ice, Ehich the cou.t
g.anted. 9hile the cou.t has disc.etion Eith .ega.ds to se.<ice o0 =.ocess, the cou.t does not ha<e the
=oEe. to alte. the !0 da/ statute o0 limitations. 9ilson <. :.umman 4hio Co.=., '$5 *.2d 2,, 2" C,th
Ci..$!'"A. 1lainti00Bs 0ailu.e to 0ile suit against Ame.ican OAi.linesP Eithin the !0 da/ =e.iod
mandated @/ the ADA .equi.es the cou.t to dismiss. CEm=hasis added.A ?ann a==eals. 22 O$PO2P (he
co..ectness o0 the dist.ict cou.tBs dismissal on statute o0 limitations g.ounds is a question o0 laE
.e<ieEed de no<o. %ee 6nde.Eood Cotton Co., 2nc. <. 3/undai ?e.ch. ?a.ine CAm.A, 2nc., 2'' *.#d
405, 40" C!th Ci..2002A. (he inte.=.etation o0 a *ede.al ule o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e is also a question o0
laE .e<ieEed de no<o. %ee 6nited %tates <. *oste., 22" *.#d $0!,, $0!! C!th Ci..2000A. 222 O#PO4P
(his a==eal .equi.es .esolution o0 tEo issues. *i.st, Ee add.ess Ehethe. ?annBs 0ailu.e to se.<e
=.ocess Eithin the initial $20Vda/ =e.iod =.esc.i@ed @/ *ed..Ci<.1. 4CmA caused the statute o0
- $4F!# -
V3.780
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
limitations to sta.t to .un again. 9e conclude that it did not. 4nce a com=laint is 0iled, the statute o0
limitations is tolled unless and until the dist.ict cou.t dismisses the action. %ee 4 Cha.les A. 9.ight
and A.thu. . ?ille., *ede.al 1.actice and 1.ocedu.e: Ci<il #d S $05# C#d ed. 2002A.*N$ *N$.
Neithe. =a.t/ dis=utes that ?ann 0iled his com=laint Eithin the !0Vda/ statute o0 limitations. And,
neithe. =a.t/ dis=utes that the statute o0 limitations initiall/ is tolled u=on 0iling o0 a com=laint. %ee
%ain <. Cit/ o0 Bend, #0! *.#d $$#4, $$#' C!th Ci..2002A. O5P %econd, Ee add.ess Ehethe. the dist.ict
cou.t had the disc.etion to e+tend the time to se.<e =.ocess e<en a0te. the $20Vda/ =e.iod had e+=i.ed.
9e conclude that it did. *ed..Ci<.1. 4CmA =.o<ides: 20 se.<ice o0 the summons and com=laint is not
made u=on a de0endant Eithin $20 da/s a0te. the 0iling o0 the com=laint, the cou.t, u=on motion o. on
its oEn initiati<e a0te. notice to the =lainti00, shall dismiss the action Eithout =.eDudice as to that
de0endant o. di.ect that se.<ice @e e00ected Eithin a s=eci0ied time; =.o<ided that i0 the =lainti00 shoEs
good cause 0o. the 0ailu.e, the cou.t shall e+tend the time 0o. se.<ice 0o. an a==.o=.iate =e.iod. *N2
1age 4 #24 *.#d $0'', 55 *ed..%e.<.#d $5", $4 A.D. Cases 4##, 25 ND7 1 245, 0# Cal. Dail/ 4=.
%e.<. 2'0,, 200# Dail/ 5ou.nal D.A.. #55" CCite as: #24 *.#d $0''A *N2. ule 4CmA .e=laced
0o.me. ule 4CDA in the $!!# amendments. (he cu..ent .ule .equi.es a dist.ict cou.t to g.ant an
e+tension o0 time i0 good cause is shoEn and =e.mits the dist.ict cou.t to g.ant such an e+tension e<en
a@sent good cause. 3ende.son <. 6nited %tates, 5$" 6.%. ,54, ,,2, $$, %.Ct. $,#', $#4 7.Ed.2d ''0
C$!!,A. (his di00e.s 0.om 0o.me. ule 4CDA, Ehich did not =e.mit e+tensions a@sent good cause. 2d. at
,,$V,2, $$, %.Ct. $,#'. 4n its 0ace, ule 4CmA does not tie the hands o0 the dist.ict cou.t a0te. the
$20Vda/ =e.iod has e+=i.ed. athe., ule 4CmA e+=licitl/ =e.mits a dist.ict cou.t to g.ant an e+tension
o0 time to se.<e the com=laint a0te. that $20Vda/ =e.iod. C0. 3ende.son <. 6nited %tates, 5$" 6.%.
,54, ,,$, $$, %.Ct. $,#', $#4 7.Ed.2d ''0 C$!!,A Cconcluding that Tthe $20Vda/ =.o<ision o=e.ates
not as an oute. limit su@Dect to .eduction, @ut as an i..educi@le alloEanceUA. (he dist.ict cou.tBs
- $5F!# -
V3.781
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
disc.etion is not diminished Ehen the statute o0 limitations Eould @a. .e)0iling o0 the suit i0 the dist.ict
cou.t decided to dismiss the case instead o0 g.ant an e+tension. (o the cont.a./, the ad<iso./
committee notes e+=licitl/ contem=late that a dist.ict cou.t might use M$0!$ its disc.etion to g.ant an
e+tension in that <e./ situation: Telie0 ma/ @e Dusti0ied, 0o. e+am=le, i0 the a==lica@le statute o0
limitations Eould @a. the .e)0iled action.U *ed..Ci<.1. 4, Ad<iso./ Committee Note to $!!#
Amendments, %u@di<ision CmA. %ee also De (ie <. 4.ange Ct/., $52 *.#d $$0!, $$$$ n. 5 C!th
Ci..$!!'A C.ecogniJing that an e+tension ma/ @e Ea..anted i0 the statute o0 limitations has .unA. O,P
3e.e, e<en though the dist.ict cou.t =.o=e.l/ used its disc.etion to e+tend the time 0o. ?ann to se.<e
=.ocess, the dist.ict cou.t late. dismissed the action a0te. concluding the statute o0 limitations had not
@een satis0ied. As the.e Eas no othe. a==a.ent @asis, Ee must assume that the dist.ict cou.t @elie<ed
that the statute o0 limitations @egan to .un u=on ?annBs 0ailu.e to se.<e =.ocess Eithin the $20Vda/
=e.iod.*N# But the 0ailu.e to se.<e =.ocess Eithin ule 4CmABs $20Vda/ =e.iod does not a00ect the
tolling o0 the statute o0 limitations unless the 0ailu.e to se.<e =.ocess causes the dist.ict cou.t to
dismiss the action. C0. 3ende.son, 5$" 6.%. at ,5,, $$, %.Ct. $,#' Cholding that once a 0ede.al suit is
commenced in com=liance Eith the go<e.ning statute o0 limitations, Tthe manne. and timing o0
se.<ing =.ocess a.e gene.all/ nonDu.isdictional matte.s o0 W=.ocedu.eN UA; 1a.daJi <. Cullman ?ed.
Ct.., '!, *.2d $#$#, $#$5V$, C$$th Ci..$!!0A Cholding that se.<ice o0 =.ocess .equi.ements a.e not
@ound u= Eith the statute o0 limitations unde. 42 6.%.C. S 2000eV5C0AC$AA. (he dist.ict cou.t did not
dismiss ?annBs action @ut .athe. e+tended the $20 da/ se.<ice o0 =.ocess =e.iod, a decision =e.0ectl/
Eithin its disc.etion. *N4 *N#. (he dist.ict cou.tBs .eliance on 9ilson <. :.umman 4hio Co.=., '$5
*.2d 2, C,th Ci..$!'"A, is mis=laced in =a.t @ecause that case conce.ned the .e 0iling o0 a com=laint
a0te. it had al.ead/ @een dismissed @/ the dist.ict cou.t 0o. 0ailu.e to =.osecute. *N4. 9e .eDect
De0endantBs claims that the g.ant o0 a #0Vda/ e+tension Eas =.eDudicial. 3a<ing concluded that the
- $,F!# -
V3.782
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
dist.ict cou.tBs dismissal o0 this case Eas e..o., Ee .e<e.se and .emand 0o. 0u.the. =.oceedings.L
?ann <. Ame.ican Ai.lines, #24 *.#d $0'', 55 *ed..%e.<.#d $5", $4 A.D. Cases 4##, 25 ND7 1
245, 0# Cal. Dail/ 4=. %e.<. 2'0,, 200# Dail/ 5ou.nal D.A.. #55"C C.A.! C9ash.A,200#A.
E+tension 0o. :ood Cause :ood cause 0o. an e+tension o0 time to se.<e =.ocess has @een shoEn
9he.e the =lainti00Bs counsel had no notice o0 the de0ecti<e se.<ice and negligence o0 the
=.ocess se.<e. Eas in<ol<ed.O$P Q Ehe.e the =lainti00Bs counsel Eas misled in ce.tain .es=ects and he
e+e.cised diligence in attem=ting se.<ice.O2P Q Ehe.e the =lainti00Bs e..o. in maKing se.<ice o0
=.ocess u=on the E.ong =a.t/ Eas deemed to @e .easona@le.O#P Q Ehe.e the =lainti00 Eas lulled into
@elie<ing that =.o=e. se.<ice had @een accom=lished.O 4P Q Ehe.e the =lainti00 Eas =.o se and had a
good)0aith @elie0 that he had made =.o=e. se.<ice.O 5P Q Ehe.e the de0endant e<aded se.<ice.O,P Q
@/ ci.cumstances @e/ond the cont.ol o0 the =lainti00Bs counsel due to the counselBs se<e.e illness and
e+tensi<e caseload.O"P Q Ehe.e a cou.t cle.K 0ailed to issue in 0o.ma =au=e.is =lainti00Bs summons
and to a==oint a 6.%. ma.shal to se.<e =.ocess.O'P Q @/ .eliance on the 6.%. ?a.shals %e.<ice,O!P as
Ehe.e the 6.%. ?a.shals %e.<ice 0ailed to com=lete se.<ice Ehen .equi.ed 0o. a =lainti00 =.oceeding
in 0o.ma =au=e.is a0te. @eing su==lied Eith the necessa./ identi0/ing in0o.mation.O$0P Q @/
e+t.ao.dina./ di00icult/ that the =lainti00s e+=e.ienced in locating de0endant des=ite diligent e00o.ts.
O$$P Q in =.o=e. ci.cumstances, @/ settlement negotiations.O$2P Q @/ a =lainti00Bs .easona@le @elie0
that he Eas unde. a legal const.aint not to se.<e his com=laint Ehile the de0endant Eas in @anK.u=tc/
=.oceedings and Ehile the case Eas not on the dist.ict cou.tBs acti<e caseload.O$#P C6?67A(2VE
%6117E?EN( Cases: Em=lo/ee te.minated 0.om he. =osition as a =.ison)@ased in0ectious diseases
counselo. shoEed good cause 0o. he. 0ailu.e to se.<e a medical se.<ices com=an/ Eithin the $20)da/
=e.iod, and Eas thus entitled to a time e+tension; counsel a@andoned his .e=.esentation o0 the
- $"F!# -
V3.783
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
em=lo/ee <e./ ea.l/ on in the =.osecution o0 he. com=laint, and did not communicate Eith he.,
o==osing counsel o. the cou.t 0o. almost a /ea. @e0o.e su@stituted counsel Eas o@tained, and the
em=lo/eeBs e00o.ts to =u.sue the =.osecution o0 he. case Ee.e diligent and .easona@le. Cunningham <.
NeE 5e.se/, 2#0 *..D. #!$, ,2 *ed. . %e.<. #d $00# CD.N.5. 2005A. (he.e Eas Lgood causeL 0o. =.o
se =.isone.Bs 0ailu.e to se.<e co..ections o00ice. Eith o.iginal com=laint @e0o.e the $20)da/ se.<ice
deadline Ehe.e dela/s @/ the ?a.shals in com=leting se.<ice, Ehethe. due to di00iculties in
dete.mining the a==.o=.iate add.ess 0o. o00ice., o. sim=l/ @ecause o0 the high <olume o0 .equests, did
not e<idence dilato./ @eha<io. on the =a.t o0 =.isone., Eho Eas =.oceeding in 0o.ma =au=e.is,
=a.ticula.l/ since o00ice. .ecei<ed actual notice o0 suit. %idne/ <. 9ilson, 22' *..D. 5$" C%.D. N.8.
2005A. 1lainti00 demonst.ated good cause 0o. 0ailing to timel/ se.<e =h/sician in medical mal=.actice
case, Ehe.e =lainti00Bs atto.ne/ immediatel/ sought to ha<e =h/sician se.<ed a0te. associated local
counsel 0ailed to initiate se.<ice, atto.ne/ had not lea.ned o0 the 0ailu.e until th.ee da/s @e0o.e
deadline 0o. se.<ice, and se.<ice Eas onl/ one da/ late. *oss <. 9illiams, !!# %o. 2d #"' C?iss.
200'A. OEND 4* %6117E?EN(P O*N$P %mith <. %ent./ 2ns., ,"4 *. %u==. $45!, ! *ed. . %e.<. #d
$2'' CN.D. :a. $!'"A. O*N2P Baden <. C.aig)3allum, 2nc., $$5 *..D. 5'2 CD. ?inn. $!'"A. O*N#P
9oods <. 1a.ten.eede.ei ?.%. 8anKee Cli==e., $$2 *..D. $$5, , *ed. . %e.<. #d $50 CD. ?ass.
$!',A. O*N4P DitKo0 <. 4Eens)2llinois, 2nc., $$4 *..D. $04 CE.D. ?ich. $!'"A. O*N5P anKel <.
(oEn o0 :.een@u.gh, $$" *..D. 50, ! *ed. . %e.<. #d $!0 C%.D. N.8. $!'"A. As to autho.it/ that
=.o se status alone is not good cause, see S S $$,, $$". O*N,P uiJ Va.ela <. %ancheJ VeleJ, '$4 *.2d
'2$, " *ed. . %e.<. #d ,2, C$st Ci.. $!'"A. (alKing a =.ocess se.<e. out o0 lea<ing =a=e.s cannot
e+actl/ @e called a<oiding se.<ice, @ut it is not e+actl/ coo=e.ati<e eithe.; consequentl/, such an
occu..ence might @e good cause 0o. a 0ailu.e to e00ect timel/ se.<ice. 9illiams):uice <. Boa.d o0
Educ. o0 Cit/ o0 Chicago, 45 *.#d $,$, !" Ed. 7aE e=. $$#, #0 *ed. . %e.<. #d '4' C"th Ci.. $!!5A.
- $'F!# -
V3.784
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
O*N"P 7e?aste. <. Cit/ o0 9innemucca, $$# *..D. #", , *ed. . %e.<. #d 442 CD. Ne<. $!',A.
O*N'P B/.d <. %tone, !4 *.#d 2$", #, *ed. . %e.<. #d $!!, $!!, *ED A==. 02"'1 C,th Ci.. $!!,A.
O*N!P 5acKson <. *ole/, $5, *..D. 545, !4 Ed. 7aE e=. 2!, CE.D. N.8. $!!4A Cholding that Ehe.e
the 0ailu.e to maKe timel/ se.<ice Eas solel/ 0ault o0 the 6.%. ?a.shals %e.<ice, the =lainti00 should
not @e =enaliJed 0o. itA. A =.o se =lainti00 should not @e =enaliJed 0o. .eliance on a 6nited %tates
ma.shal to e00ect =e.sonal se.<ice. (e..ell <. B.eEe., !#5 *.2d $0$5 C!th Ci.. $!!$A. :ood cause is
shoEn Ehen the dela/ in se.<ice is due to a @acKlog at the ma.shalBs o00ice. 6.%. <. 5acK CoJJa, 2nc.,
$0, *..D. 2,4, 2 *ed. . %e.<. #d $0"4 C%.D. N.8. $!'5A. O*N$0P Antonelli <. %heahan, '$ *.#d
$422 C"th Ci.. $!!,A Cstating such a 0ailu.e is automaticall/ good cause .equi.ing e+tension o0 time
unde. *ed. . Ci<.1. 4CmAA; 9alKe. <. %umne., $4 *.#d $4$5, 2' *ed. . %e.<. #d !$, C!th Ci.. $!!4A.
9he.e the =lainti00 =.oceeding in 0o.ma =au=e.is .e=eatedl/ .equested the 6.%. ?a.shal to se.<e the
de0endant, @ut he 0ailed to do so, good cause e+cused he. 0ailu.e to =e.sonall/ se.<e the 6.%.
Atto.ne/. Dumaguin <. %ec.eta./ o0 3ealth and 3uman %e.<ices, 2' *.#d $2$', 2! *ed. . %e.<. #d
"#" CD.C. Ci.. $!!4A. As to the .equi.ement that the 6.%. ?a.shals %e.<ice se.<e =.ocess in ce.tain
ci.cumstances, see S S $2", $2!. O*N$$P Coleman <. C.an@e../ Ba/e ental Agenc/, 202 *..D. $0,,
50 *ed. . %e.<. #d ',0 CN.D. N.8. 200$A. :ood cause is shoEn Ehe.e a =lainti00 attem=ted se.<ice
on a de0endant th.ough its autho.iJed agent, then lea.ned that the de0endant had sto==ed su@sc.i@ing
to that se.<ice, then attem=ted to e00ect se.<ice at the @anK @.anch Ehe.e the =lainti00 o=ened the
account in dis=ute Ehen the de0endant and the @anK Ee.e @oth =a.t o0 a com=le+ co.=o.ate st.uctu.e.
3aEtho.ne <. Citico.= Data %/stems, 2nc., 2$! *..D. 4" CE.D. N.8. 200#A. O*N$2P BanK o0 Ca=e
Ve.de <. B.onson, $," *..D. #"0, #, *ed. . %e.<. #d ,05 C%.D. N.8. $!!,A. O*N$#P De (ie <.
4.ange Count/, $52 *.#d $$0!, 4$ *ed. . %e.<. #d 525 C!th Ci.. $!!'A. ,2B Am. 5u.. 2d 1.ocess S
$$5.
- $!F!# -
V3.785
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
9hat Constitutes Commencement o0 Action
$. 2n :ene.al (o=ic %umma./ Co..elation (a@le e0e.ences S 22,. 9hen lea<e o0 the cou.t
.equested; =.oceeding in 0o.ma =au=e.is 9estBs >e/ Num@e. Digest 9estBs >e/ Num@e. Digest,
7imitation o0 Actions $$'C$A (he statute o0 limitations is sus=ended Ehile a cou.t conside.s a motion
0o. lea<e to 0ile the case.O$P (hus, 0o. statute o0 limitations =u.=oses, a com=laint in an action in
Ehich lea<e to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is is .equested is gene.all/ deemed to ha<e @een 0iled on the
da/ the motion is .ecei<ed @/ the cle.K, o. on the date the com=laint Eas lodged.O2P (he.e is also
autho.it/ that the statute is sus=ended Ehile the cou.t dete.mines Ehethe. to g.ant o. den/ the =etition
to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is, @ut .esumes .unning Ehen the =lainti00 .ecei<es noti0ication that it Eas
denied.O#P Caution: (he gene.al .ule tolling the statute o0 limitations du.ing the =endenc/ o0 an
a==lication to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is does not a==l/ to de0endants not named in the o.iginal
com=laint.O4P O*N$P 9hite <. Coo=e., 55 *. %u==. 2d '4' CN.D. 2ll. $!!!A. O*N2P ?cDoEell <.
DelaEa.e %tate 1olice, '' *.#d $'', #4 *ed. . %e.<. #d $,$" C#d Ci.. $!!,A; ?Ea@i.a)%ime.a <.
3oEa.d 6ni<e.sit/, ,!2 *. %u==. 2d ,5, 25" Ed. 7aE e=. 2$2 CD.D.C. 20$0A; 1ollocK <. ashid,
$$" 4hio A==. #d #,$, ,!0 N.E.2d !0# C$st Dist. 3amilton Count/ $!!,A C.elates @acK to Ehen a
=.isone. unsuccess0ull/ sought to 0ile the com=laint along Eith a motion to =.oceed in 0o.ma
=au=e.is, Ehich the cle.K had .e0used to acce=t Eithout =a/ment o0 a 0iling 0eeA. O*N#P 3um=h.ies <.
CB4C% 9est, 2nc., #4# *. %u==. 2d ,"0, 2! A.7.. *ed. 2d "#! CN.D. 2ll. 2004A. O*N4P 9hite <.
Coo=e., 55 *. %u==. 2d '4' CN.D. 2ll. $!!!A. *ailu.e to maKe legi@le co=/ o0 com=laint 0o. se.<ice
(he 0ailu.e o0 cou.t =e.sonnel to maKe a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint 0o. se.<ice on a de0endant
su==o.ts a 0inding o0 good cause unde. *ed. . Ci<. 1. 4CmA 0o. the 0ailu.e o0 a =.o se =lainti00 Eho is
=.oceeding in 0o.ma =au=e.is to timel/ se.<e =.ocess.O$P O*N$P %econd Ci.cuit ?c>enJie <. Amt.aK
- 20F!# -
V3.786
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
? o0 E, """ *. %u==. $$$! C%.D. N.8. $!!0A Calthough a.gument that se.<ice should not @e deemed
e00ecti<e unless com=laint is legi@le is o.dina.il/ a st.ong one, the.e Eas little Dusti0ication 0o.
dismissing =lainti00Bs com=laint on that g.ound, @ecause the de0ect in se.<ice Eas att.i@uta@le to cou.t
=e.sonnelA. 2' *ed. 1.oc., 7. Ed. S ,5:$0'.
BaKe. <. No@acK, $$2 Ne<. $$0,, !22 1.2d $20$, $!!, 97 4!045!, CNe<., August 2', $!!, CN4.
2,'45AA: L ...o.de. ente.ed on *e@.ua./ ', $!!5, the dist.ict cou.t denied BaKe.Bs motion 0o. .elie0
0.om dismissal, @asing the decision u=on NC1 $5 and Vol=e.t <. 1a=agna, '5 Ne<. 4#", 45, 1.2d
'4' C$!,!A , and .uling that the Tco..ect date 0o. calculation is the commencement o0 the action @/ the
0iling o0 the initial Com=laint.U
(olling o0 (ime 1e.iod 0o. B.inging (itle V22 Action 6nde. S "0, o0 Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4 C42
6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C0AC$AAQ:ene.al 1.inci=les. 2$ A.7.. *ed. 2d ,5 C4.iginall/ =u@lished in 200"A.
S , VieE that 0iling o0 motion to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is equita@l/ tolls limitations =e.iod VieE
that 0iling o0 motion to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is equita@l/ tolls limitations =e.iod OCumulati<e
%u==lementP 2n the 0olloEing cases, cou.ts ha<e .ecogniJed that the 0iling o0 a motion to =.oceed in
0o.ma =au=e.is equita@l/ tolls the !0)da/ limitations =e.iod in Ehich to 0ile a (itle V22 suit 0olloEing
the .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue lette. 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission, =u.suant to
the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C0AC$A.%econd Ci.cuit (oli<e. <. %ulli<an Count/,
'4$ *.2d 4$, 4, *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $$"5, 4, Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R#"!0$, $0 *ed. .
%e.<. #d $$4, C2d Ci.. $!''A 5anneh <. egenc/ 3otel, Binghamton, '"! *. %u==. 5 CN.D. N.8. $!!5A
Cl/@u.ne <. Cente. 0o. Com=.ehensi<e 3ealth 1.actice, 2nc., 200, 97 $55!2#' C%.D. N.8. 200,A
- 2$F!# -
V3.787
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cun=u@lished o=inionA ?a/s <. NeE 8o.K Cit/ 1olice De=t., "0$ *. %u==. '0, 4' *ai. Em=l. 1.ac.
Cas. CBNAA $04,, 4! Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R#'',, C%.D. N.8. $!''A, Dudgment a00Bd on othe.
g.ounds, ''' *.2d $#",, 5$ *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $'#2 C2d Ci.. $!'!A (hi.d Ci.cuit %ca./ <.
1hiladel=hia :as 9o.Ks, 202 *..D. $4' CE.D. 1a. 200$A icha.dson <. Diagnostic eha@ilitation
Cente., '#, *. %u==. 252, ,, *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA "25, ,4 Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R4#$#5
CE.D. 1a. $!!#A *ou.th Ci.cuit Dem=se/ <. 3a..ison, #'" *. %u==. 2d 55' CE.D. N.C. 2005A
8el<e.ton <. Blue Bell, 2nc., 5#0 *. %u==. "0$, 2" *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $4!4 CE.D. N.C.
$!'2A Cha.it/ <. %outhe.n /. %/stem, 4 *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA 5#0, 4 Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A
R""$", $!"2 97 $4" CE.D. Va. $!"2A Cun.e=o.ted o=inionA *i0th Ci.cuit 7oEe./ <. Ca..ie. Co.=., !5#
*. %u==. $5$ CE.D. (e+. $!!"A %i+th Ci.cuit (.uitt <. Count/ o0 9a/ne, $4' *.#d ,44, "" *ai. Em=l.
1.ac. Cas. CBNAA ,5", "4 Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R455'0, $!!' *ED A==. 022#1 C,th Ci.. $!!'A
A@.am <. 9acKenhut Co.=., 4!# *. %u==. $0!0, 2# *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $"00 CE.D. ?ich.
$!'0A 1icKett <. 3um@e.t, 2005 97 $$5$"!, C%.D. 4hio 2005A Cun.e=o.ted o=inionA *letche. <.
Colum@us Bd. o0 Educ., 200# 97 2$"!!!44 C%.D. 4hio 200#A Cun.e=o.ted o=inionA %immons <.
4hio Ci<il %e.<ice Em=. Assoc., 25! *. %u==. 2d ,"" C%.D. 4hio 200#A %e<enth Ci.cuit Cotton <.
9acho<ia %ecu.ities, 200, 97 $20055 CN.D. 2ll. 200,A 3um=h.ies <. CB4C% 9est, 2nc., #4# *.
%u==. 2d ,"0 CN.D. 2ll. 2004A Chatman <. Condell ?edical Cente., 200$ 97 ''$#05 CN.D. 2ll. 200$A
Cun.e=o.ted o=inionA CclocK should @e tolled 0o. .easona@le time a0te. denial o0 motionA (.i=lett <.
?idEest 9.ecKing Co., $55 *. %u==. 2d !#2 CN.D. 2ll. 200$A 9ashington <. *o.esman, $4' *..D.
24$ CN.D. 2nd. $!!#A 5ohnson <. B.oEn, '0# *. %u==. $4$4, ,2 *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $"20
CN.D. 2nd. $!!2A 5ohnson <. B.oEn, '0# *. %u==. $4$4, ,2 *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $"20 CN.D.
2nd. $!!2A Allen <. >.oge. %a<)4n, ,0 *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA '04, $!!2 97 45#'40 CN.D.
2nd. $!!2A Cun.e=o.ted o=inionA 3oEell <. ?ichigan Cit/ 3ealth Ca.e, ,0 *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas.
- 22F!# -
V3.788
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
CBNAA 2#2, $!!2 97 #!2,#0 CN.D. 2nd. $!!2A Cun.e=o.ted o=inionA 4.tiJ <. Cla.ence 3. 3acKett,
2nc., 5'$ *. %u==. $25', #, *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA '0!, #, Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R#5055
CN.D. 2nd. $!'4A Couli@al/ <. (.:.2. *.ida/Bs, 2nc., ,2# *. %u==. ',0, 44 *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA
2'5 C%.D. 2nd. $!'5A (enth Ci.cuit (.uDillo <. Cit/ o0 Al@uque.que, $#4 *.#d #'# C$0th Ci.. $!!'A
Cun=u@lished (a@le dis=osition; $!!' 97 4#$""A 5a..ett <. 6% %=.int Communications Co., 22 *.#d
25,, ," *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $02,, 2' *ed. . %e.<. #d $$"' C$0th Ci.. $!!4A :allegos <.
Ace E+=.ess)Coach 6%A, 200" 97 $'4,,5 CD. Colo. 200"A Cun=u@lished o=inionA Ale+ande. <.
9al)?a.t %to.es, 2nc., 200, 97 !54,!$ CD. Colo. 200,A Cun=u@lished o=inionA 5a..ett <. 6% %=.int
Communications Co., $!!2 97 $#5022 CD. >an. $!!2A. Ele<enth Ci.cuit ?adison <. B1 4il Co., !2'
*. %u==. $$#2, ,! Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R444!0 C%.D. Ala. $!!,A 8oung <. 5CB, 2nc., 200" 97
$0,'$!2 C%.D. :a. 200"A Cun=u@lished o=inionA Dist.ict o0 Colum@ia Ci.cuit Coleman <. 1otomac
Elec. 1oEe. Co., 422 *. %u==. 2d 20! CD.D.C. 200,A El <. Belden, #,0 *. %u==. 2d !0 CD.D.C. 2004A
Coleman <. 1otomac Elec. 1oEe. Co., #$0 *. %u==. 2d $54, !# *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA !"#
CD.D.C. 2004A, a00Bd on othe. g.ounds, 2004 97 2#4'$44 CD.C. Ci.. 2004A 9ashington <. 9hite, 2#$
*. %u==. 2d "$ CD.D.C. 2002A 3ogue <. oach, !," *. %u==. ", "4 *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA ",,
CD.D.C. $!!"A :uillen <. National :.ange, !55 *. %u==. $44 CD.D.C. $!!"A %immons <. Dennison,
$!!$ 97 $4'544 CD.D.C. $!!$A, decision a00Bd on othe. g.ounds, $!!2 97 #0''40 CD.C. Ci.. $!!2A
Cun.e=o.ted o=inionA (he !0)da/ limitations =e.iod on 0iling (itle V22 actions 0olloEing the .ecei=t o0
a .ightto) sue lette. 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission, =.o<ided 0o. @/ the Ci<il
ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C0AC$A, held the cou.t in 5anneh <. egenc/ 3otel,
Binghamton, '"! *. %u==. 5 CN.D. N.8. $!!5A, is equita@l/ tolled Ehen an em=lo/ee 0iles his o. he.
in 0o.ma =au=e.is a==lication, and .emains tolled Ehile that a==lication is =ending. 9hen a =.o se
(itle V22 com=laint is .ecei<ed @/ the cou.t Eithin the !0)da/ statuto./ =e.iod 0o. 0iling suit 0olloEing
- 2#F!# -
V3.789
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
.ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue lette. 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission, unde. the Ci<il
ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C0AC$A, and o00icial 0iling is dela/ed 0o. the cou.tBs
conside.ation o0 a .equest 0o. lea<e to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is, held the cou.t in ?a/s <. NeE 8o.K
Cit/ 1olice De=t., "0$ *. %u==. '0, 4' *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $04,, 4! Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A
R#'',, C%.D. N.8. $!''A, Dudgment a00Bd on othe. g.ounds, ''' *.2d $#",, 5$ *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas.
CBNAA $'#2 C2d Ci.. $!'!A, the limitations =e.iod Eill @e equita@l/ tolled and the action Eill @e
deemed timel/ 0o. =u.=oses o0 the statute o0 limitations. *iling o0 a com=laint Eith a motion to
=.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is equita@l/ tolls the !0)da/ statute o0 limitations to 0ile a (itle V22 suit
0olloEing .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue lette. 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission, unde.
the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C0AC$A, until the motion is decided, held the cou.t
in %ca./ <. 1hiladel=hia :as 9o.Ks, 202 *..D. $4' CE.D. 1a. 200$A, and i0 the motion is denied, the
statute o0 limitations Eill sta.t to .un again, and the claimant Eill @e .equi.ed to =a/ the 0iling 0ee
Eithin the .emaining limitations =e.iod o. Eithin a .easona@le time, Ehiche<e. is late.. 9hile a (itle
V22 com=laint accom=anied @/ an in 0o.ma =au=e.is motion is usuall/ not deemed 0iled until lea<e to
=.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is is g.anted o. the 0iling 0ee is =aid, .ecogniJed the cou.t in icha.dson <.
Diagnostic eha@ilitation Cente., '#, *. %u==. 252, ,, *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA "25, ,4 Em=l.
1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R4#$#5 CE.D. 1a. $!!#A, 0iling o0 the motion equita@l/ tolls the a==lica@le !0)da/
statute o0 limitations 0olloEing .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue lette. 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment
4==o.tunit/ Commission, as .equi.ed @/ the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C0AC$A,
and the limitations =e.iod Eill gene.all/ @egin to .un again Ehen the motion is denied. 2n Dem=se/ <.
3a..ison, #'" *. %u==. 2d 55' CE.D. N.C. 2005A, the cou.t .ecogniJed that the 0iling o0 a =etition to
=.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is is an a==.o=.iate indicia o0 a claimantBs attem=t to =.ese.<e his o. he.
Dudicial .emedies in a (itle V22 suit, and as such, the !0)da/ statuto./ 0iling =e.iod 0olloEing the
- 24F!# -
V3.790
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
.ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue lette. 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission, =.o<ided 0o. @/
the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C0AC$A, should @e equita@l/ tolled until the
=etition has @een g.anted. (he Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C0AC$A, Ehich =e.mits
the @.inging o0 a (itle V22 action against a .es=ondent named in the cha.ge 0iled Eith the Equal
Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission CEE4CA, s=eci0icall/ =.o<ides that disc.etion @e gi<en the
cou.t to a==oint an atto.ne/ 0o. an/ such com=lainant and to autho.iJe the commencement o0 the
action Eithout the =a/ment o0 0ees, costs, o. secu.it/, held the cou.t in Cha.it/ <. %outhe.n /.
%/stem, 4 *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA 5#0, 4 Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R""$", $!"2 97 $4" CE.D.
Va. $!"2A Cun.e=o.ted o=inionA, and thus, it is .easona@le to assume that Cong.ess had no intention to
0o.eclose an/ such action, and that equita@le tolling o0 the limitations =e.iod Eould @e alloEed i0 0o.
an/ .eason a Dudge o0 a =a.ticula. dist.ict cou.t Eas not a<aila@le, o. i0 a<aila@le, 0ailed to act u=on a
motion to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is to the end that suit Eould @e instituted Eithin the limitations
=e.iod contem=lated 0olloEing .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue lette. 0.om the EE4C. C6?67A(2VE
%6117E?EN( Cases: Equita@le tolling e+tended !0)da/ =e.iod 0o. em=lo/ee to 0ile (itle V22 action
against em=lo/e., @ased on $!)da/ dela/ @etEeen time em=lo/ee 0iled his in 0o.ma =au=e.is C2*1A
a==lication and his .ecei=t o0 cou.tBs denial, Ehe.e 2*1 a==lication Eas 0iled =.io. to e+=i.ation o0
initial !0)da/ =e.iod. Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, S "0,C0AC$A, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000eV5C0AC$A. 4Ke.eh <.
9inte., ,00 *. %u==. 2d $#! CD.D.C. 200!A. S $4 VieE that a claim dismissed Eithout =.eDudice does
not equita@l/ toll limitations =e.iod Cou.ts in the cases Ehich 0olloE ha<e .ecogniJed that a claim
dismissed Eithout =.eDudice does not equita@l/ toll the !0)da/ limitations =e.iod in Ehich to 0ile a
(itle V22 suit 0olloEing .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue lette. 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/
Commission, acco.ding to the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A.
- 25F!# -
V3.791
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S 2000e)5C0AC$A. NoE, the 0olloEing cases liKel/ a.e negati<e autho.it/ 0o. the unde.signed case, @ut
the.e ma/ @e some dut/ to disclose the e+istence o0 cont.olling negati<e autho.it/...hoEe<e., these
ma/ not e<en @e cont.olling Cthe/ a.e 0ede.al laE, a@sention, comit/, all that con0uses me, =a.ticula.l/
Eith .ega.d to 0o.eclosu.e de0ense litigations 2 am counsel on...A Ninth Ci.cuit 4BDonnell <. Venco.,
2nc., 4,5 *.#d $0,#, !' *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $"!#, !! *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas. CBNAA $22, ''
Em=l. 1.ac. Dec. CCC3A R4255! C!th Ci.. 200,A, amended, 4,, *.#d $$04, !! *ai. Em=l. 1.ac. Cas.
CBNAA $22 C!th Ci.. 200,A ?i.anda <. Costco 9holesale Co.=., $,' *.#d 500 C!th Ci.. $!!!A
Cun=u@lished (a@le dis=osition; $!!! 97 4!$0!A EdEa.ds <. (acoma 1u@lic %chools, 200, 97
#000'!" C9.D. 9ash. 200,A (olling o0 (ime 1e.iod 0o. *iling (itle V22 Action Based on Neglect 4.
?isconduct S 22 VieE that EE4C =e.sonnel neglect @ased on inadequate .ightto) sue)notice
equita@l/ tolls limitation =e.iod (he 0olloEing autho.it/ .ecogniJed that EE4C =e.sonnelBs neglect in
=.o<iding inadequate .ight)to)sue notice ma/ equita@l/ toll the !0)da/ limitations =e.iod in Ehich to
0ile a (itle V22 suit 0olloEing the .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue notice 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment
4==o.tunit/ Commission CEE4CA, as =.o<ided 0o. @/ the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S
2000e)5 C0AC$A. (he cou.t in 3su <. 6ni<e.sit/ o0 Chicago 3os=itals, $!!$ 97 $5252# CN.D. 2ll.
$!!$A Cun.e=o.ted o=inionA, .ecogniJed that equita@le tolling o0 the !0)da/ limitations =e.iod in
Ehich to 0ile a (itle V22 action a0te. the .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue notice 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment
4==o.tunit/ Commission CEE4CA, =u.suant to the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)
5C0AC$A, ma/ occu. @ased on the neglect o0 EE4C =e.sonnel Eho =.o<ide inadequate notice o0 a
claimantBs .ight to sue. 2#. VieE that EE4C =e.sonnel neglect @ased on mistaKen legal o=inion does
not equita@l/ toll limitations =e.iod 2n the 0olloEing cases, cou.ts ha<e .ecogniJed that EE4C
=e.sonnel neglect in the 0o.m o0 a mistaKen legal o=inion does not equita@l/ toll the !0)da/
limitations =e.iod in Ehich to 0ile a (itle V22 suit 0olloEing the .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue notice 0.om
- 2,F!# -
V3.792
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
the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission CEE4CA, unde. the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42
6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5 C0AC$A. 9hen a claimant o. the claimantBs atto.ne/ .elies on the mistaKen legal
o=inion o0 Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission CEE4CA =e.sonnel, held the cou.t in 3o=Kins
<. 6nited 1a.cel %e.<ice, 22$ *.#d $##4 C,th Ci.. 2000A Cun=u@lished (a@le dis=osition; 2000 97
!2#45'A, the.e Eill @e no equita@le tolling o0 the !0)da/ limitations =e.iod in Ehich to 0ile a (itle V22
suit 0olloEing .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue notice 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission
CEE4CA, set 0o.th in the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5 C0AC$A. Atto.ne/s do not act
diligentl/ and .easona@l/ in .el/ing on an EE4C .e=.esentati<eBs legal o=inion, e+=lained the cou.t.
(he doct.ine o0 equita@le tolling Eill not @e a==lied to the !0)da/ limitations =e.iod in Ehich to 0ile a
(itle V22 suit 0olloEing the .ecei=t o0 a .ight)to)sue notice 0.om the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/
Commission CEE4CA, .equi.ed @/ the Ci<il ights Act o0 $!,4, 42 6.%.C.A. S 2000e)5C0AC$A,
.ecogniJed the cou.t in Ci.otto <. (.ade. 1u@. Co., 2000 97 ##!$$2!5 C%.D. 4hio 2000A, Dudgment
a00Bd on othe. g.ounds, 2$ *ed. A==+. 4$2 C,th Ci.. 200$A, Ehe.e a claimant a.gues .eliance on the
mistaKen legal o=inion o0 EE4C =e.sonnel. (he.e is a distinction Ehen a claimant .elies on a
.e=.esentation made @/ a cou.t, @ut no autho.it/ su==o.ts tolling the time limitation Ehen the
claimant .elies on the legal o=inion o0 an EE4C .e=.esentati<e, stated the cou.t. 5ust as igno.ance o0
the laE is not su00icient to Ea..ant equita@le tolling, .easoned the cou.t, Eill0ull/ .el/ing on the
mistaKen legal o=inion o0 an EE4C .e=.esentati<e is insu00icient to Dusti0/ e+tending the limitations
=e.iod. Actuall/, %an *.ancisco EE4C Dist.ict 400ice Di.ecto. ?ichael Baldonado liKel/ issued such
a E.itten mistaKen inte.=.etation to the unde.signed, assu.ing him that the mailing o0 the ight (o
%ue 7ette. to an old add.ess, Ehich the EE4C had =.e<iousl/ @een noti0ied o0 a Change o0 Add.ess
0o. in E.iting =.io. to the mailing, Eould Lnot matte., as date o0 .ecei=t is hoE its measu.eL, hoEe<e.,
that =.esu==oses that Lconst.ucti<e .ecei=tL Eould not a==l/ and @a. the unde.signedBs case. (olling
- 2"F!# -
V3.793
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
o0 statute o0 limitations Ehe.e =.ocess is not se.<ed @e0o.e e+=i.ation o0 limitation =e.iod, as a00ected
@/ statutes de0ining commencement o0 action, o. e+=.essl/ .elating to inte..u=tion o0 .unning o0
limitations, 2" A.7..2d 2#,
9hen Does *iling 1e.iod Begin C$A (itle V22 CaA 1.i<ate %ecto. Cases (o=ic %umma./ Co..elation
(a@le e0e.ences S $!2!. E00ect o0 mailing to E.ong add.ess 9estBs >e/ Num@e. Digest 9estBs >e/
Num@e. Digest, Ci<il ights #,", #,' (he =e.son claiming to @e agg.ie<ed has the .es=onsi@ilit/ to
=.o<ide the Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission Eith notice o0 an/ change in add.ess and
Eith notice o0 an/ =.olonged a@sence 0.om that cu..ent add.ess so that he o. she can @e located Ehen
necessa./ du.ing the CommissionBs conside.ation o0 the cha.geO$P and i0 a claimant 0ails to noti0/ the
Equal Em=lo/ment 4==o.tunit/ Commission CEE4CA o0 a change o0 add.ess, then the claimant
cannot late. .el/ on the Lactual noticeL .ule.O2P 4@se.<ation: (he 0ocus o0 the inqui./ is Ehethe. the
0ailu.e to .ecei<e a (itle V22 .ight)to)sue notice is the claimantBs 0ault, due to the claimantBs 0ailu.e to
Kee= the EE4C ad<ised o0 his Ehe.ea@outs.O#P 20 the claimant is at 0ault 0o. 0ailu.e to .ecei<e the
notice, the !0)da/ limitations =e.iod has @een held to .un 0.om the date the notice Eas deli<e.ed to the
most .ecent add.ess that the claimant 0u.nished to the EE4C,O4P and 0.om the 0i0th da/ a0te. the date
the EE4C mails his .ight)to)sue notice to his add.ess o0 .eco.d.O5P *u.the.mo.e, in those
ci.cumstances, the =e.iod 0o. 0iling suit Eill not @e equita@l/ tolled Ehen the EE4C 0ails to send a
co=/ o0 the .ightto) sue notice to the =lainti00Bs atto.ne/, since the =lainti00Bs @u.den to noti0/ the
EE4C o0 a change in add.ess is minimal and .easona@le.O,P 4n the othe. hand, it has @een held that
not onl/ did a =lainti00 meet he. minimal .es=onsi@ilit/ to ensu.e .ecei=t o0 the notice, des=ite he.
change o0 add.ess, @/ e+=.essl/ .equesting the EE4C to mail a co=/ o0 it to he. atto.ne/, @ut also that
since the EE4C did not com=l/ Eith its oEn .equi.ement to send a co=/ to the =lainti00Bs atto.ne/ it
- 2'F!# -
V3.794
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
@o.e the =.ima./ .es=onsi@ilit/ 0o. the 0ailed deli<e./.O"P (he.e0o.e, the limitations =e.iod @egan Eith
the success0ul deli<e./ 0olloEing the =lainti00Bs second .equest 0o. the notice.O'P 20, hoEe<e., the
claimantBs 0ailu.e to .ecei<e the notice is due to ci.cumstances @e/ond his cont.ol, the !0)da/
limitations =e.iod Eill not @egin to .un u=on deli<e./ o0 the notice to the claimantBs most .ecent
add.ess on .eco.d Eith the EE4C.O!P O*N$P 2! C.*.. S $,0$."C@A. O*N2P Bo@@itt <. *.eeman
Com=anies, 2,' *.#d 5#5 C"th Ci.. 200$A, .ehBg and .ehBg en @anc denied, CNo<. $#, 200$A. O*N#P
7eEis <. Conne.s %teel Co., ,"# *.2d $240 C$$th Ci.. $!'2A. O*N4P %t. 7ouis <. Al<e.no College, "44
*.2d $#$4, 20 Ed. 7aE e=. 42! C"th Ci.. $!'4A. O*N5P 3unte. <. %te=henson oo0ing, 2nc., "!0 *.2d
4"2 C,th Ci.. $!',A. O*N,P BanKs <. ocKEell 2nte.n. No.th Ame.ican Ai.c.a0t 4=e.ations, '55 *.2d
#24 C,th Ci.. $!''A. E00ect o0 .ecei=t o0 notice @/ atto.ne/, gene.all/, see S $!#$. (olling, gene.all/,
see SS 2225 et seq. O*N"P %tallEo.th <. 9ells *a.go A.mo.ed %e.<ices Co.=., !#, *.2d 522 C$$th Ci..
$!!$A. O*N'P %tallEo.th <. 9ells *a.go A.mo.ed %e.<ices Co.=., !#, *.2d 522 C$$th Ci.. $!!$A.
O*N!P 7eEis <. Conne.s %teel Co., ,"# *.2d $240 C$$th Ci.. $!'2A; 9he.e a =lainti00 noti0ied the =ost
o00ice, @ut not the EE4C, o0 he. change o0 add.ess and 0ailed to .ecei<e he. .ight)to)sue lette., she
Eas not at 0ault and Eas alloEed to @.ing suit Eithin !0 da/s a0te. he. atto.ne/s .ecei<ed a co=/ o0 the
lette.. /an <. 5ose=hBs Bi)ite ?a.Ket, ,'' *. %u==. 5"# CE.D. Cal. $!''A; A =lainti00Bs time
limitation 0o. 0iling suit @egan to .un Ehen he. atto.ne/ .ecei<ed he. .ight)to)sue notice, since she
0ailed to .ecei<e one and had taKen .easona@le ste=s to ensu.e that she Eould .ecei<e it, @/ calling the
EE4C to =.o<ide he. neE add.ess, =lacing an o.de. to ha<e the =ost o00ice 0o.Ea.d he. mail, and
.eneEing the o.de. at the end o0 a /ea.. 5ones <. ?ichael eese 3os=., $!!$ 97 $055'# CN.D. 2ll.
$!!$A; (he suit 0iling =e.iod did not @egin to .un Ehen the notice Eas deli<e.ed to the claimantBs
add.ess, Ehe.e the claimant did not in0o.m the EE4C o0 each change o0 add.ess @ut did 0u.nish the
Commission Eith an alte.nate add.ess at Ehich she could @e .eached at an/ time, and the EE4C did
- 2!F!# -
V3.795
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
not go @e/ond the outdated add.ess set 0o.th in the cha.ge. 3a..is <. *o.d ?oto. Co., 4'" *. %u==.
42! C9.D. ?o. $!'0A. 45C Am. 5u.. 2d 5o@ Disc.imination S $!2! Action o0 cou.t o. cle.K o0 cou.t as
constituting o. su==o.ting 0inding o0 Lgood cause,L unde. ule 4CDA o0 *ede.al ules o0 Ci<il
1.ocedu.e, 0o. 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e =.ocess u=on de0endant, $0' A.7.. *ed. ',2 C$!!2AC*.%u==.A.
*ede.al 1.ocedu.e, 7aE/e.s Edition s ,5:$0', *ailu.e to maKe legi@le co=/ o0 com=laint 0o. se.<ice
C20$$A.
(he histo./ o0 se.<ice o0 =.ocess in this case is 0ai.l/ tangled. 1lainti00 0iled he. com=laint on ?a.ch
#, $!',, and Eas g.anted =e.mission to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is CT2*1UA. 4n ?a.ch $!, $!',, the
6.%. ?a.shals mailed a co=/ o0 the summons and com=laint to the de0endants. Acco.ding to cou.t
.eco.ds, no .es=onse Eas e<e. .ecei<ed to the mail se.<ice. De0endant a<e.s that on o. a@out ?a.ch
25, $!',, Amt.aK .ecei<ed a co=/ o0 the summons and TEhat a==ea.ed to @e a com=laint,U togethe.
Eith a Notice and AcKnoEledgment 0o.m .equesting .etu.n o0 se.<ice @/ mail. %ee Decla.ation o0
%all/ :a.., at $. Although the summons Eas legi@le, de0endant alleges the com=laint Eas 0a. too 0aint
to .ead, =a.ticula.l/ =lainti00Bs su@stanti<e allegations. 2d.; E+. A. De0endantBs counsel attem=ted to
o@tain a .eada@le co=/ o0 the com=laint 0.om the Cle.K o0 the Cou.t, @ut the com=laint Eas not in the
cou.t 0ile on the da/ the 0ile Eas .equested. 2d. at 2. De0endantBs counsel then ad<ised =lainti00 @/
lette., dated A=.il $,, $!',, that she Eas Tuna@le eithe. to acKnoEledge .ecei=t o0 o. to .es=ond to
/ou. Com=laint @ecause the co=/ 2 .ecei<ed is totall/ un.eada@le.U %he ad<ised =lainti00 that Amt.aK
Eould .es=ond to the com=laint i0 =lainti00 sent a .eada@le co=/ to them. 2d. at E+. B. De0endant did
not send a co=/ o0 this lette. to the cou.t, the 6.%. ?a.shals, o. the 1.o %e 400ice, des=ite de0endantBs
a==a.ent aEa.eness that =lainti00 Eas =.oceeding =.o se. 2d. at 2. M$$2$ 1lainti00 did not .es=ond to
de0endantBs lette.. 2d. 2n ea.l/ 5une, $!'!, the cou.t disco<e.ed th.ough .e<ieE o0 0iles that de0endant
- #0F!# -
V3.796
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
had ne<e. acKnoEledged .ecei=t o0 se.<ice. 4n 5une ", $!'!, 2 o.de.ed the 6.%. ?a.shals to se.<e a
neE co=/ o0 the summons and com=laint on de0endant. (he second co=/ Eas mailed on 5une $2,
$!'!, and a==a.entl/ .ecei<ed @/ de0endant on o. a@out 5une $,. :a.. A00ida<it at 2. De0endant
signed the Notice and AcKnoEledgment o0 ecei=t 0o.m on 5ul/ 2, $!'!. De0endant noE mo<es to
dismiss the action on the g.ounds that =lainti00 0ailed to se.<e a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint on
de0endant Eithin $20 da/s a0te. 0iling he. com=laint Eith the cou.t. *ed..Ci<.1. 4CDA.*N2 (he de0ect
in se.<ice Cthat the =hotoco=/ o0 the com=laint =.o<ided Eas too 0aintA Eas not att.i@uta@le to the
=lainti00, @ut to cou.t =e.sonnel, Eho a.e .es=onsi@le 0o. maKing co=ies o0 the initial =leadings 0o. 2*1
litigants.*N# ?o.eo<e., de0endant Eas less than <igo.ous in noti0/ing the =.o=e. o00icials a@out the
de0ect, in o.de. that it might @e co..ected. De0endant E.ote a lette. to the =lainti00 ad<ising he. o0 the
de0ect, @ut noti0ied neithe. the 6.%. ?a.shals no. the cou.t o0 the =.o@lem, des=ite KnoEledge that the
=lainti00 Eas =.oceeding =.o se. De0endantBs counsel also a==a.entl/ once attem=ted to 0ind the
o.iginal com=laint in the cou.t 0iles, @ut u=on disco<e.ing that the com=laint Eas tem=o.a.il/ missing
0.om the 0ile, de0endant did not contact cham@e.s no. t./ again to locate the com=laint. *N#.
*ed..Ci<.1. 4CdA =.o<ides that Tthe =lainti00 shall 0u.nish the =e.son maKing se.<ice Eith such co=ies
Oo0 the summons and com=laintP as a.e necessa./.U 2n the case o0 a =lainti00 Eho is =.oceeding =.o se
and in 0o.ma =au=e.is, hoEe<e., the cu..ent =.actice in this cou.t is that the 1.o %e 400ice =.e=a.es the
.equisite num@e. o0 co=ies o0 the summons and com=laint 0o. initial se.<ice on all de0endants. (his is
not a case Ehe.e the de0ect in se.<ice Eas such as to de=.i<e the de0endant o0 notice o0 the action
@eing @.ought against it. De0endant a<e.s that the summons Eas legi@le, and that it indicated that the
=lainti00 Eas =.oceeding =.o se. (he com=laint Eas la.gel/ illegi@le as to its su@stance, @ut it Eas
a==a.entl/ accom=anied @/ a =e.0ectl/ legi@le co=/ o0 =lainti00Bs t/=eE.itten EE4C cha.ge that
0u.nished the same su@stanti<e allegations. *N4 6nde. these ci.cumstances, the notice)gi<ing
- #$F!# -
V3.797
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
0unction o0 ule 4CDA Eas essentiall/ satis0ied, and =lainti00 is thus e+cused 0.om he. technical 0ailu.e
to com=l/ Eith the $20Vda/ =.o<ision.*N5 *N4. De0endantBs motion =a=e.s contain an e+hi@it
desc.i@ed as a Tt.ue and co..ect co=/U o0 the summons and com=laint .ecei<ed @/ de0endant. (his
e+hi@it contains a clea. co=/ o0 =lainti00Bs EE4C cha.ge. %ee :a.. A00ida<it at E+. A. *N5. Because
o0 the illegi@ilit/ o0 the com=laint se.<ed on de0endant, de0endant Eas not unde. o@ligation to ansEe.,
e<en i0 the se.<ice Eas su00icient unde. ule 4CDA. De0endant a.gues that it Eould @e se<e.el/
=.eDudiced @/ @eing 0o.ced to litigate this action noE, 0ou. /ea.s a0te. the 0iling o0 the action and
.oughl/ si+ /ea.s a0te. the e<ents alleged in the com=laint. 2t a.gues that documents and Eitnesses
conce.ning the e<ents o0 $!'4 Eill @e di00icult to locate. De0endant also ad<ises that the M$$22 EE4C
dest.o/ed its 0iles on this action on August $$, $!'', as =a.t o0 a .outine housecleaning o0 a==a.entl/
do.mant cases. Decla.ation o0 >athleen a/ns0o.d, at 2. De0endant is undou@tedl/ co..ect that the
=assage o0 time Eill ha<e made this action 0a. mo.e di00icult to litigate. 3oEe<e., that is not a
su00icient Dusti0ication 0o. dismissing the action Ehen de0endant sha.es .es=onsi@ilit/ 0o. the dela/.
Acco.dingl/, de0endantBs motion to dismiss the com=laint unde. *ed..Ci<.1. 4CDA is denied.
%.D.N.8.,$!!0. ?c>enJie <. Amt.aK ? o0 E """ *.%u==. $$$!.
3oEe<e., a =.o se action is deemed commenced 0o. statute o0 limitations =u.=oses Ehen the
com=laint is .ecei<ed @/ the 1.o %e 400ice o0 the cou.t, at least Ehe.e in 0o.ma =au=e.is .elie0 is
g.anted. %ee (oli<e. <. %ulli<an Count/, '4$ *.2d 4$ C2d Ci..$!''A.
Decem@e. $, 20$0 is the 0iling date he.e, des=ite the Cou.tBs dela/ in .esol<ing the 2*1 a==lication.
(he %e<enth Ci.cuit discussed the .elationshi= @etEeen 2*1 a==lications and the su@stanti<e 0iling
date o0 ci<il com=laints in 9illiams):uice <. Boa.d o0 Education, 45 *.#d $,$ C"th Ci.. $!!5A.
- #2F!# -
V3.798
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9illiams):uice e+=lained that, i0 a cou.t g.ants an 2*1 a==lication, as this Cou.t did, Lthe com=laint
is deemed 0iled Ehen lodged Eith the cle.K.L 2d. at $,4. De0endants a.gue, unde. ule $2C@AC5A that
the case should @e dismissed Eithout =.eDudice @ecause o0 4@e.lohBs 0ailu.e to se.<e them Eithin the
$20)da/ deadline set @/ *ede.al ule o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e 4 ODE $2P. ule 4 sets 0o.th the .equi.ements
0o. =.o=e.l/ se.<ing a de0endant. *ed. . Ci<. 1. 4. ule 4CmA =.o<ides that se.<ice o0 =.ocess shall @e
Lmade u=on a de0endant Eithin $20 da/s a0te. the 0iling o0 the com=laint.L *ed. . Ci<. 1. 4CmA. A
motion to dismiss =u.suant to ule $2C@AC5A asKs the cou.t to dete.mine Ehethe. se.<ice o0 =.ocess on
the de0endant Eas su00icient. %ee *ed. . Ci<. 1. $2C@AC5A. De0endants a.e co..ect that 4@e.loh did not
com=l/ Eith ule 4CmABs $20)da/ deadline. (he g.anting o0 4@e.lohBs 2*1 a==lication means that his
com=laint Eas deemed 0iled on Decem@e. $, 20$0, the date 4@e.loh lodged it Eith the cle.K.
9illiams):uice, 45 *.#d at $,4. 8et, De0endants Ee.e not se.<ed Eith co=ies o0 the summons and
com=laint until A=.il $4, 20$$ ODE 5)'P, $#4 da/s late. and thus @e/ond ule 4CmABs $20)da/
deadline. 3oEe<e., ule 4CmABs time =e.iod 0o. se.<ice is not a@solute. 6nde. ce.tain ci.cumstances, a
cou.t ma/ alloE se.<ice to @e made @e/ond that time 0.ame. %ee *ed. . Ci<. 1. 4CmA Cstating that i0
se.<ice is not made Eithin $20 da/s a0te. the 0iling o0 the com=laint, the cou.t ma/ di.ect that se.<ice
@e e00ected Eithin a s=eci0ied timeA. E<en i0 good cause 0o. an e+tension o0 time to e00ect se.<ice is
not shoEn, cou.ts ha<e disc.etion to g.ant an e+tension o0 time @e/ond the $20)da/ =e.iod =.o<ided
0o. in ule 4CmA. %ee *ed. . Ci<. 1. 4, Ad<iso./ Committee Notes, $!!# Amendments, %u@di<ision
CmA CneE su@di<ision CmA Le+=licitl/ =.o<ides that the cou.t shall alloE additional time i0 the.e is
good causeL and Lautho.iJes the cou.t to .elie<e a =lainti00 o0 the consequences o0 an a==lication o0
this su@di<ision e<en i0 the.e is not good cause shoEnLA; see also 1ana.as <. 7iquid Ca.@onic 2ndus.
Co.=., !4 *.#d ##', #4$ C"th Ci.. $!!,A Cunde. ule 4CmA, cou.ts ha<e disc.etion to enla.ge the $20)
da/ =e.iod e<en i0 no good cause is shoEnA. %igni0icantl/, the Ad<iso./ Committee Notes to
- ##F!# -
V3.799
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
su@di<ision CmA o0 ule 4 also =.o<ide that the Ldist.ict cou.t should . . . taKe ca.e to =.otect =.o se
=lainti00s 0.om consequences o0 con0usion o. dela/ attending the .esolution o0 an in 0o.ma =au=e.is
=etition.L %ee *ed. . Ci<. 1. 4, Ad<iso./ Committee Notes, $!!# Amendments, %u@di<ision CmA
Cciting o@inson <. Ame.icaBs Best Contacts X E/eglasses, '", *.2d 5!, C"th Ci.. $!'!AA. (he Cou.tBs
.es=onsi@ilit/ to =.otect =.o se =lainti00s clea.l/ e+tends to the ci.cumstances he.e. (he dela/
attending the .esolution o0 4@e.lohBs 2*1=etition is =.ecisel/ Ehat the Ad<iso./ Committee Notes
contem=late as a ci.cumstance that Dusti0ies .elie0 0.om the a==lication o0 ule 4CmABs $20)da/
deadline. Acco.dingl/, 2 0ind that 4@e.loh had good cause 0o. his 0ailu.e to se.<e =.ocess Eithin $20
da/s o0 0iling his initial com=laint. *o. the 0o.egoing .easons, the Cou.t DEN2E% De0endantsB motion
to dismiss ODE $2P. ?o.eo<e., =u.suant to *ede.al ule o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e $2CaAC4ACAA, De0endants
a.e 4DEED to 0ile .es=onsi<e =leadings Eithin $4 da/s a0te. notice o0 this o.de.. *ed. . Ci<. 1.
$2CaAC4ACAA.L...L htt=:FFlaE.Dustia.comFcasesF0ede.alFdist.ict)
cou.tsFindianaFinndceF#:20$0c<004!"F,#',4F$4 . 765AN4 <. 4?A3A 16B72C 149E D2%(. #0
*.#d $0#2 C$!!4A : LA =a.t/ ma/ a==l/ to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is @/ 0iling an a00ida<it stating that
he is una@le to =.e=a/ cou.t 0ees and costs. 2' 6.%.C. %ec. $!$5CaA. L(he o00ice.s o0 the cou.t shall
issue and se.<e all =.ocess, and =e.0o.m all duties in such cases.L 2d. %ec. $!$5CcA. (he cou.t ma/
a==oint an atto.ne/ 0o. the a==licant, and ma/ dismiss his case i0 it is 0.i<olous o. malicious. 2d. %ec.
$!$5CdA. LDismissals unde. section $!$5 a.e to @e made ea.l/ in the =.oceedings, @e0o.e se.<ice o0
=.ocess on the de0endant ...L 9illiams <. 9hite, '!" *.2d !42, !4# C'th Ci..$!!0A Cem=hasis in
o.iginalA. $# Di00iculties a.ise Ehen the initial .e<ieE o0 an in 0o.ma =au=e.is case taKes longe. than
the $20 da/s alloEed 0o. se.<ice o0 =.ocess unde. ule 4 o0 the *ede.al ules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e.
*o.me. ule 4CDA,# Ehich Eas in e00ect at the time 7uDanoBs case Eas =ending in the dist.ict cou.t,
=.o<ided in .ele<ant =a.t, $4 CDA %ummons: (ime 7imit 0o. %e.<ice. 20 a se.<ice o0 the summons and
- #4F!# -
V3.800
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
com=laint is not made u=on a de0endant Eithin $20 da/s a0te. the 0iling o0 the com=laint and the =a.t/
on Ehose @ehal0 such se.<ice Eas .equi.ed cannot shoE good cause Eh/ such se.<ice Eas not made
Eithin that =e.iod, the action shall @e dismissed as to that de0endant Eithout =.eDudice u=on the
cou.tBs oEn initiati<e Eith notice to such =a.t/ o. u=on motion. $5 *ed..Ci<.1. 4CDA C$!!2A Cem=hasis
addedA. $, 9e need not decide Ehethe. ule 4 a==lies to a =a.t/ =.oceeding in 0o.ma =au=e.is du.ing
the initial .e<ieE =e.iod,4 @ecause e<en i0 it does, 7uDano has demonst.ated good cause 0o. his 0ailu.e
to se.<e De0endant in a timel/ manne.. Neithe. ule 4CDA no. its legislati<e histo./ de0ines Lgood
cause.L (he sole e+am=le o0 good cause mentioned in the legislati<e histo./ is e<asion o0 se.<ice @/
the de0endant. 9ei <. %tate o0 3aEaii, ",# *.2d #"0, #"$ C!th Ci..$!'5A, citing $!'2 6.%.C.C.A.N.
44#4, 444, n. 25. %e<e.al Cou.ts o0 A==eals ha<e held that good cause .equi.es at least e+cusa@le
neglect. B.a+ton <. 6nited %tates o0 Ame.ica, '$" *.2d 2#', 24$ C#d Ci..$!'"A; 9inte.s <. (eled/ne
?o<i@le 400sho.e, 2nc., "", *.2d $#04, $#0, C5th Ci..$!'5A. %ee also Co+ <. %andia Co.=., !4$ *.2d
$$24, $$25 C$0th Ci..$!!$A CLAlthough the standa.ds 0o. shoEing Bgood causeB unde. ule 4 and
Be+cusa@le neglectB unde. ule ,0 ma/ not @e identical, Ee do not 0ind the outcome in this case
a00ected @/ an/ distinction @etEeen these standa.ds.LA. E+cusa@le neglect in tu.n .equi.es L Bgood 0aith
on the =a.t o0 the =a.t/ seeKing an enla.gement Oo0 timeP and some .easona@le @asis 0o.
noncom=liance Eithin the time s=eci0ied in the .ules.B L Dominic <. 3ess 4il V.2. Co.=., '4$ *.2d 5$#,
5$" C#d Ci..$!''A, citing Cha.les A. 9.ight X A.thu. . ?ille., *ede.al 1.actice and 1.ocedu.e %ec.
$$,5 C$!'"A. $" A==l/ing these standa.ds, Ee 0ind that 7uDano demonst.ated good cause 0o. his
0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e De0endant. 3e acted in good 0aith th.oughout the =endenc/ o0 his laEsuit. 3e
com=lied Eith the local .ule @/ amending his com=laint tEice in acco.dance Eith the ?agist.ate
5udgeBs o.de., and se.<ing De0endant =.om=tl/ a0te. the ?agist.ate o.de.ed the cle.K to issue =.ocess.
7uDano also inqui.ed a@out the status o0 his case soon a0te. it Eas .e0e..ed to the ?agist.ate, and Eas
- #5F!# -
V3.801
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
told that the laEsuit could not =.oceed until the initial .e<ieE Eas com=leted. 7uDano the.e0o.e
demonst.ated a .easona@le @asis 0o. his noncom=liance Eith ule 4CDA, @ecause the local .ule
=e.mitted onl/ the ?agist.ate 5udge to o.de. the issuance o0 summons, and the ?agist.ate 5udge
0ailed to do so Eithin the 0i.st $20 da/s a0te. the 0iling o0 the com=laint.5 $' 9e conclude that the
dist.ict cou.t a@used its disc.etion @/ dismissing 7uDanoBs com=laint 0o. insu00icient se.<ice o0
=.ocess. Acco.dingl/, Ee .e<e.se and .emand to the dist.ict cou.t 0o. 0u.the. =.oceedings consistent
Eith this o=inion. M (he 34N4AB7E 5EAN C. 3A?27(4N, 6nited %tates Dist.ict 5udge 0o. the
Easte.n Dist.ict o0 ?issou.i, sitting @/ designation $ (he 7ocal ules o0 the 6nited %tates Dist.ict
Cou.t 0o. the Dist.ict o0 Ne@.asKa Ee.e amended and .enum@e.ed on 5anua./ 4, $!!#. *o.me. 7ocal
ule 52CEA =.o<ided in .ele<ant =a.t: LC$A 6=on the .ecei=t o0 an a==lication 0o. lea<e to =.oceed in
0o.ma =au=e.is, the cle.K shall 0o.Ea.d the a==lication to the magist.ate in the cit/ in Ehich the case
should @e 0iled 0o. .e<ieE =u.suant to su@section C o0 this .ule. C2A A0te. the ent./ o0 an o.de.
=u.suant to su@section C o0 this .ule ..., the com=laint o. =etition shall @e 0o.Ea.ded to the magist.ate
in 7incoln 0o. initial .e<ieE. A0te. maKing such .e<ieE the magist.ate ma/ ...: CaA o.de. the cle.K to
issue summons against the de0endant o. de0endants, in Ehich e<ent the case shall @e .etu.ned to the
Dudge to Ehom it Eas assigned and shall =.oceed in the o.dina./ cou.se; o. C@A .e=o.t to the cou.t i0
the com=laint o. =etition 0ails to esta@lish su@Dect matte. Du.isdiction =u.suant to *ed..Ci<.1. $2C@A
C$A, 0ails to state a claim u=on Ehich .elie0 can @e g.anted unde. *ed..Ci<.1. $2C@AC,A, is legall/
0.i<olous unde. 2' 6.%.C. %ec. $!$5CdA, and the.eu=on .ecommend dismissal; o. ... CdA g.ant the
=lainti00 o. =etitione. lea<e to 0ile an amended =leading in acco.dance Eith the di.ecti<es o0 the
magist.ate ...L 2 (he ?agist.ate 5udgeBs ?emo.andum and 4.de. states that L=lainti00 has 0ailed to
allege 0acts su00icient to state a claim as against an/ de0endant.L %li= o=. $. 7ate., hoEe<e., the
?agist.ate 5udge states that L=lainti00 has alleged 0acts su00icient to demonst.ate his .ace =la/ed some
- #,F!# -
V3.802
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
=a.t in the =.ocess that led to his te.mination,L and that the Lamended com=laint ... satis0ies the
.equi.ement o0 =.esenting the em=lo/ment disc.imination claim to the EE4C.L 2d. at 2. 9e a.e
unce.tain Ehat the ?agist.ate 5udge actuall/ concluded. 2t is clea., hoEe<e., that the Dudge a==ointed
counsel and di.ected the cle.K to issue summons # ule 4 Eas amended and .enum@e.ed on Decem@e.
$, $!!#. (he 0o.me. ule 4CDA is noE ule 4CmA 4 Cou.ts a==ea. to di00e. on this question. C0. 7e
:.and
<. E<an, "02 *.2d 4$5, 4$" C2d Ci..$!'#A Ca@use o0 disc.etion to dismiss claim against one de0endant
0o. insu00icient se.<ice @e0o.e .uling on =.o se =lainti00Bs a==lication to =.oceed in 0o.ma =au=e.is,
since =lainti00 had neithe. the dut/ no. the .ight to issue and se.<e =.ocessA Eith ...L 765AN4 <.
4?A3A 16B72C 149E D2%(. #0 *.#d $0#2 C$!!4A
6nde. Ne<ada laE, suit against moto.c/cle manu0actu.e. commenced Ehen moto.c/cle .ide.
0iled com=laint in state cou.t, not Ehen manu0actu.e. Eas actuall/ se.<ed Eith summons and
com=laint; thus, notEithstanding .ide.Bs 0ailu.e to =.o=e.l/ se.<e on the manu0actu.e. sti=ulation o0
dismissal o0 the onl/ non)di<e.se de0endant, manu0actu.e.Bs notice o0 .emo<al Eas untimel/ gi<en
that the notice o0 .emo<al Eas 0iled mo.e than one /ea. a0te. the suit Eas commenced. 1.o<enJa e+
.el. 1.o<enJa <. 8amaha ?oto. Co., 7td., 200#, 2!5 *.%u==.2d $$"5. An action is not commenced
until the summons is =laced in the hands o0 the she.i00 o. othe. =e.son autho.iJed to se.<e it Eith
the intention that it @e se.<ed in due cou.se. N.C.7.$!2!, S '5"#, and S '524 as amended %t.$!5$,
=. 24"; ules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e, .ules #, 4CaA. De@oe. <. *atto., $!5,, #04 1.2d !5', "2 Ne<. #$,.
?4(24N *4 EC4N%2DEA(24N 9DC $2C'A, DC $#C"A and NC1 5! =.o<ide a
@asis 0o. seeKing to ha<e %et Aside o. econside.ation a==lied to this Cou.tBs 4.de. Dismissing
this action 0.om 5anua./ $$, 20$2:
- #"F!# -
V3.803
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
LCaA :.ounds. A neE t.ial ma/ @e g.anted to all o. an/ o0 the
=a.ties and on all o. =a.t o0 the issues 0o. an/ o0 the 0olloEing
causes o. g.ounds mate.iall/ a00ecting the su@stantial .ights o0 an
agg.ie<ed =a.t/: ... C2A ?isconduct o0 the Du./ o. =.e<ailing =a.t/;
%&' A!!i"ent or surrise ()i!) or"inar* ru"en!e !oul" not
)a+e guar"e" against, C4A Newly discovered evidence material
for the party making the motion which the party could not, with
.easona@le diligence, ha<e disco<e.ed and =.oduced at the t.ial; ...
C,A E+cessi<e damages a==ea.ing to ha<e @een gi<en unde. the
in0luence o0 =assion o. =.eDudice; o., %-' Error in la( o!!urring
at t)e trial an" o./e!te" to .* t)e art* $a0ing t)e $otion.
4n a motion 0o. a neE t.ial in an action t.ied Eithout a Du./, the
cou.t ma/ o=en the Dudgment i0 one has @een ente.ed, taKe
additional testimon/, amend 0indings o0 0act and conclusions o0
laE o. maKe neE 0indings and conclusions, and di.ect the ent./ o0
a neE Dudgment.C@A (ime 0o. ?otion. A motion 0o. a neE t.ial
shall @e 0iled no late. than $0 da/s a0te. se.<ice o0 E.itten notice
o0 the ent./ o0 the Dudgment. .... CdA 4n Cou.tNs 2nitiati<e; Notice;
%=eci0/ing :.ounds. No late. than $0 da/s a0te. ent./ o0
Dudgment the cou.t, on its oEn, ma/ o.de. a neE t.ial 0o. an/
.eason that Eould Dusti0/ g.anting one on a =a.t/Ns motion. A0te.
gi<ing the =a.ties notice and an o==o.tunit/ to @e hea.d, the cou.t
ma/ g.ant a timel/ motion 0o. a neE t.ial 0o. a .eason not stated
in the motion. 9hen g.anting a neE t.ial on its oEn initiati<e o.
0o. a .eason not stated in a motion, the cou.t shall s=eci0/ the
g.ounds in its o.de.. CeA ?otion to Alte. o. Amend a 5udgment. A
motion to alte. o. amend the Dudgment shall @e 0iled no late. than
$0 da/s a0te. se.<ice o0 E.itten notice o0 ent./ o0 the Dudgment.L
NC1 ,0C@A =.o<ides a @asis 0o. .elie0 0.om the atto.ne/Bs 0ee sanction against the unde.signed:
L?istaKes; 2nad<e.tence; E+cusa@le Neglect; NeEl/ Disco<e.ed
E<idence; *.aud, Etc. 4n motion and u=on such te.ms as a.e Dust, the
cou.t ma/ .elie<e a =a.t/ o. a =a.t/Ns legal .e=.esentati<e 0.om a 0inal
Dudgment, o.de., o. =.oceeding 0o. the 0olloEing .easons: C$A mistaKe,
inad<e.tence, su.=.ise, o. e+cusa@le neglect; C2A neEl/ disco<e.ed
e<idence Ehich @/ due diligence could not ha<e @een disco<e.ed in
time to mo<e 0o. a neE t.ial unde. ule 5!C@A; C#A 0.aud CEhethe.
he.eto0o.e denominated int.insic o. e+t.insicA, mis.e=.esentation o.
othe. misconduct o0 an ad<e.se =a.t/; C4A the Dudgment is <oid; o., C5A
the Dudgment has @een satis0ied, .eleased, o. discha.ged, o. a =.io.
Dudgment u=on Ehich it is @ased has @een .e<e.sed o. othe.Eise
<acated, o. it is no longe. equita@le that an inDunction should ha<e
=.os=ecti<e a==lication. (he motion shall @e made Eithin a .easona@le
time, and 0o. .easons C$A, C2A, and C#A not mo.e than , months a0te. the
- #'F!# -
V3.804
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
=.oceeding Eas taKen o. the date that E.itten notice o0 ent./ o0 the
Dudgment o. o.de. Eas se.<ed. A motion unde. this su@di<ision C@A
does not a00ect the 0inalit/ o0 a Dudgment o. sus=end its o=e.ation.
(his .ule does not limit the =oEe. o0 a cou.t to ente.tain an
inde=endent action to .elie<e a =a.t/ 0.om a Dudgment, o.de., o.
=.oceeding, o. to set aside a Dudgment 0o. 0.aud u=on the cou.t. 9.its
o0 co.am no@is, co.am <o@is, audita que.ela, and @ills o0 .e<ieE and
@ills in the natu.e o0 a @ill o0 .e<ieE, a.e a@olished, and the =.ocedu.e
0o. o@taining an/ .elie0 0.om a Dudgment shall @e @/ motion as
=.esc.i@ed in these .ules o. @/ an inde=endent action.L
Actuall/, :onsal<esB No<em@e. 2', 20$$ Lcom@oL ?otion is =a.ticula.l/ dishonest and
e<asi<e. Conside., =age ,:
L(he documents that 1lainti00 se.<ed to this De0endant a.e
a==.o+imatel/ th.ee inches high @/ tEo inches B Eide. (he .esulting 0ont
siJe is miniscule and com=letel/ illegi@le. 1lainti00 a==a.entl/ used a
=hotoco=ie. to sh.inK the =ages o0 his com=laints so that each o0 the ' 8, +
22 inch =ages that Ee.e se.<ed to this De0endant actuall/ contain nine =ages
that 1lainti00 had sh.unK and squeeJed onto one .egula. siJed =age. 1lainti00
se.<ed De0endant Eith o<e. one hund.ed o0 these tin/, sh.unKen, illegi@le
=ages. A sam=le o0 Ehat 1lainti00 se.<ed to this De0endant is attached
he.eto as E+hi@it 2.L
%o something doesnBt maKe sense a@out :onsal<es sa/ing Lo<e. one hund.ed L =ages Ee.e se.<ed,
/et he onl/ attaches a L5 =age sam=leL o0 Ehat he sa/s he client Eas se.<ed, /et the sam=le has a
0ascimile heade. on each =age indicating onl/ =ages 5 o0 $' th.ough ! o0 $! Ee.e chosen 0o. the
sam=le, /et those =ages clea.l/ a.e the Com=laint 0.om CV$$)0$'!,, a case 0o. Ehich :onsal<es
client is N4( EVEN A 1A(8, and to to= it o00, the heade. on the $! =age 0a+ =.intout that
:onsal<es attached as E+hi@it $ to his $$F2'F$$ ?otion to Dismiss and sEo.e Eas a sam=le o0 Ehat
his client Eas se.<ed @ea.s a date and time stam= that is =.io. in time to Ehen the 9C%4 De=ut/
listed as the time o0 se.<ice in his A00ida<it o0 %e.<ice C0iled Eith this Cou.t on No<em@e. 22,
20$$A. (o me, that is #rau" on :onsal<es and (9%Bs =a.t and a @asis unde. NC1 5!, NC1 ,0
and 9DC $2C'A and DC $#C"A to set aside the 4.de. :.anting Dismissal and Atto.ne/Bs *ees
%anction and Costs to C.isis on 5anua./ $#, 20$$. ega.dless, :onsal<es admits his client .ecei<ed
- #!F!# -
V3.805
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lo<e. one hund.ed =agesL, hoEe<e., he onl/ attached a sam=le o0 5 =ages o0 the Lse.<ice =a=e.sL,
the/ clea.l/ a.e the Com=laint in CV$$)0$'!, C$4 =ages in .ealit/, in tEo =ages unde. the L! =ages
=e. =ageL a==.oach Eith 2' =ages o0 E+hi@it $ to CV$$)0$'!, 0ound in =ages " o0 $', ' o0 $', and
! o0 $' in the last th.ee =ages o0 :onsa<lesB $$F2'F$$ E+hi@it $. %o, he.e is Ehat 2 Eant to KnoE,
since :onsal<es sa/s his client got Lo<e. one hund.edL =ages Cand :a.in, to his c.edit, admits that
some o0 the =ages his client .ecei<ed Ee.e 0ull siJe =ages, one =age =e. sheet, and de0initel/
included the 0i.st =age o0 each Com=liant, Ehe.ein one can 0ind the ca=tion and case num@e. and
0ile stam=ingA, /et he onl/ attaches a L0i<e =age sam=leL 0.om a case his client EasnBt e<en name in,
then....()at is in!lu"e" in t)e rest o# t)e at least -1 ages or so t)at 2onsal+es a"$its to
getting3 4ere t)ere an* ages in t)e 5ser+i!e aers5 T4S re!ei+e" t)at (ere not 5nine
ages er age53 T)er ot)er "e#en"ants a"$it t)e* got a #ull si6e #irst age o# t)e
Co$laint7 #ile sta$e"7 *et 2onsal+es $anages to su.$it a 5#i+e age sa$le5 o# so$e
5o+er one )un"re"5 ages an" t)at is "ue ro!ess3 T)e un"ersigne" )as $a"e state$ents
un"er oat) t)at go to t)at7 .ut )as 2onsal+es3 Has T4S3 Or )a+e t)e* .een allo(e" to
atta!) !are#ull* !)ose 5#i+e age sa$les5 t)at .are "ate an" ti$e sta$s an" age nu$.er8
age !ount signi#iers t)at in"i!ate 2onsal+es an" T4S are !o$$itting a #rau" on t)e !ourt to
ro!ure a /u"g$ent7 ()ilst also getting a ni!e attorne* #ee san!tions a(ar" ()ilst #ailing to
#ollo( t)e e9ress "i!tates o# NRCP ::3 Lets see ()at T4S a!tuall* got. Lets see ()at
2onsal+es )as )i""en7 $islea"7 le#t out. Lets see )o( $u!) less legi.le )is #a9e" !o* %an" I
"on;t !are i# so$eone sent )i$ an" e$ail or an internet .ase" #a9 ser+i!e "i" a#ter so$eone at
T4S #a9e" in ()at t)e* re!ei+e" %or7 strangel*7 :< ages o# so$et)ing3' in a $anner t)at
$a"e ()at t)e* a!tuall* re!ei+e" %ie7 so$et)ing quite rea"a.le' aear to .e !o$letel*
illegi.le. =ust loo0 at t)e +ariation .et(een t)e "e#en"ants 5sa$le o# ()at (as ser+e"5
- 40F!# -
V3.806
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
E9)i.its. Does t)e !ourt reall* .elie+e I use" a "i##erent rinter #or ea!) "e#en"ants 5ser+i!e
aers5 or $aniulate" t)e s)arness settings #or a "# #ile #or ea!) "e#en"ant to $a0e one
"e#en"ant;s less legi.le t)an t)e ot)er3 4ell7 I )a+e ut #ort) )er un"er enalt* o# er/ur*
t)at I "i" no su!) t)ing7 rat)er7 t)at I rinte" all t)e ser+i!e a!0ets out in in t)e sa$e sitting7
an" un"er t)e sa$e s)arness7 !larit*7 et!. No( ()ere is a state$ent #ro$ an* o# t)ese
"e#en"ants un"er enalt* o# er/ur* to t)at e##e!t3 4)* are t)e* allo(e" to ..s. t)e !ourt
#ro$ .e)in" a !urtain (it) a 2rou!)o Mar9 $as0 on (it) autotune on t)eir $i!s7 (i6ar" o#
o6 st*le7 an" not un"er oat)3
Here is a t)oug)t7 i# reall*7 reall* $inor te!)ni!al ro!e"ural ser+i!e8ro!ess issue !an
get t)e un"ersigne" ()ole la(suit "is$isse"7 "ue to insu##i!ien!* in ser+i!e ro!ess7 et!....()*
!an;t t)ose sa$e little tin* ro.le$s (or0 against t)e "e#en"ants )ere3 4)* is t)e
un"ersigne" as0e" to #oot t)e .ill in all situations )ere3 Does t)e 4as)oe Count* S)eri##;s
O##i!e )a+e an* lia.ilit*8a!!ounta.ilit* )ere3 4)* "i" it (ait (ee0s to e+en start tr*ing to
ser+e t)ese "e#en"ants3 4)* "i"n;t t)e 4CSO e$lo* a $ore uni#or$ s*ste$ o# i"ent#*ing
()at (as ser+e" an" on ()o$3 In t)e .ul0 A##i"a+its o# Ser+i!e t)e 4CSO #ile" on ::8>>8::
in t)is $atter7 !olons an" se$i?!olons are e$lo*e" to +er* !on#using e##e!t7 an" rat)er
in!onsistentall* an" non?uni#or$l*. T)ere are @ ages in t)at #iling %an" t)e #iling an"
A##i"a+its !ontaine" t)erein are o#ten ti$es !o$.ining one A##i"a+it o# Ser+i!e #or t(o
"i##erent !ases7 CA::?1:<@B an" CA::?1:@CC...'. Si$l* ut7 t)e sa$e little issues (it)
ser+i!e7 5!oies57 ()et)er /ust a Su$$ons or /ust a Co$liant7 or t)e (rong Co$laint7 +i!e
+ersa7 et!7 et!....t)ose sa$e little issues a!tuall* (or0 against T4S )ere7 as its !lear #ro$ t)e
4CSO A##i"a+it o# Ser+i!e %i# t)at is !ontrolling an" !re"i.le7 ()i!) is "e.ata.le gi+en so$e
o# t)e an!illar* .ee#s .et(een t)e un"ersigne" an" t)e 4CSO ()i!) its onl* (ort) going into
- 4$F!# -
V3.807
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i# t)is Court reall*7 reall* requires it7 .ut it (oul" see$ li0e it !oul" sa+e e+er*.o"* a .un!)
o# $one* an" ti$e7 e##ort7 an" t)e 4CSO a la(suit #or #ailure to aroriatel* !arr* out
ser+i!e...' t)at T4S "i" not re!ei+e a !o* o# t)e Co$laint in t)is !ase. T)ere#ore7 no
ser+i!e7 t)ere#ore7 no attorne*;s #ees san!tion !an stan". Li+e .* t)e ro!e"ural te!)ni!alit*
"ie .* it. Or "i" t)e 4CSO get a little la6* on t)e A##i"a+its o# Ser+i!e. T)ere are $an*
in!onsisten!ies in t)e notation utili6e" #or !)ara!teri6ing ()at (as ser+e" in t)e @ ages o#
A##i"a+its o# Ser+i!e t)e 4CSO #ile" on ::8>>8:: in CA::?1:@CC. 4)at "oesn;t $a0e $u!)
sense is ()* t)e 4CSO #ile" @ ages o# A##i"a+its o# Ser+i!e in CA::?1:@CC ()en t)e
un"ersigne" $an* (ritten #a97 e$aile"7 an" )an" "eli+ere" !orreson"en!es an" ser+i!e
a!0ets #or t)e 4CSO s)o(e" t)at t)e IFP (as grante" in t)is $atter7 CA::?1:@<B.
Ho(e+er7 t)is see$s !lear7 a !ertain !)ara!teri6ation (as use" #or t)e Co$laint in CA::?
1:<@B7 an" a !ertain ot)er s)ort)an" (as use" #or t)e Co$laint in CA::?1:@CC %()i!) is CD
ages7 !o$are" to t)e s!ant :D ages o# t)e !o$laint in CA::?1:<@B....ot) Co$laints
)a+e a.out :11 or so ages atta!)e" to t)e$ in t)e E9)i.its'. T)e s)ort)an" in t)e 4CSO
A##i"a+its o# Ser+i!es #or ea!) Co$laint aears to .e t)us %t)e #ollo(ing e9!ert is #ro$ t)e
4CSO A##i"a+it o# Ser+i!e #or Mangiara!ina7 an" #or so$e reason7 ()ile Mangiara!ina is
na$e" as a art* in CA::?1:@CC7 t)is A##i"a+it o# Ser+i!e7 #ile" ::8>>8:: in CA::?1:@CC
!learl* in"i!ates t)at Mangiara!ina (as ser+e" a !o* o# t)e Su$$ons %(ell7 in t)is instan!e
t)e 4CSO see$s to .e "e+iating #ro$ its t*i!al ra!ti!e o# listing t)e !ase nu$.er7 .ut it
see$s #air to assu$e t)e 4CSO is re#erring to t)e sa$e !ase #or ()i!) it i$$e"iatel*
t)erea#ter in"i!ates a !o* o# t)e Co$laint (as ser+e" on Mangiara!ina7 CA::?1:<@B' an"
Co$liant in t)is !ase %Ho(e+er7 t)e A##i"a+it o# Ser+i!e #ile" in t)is !ase .* t)e 4CSO on
::8>>8:: onl* )as A##i"a+its o# Ser+i!e #or Ere!0enri"ge an" one #or Fan"ra Loe6
- 42F!# -
V3.808
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
%in"i!ating ser+i!e (as not e##e!tuate" #or Ms. Loe6'. So t)e A##i"a+it o# Ser+i!e on
Mangiara!ina #ile ::8>>8:: in CA::?1:@CC rea"sG
5T)e "o!u$ent%s' ser+e" (ereG SUMMONS, COPYG
COMPLAINT %EHEMPT FROM AREITRATION7
EHTRAORDINARY RELIEF REIUESTED, COPYG
SUMMONS %CASE CA::?1:<@B', COPYG COMPLAINT
FOR DAMA2ESG SEHUAL HARASSMENT, RACIAL
DISCRlMNATION, TORTOIOUS CONSTRUCTION
DISCHAR2E IN AIOLATION OF PUELIC POLICY,
EREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT7
4RITTEN7ORAL7 OR IMPLIED, INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, :@<&
STATE ACTOR CIAIL RI2HTS AIOLATIONS,
4HISTLEELO4ER RETALIATION, PUNITIAE
DAMA2ES, =URY TRIAL DEMANDED5
O0a*7 (ell t)e a.o+e is not t)e .est e9a$le .e!ause it aears t)at t)e 4CSO
e$lo*ee #illing it out negle!te" to list t)e !ase nu$.er #or t)e #irst Su$$ons $entione"
t)erein7 ()ereas t)e 4CSO t*i!all* see$s to "o so7 )o(e+er7 Mangiara!ina aears to )a+e
re!ei+e" .ot) Co$laints. T)e un"ersigne" "oes )ere.* s(ear t)at in t)e )ar" !o* ser+i!e
a!0et t)at )e "eli+ere" to t)e 4CSO Ci+il Di+ision;s Ro9* Sil+a on Fri"a*7 O!to.er :Dt)7
>1:: t)at t)ere (ere enoug) Su$$ons #or CA::?1:<@B an" !oies o# t)e Co$laint in CA::?
1:<@B #or ea!) o# t)e na$e" "e#en"nats to get t)eir +er* o(n7 an" t)at at least t(o o# t)ese
Co$laints #or CA::?1:<@B (ere #ull si6e one age er age #ile sta$e" !oies o# t)e
Co$laint7 an" all t)e Su$$ons (ere one age er age #ull si6e an" t)at ea!) !o* o# a
Co$laint )a" a #ull si6e one age er age #irst age o# t)e Co$laint7 to ena.le all
"e#en"ants to see t)e na$e" arties an" !ase nu$.er +er* !learl*. Furt)er t)e un"ersigne"
attests t)at t)e nine age er age ortions (ere still +er* legi.le. Yes7 t)e rint (as s$all7
.ut it (as a.solutel* !lear an" a.solutel* rea"a.le.
- 4#F!# -
V3.809
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Atta!)e" at E9)i.it : is a !o* o# ()at (as #a9e" to t)e 4CSO7 e$aile"7 an" )an"
"eli+ere" %#or .re+ities sa0e t)e #ull Co$laint in CA::?1:<@B an" t)e t(o E9)i.its atta!)e"
to it %t)at is a :D age Co$laint an" t(o e9)i.its t)at a""e" an a""itional :11 ages7 lus t)e
Su$$ons ' an" t)e #ull Co$laint an" t)ree atta!)e" E9)i.its in CA::?1:@CC %a CD age
Co$laint (it) t)e t)ree E9)i.its a""ing a total o# :1: $ore ages' )a+e .een trun!ate" out
o# t)is atta!)$ent7 .ut e+er*t)ing (as one age er age +ersion in ()at (as e$aile"...I "i"n;t
#a9 t)e 4CSO t)is 5ser+i!e a!0et5 as #a9ing &11 ages ()en e$ail an" )an" "eli+er* (ere
ser+e" on t)e 4CSO see$e" inaroriate7 )o(e+er7 I "i" #a9t t)e 4CSO t)e 5ser+i!e
instru!tions5 in t)e atta!)e" :1 age E9)i.it :....so t)e 4CSO re!ei+e" se+eral e$ails ()erein
t)e :1 ages #oun" in E9)i.it : (ere i$$e"iatel* #ollo(e" .* t)e so$e >-1 or so ages
!o$rising t)e #ull si6e !oies o# t)e Co$laints an" all atta!)e" E9)i.its in t)ese t(o
$atters...t)is in a""ition to t)e O!toer :D7 >1:: )an" "eli+er* o# $an*7 $an* ser+i!e a!0ets
%enoug) #or all na$e" "e#en"ants in ea!) !ase to get a #ull si6e Su$$ons7 an" a !o* o# t)e
Co$laint (it) a #ull si6e #irst age o# t)e Co$laint7 an" in so$e !ases %I .elie+e I se!i#i!all*
"elineate" t)at El!ano an" one o# 4LS;s O##i!er or Dire!tors s)oul" get t)e 5"elu9e5 one age
er age #or e+er* age o# t)e Co$laint an" atta!)$ents +ersions' a !o$letel* #ull si6e
+ersion7 in ot)er !ases in"i+i"uals (ere to get a nine age er age !o* o# t)e Co$laint7 .ut
t)e #irst age o# t)e Co$laint (as ro+i"e" in #ull si6e as (ell7 an" in so$e !ases %li0e in
Ere!0enri"ge;s sa$le E9)i.it o# ()at s)e (as ser+e" in CA::?1:@CC in )er Motion to
Dis$iss' so$e got !oies o# t)e Co$laint t)at (ere a $ere t(o age er age. T)ings (ere
"one t)is (a* .e!ause I (as +er* lo( on $one* an" t)ere (ere quite a #e( "e#en"ants to ser+e
an" non o# t)e$ (oul" a!quies!e to $* requests t)at t)e* a!!et ele!troni! ser+i!e7 t)oug)
t)e* (ere e$aile" !ourtes* !oies.
- 44F!# -
V3.810
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
A re+ie( o# t)e #irst age o# t)e Co$laints in CA::?1:<@B an" t)e instant !ase re+eals
t)at t)e titles o# ea!) "o!u$ent $a0e it #airl* eas* to "istinguis) ()i!) "e#en"ant (as ser+e"
()i!) Co$liant %assu$ing t)e 4CSO (as all t)at t)oroug) in ensuring t)is'. Eut7 t)e la(
t*i!all* goes on ()at is liste" as ser+e". As su!)7 t)e Co$laints in t)e !ases !an .e assigne"
t)eir o(n 5titles5 or na$es.
CA::?1:@CC is "esignate"G 5COMPLAINT %EHEMPT FROM AREITRATION7
EHTRAORDINARY RELIEF REIUESTED5,
4)ereas7
CA::?1:<@B is "esignate"G 5COMPLAINT FOR DAMA2ESG SEHUAL HARASSMENT,
RACIAL DISCIMINATION, TORTOIOUS CONSTRUCTION DISCHAR2E IN
AIOLATION OF PUELIC POLICY, EREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT7
4RITTEN7ORAL7 OR IMPLIED, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS, :@<& STATE ACTOR CIAIL RI2HTS AIOLATIONS, 4HISTLEELO4ER
RETALIATION, PUNITIAE DAMA2ES, =URY TRIAL DEMANDED5
4it) t)at ra!ti!e o# t)e 4CSO un"erstoo"7 t)ese ::8>>8:: #ile" A##i"a+its o# Ser+i!e
%()i!) all .are "i##erent a!tual "ates #or t)e rese!ti+e "e#en"ants .eing ser+e"' s)o( t)at #or
t)is $atter7 CA::?:1@CC t)e #ollo(ing "e#en"ants re!ei+e" t)e #ollo(ingG
(ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices: LDe=ut/ (on/ ?o.atti &,0#, @eing 0i.st dul/ sEo.n, de=oses
and sa/s: (hat a00iant is a citiJen o0 the 6nited %tates, o<e. $' /ea.s o0 age, not a =a.t/ to
the Eithin ente.ed action, and that in the Count/ o0 9ashoe, %tate o0 Ne<ada, =e.sonall/
se.<ed the desc.i@ed documents u=on: %u@)se.<ed: (ahoe 9omens %e.<ices aKa (ahoe
%a0e Alliance @/ se.<ing 5acKie Dontcho, o00ice sta00 7ocation: !4' 2ncline 9a/ 2ncline
Village, NV '!45$ Date: $$$!$20$$ (ime: $2:#51? (he documentCsA se.<ed Ee.e:
%6??4N% CC418 4* CA%E CA::?1:@<BA; %6??4N% CC418 4* CA%E CA::?
1:<@BA; co=/: C4?17A2N( *4 DA?A:E%: %EG6A7 3AA%%?EN(; AC2A7
D2%C2?NA(l4N; (4(4546% C4N%(6C(24N D2%C3A:E 2N V247A(24N
4* 16B72C 1472C8; BEAC3 4* E?198?EN( C4N(AC(, 92((EN,4A7,
4 2?172ED; 2N(EN(24NA7 2N*72C(24N 4* E?4(24NA7 D2%(E%%; $!'#
- 45F!# -
V3.811
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
%(A(E AC(4 C2V27 2:3(% V247A(24N%; 932%(7EB99E E(A7lA24N%;
16N2(2VE DA?A:E%; 568 (2A7 DE?ANDEDL
(he unde.signed attests he deli<e.ed mo.e %ummons and Com=laints 0o. these tEo matte.s to the
9C%4 than made thei. Ea/ into eithe. o0 the collections o0 A00ida<its o0 %e.<ice the 9C%4 0iled on
$$F22F$$ in each case. 9hethe. the/ e+cess =acKets Ee.e tossed o. Ehat, 2 do not KnoE, @ut the/
a==a.entl/ didnBt get se.<ed. And some o0 the ones that did get se.<ed Ee.e se.<ed to =eo=le liKe
?angia.acina in CV$$)0$!',, EVEN (346:3 she Eas not a named =a.t/ in that matte.. %ame
goes 0o. (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices CC2%2%A in CV$$)0$'!,. 3oEe<e., the .eall/ im=o.tant ones to
se.<e, liKe Elcano in CV$$)0$'!, Cthe case Ehe.e an 2*1 Eas 4.de.ed and Ee.e Elcano Eas
delineated as the most im=o.tant to se.<e Cgi<en se.<ing him, the E+cecuti<e Di.ecto. and egiste.ed
Agent 0o. se.<ice o0 =.ocess, Eould ha<e a LtEo o. th.ee @i.ds Eith one stoneL e00ectA did not,
a==a.entl/ e<en get a . 4h goodY A %ummons and Com=laint in CV$$)0$'!, Eas Easted on @oth
CAA9 and (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices, CNE2(3E 4* 932C3 9A% 4 2% A NA?ED 1A(8 2N
CV$$)0$'!,A and to thinK, those could ha<e @een Easted on someone liKe (o.<inen, 934
AC(6A778 9A% A NA?ED 1A(8 2N (3A( CA%E. %o, this =.o<ides an e+cusa@le neglect
CNC1 ,0C@A @asis, =e.ha=s e<en 0.aud conside.ing some o0 the @ee0s @etEi+t me and the 9C%4
CdonBt Eant to get into it...@ut...alleg)a)theticall/, it almost comes ac.oss as though someone at the
9C%4 thought it Eould @e cute to 0ile most o0 the A00ida<its o0 %e.<ice in one case onl/, com@ining
them in most cases unde. CV$$)0$!55 Cthat is the A00ida<its o0 %e.<ice in that case also .e0e. to
se.<ing the %ummons and Com=laint in CV$$)0$'!,A... ?a/@e i0 the %he.i00Bs 400ice Eas less @us/
maKing someone Eho ma/ o. ma/ not @e me Eea. a g.een d.ess 0o. a EeeK, den/ing a tooth @.ush
0o. da/s, and <ideo ta=ing some@od/ Ehile the/ st.i= his clothes o00 using 0o.ce o. th.eat o0 0o.ce, o.
less @us/ Damming tase. needles in the gu/s CEho the/ ma/ ha<e KnoEn Eas an atto.ne/ an tooK a
s=ecial =leasu.e in to.tu.ingA s=ine 0o. e+tended =e.iods o0 time, o. using e+cessi<e 0o.ce to @adl/
- 4,F!# -
V3.812
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
inDu.e his E.ists, necK, @acK, and Knee, in addition to causing se<e.al @u.ns on his 0o.ea.m, den/
him medical ca.e, alloE %he.i00Bs De=uties to maKe medical decisions and to o<e..ide the nu.ses and
=h/sicians on sta00 at the Dail, .e0use a licensed atto.ne/ Ltie. timeL =.e<enting that atto.ne/ 0.om
a..anging 0o. .e=lacement counsel and 0.om =.e<enting =.eDudice to his clients child custod/ case,
0o.eclosu.e de0ense mate.s, ad<e.sa./ =.oceedings in @anK.u=tc/, etc., etc....then the 9C%4 could
0ocus a little mo.e on =.o=e.l/ e00ectuating se.<ice o0 =.ocess. Not sa/ing an/ o0 that ha==ened to
me o<e. the last , months o. so, @ut 2 am not sa/ing it didnBt eithe., /ou KnoE Ehat 2 am sa/ingA.
2 could .eall/ use some hel= inte.=.eting the A00ida<its o0 %e.<ice the 9C%4 0iled on $$F22F$$
in c<$$)0$'!, and c<$$)0$!55...di00e.nt du=tiesF=.ocess se.<e.s se.<ed di00e.ent things and the/
each seem to em=lo/e thei. oEn sho.thand to indicate Ehat the/ se.<ed, Ehethe. it Eas an o.iginal
o. a co=/ CI, ma/@e .eading an o.iginal %ummons .equi.ement into NC1 4IA, etc., etc., the use o0
semi)colons, commas, colons, and the Eo.d Lco=/L seem someEhat inconsistent in the notation and
an/ t.anslating /ou could do Eould .eall/ hel=.
(he.e might @e a good a.gument to @e made conce.ning du=licati<e litigation he.e. But, it is not
at all clea. that the %econd 5udicial Dist.ict Cou.t, itBs *iling 400ice, o. De=a.tment 4 ha<e let the
=u@lic KnoE Eith an/ deg.ee o0 ce.taint/ hoE 0iling dates Eill @e dete.mined 0o. =.o=osed
Com=laints su@mitted Eith 1etitions 0o. 2n *o.ma 1au=e.is status unde. N% $2.0$5 Cie, Ehethe. an
a litigant Ehose 2*1 1etition is denied can secu.e a 0iling date @ased u=on the date the =.o=osed
Com=laint Eas .ecei<ed @/ the Cou.t, ie, the 0iling date Eould L.elate @acKL u=on a timel/ =a/ment
o0 the 0iling 0ee a0te. notice o0 the denial o0 the 2*1 1etition is communicatedc to the litigantA. %o, it
does not seem 0ai. to lash aEa/ at the unde.signed Ehe.e he tooK so man/ ste=s to t./ get a clea.
ansEe. 0.om the Cou.t, De=a.tment 4, and the 0iling o00ice on that Ldoes litigants su@mitting
=.o=osed Com=liants Eith 2*1Bs ha<e an o==o.tunit/ to o@tain a 0iling date that .elates @acK to the
- 4"F!# -
V3.813
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
date the 2*1 and =.o=sed Com=laint Eas su@mitted i0 thei. 2*1 is deniedL question. 4., is it 0ai.
Ehe.e, as he.e, the unde.signed s=ent se<e.al hou.s in the li@a./ .esea.ching that <e./ question, onl/
to 0ind no mandato./ autho.it/ on =oint in this Du.isidction ChoEe<e., =e.suasi<e autho.it/ Eas 0ound
su==o.tin a L.elating @acKL t.eatment, hoEe<e., the unde.signed Eas told in no unce.tain te.ms @/
0iling o00ice =e.sonnel and D4 Administ.ati<e Assistant Aud.e/ >a/ that the.e Eas no L.elating
@acKL t.eatment in these situations in the %econd 5udicial Dist.ict Cou.tA. %o, Ehen some =e.sonnel
a.enBt that clea. on it and at least some a.e clea. that L.elating @acKL is not a<aila@le 0o. 0iling dates
on denied 2*1Bs in the 9DC, Ehat should the unde.signed ha<e done to @e =.o0essional and
cou.teous to the de0endants Ehilst Jealousl/ =u.suing his caseI %u.e, the unde.signed could ha<e
taKen his last Z#00 to his name and told D4 to ne<e. mind a@out the 2*1, hoEe<e., that 2*1 Eas
im=o.tant to the unde.signed, it .e=.esented a lot o0 damn mone/, and the unde.signed Eanted his
chance to access Dustice <ia the 2*1 1etition, seeKing to late. .ecou= the 0iling 0ee in CV$$)0$!55
and o. consolidate the cases Csee the unde.signed 4cto@e. 5, 20$$ ?otion to Consolidate and
e+tensi<e .esea.ch and @.ie0ing on these issuesA.
3oEe<e., the unde.signed he.e@/ sEea.s, Cand the ?otion to Consolidate o0 4cto@e. 5, 20$$ and
othe. =a=e.s on 0ile he.ein go into this mo.eA that he made diligent inqui./ Eith se<e.al 0iling o00ice and
De=a.tment 4 =e.sonnel C?ichelle 1u.d/, De=a.tment 4 CEhich .ules on all 2*1A Administ.ati<e
Assistant Aud.e/ >a/, 0iling o00ice. counte. cle.Ks LAngelinaL, D. 5a..amillo, 7o.i ?atheus, etc.A in a
<e./, <e./ dete.mined attem=t to 0igu.e out i0 the !0 da/ statute o0 limitations deadline Eould @a. the
unde.signed access to Dustice in this matte. Ehe.e an 2*1 su@mitted =.io. to the e+=i.ation o0 !0 da/s
0.om the L.ecei=tL o0 the EE4CBs ight (o %ue 7ette. Ee.e it to .un du.ing the =endenc/ o0 an 2*1
1etition Eith De=a.tment *ou. in CV$$)0$'!, and Ee.e that =etition to, one, @e a==.o<ed, o. tEo, @e
denied, Ehat Eould the L0iling dateL acco.ded to the Com=laint su@mitted Eith the 2*1 1etition Csuch a
- 4'F!# -
V3.814
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=.o=osed =leading o. Com=laint is not L0ile stam=edL Ehen it su@mitted Eith an 2*1 unde. N%
$2.0$5, @ut, .athe., is .etained and ma.Ked .ecei<ed, and it is still not clea. to the unde.signed Ehethe.
the docKet ent./ o0 August $$, 20$$ 0o. the 0iling o0 the Com=laint in CV$$)0$'!, is the 0iling date
acco.ded to the Com=laint in that case o. Ehethe. the 0iling date L.elates @acKL to the date the 2*1
1etition Eas su@mitted and the then L=.o=osed Com=laintL Eas .etained and ma.Ked as L.ecei<edL @/
the 0iling o00ice and De=a.tment 4A.
ega.dless o0 Ehat :onsal<es imagines the 1lainti00 Lused a =hotoco=ie. to sh.inKL Cactuall/, the
unde.signed used an e+=ensi<e lase. =.inte. to =.int out in $200 d=i a <e./ clea., <e./ legi@le co=/ o0
the Com=laint to go along Eith the %ummons. (he %ummons and 0i.st cou=le =ages o0 each Com=laint
Ee.e =.oduced in 0ull as one =age =e. =age documents. 2t is =a.ticula.l/ telling that :onsal<es onl/
attached, in his LE+hi@it $L to his No<em@e. 2', 20$$ Lcom@oL ?otion to Huash, ?otion to Dismiss,
?otion 0o. %anctions, ?otion 0o. ?o.e De0inite %tatement, a 0i<e C5A =age Lsam=leL o0 the Lse.<ice
=a=e.sL. 4)at is arti!ularl* interesting is t)at t)is 5sa$le5 )as so$e in"i!ators ato t)e age7
li0e t)ose !o$$onl* #oun" on aers re!ei+e" +ia #as!i$ile or #a9 $a!)ine7 (it) a age nu$.er8
age !ount in"i!ation an" a ti$e sta$. E+en $ore interesting is t)at t)e 5#i+e ages5 t)e
snea0* an" "is)onest 2onsal+es !)ooses to atta!) are $ar0e" in t)e uer rig)t )an" !orner o#
ea!) o# t)e #i+e ages o# t)e 5sa$le5 o# ()at 2onsal+es is s(earing is an a!!urate rero"u!tion
o# ()at )is !lient re!ei+e" #ro$ t)e 4as)oe Count* S)eri##;s O##i!e e$lo*ee ()o$ ser+e" )is
!lient %o# !ourse 2onsal+es )as no ersonal 0no(le"ge o# t)is...'. T)ese #i+e ages in"i!ate t)e*
reresent ages C o# :< ages t)roug) age @ o# :< ages %C8:< t)roug) @8:@ is t)e age nu$.er8
age !ount "esignation #oun" in t)e uer rig)t )an" !orner o# ea!) age' an" .are a ti$e sta$
o# ::G>CG:- an" a "ate sta$ o# ::?1@?>1:: %()i!) is !urious gi+en t)e A##i"a+it o# Ser+i!e .* t)e
4CSO7 atta!)e" )ereto as E9)i.it H7 in"i!ate t)at 2onsal+es !lient (oul" not )a+e7 at t)at oint
- 4!F!# -
V3.815
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 ti$e7 e+en re!ei+e" t)e a!tual 5ser+i!e aers5 #ro$ t)e 4CSO Deut* *et. T)e 4CSO
Deut*;s A##i"a+it o# Ser+i!e rea"sG
LDe=ut/ (on/ ?o.atti &,0#, @eing 0i.st dul/ sEo.n, de=oses and sa/s:
(hat a00iant is a citiJen o0 the 6nited %tates, o<e. $' /ea.s o0 age, not a
=a.t/ to the Eithin ente.ed action, and that in the Count/ o0 9ashoe,
%tate o0 Ne<ada, =e.sonall/ se.<ed the desc.i@ed documents u=on: %u@)
se.<ed: (ahoe 9omens %e.<ices aKa (ahoe %a0e Alliance @/ se.<ing
5acKie Dontcho, o00ice sta00 7ocation: !4' 2ncline 9a/ 2ncline Village,
NV '!45$ Date: ::8@8>1:: Ti$eG :>G&CPM T)e "o!u$ent%s' ser+e"
(ereG SUMMONS %COPY OF CASE CA::?1:@CC', SUMMONS
%COPY OF CASE CA::?1:<@B', COPYG COMPLAINT FOR
DAMA2ESG SEHUAL HARASSMENT, RACIAL
DISCRIMNATION, TORTOIOUS CONSTRUCTION
DISCHAR2E IN AIOLATION OF PUELIC POLICY, EREACH
OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT7 4RITTEN7ORAL7 OR
IMPLIED, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS, :@<& STATE ACTOR CIAIL RI2HTS AIOLATIONS,
4HISTLEELO4ER RETALlATION, PUNITIAE DAMA2ES,
=URY TRIAL DEMANDED5
%o, and noE this is .eall/ Kind o0 h/ste.ical...i0 one .eall/ looKs at the <a.ious 9C%4 A00ida<its o0
%e.<ice C=lease see, E9)i.it H7 the No<em@e. 22, 20$$ collection o0 L%ummons 0iledL acco.ding to the
docKet in this matte., @/ the 9ashoe Count/ %he.i00Bs 400ice, Ehich includes the A00ida<it o0
%e.<ice0o. that Ehich Eas se.<ed on (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices, one Eould ha<e to conclude that
9C%4 De=ut/ ?o.atti did not e<en se.<e (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices 5acKie Dontcho a co=/ o0 the
Com=laint in this matte. CV$$)$0!55, @ut .athe., gi<en the ent./ in the Ldocuments se.<edL section o0
the A00ida<it o0 %e.<ice @/ De=ut/ ?o.atti, i0 t.ue and co..ect, (9% got a 0ull siJe %ummons 0o. @oth
CV$$)0$!', and this matte. CV$$)$0!55 and a co=/ o0 the Com=laint in CV$$)0$'!,, a matte. in
Ehich (9% is not e<en a named =a.t/ in the ca=tion o0 the Com=laint. (he unde.signed sEea.s that in
each se.<ice =acKet =.o<ided to the 9C%4 that the 0i.st =age 0o. each Com=laint Ca 0ile stam=ed
co=/A, Ehethe. in this matte. o. CV$$)0$'!, Eas alEa/s =.o<ided in a one =age =e. =age 0ull siJe '.5
+ $$ inch 0o.m. (he .ationale 0o. doing so Eas that this Eould maKe it so that all de0endants Eould
ha<e a@solutel/ no @asis to allege the did not KnoE the/ Ee.e named as a =a.t/ in the ca=tion o0 the
- 50F!# -
V3.816
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
0i.st =age o0 a 0ile stam=ed Com=liant, com=lete Eith a case num@e.. (he unde.signed Eas unde.
t.emendous 0inancial st.ain at the time these Com=laints Ee.e 0iled, @etEeen 5une 2")#0th, 20$$.
(hese Lse.<ice =a=e.sL Ee.e not done in this manne. to anno/ an/one o. maKe mo.e Eo.K 0o. an/one.
(he/ Ee.e done this Ea/ @ecause inK and =a=e. is not 0.ee and in an attem=t to hel= lessen litigation
the unde.signed attached quite a @it o0 mate.ial as E+hi@its to the Com=laints in this matte. and in
CV$$)0$'!, Cto a<oid the t/=ical ?otion to DismissF?otion 0o. %umma./ 5udgment one sees Ehen
=lainti00Bs atto.ne/ 0ile e+t.emel/ thin Com=laints Eith no e<idence attached to Lt.anscend the
=leadingsL, (o.eal@a caseA and @ecause, 0.anKl/, the unde.signed EasnBt cle<e. enough to 0ile a .eall/
thin com=laint, ha<e the de0endants a==ea., then se.<e the <oluminous mate.ials in the E+hi@its to
these Com=laints on the de0endants <ia elect.onic 0iling...2t Eould ha<e @een easie. and chea=e. that
Ea/, li<e and lea.n. (he unde.signed Eas unde. hea<e/ 0inancial =.essu.e C9ashoe Count/
0o.eclosu.e ca=ital o0 the count./, $5[ unem=lo/mentA his 5 /ea. domestic =a.tne.shi= Eith a ?elissa
6lloa had come to an end and she mo<ed out o0 the $2$ i<e. ocK %t add.ess Ehich se.<ed as thei.
home and the unde.signed =.i<ate =.actice laE o00ice on o. a.ound 5une $, 20$$. 3oEe<e., =.io. to
he. mo<ing out she Ke=t the unde.signed sha.e o0 thei. monthl/ .ental o@ligation, un@eKnoEnst to the
unde.signed. 2t Eas the unde.signed and 6lloaBs =.actice 0o. the =.e<ious $' months 0o. the
unde.signed to gi<e he. his sha.e o0 the .ent <ia checK o. cash, u=on Ehich she Eould 0o.Ea.d that and
he. sha.e to thei. landlo.d in Cali0o.nia. 3oEe<e., 0o. the months o0 ?a/ and 5une 20$$ 6lloa tooK
the unde.signedBs sha.e o0 the .ent and 0ailed to 0o.Ea.d it on to the 7andlo.d, and 0u.the., 0ailed to
0o.Ea.d all o. a =o.tion o0 he. sha.e o0 the .ent on to the landlo.d 0o. @oth ?a/ and 5une 20$$ as Eell.
(his is all detailed tho.oughl/ in the .eco.d Cmostl/ in the audio t.ansc.i=t as he.eto0o.e the
unde.signed Ehich to s=a.e himsel0 and 6lloa the em@a..assment o0 the details o0 thei. @.eaKu= and
- 5$F!# -
V3.817
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0inances, acco.dingl/, not much Eas E.itten a@out these matte.s in the 5C summa./ e<iction in
EV20$$)00$"0', @ut it Eas testi0ied a@out e+tensi<el/ in cou.t du.ing the =.oceedings.
(he =oint is, the unde.signed, soon a0te. 0iling these tEo Com=laints, 0ound himsel0 in a <e./
une+=ected 0inancial @ind, ie, an Le+cusa@le neglectL situation C.emem@e., a =.o se litigant standa.d is
a==lica@le he.e, not that a==lied to a =aid atto.ne/A Ehich soon .esulted in his @eing .equi.ed to e+=end
e+tensi<e amounts o0 time, e00o.t, ene.g/, and 0inances de0ending against a LE.ong site su.ge./L o0 the
legal <a.iet/ Cie, a summa./ e<iction =.oceeding against a comme.cial tenant Ehe.e onl/ a No Cause
E<iction notice Eas se.<ed, in di.ect cont.a<ention o0 the e+=.ess =.ohi@ition on the use o0 summa./
=.oceedings against comme.cial tenants Ehe.e non)=a/ment o0 .ent is not alleged...sim=l/ =ut, the
landlo.d Eas too a0.aid to claim non =a/ment o0 .ent @ecause the.e Eas a@out a thousand sKeletons in
his Llandlo.d closetL, ie, he igno.ed man/ E.itten notices to cu.e =e.taining to e+tensi<e mold
=.o@lems, @.oKen EindoEs, c.um@ling and dange.ous stai.s, the.e Eas e+tensi<e =.o=e.t/ damage
done @/ his agents to the tenants =e.sonal =.o=e.t/, and on and on)it Eas the unde.signedBs homeFlaE
o00ice) Ehe.e onl/ a No Cause E<iction Notice Eas se.<ed, des=ite o==osing counsel :a.in and
:onsal<es .ecKless and dishonest cha.acte.iJations o0 the e<iction matte.s as a *ailu.e to 1a/ ent
E<iction Notice t/=e o0 =.oceeding, ie, one Ehe.e a summa./ e<iction =.oceeding unde. N% 40.25#
is =e.missi@le.
NC1 67E 5! NE9 (2A7%; A?END?EN( 4* 56D:?EN(%
CaA :.ounds. A neE t.ial ma/ @e g.anted to all o. an/ o0 the =a.ties
and on all o. =a.t o0 the issues 0o. an/ o0 the 0olloEing causes o.
g.ounds mate.iall/ a00ecting the su@stantial .ights o0 an agg.ie<ed
=a.t/:
C$A 2..egula.it/ in the =.oceedings o0 the cou.t, Du./, maste., o. ad<e.se
=a.t/, o. an/ o.de. o0 the cou.t, o. maste., o. a@use o0 disc.etion @/
Ehich eithe. =a.t/ Eas =.e<ented 0.om ha<ing a 0ai. t.ial;
C2A ?isconduct o0 the Du./ o. =.e<ailing =a.t/;
- 52F!# -
V3.818
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
C#A Accident o. su.=.ise Ehich o.dina./ =.udence could not ha<e
gua.ded against; C
4A NeEl/ disco<e.ed e<idence mate.ial 0o. the =a.t/ maKing the
motion Ehich the =a.t/ could not, Eith .easona@le diligence, ha<e
disco<e.ed and =.oduced at the t.ial;
C5A ?ani0est dis.ega.d @/ the Du./ o0 the inst.uctions o0 the cou.t;
C,A E+cessi<e damages a==ea.ing to ha<e @een gi<en unde. the
in0luence o0 =assion o. =.eDudice; o.,
C"A E..o. in laE occu..ing at the t.ial and o@Dected to @/ the =a.t/
maKing the motion. 4n a motion 0o. a neE t.ial in an action t.ied
Eithout a Du./, the cou.t ma/ o=en the Dudgment i0 one has @een
ente.ed, taKe additional testimon/, amend 0indings o0 0act and
conclusions o0 laE o. maKe neE 0indings and conclusions, and di.ect
the ent./ o0 a neE Dudgment.
C@A (ime 0o. ?otion. A motion 0o. a neE t.ial shall @e 0iled no late.
than $0 da/s a0te. se.<ice o0 E.itten notice o0 the ent./ o0 the
Dudgment.
CcA (ime 0o. %e.<ing A00ida<its. 9hen a motion 0o. neE t.ial is @ased
u=on a00ida<its the/ shall @e 0iled Eith the motion. (he o==osing =a.t/
has $0 da/s a0te. se.<ice Eithin Ehich to 0ile o==osing a00ida<its,
Ehich =e.iod ma/ @e e+tended 0o. an additional =e.iod not e+ceeding
20 da/s eithe. @/ the cou.t 0o. good cause shoEn o. @/ the =
CdA 4n Cou.tNs 2nitiati<e; Notice; %=eci0/ing :.ounds. No late. than
$0 da/s a0te. ent./ o0 Dudgment the cou.t, on its oEn, ma/ o.de. a neE
t.ial 0o. an/ .eason that Eould Dusti0/ g.anting one on a =a.t/Ns
motion. A0te. gi<ing the =a.ties notice and an o==o.tunit/ to @e hea.d,
the cou.t ma/ g.ant a timel/ motion 0o. a neE t.ial 0o. a .eason not
stated in the motion. 9hen g.anting a neE t.ial on its oEn initiati<e o.
0o. a .eason not stated in a motion, the cou.t shall s=eci0/ the g.ounds
in its o.de..
CeA ?otion to Alte. o. Amend a 5udgment. A motion to alte. o. amend
the Dudgment shall @e 0iled no late. than $0 da/s a0te. se.<ice o0
E.itten notice o0 ent./ o0 the Dudgment
NC1 67E ,0. E72E* *4? 56D:?EN( 4 4DE
CaA Cle.ical ?istaKes. Cle.ical mistaKes in Dudgments, o.de.s o. othe.
=a.ts o0 the .eco.d and e..o.s the.ein a.ising 0.om o<e.sight o.
omission ma/ @e co..ected @/ the cou.t at an/ time o0 its oEn
initiati<e o. on the motion o0 an/ =a.t/ and a0te. such notice, i0 an/, as
the cou.t o.de.s. Du.ing the =endenc/ o0 an a==eal, such mistaKes ma/
- 5#F!# -
V3.819
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
@e so co..ected @e0o.e the a==eal is docKeted in the a==ellate cou.t,
and the.ea0te. Ehile the a==eal is =ending ma/ @e so co..ected Eith
lea<e o0 the a==ellate cou.t.
C@A ?istaKes; 2nad<e.tence; E+cusa@le Neglect; NeEl/ Disco<e.ed
E<idence; *.aud, Etc. 4n motion and u=on such te.ms as a.e Dust, the
cou.t ma/ .elie<e a =a.t/ o. a =a.t/Ns legal .e=.esentati<e 0.om a 0inal
Dudgment, o.de., o. =.oceeding 0o. the 0olloEing .easons:
C$A mistaKe, inad<e.tence, su.=.ise, o. e+cusa@le neglect;
C2A neEl/ disco<e.ed e<idence Ehich @/ due diligence could not ha<e
@een disco<e.ed in time to mo<e 0o. a neE t.ial unde. ule 5!C@A;
C#A 0.aud CEhethe. he.eto0o.e denominated int.insic o. e+t.insicA,
mis.e=.esentation o. othe. misconduct o0 an ad<e.se =a.t/;
C4A the Dudgment is <oid; o.,
C5A the Dudgment has @een satis0ied, .eleased, o. discha.ged, o. a =.io.
Dudgment u=on Ehich it is @ased has @een .e<e.sed o. othe.Eise
<acated, o. it is no longe. equita@le that an inDunction should ha<e
=.os=ecti<e a==lication.
(he motion shall @e made Eithin a .easona@le time, and 0o. .easons
C$A, C2A, and C#A not mo.e than , months a0te. the =.oceeding Eas taKen
o. the date that E.itten notice o0 ent./ o0 the Dudgment o. o.de. Eas
se.<ed.
3oEe<e., :onsal<es $$F2'F$$ ?otion admits that (9%Bs Dontcho is identi0ied as Lo00ice
sta00L and the.e0o.e, it is cu.ious that she is not <ieEed as 5essica :a.Jae o. Be.ta ?ann o0 97% is
<ieEed, ie, not autho.iJed to acce=t se.<ice o0 =.ocess, and :onsal<es and (ahoe 9omenBs
%e.<ices ha<e not a.gued o. asse.ted that ?s. Dontcho Eas so autho.iJed, the.e0o.e, it is not clea.
that NC1 4CdAC$A Eas satis0ied, and the.e0o.e the atto.ne/ 0ee sanctions is liKel/ <oid 0o. lacK o0
Du.sidiction and o. =e.sonal o. su@Dect matte. Du.sidictionFinsu00icient se.<ice o0 =.ocess, etc....and
su@Dect to a set aside unde. NC1 5! and o. NC1 ,0C@A. %=eaKing o0 NC1 ,0C@A, the
a.guments and e<idence =.esented he.ein esta@lish 0.aud on :onsal<esB =a.t, Ehich is a @asis 0o.
<acating an 4.de. o. 5udgment unde. NC1 ,0C@A Also, L(ahoe 9omenBs %e.<icesL changed its
name Csome Eould sa/ in .es=onse to .umo.s that this laEsuit Eas ha==eningA to L(ahoe %A*E
AllianceL...so, Ehat is LC.isis 2nte.<ention %e.<icesL, the entit/ :onsal<es claims to .e=.esent, in
- 54F!# -
V3.820
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
case 0o. Ehich L(ahoe 9omenBs %e.<icesL is a named =a.t/ CCV$$)0$!55A and e<en Ehe.e (ahoe
9omenBs %e.<ices is N4( a named =a.t/ CCV$$)0$!',A. %4 2% (3E A((4NE8 *EE
%ANC(24N A9AD V42D *4 7AC> 4* %(AND2N: AND 4 %6B5EC( ?A((E
562%2D2C(24N, E(C.I
ega.dless, the (ahoe %A*E Alliance is ca../ing on man/ o0 the e+t.emel/ gende. =ola.Jing
ha@its o0 its =.edecesso. in name, (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices...%till =utting on =e.0o.mances o0 a
=la/ called L(he Vagina ?onologuesLI ChecK. %till maintaining a domestic <iolence a@use
<ictim shelte. that @a.s menI ChecK. %till t./ing to taKe chea= shots at dedicated atto.ne/s liKe
the unde.signedI ChecK.
*u.the. :a./ *ulle. somehoE, in his No<em@e. #0th, 20$$ 0iling in CV$$)0$'!, state that
L$00 =ages o0 miniatu.eL co=ies that Ldo not a==ea. to .elate to this caseL Ee.e se.<ed on his client
CAA9, /et, *ulle. also maintains that a Lco=/L o0 the Com=laint in the instant case EasnBt se.<ed,
@ut *ulle. 0ails to e+=lain Ehat could ha<e taKen $00 =ages o0 miniatu.e =.inout, as a 0ull scall
.e=.oduction o0 the Com=laint and e+hi@its in eithe. CV$$)0$!55 o. CV$$)0$'!, a.e @a.el/ mo.e
than $00 =ages in thei. oEn .ight, so i0 the =a=e.s *ulle.Bs client Eas se.<ed Ee.e in such miniatu.e
=.int, Eh/ shouldnBt the cou.t assume CAA9 Eas se.<ed a Lco=/L o0 the %ummons and Com=laint
in @oth CV$$)0$!55 and CV$$)0$'!,. *u.the., none o0 these =a.ties o. atto.ne/s made and
email o. a call .equesting a @ette. co=/, and none mo<ed 0o. a dismissal @ased on NC1 ule
$2C@AC4A until, a.gua@l/, a0te. te $20 NC1 4 .equi.ement to se.<e had .un, Ehich, a.gua@l/
=.e<ents these De0endants 0.om then late. challenging the su00icienc/ o0 se.<ice.
NoE, Eith .es=ect to Ehat is a Lco=/L o0 the Com=laint <is a <is NC1 4 Co. *C1 0o.
=e.suasi<e autho.it/A onl/ 4NE atto.ne/ in this case actuall/ 0ound a needle in the ha/stacK o0
=.ecedent that s=eaKs to that =a.ticula. issue. And, des=ite :a.in and :onsal<es @ad 0aith .eliance
- 55F!# -
V3.821
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
u=on 1olK, and *ulle. com=lete 0ailu.e to do a second a .esea.ch on that no<el legal issue
C@oile.=late all the Ea/ 0o. ?.. *ulle.A, the one atto.en/ Eho did cite to ?c>enJie <. Amt.aK ? o0
E, """ *.%u==. $$$! C%.D.N.8.,5un 2!, $!!0A Eas t)e one ()o got san!tione" un"er NRS
-.1<C. Hu)3 No Eonde. none o0 the othe. atto.ne/Bs did an/ no<el legal .esea.ch @esides :a.inBs
citing to the de0inition o0 the Eo.d Lco=/L 0.om BlacKBs 7aE Dictiona./. Coughlin clea.l/ Eas not
.eEa.ded 0o. .olling u= his slee<es and doing the ha.d Eo.K to 0ind ?c>enJie, Ehich .eads:
L*o.me. em=lo/ee @.ought em=lo/ment disc.imination action, asse.ting claims unde. (itle V22
and S $!'$. 4n em=lo/e.Bs motion to dismiss, the Dist.ict Cou.t, 7e<al, 5., held that: C$A =lainti00,
=.oceeding =.o se and in 0o.ma =au=e.is, Eould @e e+cused 0.om 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e legi@le
co=/ o0 com=laint on de0endant; C2A ce.ti0ied mail claim checK attached to Equal Em=lo/ment
4==o.tunit/ Commission CEE4CA en<elo=e Ehich =lainti00 su@mitted Eith he. com=laint,
=.esuma@l/ en<elo=e in Ehich .ight to sue lette. Eas enclosed, suggested that =lainti00 had
.ecei<ed .ight to sue notice !0 da/s =.io. to 0iling he. action Eith =.o se o00ice, .ende.ing action
timel/; and C#A =.o se action is deemed TcommencedU 0o. limitations =u.=oses Ehen com=laint is
.ecei<ed @/ =.o se o00ice o0 cou.t, at least Ehe.e in 0o.ma =au=e.is .elie0 is g.anted....Des=ite
=assage o0 0ou. /ea.s 0.om 0iling o0 action and si+ /ea.s 0.om e<ents alleged, =.o se, in 0o.ma
=au=e.is =lainti00 Eould @e e+cused 0.om he. 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e co=/ o0 com=laint, as notice)
gi<ing 0unction o0 .ule Eas essentiall/ satis0ied; legi@le administ.ati<e cha.ge 0u.nishing same
su@stanti<e allegations a==a.entl/ accom=anied com=laint, illegi@ilit/ Eas att.i@uta@le to cou.t
=e.sonnel, not =lainti00, and de0endant Eas less than <igo.ous in noti0/ing =.o=e. o00icials o0
de0ect....(he action Eas not 0iled Eith the Cle.KBs o00ice until ?a.ch #, $!',. 3oEe<e., a =.o se
action is deemed commenced 0o. statute o0 limitations =u.=oses Ehen the com=laint is .ecei<ed @/
- 5,F!# -
V3.822
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
the 1.o %e 400ice o0 the cou.t, at least Ehe.e in 0o.ma =au=e.is .elie0 is g.anted. %ee (oli<e. <.
%ulli<an Count/, '4$ *.2d 4$ C2d Ci..$!''A.L
*u.the., in man/ o0 these ?otions to Dismiss @/ :a.in, :onsal<es, and *ulle. C:a./ *ulle.
.e=.esent CAA9 in CV$$)0$!55 and is mentioned in this ?otion onl/ to shed light on the issues
.elated to the 9C%4 se.<ice o0 =.ocess and the <a.ious o==osing counsels attestation as to Ehat
the/ o. thei. clients .ecei<edA, the.e is no a00ida<it, no. is the.e a decla.ation @/ an/ o0 these
indi<iduals u=on Ehom se.<ice Eas done. 2, the unde.signed, do he.e@/ sEea. unde. =enalt/ o0
=e.Du./ that not e<e./ co=/ o0 the Com=laints the 9C%4 Ee.e gi<en to se.<e these indi<iduals
Ee.e Lmulti=le =ages =e. =ageL .e=.oductions. (hat is to sa/, some o0 these de0endants got
themsel<es a 0ull one =age =e. =age co=/ o0 the Com=laints, and thei. atto.ne/Bs a.e l/ing 0o.
them, o. at the least, misleading this Cou.t. And a00ida<it o. decla.ation is .equi.ed, <e.i0/ing the
0actual asse.tions these atto.ne/s a.e maKing <ia hea.sa/, to matte.s 0o. Ehich the/ ha<e no
0i.sthand e+=e.ience. 3oEe<e., :a.in did ha<e to admit in his No<em@e. 2', 20$$ e=l/ 0o.
B.ecKen.idge CEhose status as 1.esident o0 the 97% Boa.d o0 Di.ecto.s a.gua@l/ @.ings NC1
4CdAC$A into =la/ and alloEs an inte.=.etation that se.<ice u=on B.ecKen.idge e00ectuated se.<ice
u=on 97%A that 97% Boa.d o0 Di.ecto.Bs 1.esident Eas se.<ed se.<ed a <e./ legi@le Lco=/L o0 the
Com=laint, as e<en :a.in admits that LtEo =ages =e. =ageL is 0a. 0.om so Lminiatu.e and @lu../L to
.un a0oul o0 NC1 4Bs dictates. And :a.inBs 0ailu.e to so a.gue that =oint, unde. 1olK dictates Ein
0o. the unde.signed on that =oint. *o., as :a.in so o0ten =oints out himsel0, a==a.entl/ 1olK stands
0o. the =oint that Dust sa/ing L2 dis=ute thatL is not good enough, and one must actuall/ do some
laE/e.ing, a==l/ing 0act to laE culled th.ough ta.geted .esea.ch .athe. than @oile.=late insu.ance
de0ense cho= sho= d.i<el .o@o)=leadings 0.om the Kind o0 0olKs Eho @.ought us ?E%.
- 5"F!# -
V3.823
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AND 4HAT IS SO FUNNY IS HO4 2ARIN PLAYS IT OFF IN HIS NOAEMEER
><7 >1:: 4LS EOARD OF DIRECTOR;S PRESIDENT ERECJENRID2E;S MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT SERAICE OF PROCESS 4HEREIN 2ARIN COYLY
AND AAU2ELY MENTIONS THATG
L4n No<em@e. $5, 20$$, 1lainti00 made an attem=t to se.<e
De0endant @/ se.<ing eight/)nine C'!A =ages Eo.th o0 documents, so$e
o# ()i!) .elate to the instant case, CV$$)0$!55 , and othe.s o0 Ehich,
.elate to the =.io. case, CV$$)0$'!,. Notably, some of the documents
are nine (9) pages to each page while others are two (2) pages to a
page.2 %e.<ice 1a=e.s, attached he.eto as E+hi@it L2.L 2n serving nine
pages to a page and two pages to a page, Plaintiff failed to serve a
"copy" of the complaint in accordance with N!P ". (he.e0o.e,
1lainti00 did not e00ectuate =.o=e. =.ocess on De0endant, leading
De0endant to seeK a ?otion to Dismiss 1lainti00Bs Com=laint =u.suant to
NC1 4 and NC1 $2C@AC#A.L
%ee, Ehat is so des=ica@le a@out Ehat :a.in does the.e is he .eall/ =laces the onus on this
Cou.t and o==osing counsel to =a.se th.ough his lies and attem=ts to mislead. A tho.ough .e<ieE
o0 the LE+hi@it 2L :a.in cites to in the a@o<e quotation Eill shoE that THE ENTIRETY OF
THE COMPLAINT IN CA::?1:@CC 4AS PROAIDED TO ERECJENRID2E IN THE >
PA2ES PER SHEET OF <.C EY :: INCH PAPER FORM7 4HICH IS SO COMPLETELY
LE2IELE ITS RIDICULOUS TO EAEN ATTEMPT TO AR2UE THAT
ERECJENRID2E OR ANYONE ELSE COULD NOT DISCERN ITS IMPORT.
FURTHER7 DESPITE 2ONSAALES COY LITTLE ATTEMPTS TO CLAIM THE
5SERAICE PAPERS5 HE ATTACHES TO HIS AARIOUS MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND
REPLIES COULDN;T HAAE EEEN MISLEADIN2 ATTEMPTS TO MAJE THESE
PAPERS APPEAR 4AY7 4AY MORE ELURRY THAN THEY ACTUALLY
APPEARED %EECAUSE7 AS 2ONSALAES TELLS US7 5HE DOESN;T EAEN HAAE A
FAH MACHINE5?NEAERMIND THE FACT THAT THE EHHIEIT 2ONSALAES
ATTACHES PURPORTS TO EE AN ACCURATE REPRODUCTION OF THE
- 5'F!# -
V3.824
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LE2IEILITY OF THE SERAICE PAPERS HIS CLIENT 4AS PROAIDED ACTUALLY
HAS A RECEIAED FROM THIS OR THAT FAH NUMEER AND PA2E COUNT FOR
THE FAH TRANSMISSION ATOP THE #$%!&'&() OF THE !*P+ THAT
2ONSALAES CLIENT 4AS SERAED7 RE2ARDLESS OF 4HETHER 2ONSALAES
2OT IT FROM HIS O4N FAH MACHINE OR IT 4AS7 EAEN 4ORSE7 SCANNED
FROM SOMEEODY ELSE;S FAH MACHINE PRINT OUT7 ONLY TO HAAE
2ONSALAES FUD2E THE SETTIN2S ON HIS COMPUTERS ADOEE ACROEAT
PROFESSIONAL PDF PRO2RAM TO MAJE THE REPODUCTION EAEN MORE
ELURRY AND RIDICULOUS. COMPARE THE EHHIEITS OF THESE SERAICE
PAPERS ATTACHED EY COU2HLIN TO THOSE ATTACHED EY THE AARIOUS
OPPOSIN2 COUNSEL HERE AND IT EECOMES CLEAR THAT THESE MEN
EITHER CANNOT EE TRUSTED TO ATTACH EHHIEITS THAT PRODUCE
ANY4HERE NEAR AN ACCURATE REPRODUCTION OF THE SERAICE PAPERS
THEIR CLIENTS RECEIAED7 AIS A AIS THE LE2IEILITY ISSUES7 AS THAT
ATTACHED EY COU2HLIN IS REMARJAELY CLEAR FOR HAAIN2 @ PA2ES PER
PA2E7 4ITH EAERY 4ORD AND CHARACTER REMAININ2 IUITE READAELE
2IAEN THE REMARJAELE IUALITY MODERN PRINTERS AND COMPUTERS
ARE AELE TO ACHIEAE AT :>11 DPI. AND STILL NO CITE TO ANY ACTUAL
LE2AL RESEARCH AS TO 4HETHER THE > PA2ES PER PA2E FOR THE ENTIRE
COMPLAINT IN THE INSTANT CASE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT 4LS EOARD
PRESIDENT ERECJENRID2E 4AS PROAIDED 4ILL SUFFICE UNDER NRCP
D....NOT A SIN2LE CITATION TO ANY LE2AL SUPPORT FOR THE AARIOUS
OPPOSIN2 COUNSEL;S AR2UMENTS OTHER THAN 2ARIN;S SIN2ULAR
- 5!F!# -
V3.825
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
IUOTATION TO THE DEFINITION OF COPY IN ELACJ;S LA4 DICTIONARY AND
2ONSALAES; OFF EASE AND IRRELEAANT CITATION TO 4HAT 4DCR :1
REIUIRES FOR 5ALL PAPERS #&(), 5 4ITH THE DISTRICT COURT %IE7
2ONSALAES PRODUCED NO LE2AL CITATION DEALIN2 4ITH THE
REIUIREMENTS FOR COPIES OF PAPERS %)-), ON AN OPPOSIN2
PARTY'...EUT I;M THE CLO4N 4HO NEEDS AN NRS -.1<C SANCTION7 RI2HT3
*u.the., :a.inBs No<em@e. $5, 20$$ ?otion to Dismiss on (o.<inenBs @ehal0 actuall/ cites onl/
to NC1 $2C@AC#A, N4( $2C@AC4A Cmuch less the NC1 $2C@AC5A that this Cou.tBs .o@o)4.de.s
=.o<ide st.ing cite e+=lication o0...A.
CNC1 ule $2 C@A: L 3oE 1.esented. E<e./ de0ense, in laE o. 0act, to a
claim 0o. .elie0 in an/ =leading, Ehethe. a claim, counte.claim, c.oss)claim, o.
thi.d)=a.t/ claim, shall @e asse.ted in the .es=onsi<e =leading the.eto i0 one is
.equi.ed, e+ce=t that the 0olloEing de0enses ma/ at the o=tion o0 the =leade.
@e made @/ motion: ...C#A insu00icienc/ o0 =.ocess, C4A insu00icienc/ o0 se.<ice
o0 =.ocess...LA
As such the 4.de.Bs lacK Du.isdiction to .ule as the/ did, as the =.o=e. NC1 ule $2 @asis Eas
not =lead o. a.gued, and, unde. 1olK a Ein cannot @e had unde. those ci.cumstances. (he 4.de.s
a.e <oid as the/ lacK Du.isdiction to =lead o. mo<e 0o. .elie0 on the de0endantBs @ehal0 Ehe.e the/
0ailed to a==.o=.iatel/ do so on thei. oEn. (his Cou.t is ce.tainl/ not =ointing out an/thing 2 am
not =leading o. a.guing o. =.o<iding su==o.t 0o.. Actuall/, 2 Eould @e ha==/ i0 this Cou.t Eould
sim=l/ gi<e me c.edit 0o. the things 2 do, do. 7iKe 0inding and a.guign the ?c>enJie Lneedle in a
ha/stacKL case.
Regar"less7 I (as t)ere ()en7 /ust .e#ore t)e :>1t) "a* #ro$ t)e #iling o# t)e Co$laint
in t)is $atter on =une &1t)7 >1::7 B- *ear ol" #or$er Uni+ersit* o# Mi!)igan /ournalis$
ro#essor =ero$e T. Fit6)enr*7 o# Reno7 NA7 a non art*7 ser+e" To"" Tor+inen a one age
- ,0F!# -
V3.826
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
er age er#e!tl* legi.le !o* o# t)e Co$laint in CA::?:1@CC7 so its nonsense t)at 2arin
(rote t)e #ollo(ing hea.sa/:
L4n 4cto@e. 2", 20$$, 1lainti00 made an attem=t to se.<e De0endant @/
se.<ing thi.t/)0i<e C#5A =ages Eo.th o0 documents .elating to the instant
case, CV$$)0$!55. Nota@l/, the.e a.e nine C!A =ages to each =age. C4nl/
the 0i.st th.ee =ages se.<ed a.e 0ull siJed =agesA. %e.<ice 1a=e.s, attached
he.eto as E+hi@it L2.L 2n se.<ing nine =ages to a =age, 1lainti00 0ailed to
se.<e a Lco=/L o0 a summons and com=laint in acco.dance Eith NC1 4.
(he.e0o.e, 1lainti00 did not e00ectuate =.o=e. =.ocess on De0endant, leading
De0endant to seeK a ?otion to Dismiss 1lainti00Bs Com=laint =u.suant to
NC1 $2C@AC#A and NC1 4.L
Besides, the.e is no statute o0 limitations 0o. mo<ing to set aside Dudgments @ased u=on such
0.aud unde. the De@oe. holding. 2 KneE m/ last da/ to get a Eate.tight se.<ice o0 the non)2*1
Com=laint case, CV$$)$0!55 Eas almost u=, 2 =u.=ose0ull/ =.inted out a com=lete, one =age =e.
=age co=/ 0o. someone Ehom 2 thought Eould quali0/ Eas one o0 the Lhea</ hitte.sL mentioned in
NC1 4CdAC$A, Boa.d ?em@e. (odd (o.<inen Cie, 2 thought se.<ing ?.. (o.<inen might @e a LtEo
@i.ds Eith one stoneL scena.io, achie<ing se.<ice on 97% @/ se.<ing ?.. (o.<inen, Ehom 2
@elie<e quali0ied as a egiste.ed Agent, 400ice., o. Di.ecto. une. NC1 4CdAC$A. 2 decided to @ite
the @ullet and s=end the mone/ on the =a=e. and inK to get (o.<inen a one =age =e. =age
Com=laint C/es, 0inanciall/, 2 did ha<e to maKe .idiculous choices liKe thatA. E<en in those cases
Ehe.e the L! =age =e. =ageL co=ies Ee.e se.<ed, this is still A B6NC3 4* BA74NE8Y 2 Eish
the Cou.t Eould 4.de. these scu..ilous de0endants to =.oduce the e+act co=ies o0 Ehat the/
.ecei<ed, and the/ Cou.t ma/ see Dust hoE com=letel/ legi@le a ! =age =e. =age =.inting Cits not
done Eith a =hotoco=ie., its dones @/ selecting L=.int multi=le =ages =e. =ageL setting in the =.int
dialogue on oneBs =e.sonal com=ute.A can .eall/ @e Eith a 0ine =.inte. liKe the one 2 in<ested in
Ehen going out on m/ oEn to sta.t a laE =.actice. (hese de0endants a.e =ulling a 0ast one on the
cou.t Eith all thei. lame attem=ts to maKe the se.<ice =a=e.s seem Ea/ less legi@le than the/ .eall/
a.eFEe.e. And then the.e is all these de0endnats co/ little attaching Dust a 0eE Lsam=leL =ages o0
- ,$F!# -
V3.827
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
the Lse.<ice =a=e.sL as E+hi@its to thei. <a.ious ?otions to Dismiss....Ehat do /ou Eant to @et
the/ attach the ! =age =e. =age <e.sions that Ehe.e 0o. CV$$)0$!', an/Ea/ and 0ail to attach the
one =age =e. =age co=/ o0 the instant case @ecause doing so Dust EouldnBt get thei. B=ointB ac.oss so
Eell, Ehe.e the/ can 0eign, liKe *ulle. does, to @e una@le to disce.n e+actl/ Ehat Eas included in
that LstacK o0 $00 =ages o. so...L. 5ust looK at the L0ull =age 0i.st =ageL co=/ that :a.in attaches to
the No<em@e. $5, 20$$ (o.<inen ?otion to Dismiss. %ee hoE @lu../ that isI 9h/ Eould a 0ull
=age .e=.oduction o0 the 0i.st =age o0 the Com=laint, Ehich acco.ding to :a.in Eas one o0 L0i.st
th.ee =ages Ee.e 0ull =age, one =age =e. =age co=iesL @e so 0aint and @lu../I %houldnBt a 0ull =age
one =age =e. =age looK @ette. than thatI 2s it @ecause :a.in is =u.=ose0ull/ scanning in =ages on
.eall/ loE d=i settings to maKe them looK Ea/ Eo.se than the/ actuall/ doI 2 sa/ it is. (his is a
@unch o0 c.a=. And these 0i.ms occu=/ some =osition o0 =u@lic t.ust. 9hat a DoKe. 2ts as @ig a
DoKe as Ca./n %te.nlicht and 7a../ BelascoBs case loads in the domestic <iolence g.ou= Ehen 2
sta.ted at 97%. 4ne had, liKe $2 cases, the othe. had '. And, a@out hal0 o0 thei. cases Ee.e
de0ault Dudgment di<o.ce o. custod/ cases, so....lots o0 hou.s and hou.s s=ent telling sto.ies a@out
the da/s @acK in B.ooKl/n, not so much on the deli<e.ing legal aid to the =oo. thing. 2 quicKl/
t.i=led that case load, easil/, had clients Eho e+=.essed lo<e 0o. me and a==.eciation 0o. m/ Eo.K,
and =.oduced an e+t.emel/ sound a==eal to the De=a.tment o0 (a+ation at ElcanoBs .equest sho.tl/
@e0o.e @eing te.minated that ma/ Eell ha<e gotten 97% out o0 that little Dam Elcano got them in
Ehen he ente.ed a =.o=e.t/ lease that managed to .equi.e the non)=.o0it to =a/ the comme.cial
lesso.s =.o=e.t/ ta+es, something the gang o0 laE/e.s Elcano had at his dis=osal ma/ ha<e @een
a@le to disce.n had he =.o<ided an/ t.ans=a.enc/ to the =.ocess o0 mo<ing a legal aid entit/ that
has @een a.ound since m/ 0.iend Coe %Eo@e and (odd (o.<inenBs 0athe. sta.ted it in $!,5 to 2!!
%. A.lington A<e 0.om ,50 (ahoe %t @ecause Lit is a sho.te. EalK to the Cou.thouse...L. eall/I
- ,2F!# -
V3.828
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
2ts a nice. @uilding and Eas a.gua@l/ a good decision, and Elcano is a <e./ good man Eith a <e./
high intellect and signi0icant 0und .aising ca=a@ilities, and 2 donBt en</ his ha<ing to =aci0/ all the
<a.ious =olitical 0actions Eith thei. 0inge.s in the legal aid =ie. But 2 =aid m/ dues in this @usiness
and got a Do@ 2 enDo/ed, didnBt get =aid much, @ut the deal Eas at least /ou had secu.it/...Eell, not
0o. me, 2 guess, .ightI 9ell, at least 2 got 0i.ed du.ing the LEo.st economic c.isis this count./ has
seen since the :.eat De=.ession...L. *u.the., in :a.inBs 4cto@e. ", 20$$ e=l/ to 4==osition to
?otion to Dismiss he E.ites: L*u.the., des=ite all o0 1lainti00Bs st.ing cites, the .equest 0o.
sanctions is not in the 0o.m o0 a se=a.ate motion des=ite the e+=.ess mandate o0 Ne<ada ule o0
Ci<il 1.ocedu.e $$ CcAC$ACAA.L 3oEe<e., Ehe.e that a.gument Eas a==a.entl/ a<ailing to :a.in, it
did not sto= this Cou.t 0.om g.anting :onsal<eBs N% ".0'5FNC1 $$ ?otion CEhe.e Coughlin
actuall/ did =.o<ide :a.in a 0iling .ead/ sanctions motion and 2$ da/s sa0e ha.@o., :onsal<es did
neithe..../et :onsal<es gets a atto.ne/Bs 0ee sanction aEa.e, Eh/I 1olK is ina==lica@le, 2 state m/
o==osition to such a sanction, =ointed out :onsal<esB non)com=liance Eith the =.ocedu.al dictates
o0 NC1 $$, and attached emails Ea.ning him o0 as much and sceci0/ing m/ .ationale.A. 1lus,
.e<ieEing the <ideo ta=e o0 3oEa.d 1at.icK 5acKson se.<ing 5essica :a.Jae and Be.ta ?ann
maKes it 0unn/ noE to .e).ead :a.inBs %e=tem@e. $!th, 20$$ misleading, nea. 0.audulent attem=t
to .ecount the same e<ent, at =age #: L4n August 2!, 20$$, Coughlin attem=ted to com=lete
se.<ice o0 the summons and com=laint in the second case, Case No. CV$$)0$!55, $2 @/ ha<ing
someone lea<e co=ies at the 0.ont .ece=tion desK o0 97%Bs o00ices. %ince lea<ing =.ocess at a
.ece=tion desK is not an a==.o<ed method o0 se.<ice unde. Ne<ada ule o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e 4,
De0endants seeK dismissal o0 1lainti00Bs Com=laint =u.suant to NC1 $2C@AC4A.L (hen in E+hi@it
4 to that ?otion Elcano decla.es that he Lhas =e.sonal KnoEledgeL o0 that to Ehich he doesnBt,
=.o@a@l/ @ecause no@od/ Eants ?ann o. :a.Jae to ha<e to e+=lain Ehat ha==ened o. Ehethe.
- ,#F!# -
V3.829
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the/ ha<e acce=ted se.<ice o0 =.ocess =.e<iousl/ 0o. 97% o. Elcano, etc., etc....:a.inBs Ehole
de0ense has @een a stud/ in a<oiding ha<ing an/@od/ Eith an/thing damaging to sa/ not sa/ing
an/thing Ehile ha<ing =eo=le Eith nothing to sa/ sa/ something a@out that to Ehich the/ ha<e no
KnoEledge, including :a.in himsel0.
NC1 ule $$ .equi.es:
L67E $$. %2:N2N: 4* 17EAD2N:% CaA %ignatu.e. E<e./
=leading, E.itten motion, and othe. =a=e. shall @e signed @/ at least
one atto.ne/ o0 .eco.d in the atto.ne/Ns indi<idual name, o., i0 the
=a.t/ is not .e=.esented @/ an atto.ne/, shall @e signed @/ the =a.t/.
Each =a=e. shall state the signe.Ns add.ess and tele=hone num@e., i0
an/. E+ce=t Ehen othe.Eise s=eci0icall/ =.o<ided @/ .ule o. statute,
=leadings need not @e <e.i0ied o. accom=anied @/ a00ida<it. An
unsigned =a=e. shall @e st.icKen unless omission o0 the signatu.e is
co..ected =.om=tl/ a0te. @eing called to the attention o0 the atto.ne/ o.
=a.t/. OAs amended; e00ecti<e 5anua./ $, 2005.P C@A e=.esentations to
Cou.t. B/ =.esenting to the cou.t CEhethe. @/ signing, 0iling,
su@mitting, o. late. ad<ocatingA a =leading, E.itten motion, o. othe.
=a=e., an atto.ne/ o. un.e=.esented =a.t/ is ce.ti0/ing that to the @est
o0 the =e.sonNs KnoEledge, in0o.mation, and @elie0, 0o.med a0te. an
inqui./ .easona@le unde. the ci.cumstances,Q C$A it is not @eing
=.esented 0o. an/ im=.o=e. =u.=ose, such as to ha.ass o. to cause
unnecessa./ dela/ o. needless inc.ease in the cost o0 litigation; C2A the
claims, de0enses, and othe. legal contentions the.ein a.e Ea..anted @/
e+isting laE o. @/ a non0.i<olous a.gument 0o. the e+tension,
modi0ication, o. .e<e.sal o0 e+isting laE o. the esta@lishment o0 neE
laE; C#A the allegations and othe. 0actual contentions ha<e e<identia./
su==o.t o., i0 s=eci0icall/ so identi0ied, a.e liKel/ to ha<e e<identia./
su==o.t a0te. a .easona@le o==o.tunit/ 0o. 0u.the. in<estigation o.
disco<e./; and C4A the denials o0 0actual contentions a.e Ea..anted on
the e<idence o., i0 s=eci0icall/ so identi0ied, a.e .easona@l/ @ased on a
lacK o0 in0o.mation o. @elie0. OAs amended; e00ecti<e 5anua./ $,
2005.P CcA %anctions. 20, a0te. notice and a .easona@le o==o.tunit/ to
.es=ond, the cou.t dete.mines that su@di<ision C@A has @een <iolated,
the cou.t ma/, su@Dect to the conditions stated @eloE, im=ose an
a==.o=.iate sanction u=on the atto.ne/s, laE 0i.ms, o. =a.ties that ha<e
<iolated su@di<ision C@A o. a.e .es=onsi@le 0o. the <iolation. C$A 3oE
initiated. CAA E* Motion. A $otion #or san!tions un"er t)is rule
s)all .e $a"e searatel* #ro$ ot)er $otions or requests an" s)all
"es!ri.e t)e se!i#i! !on"u!t allege" to +iolate su."i+ision %.'. It
s)all .e ser+e" as ro+i"e" in Rule C7 .ut s)all not .e #ile" (it) or
resente" to t)e !ourt unless7 (it)in >: "a*s a#ter ser+i!e o# t)e
- ,4F!# -
V3.830
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
$otion %or su!) ot)er erio" as t)e !ourt $a* res!ri.e'7 t)e
!)allenge" aer7 !lai$7 "e#ense7 !ontention7 allegation7 or "enial
is not (it)"ra(n or aroriatel* !orre!te". I# (arrante"7 t)e
!ourt $a* a(ar" to t)e art* re+ailing on t)e $otion t)e
reasona.le e9enses an" attorne*Ks #ees in!urre" in resenting or
oosing t)e $otion. A.sent e9!etional !ir!u$stan!es7 a la(
#ir$ s)all .e )el" /ointl* resonsi.le #or +iolations !o$$itte" .*
its artners7 asso!iates7 an" e$lo*ees. CBA 4n Cou.tNs 2nitiati<e.
4n its oEn initiati<e, the cou.t ma/ ente. an o.de. desc.i@ing the
s=eci0ic conduct that a==ea.s to <iolate su@di<ision C@A and di.ecting
an atto.ne/, laE 0i.m, o. =a.t/ to shoE cause Eh/ it has not <iolated
su@di<ision C@A Eith .es=ect the.eto. C2A Natu.e o0 %anction;
7imitations. A sanction im=osed 0o. <iolation o0 this .ule shall @e
limited to Ehat is su00icient to dete. .e=etition o0 such conduct o.
com=a.a@le conduct @/ othe.s simila.l/ situated. %u@Dect to the
limitations in su@=a.ag.a=hs CAA and CBA, the sanction ma/ consist o0,
o. include, di.ecti<es o0 a nonmoneta./ natu.e, an o.de. to =a/ a
=enalt/ into cou.t, o., i0 im=osed on motion and Ea..anted 0o.
e00ecti<e dete..ence, an o.de. di.ecting =a/ment to the mo<ant o0
some o. all o0 the .easona@le atto.ne/Ns 0ees and othe. e+=enses
incu..ed as a di.ect .esult o0 the <iolation. CAA ?oneta./ sanctions
ma/ not @e aEa.ded against a .e=.esented =a.t/ 0o. a <iolation o0
su@di<ision C@AC2A. CBA ?oneta./ sanctions ma/ not @e aEa.ded on the
cou.tNs initiati<e unless the cou.t issues its o.de. to shoE cause @e0o.e
a <olunta./ dismissal o. settlement o0 the claims made @/ o. against
the =a.t/ Ehich is, o. Ehose atto.ne/s a.e, to @e sanctioned. C#A 4.de..
9hen im=osing sanctions, the cou.t shall desc.i@e the conduct
dete.mined to constitute a <iolation o0 this .ule and e+=lain the @asis
0o. the sanction im=osed. OAs amended; e00ecti<e 5anua./ $, 2005.P
CdA A==lica@ilit/ to Disco<e./. %u@di<isions CaA th.ough CcA o0 this
.ule do not a==l/ to disclosu.es and disco<e./ .equests, .es=onses,
o@Dections, and motions that a.e su@Dect to the =.o<isions o0 ules
$,.$, $,.2, and 2, th.ough #". %anctions 0o. .e0usal to maKe disco<e./
a.e go<e.ned @/ ules 2,CgA and #".L
2 donBt KnoE Ehat is mo.e un@elie<a@le: that :onsal<es 0iled a .equest 0o. sanctions =.emised u=on
his @emusing theo./ that L7ocal ule 2$C4AL Eould alloE 0o. a Z$,200 atto.ne/Bs 0ee aEa.d sanction
in light o0 the unde.signedBs not com=l/ing Eith a 9DC $0 that s=eaKs to Ehat L=a=e.s 0iled Eith
the cou.tL must con0o.m to Ehen conside.ing the Lse.<ice =a=e.sL the unde.signed se.<ed on (9%
=u.suant to NC1 4, Ehich calls 0o. a co=/ o0 the %ummons and Com=laint to @e se.<ed on (9% o.
that this Cou.t Eould actuall/ g.ant :onsal<esB motion and issue and 4.de. 0o. such an atto.ne/Bs 0ees
- ,5F!# -
V3.831
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
aEa.d sanction. eall/, B.ianI eall/I %o, unde. that theo./ o0 /ou.s, 2 guess /ou. 0ailing to
com=l/ Eith =.ett/ much an/ o0 the =.ocedu.al dictates o0 NC1 $$ Cse.<ice o0 the ?otion unde.
NC1 5, that it @e a se=a.ate ?otion, that Ehat /ou se.<e and =.o<ide a 2$ da/ sa0e ha.@o. to
o==osing counsel @e a L0iling .ead/L motion, etc., etc. s=eci0icall/ detailing the @asis 0o. /ou. @elie0
that the/ a.e .unning a0oul o0 NC1 $$A Eould /ield Ehat, ha<ing /ou dis@a..ed o. somethingI
1.esuma@l/ detailing the legal su==o.t 0o. the sanctions Eould not include ?.. :onsal<esB 0a.)0lung,
mis)a==lication to a .ule .elated to the 0o.m .equi.ement 0o. L=a=e.s 0iled Eith the cou.tL to a Lco=/L
o0 such =a=e.s se.<ed on an o==osing =a.t/. 6nde. that .ationale, E.a==ing a .u@@e. @and a.ound a
=.int)out o0 a huge motion and sticKing it in an en<elo=e and mailing it to o==osing counsel Eould
/ield a he0t/ sanction Ehe.e 9DC $0C$$A calls 0o. holes =unch 2 and #F4 inches a==a.ent and
=leadings o0 mo.e than 2 inches to @e secu.ed @/ ACC4 0astene.s o. something...:et a g.i= inside,
B./an, =lease. 9hat, no summa./ e+ecutions gangland st/le in the st.eet in 0.ont o0 a =.eschool
Ehe.e child.en a.e at .ecess 0o. 0ailing to 0olloE =.o=e. @lue @ooK citation .ulesI *C1 =.o<ides
insight @/ analog/: *ed. . Ci<. 1. $$CcA *ede.al ule o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e $$CcA outlines the =.ocess
@/ Ehich atto.ne/s ma/ seeK sanctions 0o. <iolations o0 ule $$C@A. %=eci0icall/, ule $$CcAC2A
includes a Tsa0e ha.@o.U =.o<ision, Ehich =.o<ides: T(he motion must @e se.<ed Oon the o==osing
=a.t/P unde. ule 5, @ut it must not @e 0iled o. @e =.esented to the cou.t i0 the challenged =a=e., claim,
de0ense, contention, o. denial is Eithd.aEn o. a==.o=.iatel/ co..ected Eithin 2$ da/s a0te. se.<ice o.
Eithin anothe. time the cou.t sets.U (he $!!# Committee Notes 0o. ule $$ =.o<ide 0u.the. guidance
.ega.ding the =u.=ose o0 the sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision: TOtPo st.ess the se.iousness o0 a motion 0o.
sanctions and to de0ine =.ecisel/ the conduct claimed to <iolate the .ule.U (he Ninth Ci.cuit
Ten0o.ceOsP this sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision st.ictl/.U 3olgate <. BaldEin, 425 *.#d ,"$, ,"" C!th Ci..
2005A. *ailu.e to a@ide @/ ule $$Bs sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision =.ecludes sanctions. %ee *ed. . Ci<. 1.
- ,,F!# -
V3.832
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
$$CcA; 9inte..oEd <. Am. :en. Annuit/ 2ns. Co., 55, *.#d '$5, '2, C!th Ci.. 200!A Cholding that a
dist.ict cou.t did not a@use its disc.etion @/ declining to maKe 0indings o0 0act .ega.ding a sanctions
motion Ehen the motion Eas =.ocedu.all/ de0ecti<e @ecause it did not com=l/ Eith the sa0e ha.@o.
=.o<ision in ule $$A. 2n se<e.al cases, the cou.t declined to aEa.d sanctions due to sa0e ha.@o.
=.ocedu.al de0iciencies, including 0ailu.e to a@ide @/ the tEent/)one da/ timing .equi.ement and
0ailu.e to se.<e the motion on o==osing counsel =.io. to 0iling Eith the cou.t. %ee, e.g., 3olgate, 425
*.#d at ,"" Cholding that one o0 se<e.al co)de0endants did not satis0/ the sa0e ha.@o. .equi.ements
Ehen it 0ailed to =.o<ide inde=endent notice o0 its intention to seeK sanctionsA; Ba.@e. <. ?ille., $4,
*.#d "0", "$0 C!th Ci.. $!!'A Cholding that .e=eated in0o.mal Ea.nings o0 de0iciencies in a com=laint
do not satis0/ ule $$ .equi.ements and e+=laining that Tit Eould the.e0o.e E.etch @oth the language
and =u.=ose o0 the amendment to the ule to =e.mit an in0o.mal Ea.ning to su@stitute 0o. se.<ice o0 a
motionUA; adcli00e <. ain@oE Const.. Co., 254 *.#d ""2, "'! C!th Ci.. 200$A C0inding that
=lainti00Ns ad<ance Ea.ning o0 de0endants o@Dections to a claim did not satis0/ the Tst.ict =.ocedu.al
.equi.ement o0 ule $$CcAC$ACAAUA. Nota@l/, cou.ts 0ind that 0ailu.e to Tse.<e a co=/ o0 the 0ull motion
that Eill @e 0iled Eith the Cou.tU does not satis0/ the sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision. :idding <. Ande.son,
200! 97 $,#$,25 CN.D. Cal. 5une !, 200!A Cden/ing de0endantsN ule $$ sanctions motion @ecause
TOdPe0endants 0iled Eith the Cou.t a motion that includes a memo.andum o0 =oints and autho.ities,
su==o.ting decla.ations and e+hi@its that de0endants did not se.<e at the outset o0 the sa0e ha.@o.
=e.iodUA. 2n 0act, the cou.t in (.uesdell desc.i@ed the sa0e ha.@o. .equi.ements as 0olloEs: T(he
mo<ant se.<es the allegedl/ o00ending =a.t/ Eith a 0iling).ead/ motion as notice that it =lans to seeK
sanctions. A0te. 2$ da/s, i0 the o00ending =a.t/ has not Eithd.aEn the 0iling, the mo<ant ma/ 0ile the
ule $$ motion Eith the cou.t.U (.uesdell <. %o. Cal. 1e.manente ?ed. :.=., 2!# *.#d $$4,, $$5$
C!th Ci.. 2002A Cem=hasis addedA.
- ,"F!# -
V3.833
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N% ".0'5 =.o<ides:
1a/ment o0 additional costs, e+=enses and atto.ne/Bs 0ees @/
atto.ne/ Eho 0iles, maintains o. de0ends ce.tain ci<il actions o.
e+tends ci<il actions in ce.tain ci.cumstances. $. 20 a cou.t 0inds that
an atto.ne/ has: CaA *iled, maintained o. de0ended a ci<il action o.
=.oceeding in an/ cou.t in this %tate and such action o. de0ense is not
Eell)g.ounded in 0act o. is not Ea..anted @/ e+isting laE o. @/ an
a.gument 0o. changing the e+isting laE that is made in good 0aith; o.
C@A 6n.easona@l/ and <e+atiousl/ e+tended a ci<il action o.
=.oceeding @e0o.e an/ cou.t in this %tate, the cou.t shall .equi.e the
atto.ne/ =e.sonall/ to =a/ the additional costs, e+=enses and
atto.ne/Bs 0ees .easona@l/ incu..ed @ecause o0 such conduct. 2. (he
cou.t shall li@e.all/ const.ue the =.o<isions o0 this section in 0a<o. o0
aEa.ding costs, e+=enses and atto.ne/Bs 0ees in all a==.o=.iate
situations. 2t is t)e intent o# t)e Legislature t)at t)e !ourt a(ar"
!osts7 e9enses an" attorne*;s #ees ursuant to t)is se!tion an"
i$ose san!tions ursuant to Rule :: o# t)e Ne+a"a Rules o#
Ci+il Pro!e"ure in all aroriate situations to unis) #or an"
"eter #ri+olous or +e9atious !lai$s an" "e#enses .e!ause su!)
!lai$s an" "e0enses o<e.@u.den limited Dudicial .esou.ces, hinde.
the timel/ .esolution o0 me.ito.ious claims and inc.ease the costs o0
engaging in @usiness and =.o<iding =.o0essional se.<ices to the
=u@lic.L
ANALYSIS
A. 1.ocedu.al equi.ements 0o. the %a0e 3a.@o. 1.o<ision
1lainti00 and de0endants disag.ee a@out the =.ocedu.al .equi.ements 0o. the sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision in
Ne<ada ule o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e $$CcAC2A. 1lainti00 contends that de0endants 0ailed to satis0/ sa0e
ha.@o. .equi.ements CSee E9)i.it B 0o. an email Ea.ning to :onsal<es @/ the unde.signed in this
.ega.dA Ehen :onsal<es 0ailed to send e<en a sentence in an email Ea.ning o0 his e<entual No<em@e.
2'th, 20$$ =leading asKing 0o. atto.en/Bs 0ees sanctiosn unde. N% ".0'5 against the unde.signed
CEho is not a@le to get atto.ne/Bs 0ee himsel0 aEa.ded in this matte. and the.e0o.e, 0ai.ness dicates he
should not @e held to some standa.d highe. than that acco.ded e<e./ othe. =.o se litigant, Ehe.eas
:onsal<es attem=ts to th.oE the enti.e ules o0 1.o0essional Conduct BooK at the unde.signedA.
*u.the., a.gua@l/ NC1 ule $$ .equi.es se.<ice acco.ding to Ne<ada ule o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e 5,
- ,'F!# -
V3.834
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
hoEe<e., again, :onsal<es doesnBt e<en =icK u= a =hone @e0o.e 0i.ing o00 his .idiculous sanctions
motion. De0endants 0u.the., a==a.entl/, asse.t that the/ a.e not .equi.ed to sign the d.a0t in o.de. to
e00ect se.<ice and that ule $$ onl/ contem=lates se.<ice o0 the motion itsel0 and not an/
accom=an/ing decla.ations. De0endants <ieE o0 the laE sim=l/ does not com=o.t Eith the Ninth
Ci.cuitNs .ulings .ega.ding =.ocedu.al .equi.ements 0o. the ule $$ sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision. 2n
acco.dance Eith 3olgate, the !th Ci.cuit Cusing *ede.al Cou.t decisions as =e.suasi<e autho.it/A cou.t
const.ues st.ictl/ the =.ocedu.al .equi.ements o0 the sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision outlined in ule $$CcAC2A.
(he.e0o.e, =a.ties must se.<e o==osing counsel Eith a motion 0o. sanctions at least tEent/)one da/s
=.io. to 0iling the motion Eith the cou.t. 2n this case, =a.ties do not disag.ee that de0endants mailed a
d.a0t motion mo.e than tEent/)one da/s =.io. to 0iling a motion Eith the cou.t 0o. sanctions.
3oEe<e., de0endants @elie<e the .equi.ements in ule $$ a.e satis0ied @/ se.<ing a d.a0t motion
Eithout accom=an/ing decla.ations. .20 the =u.=ose o0 the sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision, as e+=lained in the
$!!# Committee Notes, is to Tde0ine =.ecisel/ the conduct claimed to <iolate the .ule,U this cou.t and
the Ninth Ci.cuit @elie<e =a.ties most e00ecti<el/ achie<e this goal @/ =.o<iding a T0iling).ead/
motion.U %ee (.uesdell, 2!# *.#d at $$5$. (his conclusion is su==o.ted @/ :idding, a case in Ehich
the No.the.n Dist.ict o0 Cali0o.nia denied.
*u.the., de0endants seeK an e+t.ao.dina./ .emed/ in thei. motion 0o. sanctions, including dismissal
o0 tEo claims 0o. .elie0, st.iKing se<e.al =a.ag.a=hs o0 the com=laint, and atto.ne/Ns 0ees. :i<en the
det.imental e00ect that such a .uling Eould ha<e on =lainti00Ns case, =lainti00 dese.<ed the @ene0it o0
conside.ation o0 a com=lete motion 0o. sanctions 0o. the tEent/)one da/ sa0e ha.@o. =e.iod.
(he.e0o.e, the cou.t denies de0endantsN motion 0o. sanctions 0o. 0ailu.e to com=l/ Eith ule $$CcAC2A
=.ocedu.al .equi.ements. 7astl/, Ehat e+actl/ Eould it taKe, Ehat t.ials and t.i@ulations Eould the
unde.signed Ehite male need to go th.ough to get an Le+cusa@le neglectL 0inding, gi<en the
- ,!F!# -
V3.835
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
mal0easance o0 icha.d 3ill in the 5C e<20$$)00$"0' does not seem to mo<e this cou.t much, no.
the 0act that the unde.signed has =lent/ o0 othe. 1.oo0 o0 %e.<ice o0 the %ummons and Com=laint
attem=ted and o. conducted and 0iled in this matte., /et this cou.t seems to ha<e dismissed 1lainti00Bs
case Eithout e<en conside.ing the %e.<ice o0 the %ummons and Com=laint o0 (.a<is %he.man, 5e.ome
*itJhen./, the 9C%4, etc., to sa/ nothing o0 the 0act that the <ideo =.o<ided o0 3oEa.d 1at.icK
5acKson se.<ing tEo non .ece=tionist Cmuch less the 20 =ages the unde.signed E.ote e<incing hoE
se.<ing a .ece=tionist is =e.missi@le in Ne<adaA shoEs, Eith <ideo and =hotog.a=hic e<idence that all
the issues this Cou.t taKes Eith the 1.oo0 o0 %e.<ice a.e assuaged Cthe %ummons is clea.l/ <isi@le in
the <ideo, an a00ida<it is not .equi.ed Ehe.e a decla.ation is made, those signing a 1.oo0 o0 %e.<ice
a.e not necessa.il/ the ones 0illing out the 0o.m o. t/=ing it, the unde.signed clea.l/ announced an/
inte.lineations su@sequentl/ made to 3oEa.d 5acKsons signing the 1.oo0 o0 %e.<ice at issue, hoEe<e.,
:onsal<es maKes some lame attem=t to cooK u= an accusation o0 0.audulent conduct....A.
:onsal<es a.gued in his com@o ?otion to Huash, ?otion to Dismiss, and ?otion 0o. %anctions that:
L*i.st, 1lainti00 has 0iled Ehat a==ea.s to @e tEo o0 the same actions
against this De0endant. (his has 0o.ced De0endant to incu. tEo initial
0iling 0ees =lus additional atto.ne/Bs 0ees in de0ending tEo se=a.ate
actions. %econd, 1lainti00 is =u.suing tEo E.ong0ul te.mination suits
against a non)=.o0it 0o. Ehich he has ne<e. Eo.Ked. (hi.d, 1lainti00 has
se.<ed o@<iousl/ illegi@le documents Ehich 1lainti00, a licensed
atto.ne/, KneE o. should ha<e KnoEn could not ha<e =ossi@l/
constituted =.o=e. se.<ice. 1lainti00Bs suits a.e not Eell g.ounded in 0act
and his conduct constitutes the t/=e o0 un.easona@le and <e+atious
litigation that N% ".0'5 is designed to =.e<ent. De0endant should
the.e0o.e @e aEa.ded the costs and atto.ne/Bs 0ees it incu..ed de0ending
tEo @aseless actions.L
9hat is not at all Eell g.ounded in law or fact is ?.. :onsal<esB a.guments a@o<e. *i.st, his client is
sim=l/ not a named =a.t/ in CV$$)0$'!,, /et :onsal<es C@ut, noticea@l/, not ?.. *ulle. and CAA9A
Dum=s head long into CV$$)0$'!,, des=ite not @eing a named =a.t/, and 0o. some .eason Eas a@le to
a==ea. in that case Eithout 0iling an/ so.t o0 inte.=leade. o. .eal =a.t/ in inte.est motion. 20
- "0F!# -
V3.836
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
:onsal<es had @othe.ed to conduct an/thing liKe a .easona@l/ diligent inqui./, he Eould ha<e
checKed the docKet in CV$$)0$'!, Ehe.eu=on :onsal<es might ha<e noticed his client is not listed as
a =a.t/. 4. :onsal<es coudl ha<e 0i.ed u= the old EEE.n<@a..o.g and called, emailed, 0a+ed, o.
E.itten the unde.signed and .equest a co=/. *u.the., :onsal<es should ha<e actuall/ taKen a looK at
Ehat his client Eas actuall/ se.<ed .athe. than getting a <e./ @lu../ and dishonest 0ascimile
.e=.oduction o0 it and telling himsel0 that Eas good enough. Additionall/, :onsal<es 3oE a@out
calling u= the unde.signed an .equesting a co=/ mo.e to his liKing. 3oE a@out not childishl/ and
stead0astl/ maintaining that the unde.signedBs emailing :onsal<es a =.istine co=/ o0 the %ummons
Com=laint LDust EouldnBt doL 0o. :onsal<es. 2t seems .eall/ sus=ect to asK 0o. sanctions @ased u=on
a theo./ o0 du=licati<e litigation Ehen :onsal<eBs client is a named =a.t/ in onl/ one matte., =e.iod.
*u.the., to the e+tent :onsal<es hangs his hat on Ehethe. the unde.signed LEo.Ked 0o.L (9%, Eell,
one, things get mu.K/, as %asse. and N7% and enee >ell/ can attest Ehen it comes to all the sha.ing,
7%C 0unding, sha.ed em=lo/eeBs o00ice s=ace, etc. as to Eho is Eo.King 0o. o. Eith Ehom. 3oEe<e.,
.ega.dless, no@od/ has 0iled an AnsEe. to the Com=laint, and, as such, the unde.signed can still
Amend his Com=laint to change an/thing that =.udence ma/ dictate @e changed, and the.e0o.e, ?..
:onsal<es should not @e a@le to =osition a .equest 0o. sanctions u=on such.
4)at is reall* interesting is to ta0e a loo0 at t)e +arious E9)i.its t)at t)e +arious oosing
!ounsel;s )a+e atta!)e" to t)eir +arious Motions to Dis$iss an" Relies an" to noti!e t)e +ast
+ariation .et(een /ust t)ose E9)i.its %()i!) urort to rero"u!e a!!uratel* /ust )o( legi.ile
t)e 5ser+i!e aers5 (ere t)at t)eir rese!ti+e !lients re!ei+e". O.+iousl*7 2onsal+es is t)e
$ost ri"i!ulous an" e$.arrassing #or )i$sel# an" )is !lient an" resents le+el o# "isrese!t to
t)is !ourt an" our s*ste$ o# /usti!e. Uon re+ie(ing 2onsa+les E9)i.it : to )is No+e$.er ><7
>1:: 5CRISIS INTERAENTION SERAICES; MOTION TO IUASH SERAICE AND TO
- "$F!# -
V3.837
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
DISMISS5 one is le0t Eith the im=.ession that the se.<ice =a=e.s ma/ ha<e @een E.itten in a.a@ic.
*u.the., 0o. some .eason ?.. :onsal<es Eas a@le to 0ile his No<em@e. 2', 20$$ ?otion des=ite the
0act that it Eould seem to @e =.ett/ o@<iousl/ in <iolation o0 9DC $0 in that it im=e.missi@l/
com@ines se<e.al motions /et is not L=led in the alte.nati<eL Cthe
At this =oint the 4cto@e. 5th, 20$$ ?otion to Consolidate has not @een .uled on, to m/
unde.standing, hoEe<e.:
NC1 67E 42.C4N%472DA(24N; %E1AA(E (2A7% CaA
Consolidation. 9hen actions in<ol<ing a common question o0
laE o. 0act a.e =ending @e0o.e the cou.t, it ma/ o.de. a Doint
hea.ing o. t.ial o0 an/ o. all the matte.s in issue in the actions; it
ma/ o.de. all the actions consolidated; and it ma/ maKe such
o.de.s conce.ning =.oceedings the.ein as ma/ tend to a<oid
unnecessa./ costs o. dela/. C@A %e=a.ate (.ials. (he cou.t, in
0u.the.ance o0 con<enience o. to a<oid =.eDudice, o. Ehen
se=a.ate t.ials Eill @e conduci<e to e+=edition and econom/, ma/
o.de. a se=a.ate t.ial o0 an/ claim, c.oss)claim, counte.claim, o.
thi.d)=a.t/ claim, o. o0 an/ se=a.ate issue o. o0 an/ num@e. o0
claims, c.oss)claims, counte.claims, thi.d)=a.t/ claims, o. issues,
alEa/s =.ese.<ing in<iolate the .ight o0 t.ial @/ Du./.L
A.gua@l/, these cases should still @e consolidated, CV$$)$0'!,
and CV$$)$0!55.
3oEe<e., Ehat seems E.ong is :onsal<esB 0iling his com@o, not =led in the altenati<e, not in
line Eith the =.ocedu.al .equi.ements o0 NC1 $$ @/ Ea/ o0 N% ".0'5 Cse.<ice o0 a 0iling .ead/
sanction motion unde. NC1 5
NC1 2V. 1A(2E%
67E $". 1A(2E% 17A2N(2** AND DE*ENDAN(; CA1AC2(8
CaA eal 1a.t/ in 2nte.est. E<e./ action shall @e =.osecuted in the
name o0 the .eal =a.t/ in inte.est. An e+ecuto., administ.ato.,
gua.dian, @ailee, t.ustee o0 an e+=.ess t.ust, a =a.t/ Eith Ehom o. in
Ehose name a cont.act has @een made 0o. the @ene0it o0 anothe., o. a
=a.t/ autho.iJed @/ statute ma/ sue in that =e.sonNs oEn name
Eithout Doining the =a.t/ 0o. Ehose @ene0it the action is @.ought; and
- "2F!# -
V3.838
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
Ehen a statute so =.o<ides, an action 0o. the use o. @ene0it o0 anothe.
shall @e @.ought in the name o0 the %tate. No action shall @e dismissed
on the g.ound that it is not =.osecuted in the name o0 the .eal =a.t/ in
inte.est until a .easona@le time has @een alloEed a0te. o@Dection 0o.
.ati0ication o0 commencement o0 the action @/, o. Doinde. o.
su@stitution o0, the .eal =a.t/ in inte.est; and such .ati0ication, Doinde.,
o. su@stitution shall ha<e the same e00ect as i0 the action had @een
commenced in the name o0 the .eal =a.t/ in inte.est.
C@A Ca=acit/ to %ue o. Be %ued. (he ca=acit/ o0 an indi<idual,
including one acting in a .e=.esentati<e ca=acit/, to sue o. @e sued
shall @e dete.mined @/ the laE o0 this %tate. (he ca=acit/ o0 a
co.=o.ation to sue o. @e sued shall @e dete.mined @/ the laE unde.
Ehich it Eas o.ganiJed, unless a statute o0 this %tate =.o<ides to the
cont.a./.
CcA 2n0ants o. 2ncom=etent 1e.sons. 9hene<e. an in0ant o.
incom=etent =e.son has a .e=.esentati<e, such as a gene.al gua.dian,
committee, conse.<ato., o. othe. liKe 0iducia./, the .e=.esentati<e
ma/ sue o. de0end on @ehal0 o0 the in0ant o. incom=etent =e.son. An
in0ant o. incom=etent =e.son Eho does not ha<e a dul/ a==ointed
.e=.esentati<e ma/ sue @/ a ne+t 0.iend o. @/ a gua.dian ad litem. (he
cou.t shall a==oint a gua.dian ad litem 0o. an in0ant o. incom=etent
=e.son not othe.Eise .e=.esented in an action o. shall maKe such othe.
o.de. as it deems =.o=e. 0o. the =.otection o0 the in0ant o.
incom=etent =e.son.
67E $'. 542NDE 4* C7A2?% AND E?ED2E%
CaA 5oinde. o0 Claims. A =a.t/ asse.ting a claim to .elie0 as an o.iginal
claim, counte.claim, c.oss)claim, o. thi.d)=a.t/ claim, ma/ Doin,
eithe. as inde=endent o. as alte.nate claims, as man/ claims, legal o.
equita@le o. @oth as the =a.t/ has against an o==osing =a.t/.
C@A 5oinde. o0 emedies; *.audulent Con<e/ances. 9hene<e. a claim
is one he.eto0o.e cogniJa@le onl/ a0te. anothe. claim has @een
=.osecuted to a conclusion, the tEo claims ma/ @e Doined in a single
action; @ut the cou.t shall g.ant .elie0 in that action onl/ in acco.dance
Eith the .elati<e su@stanti<e .ights o0 the =a.ties. 2n =a.ticula., a
=lainti00 ma/ state a claim 0o. mone/ and a claim to ha<e set aside a
con<e/ance 0.audulent as to that =lainti00, Eithout 0i.st ha<ing
o@tained a Dudgment esta@lishing the claim 0o. mone/.
67E $!. 542NDE 4* 1E%4N% NEEDED *4 56%(
AD56D2CA(24N
CaA 1e.sons to Be 5oined i0 *easi@le. A =e.son Eho is su@Dect to
se.<ice o0 =.ocess and Ehose Doinde. Eill not de=.i<e the cou.t o0
Du.isdiction o<e. the su@Dect matte. o0 the action shall @e Doined as a
=a.t/ in the action i0 C$A in the =e.sonNs a@sence com=lete .elie0
- "#F!# -
V3.839
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 @e acco.ded among those al.ead/ =a.ties, o. C2A the =e.son
claims an inte.est .elating to the su@Dect o0 the action and is so
situated that the dis=osition o0 the action in the =e.sonNs a@sence ma/
CiA as a =.actical matte. im=ai. o. im=ede the =e.sonNs a@ilit/ to
=.otect that inte.est o. CiiA lea<e an/ o0 the =e.sons al.ead/ =a.ties
su@Dect to a su@stantial .isK o0 incu..ing dou@le, multi=le, o. othe.Eise
inconsistent o@ligations @/ .eason o0 the claimed inte.est. 20 the
=e.son has not @een so Doined, the cou.t shall o.de. that the =e.son @e
made a =a.t/. 20 the =e.son should Doin as a =lainti00 @ut .e0uses to do
so, the =e.son ma/ @e made a de0endant, o., in a =.o=e. case, an
in<olunta./ =lainti00.
C@A Dete.mination @/ Cou.t 9hene<e. 5oinde. Not *easi@le. 20 a
=e.son as desc.i@ed in su@di<ision CaAC$A)C2A he.eo0 cannot @e made a
=a.t/, the cou.t shall dete.mine Ehethe. in equit/ and good
conscience the action should =.oceed among the =a.ties @e0o.e it, o.
should @e dismissed, the a@sent =e.son @eing thus .ega.ded as
indis=ensa@le. (he 0acto.s to @e conside.ed @/ the cou.t include: 0i.st,
to Ehat e+tent a Dudgment .ende.ed in the =e.sonNs a@sence might @e
=.eDudicial to the =e.son o. those al.ead/ =a.ties; second, the e+tent to
Ehich, @/ =.otecti<e =.o<isions in the Dudgment, @/ the sha=ing o0
.elie0, o. othe. measu.es, the =.eDudice can @e lessened o. a<oided;
thi.d, Ehethe. a Dudgment .ende.ed in the =e.sonNs a@sence Eill @e
adequate; 0ou.th, Ehethe. the =lainti00 Eill ha<e an adequate .emed/
i0 the action is dismissed 0o. nonDoinde..
CcA 1leading easons 0o. NonDoinde.. A =leading asse.ting a claim 0o.
.elie0 shall state the names, i0 KnoEn to the =leade., o0 an/ =e.sons as
desc.i@ed in su@di<ision CaAC$A)C2A he.eo0 Eho a.e not Doined, and the
.easons Eh/ the/ a.e not Doined.
CdA E+ce=tion o0 Class Actions. (his .ule is su@Dect to the =.o<isions
o0 ule 2#.
67E 20. 1E?2%%2VE 542NDE 4* 1A(2E%
CaA 1e.missi<e 5oinde.. All =e.sons ma/ Doin in one action as =lainti00s
i0 the/ asse.t an/ .ight to .elie0 Dointl/, se<e.all/, o. in the alte.nati<e
in .es=ect o0 o. a.ising out o0 the same t.ansaction, occu..ence, o.
se.ies o0 t.ansactions o. occu..ences and i0 an/ question o0 laE o. o0
0act common to all these =e.sons Eill a.ise in the action. All =e.sons
ma/ @e Doined in one action as de0endants i0 the.e is asse.ted against
them Dointl/, se<e.all/, o. in the alte.nati<e, an/ .ight to .elie0 in
.es=ect o0 o. a.ising out o0 the same t.ansaction, occu..ence, o. se.ies
o0 t.ansactions o. occu..ences and i0 an/ question o0 laE o. 0act
common to all de0endants Eill a.ise in the action. A =lainti00 o.
de0endant need not @e inte.ested in o@taining o. de0ending against all
the .elie0 demanded. 5udgment ma/ @e gi<en 0o. one o. mo.e o0 the
- "4F!# -
V3.840
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
=lainti00s acco.ding to thei. .es=ecti<e .ights to .elie0, and against one
o. mo.e de0endants acco.ding to thei. .es=ecti<e lia@ilities.
C@A %e=a.ate (.ials. (he cou.t ma/ maKe such o.de.s as Eill =.e<ent a
=a.t/ 0.om @eing em@a..assed, dela/ed, o. =ut to e+=ense @/ the
inclusion o0 a =a.t/ against Ehom the =a.t/ asse.ts no claim and Eho
asse.ts no claim against the =a.t/, and ma/ o.de. se=a.ate t.ials o.
maKe othe. o.de.s to =.e<ent dela/ o. =.eDudice.
67E 2$. ?2%542NDE AND N4N542NDE 4* 1A(2E%
?isDoinde. o0 =a.ties is not g.ound 0o. dismissal o0 an action. 1a.ties
ma/ @e d.o==ed o. added @/ o.de. o0 the cou.t on motion o0 an/ =a.t/
o. o0 its oEn initiati<e at an/ stage o0 the action and on such te.ms as
a.e Dust. An/ claim against a =a.t/ ma/ @e se<e.ed and =.oceeded
Eith se=a.atel/.
67E 22. 2N(E17EADE 1e.sons ha<ing claims against the
=lainti00 ma/ @e Doined as de0endants and .equi.ed to inte.=lead Ehen
thei. claims a.e such that the =lainti00 is o. ma/ @e e+=osed to dou@le
o. multi=le lia@ilit/. 2t is not g.ound 0o. o@Dection to the Doinde. that
the claims o0 the se<e.al claimants o. the titles on Ehich thei. claims
de=end do not ha<e a common o.igin o. a.e not identical @ut a.e
ad<e.se to and inde=endent o0 one anothe., o. that the =lainti00 a<e.s
that the =lainti00 is not lia@le in Ehole o. in =a.t to an/ o. all o0 the
claimants. A de0endant e+=osed to simila. lia@ilit/ ma/ o@tain such
inte.=leade. @/ Ea/ o0 c.oss)claim o. counte.claim. (he =.o<isions o0
this .ule su==lement and do not in an/ Ea/ limit the Doinde. o0 =a.ties
=e.mitted in ule 20.
E. Plainti##Ks Request #or Attorne*Ks Fees Plainti## requests attorne*Ks #ees #or t)e !osts
in!urre" in oosing "e#en"antsK $otion #or san!tions.
1lainti00 .equests @ecause the.e is clea. e<idence that de0endants 0iled thei. motion 0o. <a.ious
ne0a.ious =u.=oses, including: conditioning the cou.t to @u/ into thei. theo./ o0 the case, con<incing
the cou.t that =lainti00Ns e<idence is EeaK, testing =lainti00Ns case, o. as an intimidation tactic.
%imila.l/, though this cou.tBs aEa.d o0 atto.ne/Bs 0ees o. sanctiosn against the unde.signed is <oid 0o.
lacK o0 Du.isdiction and su@Dect to @eing set aside gi<en the mistaKe o0 laE it e<inces in that it does not
add.ess the me.its o0 the motion 0o. sanctions gi<en its =.ocedu.al de0iciencies, the cou.t does not
@elie<e de0endants 0iled the motion in @ad 0aith o. that the motion is 0.i<olous. (he.e0o.e, =lainti00Ns
.equest to ha<e this atto.ne/Ns 0ees set aside should @e g.anted.
- "5F!# -
V3.841
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
De0endants 0ailed to com=l/ Eith the st.ict =.ocedu.al .equi.ements o0 the sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision in
ule $$ Ehen the/ .ecKlessl/ and tacKil/ 0ailed to se.<e =lainti00 Eith an/ so.t o0 e<en d.a0t motion o.
othe. attem=t to 0all Eithin the guidelines o0 NC1 $$. *ailu.e to a@ide @/ the =.ocedu.al
.equi.ements outlined in ule $$CcAC2A =.ecludes a motion 0o. sanctions. *u.the., this Cou.t, u=on
.eaching the su@stanti<e conce.ns at issue in de0endantsN motion 0o. sanctions, should 0ind that
de0endants 0iled the motion in @ad 0aith.
*inall/, not onl/ should de0endants. motion @e denied, this Cou.t should aEa.d =lainti00 the
atto.ne/s 0ees it incu..ed o==osing this motion. ule $$ autho.iJes such an aEa.d in 0a<o. o0 the
non)mo<ing =a.t/. 3e.e, a 0ee aEa.d against de0endants is Ea..anted 0o. se<e.al .easons,
including: C$A thei. motion is 0.i<olous; C2A thei. motion mis.e=.esents the holdings o0 multi=le
cases; C#A it mis.e=.esents 0acts, too; and C4A it a==ea.s liKel/ that de0endants had an ulte.io.
moti<e 0o. 0iling this motion Ct./ing to gain ce.tain tactical ad<antagesA. 7egal %tanda.ds
:o<e.ning a ule $$ ?otion ule $$ sanctions a.e an e+t.ao.dina./ .emed/ that should onl/ @e
g.anted in B.a.e and e+ce=tionalB cases. >elte. <. Associated *inancial :.ou=, 20$0 6.%. A==.
7EG2% $$,,$, M5 C!th Ci.. 20$0A. %ee also 4=e.ating Enginee.s 1ension (.ust <. A)C Co., '5!
*.2d $##,, $#44 C!th Ci.. $!''A CLEe .ese.<e Oule $$P sanctions 0o. the .a.e and e+ce=tional case
Ehe.e the action is clea.l/ 0.i<olousLA. (he.e is a Lst.ong =.esum=tionL against im=osing ule $$
sanctions: *.eedom o0 access o0 the cou.ts is a che.ished <alue in ou. democ.atic societ/. . . .
C.eating a .isK that the in<ocation o0 the Dudicial =.ocess ma/ gi<e .ise to =uniti<e sanctions
sim=l/ @ecause the litigantBs claim is unme.ito.ious could onl/ dete. the legitimate e+e.cise o0 the
.ight to seeK a =eace0ul .ed.ess o0 g.ie<ances th.ough Dudicial means. . . . (he st.ong =.esum=tion
is against the im=osition o0 sanctions 0o. in<oKing the =.ocesses o0 the laE. 4=e.ating Enginee.s,
'5! *.2d at $#44 Cquoting (alamini <. All)%tate 2ns., 4"0 6.%. $0," C$!'5AA. A. ule $$ 4nl/
- ",F!# -
V3.842
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
equi.es a 1lainti00 to ha<e %ome E<idence ule $$ .equi.es an atto.ne/ to conduct a L.easona@le
in<estigationL to <e.i0/ that the L0actual contentionsL in a =leading ha<e Le<identia./ su==o.t.L
*C1 $$C@AC#A. (his is a light @u.den. An atto.ne/ satis0ies this dut/ @/ con0i.ming that Lsome
e<idenceL su==o.ts his client.s =osition, B.u@aKe. <. ichmond *inancial 3olding Co., !4# *.2d
$#,#, $#"" C4th Ci.. $!!$A, e<en i0 that e<idence is LEeaK.L Cali0. A.chitectu.al Bldg. 1.ods. <.
*.anciscan Ce.amics, '$' *.2d $4,,, $4"# C!th Ci.. $!'"A C=lainti00.s e<idence Eas LEeaK,L @ut
Lnot so @aseless ... OandP so lacKing in =lausi@ilit/P ... that sanctions ought to @e im=osedLA. *o.
ule $$ =u.=oses, the allegation me.el/ must @e su==o.ted @/ some e<idence. Because Ee a.e
una@le to sa/ that =lainti00s had no 0actual @asis 0o. thei. allegation, Ee cannot conclude that
=lainti00s <iolated ule $$.s 0actual inqui./ .equi.ement. (he dist.ict cou.t a@used its disc.etion @/
aEa.ding sanctions. . . . B.u@aKe., !4# *.2d at $#"" Citalics in o.iginalA. %ee also Be.Eege. <.
Count/ o0 4.ange, $2$ *. %u==. 2d ##4, ##! C%.D. N.8. 2000A CLthe.e Eas at least some
ci.cumstantial e<idence to su==o.t O=lainti00.sP claimL; nothing mo.e is .equi.ed to com=l/ Eith
ule $$A Cem=hasis addedA. ule $$ sanctions cannot @e im=osed unless the L0actual contentions
enti.el/ lacK e<identia./ su==o.t.L %tiglich <. Cont.a Cost Bd. 40 %u=e.<iso.s, $!!" 6.%. A==.
7EG2% '!", M2$ C!th Ci.. $!!"A Cem=hasis addedA. L9ith .ega.d to 0actual contentions, Oule
$$P .sanctions ma/ not @e im=osed unless OtheP allegation is utte.l/ lacKing in su==o.t..L %to.e/ <.
Cello 3oldings, #4" *.#d #"0, #'' C2d Ci.. 200#A Cem=hasis addedA. %ee also 3a.ding 6ni<. <.
Consulting %e.<ices :.ou=, 2nc., 4' *. %u==. 2d ",5, ",! CN.D. 27 $!!!A CLa sanction Eill not @e
im=osed unless OtheP allegation Oat issueP is utte.l/ <oid o0 su==o.tLA Cem=hasis addedA. De0endants
.ecite an outdated standa.d. Acco.ding to them, ule $$ .equi.es an allegation to @e LEell
g.ounded in 0act.L CDe0s. B.ie0, =. $2A. (hat Eas the standa.d @e0o.e $!!#, @ut in $!!# Cong.ess
amended ule $$. 2t deleted the LEell)g.ounded in 0actL language, su@stituting the less demanding
- ""F!# -
V3.843
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
LhaOsP e<identia./ su==o.tL standa.d. E. :lucK Co.=. <. othenhaus, 252 *..D. $"5, $"!
C%.D.N.8. 200'A CLthe $!!# Amendments to ule $$ .ela+ed the necessa./ @asis . . . 0.om the mo.e
.igo.ous .Eell)g.ounded in 0act,. to Othe cu..entP standa.dLA. At an/ .ate: Lule $$ does not .equi.e
a =a.t/ to ha<e su00icient in0o.mation, @e0o.e 0iling a com=laint, to su.<i<e a summa./ Dudgment
motion, 3a.tman <. 3allma.K Ca.ds, 2nc., '##, 0.2d $$", $24 C'th Ci.. $!'"A, o. Oe<enP to su.<i<e a
motion to dismiss 0o. 0ailu.e to state a claimO.P Beeman <. *ieste., '52 *.2d 20,, 2$$ C"th Ci..
$!''A. Vista ?0g., 2nc. <. (.ac)4, 2nc., $#$ *..D. $#4, $#' CN.D.2nd. $!!0A. %ee also ?a.tin <.
B.oEn, $5$ *..D. 5'0, 5'' C9.D. 1a. $!!#A CLcounsel is not .equi.ed @e0o.e 0iling a com=laint,
OtoP secu.e the t/=e o0 =.oo0 necessa./ to Eithstand a motion 0o. summa./ DudgmentLA.Atto.ne/s\]
*ees: 6nde. ule $$, *ee AEa.ds a.e a 2)9a/ %t.eet. As de0endants co..ectl/ state Con =. $# o0
thei. B.ie0A, ule $$ sanctions a.e disc.etiona./. LO2P0 the cou.t dete.mines that ule $$C@A has
@een <iolated, the cou.t ma/ im=ose an a==.o=.iate sanction,L including @ut not limited to
atto.ne/s. 0ees. *C1 $$CcAC$A Citalics addedA. Nota@l/, unde. ule $$, 0ee aEa.ds a.e a 2)Ea/
st.eet. (o dete. a@usi<e ule $$ motion =.actice, the ule autho.iJes atto.ne/s. 0ees to @e aEa.ded
to an/ L=.e<ailing =a.t/,L including one Eho success0ull/ o==oses a ule $$ motion. *C1 $$CcA
C2A. (his L2)Ea/ st.eetL 0eatu.e is =e.tinent he.e. As shoEn @eloE, the onl/ 0.i<olous =a=e. 0iled in
this case is De0endants\] ?otion 0o. sanctions. Among othe. things, thei. motions mis.e=.esents
the holdings o0 multi=le cases it cites Calmost all o0 those cases den/ ule $$ sanctions . a clea.
indication that the/ do not .eall/ sa/ Ehat de0endants claim the/ sa/A. BeloE Csee ==. 2$)2,A, this
B.ie0 ela@o.ates on Eh/ the Cou.t should aEa.d =lainti00 the atto.ne/ 0ees it incu..ed to o==ose
this ill)concei<ed motion.222. 7egal Anal/sis: 1lainti00 has Am=le LE<identia./ %u==o.tL 0o. 2ts
Allegations A. Ci.cumstantial E<idence %atis0ies ule $$ (o date . Eithout the @ene0it o0
disco<e./ . the claim that de0endants <iolated thei. non)=i.ac/ ag.eements Ce.g., @/ a==.o<ing
- "'F!# -
V3.844
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
hi.ingsA .ests on in0e.ences 0.om ci.cumstantial e<idence, such as thei. .egula. Do@ duties at Eagle.
Acco.ding to de0endants, this lea<es =lainti00 Eith Je.o Le<identia./ su==o.t.L (hat accusation
.ests on a 0undamental misunde.)standing o0 the Le<identia./ su==o.tL .equi.ed @/ ule $$.
Acco.ding to de0endants, an/ time a =a.t/ .elies on in0e.ences d.aEn 0.om ci.cumstantial
e<idence, it lacKs Le<identia./ su==o.tL; the.e0o.e, it must Ls=eci0icall/L =lead that its allegation
.ests solel/ on in0e.ences: ule $$ .equi.es the =a.t/ o0 ha<e e<identia./ su==o.t 0o. its allegations
@e0o.e maKing them. 20 that e<idence is me.el/ ci.cumstantial, such that the allegation is @ased
solel/ on .easona@le in0e.ences 0.om the a<aila@le e<idence, then the =a.t/.s com=laint must
s=eci0icall/ identi0/ that allegation as one Ehich LEill liKel/ ha<e e<identia./ su==o.t a0te. a
.easona@le o==o.tunit/ 0o. 0u.the. in<estigation o. disco<e./.L CDe0s. ?otion, =. $2A. (his
asse.tion a@out Lci.cumstantial e<idenceL and Lin0e.encesL is dead E.ong. Not one case cited @/
de0endants su==o.ts that <ieE, Ehile multi=le cases .eDect it. 6nde. ule $$, Lci.cumstantial
e<idence,L and a .easona@le in0e.ence d.aEn 0.om it, is not t.eated an/ di00e.entl/ than Ldi.ect
e<idence.L 7ucas <. Duncan, 5"4 *.#d ""2 CD.C. Ci.. 200!A CLthe.e is no @asis in the te+t o0 ule
$$C@AC#A 0o. the legal =.o=osition that an atto.ne/ must se=a.atel/ identi0/ .0act. and .in0e.ence.LA.
Cou.ts consistentl/ hold that ci.cum)stantial e<idence satis0ies ule $$.s Le<identia./ su==o.tL
.equi.ement. E.g. Cem=hasis added each timeA: Cali0. A.chitectu.al Bldg. 1.ods., '$' *.2d at $4"#
C!th Ci.. $!'"A C.e<e.ses aEa.d o0 sanctions, @ecause L*.anciscanBs sudden closing Eas
ci.cumstantial e<idence, hoEe<e. EeaK, o0 a =ossi@le ea.lie. undisclosed =lan to closeA;
ounse<ille <. Zahl, $# *.#d ,25, ,## C2d Ci.. $!!4A C.e<e.ses sanctions, @ecause Lthe a<aila@le
ci.cumstantial e<idence could =lausi@l/ su==o.t the in0e.ence that the.e Eas a cons=i.ac/LA; ?a./
Ann 1ensie.o, 2nc. <. 7ingle, '4" *.2d !0, !4 C#d Ci.. $!''A C.e<e.ses sanctions. 1lainti00 lacKed
di.ect =.oo0 o0 a cons=i.ac/ to .est.ain t.ade, @ut LKneE 0acts that su==o.ted a .easona@le sus=icion
- "!F!# -
V3.845
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o0 coo=e.ation @etEeen de0endants.L (his Lci.cumstanOtialPL e<idence, cou=led Eith Lthe .ational
in0e.ences that ma/ @e d.aEn 0.om OitP, con<ince usL that =lainti00 did not <iolate ule $$ @/
=leading a cons=i.ac/A. (he most inst.ucti<e case is 7ucas, 5"4 *.#d ""2 CD.C. Ci.. 200!A. 2n
7ucas, a ?agist.ate im=osed ule $$ sanctions, @ut the Cou.t o0 A==eals .e<e.sed. (he ?agist.ate
ado=ted the <e./ same line o0 .easoning as de0endants ad<ocate he.e. 3e, too, @elie<ed that Ehen a
=a.t/ .elies solel/ on in0e.ences 0.om ci.cumstantial e<idence, it must state that it lacKs e<identia./
su==o.t 0o. that =oint, @ut ho=es to de<elo= su==o.ting e<idence late.: (he =.inci=al @asis u=on
Ehich Othe ?agist.ateP im=osed sanctions Eas his 0inding that man/ o0 the ele<en statements that
>a.l d.a0ted Ee.e Lclassic e+am=les o0 in0e.ences disguised as statements o0 0act.L 7ucas, 40' *.
%u==. 2d at $2. LOAP classic misstatement,L he said, Lis one in Ehich an in0e.ence that might o.
might not @e d.aEn 0.om the 0acts is stated as a 0act itsel0.L 2d. (he O?agist.ateP illust.ated this
=oint Eith the 0olloEing e+am=le: O(Phat a man EalKs into a .oom Eith a Eet um@.ella might
=e.mit the in0e.ence that the man Eas .ecentl/ outside and that it Eas .aining. 2t might also @e t.ue
that the man decided to Eash the um@.ella. :i<en these 0acts, an ad<ocate cannot 0i.st sa/ Lit Eas
.ainingL @ut late., Ehen challenged, e+=lain that Ehat Eas o.iginall/ stated as a 0act Eas actuall/
onl/ an in0e.ence that could ha<e @een d.aEn 0.om the 0act that the um@.ella
Eas Eet. (he statement, Lit Eas .ainingL is o@Decti<el/ 0alse. 2t asKs the .eade. to @elie<e that Ehat
is me.el/ an in0e.ence that ma/ @e d.aEn 0.om a set o0 0acts is itsel0 a 0act. 7ucas, 5"4 *.#d at "",.
(he a==ellate cou.t em=haticall/ disag.eed. 7ucas, 5"4 *.#d at """ Cthe.e is Lno @asisL 0o. that
<ieE, eithe. in the ule.s te+t o. in the case laEA. 2t e+=lained that the conce=t o0 Le<identia./
su==o.t,L as used in ule $$, is not nea.l/ so na..oE: (he.e is no @asis in the te+t o0 ule $$C@AC#A
0o. the legal =.o=osition that an atto.ne/ must se=a.atel/ identi0/ L0actL and Lin0e.ence.L (he ule
me.el/ .equi.es an atto.ne/ to ce.ti0/ that the 0actual contentions in a =a=e. he =.esents to the cou.t
- '0F!# -
V3.846
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lha<e e<identia./ su==o.t.L *ED. . C2V. 1. $$C@AC#A. L2n0e.encesL . Ehich a.e commonl/
desc.i@ed as Lci.cumstantial e<idenceL . a.e as ca=a@le o0 =.o<iding e<identia./ su==o.t as L0actsL .
Ehich a.e commonl/ desc.i@ed as Ldi.ect e<idence.L M M M 2n sho.t, the @asic legal =.emise u=on
Ehich sanctions Ee.e im=osed Eas inco..ect. (o taKe the magist.ate DudgeBs e+am=le: 20 an
atto.ne/ has e<idence that a man LEalKed into a .oom Eith a Eet um@.ellaL at a ce.tain time, the
atto.ne/ does ha<e Le<identia./ su==o.tL 0o. the L0actual contentionL that Lit Eas .ainingL at that
time. 2d. at $2. 3e ma/ not ha<e =.oo0 @/ a =.e=onde.ance, @ut he ce.tainl/ has Lsu==o.t.L
Acco.dingl/, a laE/e. does not <iolate ule $$ @/ sa/ing so. 7ucas, 5"4 *.#d at """, ""')"!.
A==l/ing that anal/sis he.e, @ased on ci.cumstantial e<idence and .easona@le in0e.ences, =lainti00
has am=le Le<identia./ su==o.tL 0o. its allegation that Badostain and ile/ =a.tici=ated in hi.ing
aEa/ =lainti00.s loan o00ice.s. *o. e+am=le, =lainti00 KnoEs that due to thei. =ositions, Badostain
and ile/ o.dina.il/ must a==.o<e Eagle.s hi.ings o0 loan o00ice.s and @.anch manage.s in Ne<ada.
1lainti00 also KnoEs that Eagle .ecentl/ hi.ed aEa/ mo.e than $0 o0 =lainti00.s em=lo/ees in eno.
(hat is all ule $$ .equi.es. *.om this ci.cumstantial e<idence, it is mo.e than .easona@le to in0e.
that, at the <e./ least, Badostain and ile/ a==.o<ed the hi.ings o0 these em=lo/ees. (his is no
di00e.ent than in0e..ing that it is .aining, @ased on seeing someone ca../ing an um@.ella that is
d.i==ing Eate.. B. LDe0endants\] CasesL *ail to %u==o.t (hei. 1osition De0endants add.ess this
issue . does ci.cumstantial e<idence quali0/ as Le<identia./ su==o.tLI . on =ages $$)$# o0 thei.
?otion Cin %ection A.$A. 2n that section, the/ cite 4 cases. (he/ claim that acco.ding to those 4
cases, a =a.t/ should @e sanctioned unde. ule $$ i0 it .elies on e<idence that is Lme.el/
ci.cumstantial,L Eithout Ls=eci0icall/ identi0/OingP that allegationL as lacKing Le<identia./
su==o.t.L CDe0endants. ?otion, =. $2A. (hat is a @latant mis.e=.esentation. Not one o0 the cited
cases .emotel/ su==o.ts that <ieE. (o the cont.a./, in all 4 cases, sanctions Ee.e denied Co.
- '$F!# -
V3.847
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<e.sed on a==ealA. *u.the., to the e+tent these cases sa/ an/thing a@out ci.cumstantial e<idence,
the/ u=hold it as a <alid t/=e o0 Le<identia./ su==o.tL that satis0ies ule $$. 3e.e is a @.ie0
summa./ o0 these cases: \^ 7e@o<itJ <. ?ille., '5, *.2d !02 C"th Ci.. $!''A C.e<e.ses aEa.d o0
sanctionsA. 2n this case, the Lsanctions OissueP .eall/ in<ol<eOdP the .easona@leness o0 in0e..ing,
0.om the 0acts O=lainti00 KneEP, ... that ?ille. Eas a =a.t/ to Othe othe. de0endants.P scheme.L 2d. at
!05. (he %e<enth Ci.cuit .e<e.sed an aEa.d o0 ule $$ sanctions, des=ite =lainti00.s lacK o0 di.ect
e<idence, @ecause Lthe sequence o0 e<ents . . . =e.mitOsP a .easona@le in0e.ence that some
E.ongdoing Eas a0oot,L and that is all ule $$ .equi.es. 2d at !0, Cem=hasis addedA. \^ B.u@aKe.
<. ichmond *inancial 3olding Co., !4# *.2d $#,# C4th Ci.. $!!$A C.e<e.ses sanctionsA. (he
Le<idence =e.mitted O=lainti00P to d.aE an in0e.ence, al@eit a EeaK one, that Ode0endantP Eas
in<ol<ed in a scheme,L in =a.t @ecause it Eas L.easona@le to assumeL ce.tain 0acts. 2d. at $#""
Cem=hasis addedA. (hat satis0ies ule $$, @ecause L0o. ule $$ =u.=oses, the allegation me.el/
must @e su==o.ted @/ some e<idence,L not @/ a =.e=onde.ance. 2d. at $#"". \^ Ch.istian <. ?attel,
2nc., 2', *.#d $$$' C!th Ci.. 2002A C.e<e.ses an aEa.d o0 sanctions on othe. g.ounds, un.elated to
the me.itsA. (his case ne<e. discusses the =.o=.iet/ o0 .el/ing on in0e.ences d.aEn 0.om
ci.cumstantial e<idence, as o==osed to di.ect e<idence, so it is i..ele<ant to the =.esent motion. \^
3a.ding 6ni<. <. Consulting %e.<ices :.ou=, 2nc., 4' *. %u==. 2d ",5, ",! CN.D. 27 $!!!A Cdenies
motion 0o. sanctionsA CLa sanction Eill not @e im=osed Ounde. ule $$P unless a s=eci0ic allegation
is utte.l/ <oid o0 su==o.tLA. 2n sum, ci.cumstantial e<idence su==o.ts the allegation that de0endants
<iolated thei. non)=i.ac/ ag.eements. Cont.a./ to de0endants. mistaKen @elie0, that satis0ies ule
$$. 2V. De0endants\] E00o.t to L4utEeighL 1lainti00\]s E<idence Badl/ ?isses the ?a.K
De0endants. B.ie0 .aises th.ee additional a.guments F theo.ies. Collecti<el/, these a.guments seeK
to negate o. outEeigh the ci.cumstantial e<idence on Ehich =lainti00 .elies. Acco.ding to
- '2F!# -
V3.848
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
de0endants: C$A Ehen Eagle hi.ed =lainti00.s em=lo/ees, Badostain and ile/ sta/ed out o0 the
=.ocess, e<en though no.mall/ it is =a.t o0 thei. duties to a==.o<e such hi.ings; C2A the loan
o00ice.s Ee.e unha==/ at ?et7i0e BanK, so Badostain and ile/ didn.t need to solicit them; and C#A
=lainti00.s ule 2,CaA Disclosu.es 0ail to identi0/ an/ Eitnesses Eho can testi0/ that Badostain and
ile/ @.eached thei. non)=i.ac/ ag.eements. All th.ee a.guments a.e g.oundless, =a.ticula.l/ in the
conte+t o0 a ule $$ motion. (he 0i.st tEo me.el/ de@ate the ultimate me.its o0 this case, .el/ing
on .ecent a00ida<its and othe. alleged L0actsL that a.e i..ele<ant to a ule $$ motion Cthose
decla.ations cannot e<en @e conside.ed at this stageA. (he t.uth o. 0alsit/ o0 those allegations must
@e tested th.ough disco<e./. (he thi.d a.gument, .ega.ding =lainti00.s ule 2,CaA Disclosu.es, is
Eo.se. 2t is @oth 0alse and i..ele<ant . on to= o0 that, it is Eo.ded in a calculated and misleading
Ea/.
V. 1.ocedu.al Ba.: De0endants\] ?otion %hould @e %t.icKen 0o. *ailu.e to %t.ictl/ Com=l/ Eith
the 2$)Da/ L%a0e 3a.@o.L equi.ements (he =.esent motion is not onl/ g.oundless on the me.its,
@ut also =.ocedu.all/ @a..ed. ule $$ contains a sa0e ha.@o. .equi.ement. Be0o.e 0iling a ule $$
motion, the mo<ing =a.t/ must se.<e that motion on the o==osing =a.t/, and then gi<e that =a.t/
2$ da/s to conside. Ehethe. to Eithd.aE the allegedl/ o00ending allegation. *C1 $$CcAC2A. (he
mo<ing =a.t/ is not =e.mitted to 0ile its motion until the 2$ da/ sa0e ha.@o. =e.iod e+=i.es. *C1
$$CcAC2A. As the Ninth Ci.cuit has .e=eatedl/ decla.ed, L9e en0o.ce this sa0e ha.@o. =.o<ision
st.ictl/.L 3olgate <. BaldEin, 425 *.#d ,"$, ,"" C!th Ci.. 2005A Cule $$ im=oses Lst.ingent notice
and 0iling .equi.ements on =a.ties seeKing sanctions. . . . 9e must .e<e.se OanP aEa.d o0 sanctions
Oi0 the mo<ingP =a.t/ 0ailed to com=l/ Eith the sa0e ha.@o. =.o<isions,L Eithout .ega.d to the
unde.l/ing me.its o0 the motionA. 3e.e, de0endants 0ailed to com=l/. (he 2$ da/s ne<e. @egan
.unning, @ecause de0endants 0ailed to se.<e thei. motion on =lainti00. 4n 5ul/ $,, 20$0, @e0o.e
- '#F!# -
V3.849
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0iling the =.esent ule $$ motion, de0endants sent =lainti00 an unsigned d.a0t o0 thei. motion and
@.ie0, @ut 0ailed to se.<e an e+ecuted co=/ o0 those =a=e.s. CE+h. *A and C3a..is decla.ation, _`"A
Cinstead o0 signing these motion =a=e.s, de0endants stam=ed the Eo.d LDA*(L on the signatu.e
lineA. E<en Eo.se, du.ing the 2$ da/ sa0e ha.@o. =e.iod, de0endants deli@e.atel/ .e0used to shoE
=lainti00 the decla.ations o. e+hi@its .e0e.enced in thei. @.ie0, e<en a0te. =lainti00 noti0ied de0ense
counsel that those mate.ials had @een omitted 0.om the 5ul/ $, =acKage. C3a..is, _`')$0A and
CE+hs. : and 3A. (o sta.t the 2$ da/ clocK .unning, ule $$ .equi.es the mo<ing =a.t/ to 0o.mall/
Lse.<eL its motion and @.ie0 on the othe. =a.t/. *C1 $$CcAC2A CLthe motion must @e se.<ed unde.
ule 5LA. (he ule does not sa/ LsendL o. L=.o<ide,L it sa/s Lse.<e.L (o a<oid an/
misunde.standing, the ule adds that it must @e Lse.<ed unde. ule 5L; i.e., in the same manne. as
an/ othe. t/=e o0 motion is se.<ed CEithout EC* noti0ication, o0 cou.seA. %ee also adcli00e <.
ain@oE Const.. Co., 254 *.#d ""2, ""' C!th Ci.. 200$A Citalics in o.iginalA Cthe.e is a Lst.ict
.equi.ement that OtheP motion @e se.<ed on the o==osing =a.t/ O2$P da/s =.io. to 0ilingL; these
L=.ocedu.al .equi.ements . . . a.e mandato./LA; 9oods, 200" 6.%. Dist. 7EG2% 5'2!$, M' CD. Ne<.
200"A C5. CooKeA CLin this ci.cuit . . . su@stantialOP com=lOiancePL Eith the sa0e ha.@o. .equi.ements
is insu00icient; Lst.ict com=liance . . . is mandato./LA 9hat de0endants did he.e, sending an
unsigned d.a0t and .e0using to =.o<ide a co=/ o0 the su==o.ting decla.ations, 0ails to satis0/ the
.equi.ement. 4.Connell <. %mith, 200' 97 4""'"5, M$)2 CD. A.iJ. 200'A CL1lainti00 noti0ied
De0endants o0 he. intention to 0ile a ule $$ motion 0o. sanctions, and 0o.Ea.ded . . . a d.a0t o0 that
motionL to them, @ut that is insu00icient to com=l/ Eith the sa0e ha.@o. .equi.ementA Citalics in
o.iginalA. De0endants a==a.entl/ .el/ on cases 0.om othe. ci.cuits, some o0 Ehich do not en0o.ce
the sa0e ha.@o. .ules as st.ictl/ as Ninth Ci.cuit cou.ts do, @ut Ninth Ci.cuit autho.it/ is cont.olling
he.e. V2. 1lainti00 %hould @e AEa.ded the Atto.ne/s\] *ees 2t 2ncu..ed 4==osing (his ?otion
- '4F!# -
V3.850
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
6nde. ule $$, atto.ne/ 0ees ma/ @e aEa.ded to an/ L=.e<ailing =a.t/,L including one Eho
success0ull/ o==oses a ule $$ motion. *C1 $$CcAC2A. L(he nonmo<ing =a.t/ need not 0ile a
c.oss)motion to O.eco<e.P 0ees, as the cou.t can aEa.d .easona@le e+=enses to the =.e<ailing =a.t/,
including atto.ne/Bs 0ees, incu..ed in =.esenting o. o==osing the Oule $$P motion.L E. :lucK
Co.=., 252 *..D. at $"! Citalics addedA C@ut cou.t declined to aEa.d 0ees, stating: this Lule $$
motion teete.s as close as it can a==.oach, Eithout c.ossing o<e., to the @o.de.line o0 @eing
sanctiona@leLA; :aia.do <. Eth/l Co.=., '#5 *.2d 4"!, 4'5 C#d Ci.. $!'"A ClaE/e.s Eho 0ile
un0ounded ule $$ motions Lin<ite .et.i@ution 0.om cou.ts, Ehich a.e 0a. 0.om enchanted Eith
such a@usi<e conduct. A cou.t ma/ im=ose sanctions on its oEn initiati<e Ehen the ule is
in<oKed 0o. an im=.o=e. =u.=oseLA. 3e.e, de0endants should @e .equi.ed to =a/ =lainti00.s atto.ne/
0ees 0o. se<e.al .easons: C$A thei. motion is 0.i<olous; C2A thei. motion mis.e=.esented the holdings
o0 multi=le cases; C#A it mis.e=.esented 0acts, too; and C4A it seems liKel/ that de0endants had
ulte.io. moti<es. A. De0endants ?is.e=.esented *acts (his B.ie0 has al.ead/ documented hoE
de0endants @adl/ mis.e=.esented the holdings o0 multi=le cases the/ cited. C%u=.a, ==. $0)$$A Call
4 cited cases denied sanctions; 0u.the., tEo di.ectl/ endo.sed the use o0 ci.cumstantial e<idence as
legitimate Le<identia./ su==o.t,L Ehile the othe. tEo ne<e. add.essed that issue at allA. De0endants
ha<e taKen simila. li@e.ties Eith the 0acts. A cou=le o0 instances Ee.e discussed a@o<e: thei.
misleading desc.i=tion o0 =lainti00.s ule 2, Disclosu.es, and Badostain.s incom=lete, ca.e0ull/
Eo.ded decla.ation. 9ithout t./ing to list e<e./ occasion, he.e a.e tEo additional e+am=les. \^
De?aio\]s 7ette.. De0endants. theo./ o0 the case 0ocuses on changes in =lainti00.s com=ensation
=lan. Acco.ding to De0endants. B.ie0, =lainti00.s CE4, Donna De?aio, told all o0 =lainti00.s loan
o00ice.s that i0 the/ didn.t liKe the neE com=ensation =lan, the/ should looK 0o. Do@s elseEhe.e
Cem=hasis addedA: O2Pn a lette. 0.om ?et7i0e.s CE4 Donna De?aio to all ?et7i0e OBanKP
- '5F!# -
V3.851
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
em=lo/ees .ega.ding the changes to the com=ensation s/stem and othe. changes that Ee.e
un=o=ula. among the loan o00ice.s, ?s. De?aio E.ote, LEm@.ace change. (he alte.nati<e is
una==ealing.L (his lette. told loan o00ice.s that i0 the/ Ee.e not on @oa.d Eith the changes ?et7i0e
Eas taKing to enhance ?et7i0e.s =.o0ita@ilit/, Lthen /ou might Eant to conside. othe. o=tions.L
CDe0s. B.ie0, =. ,A Cciting De0endants. E+hi@it 2)AA. (hat is a @latant mis.e=.esentation. De?aio.s
email CE+h. 2)AA ne<e. mentions an/thing a@out the com=ensation =lan. Not once. (he LchangesL
she desc.i@es .e0e. to: CaA neE laEs and .egulations, im=osed due to the national mo.tgage c.isis;
and C@A ?et7i0e BanK tightening its .ules, to c.acK doEn on L6NE(32CA7 and D2%34NE%(L
lending =.actices. CE+h. 2)A, =. 4A. (he em=lo/ees Eho should Lconside. othe. o=tionsL a.e those
Eho .e0use to go along Eith neE lending standa.ds, =eo=le Eho LD4N.( (32N> (3E 67E%
A1178 (4 (3E?.L CE+h. 2)A, =. 4A. E+hi@it 2)A ne<e. suggests that loan o00ice.s should lea<e i0
the/ disliKe the neE com=ensation =lan. De0endants KnoE the/ mis.e=.esented Ehat this email
sa/s. 2n a con<e.sation @etEeen counsel, =lainti00.s atto.ne/ =ointed out that De?aio.s email ne<e.
mentions the com=ensation =lan, then accused de0endants o0 LtaKing it out o0 conte+t.L C3a..is,
_`$2A. De0endants. laE/e. did not e<en t./ to Dusti0/ the mis.e=.esentation .ega.ding E+h. 2)A.
2nstead, he .e=lied, in e00ect C=a.a=h.asingA, LEhethe. o. not that one is a little out o0 conte+t,
simila. statements @/ 1ete B.oEn clea.l/ add.essed the com=ensation =lan.L C3a..is, _`$2A. \^
L50[ o0 1lainti00\]s 7oan 400ice.s Huit.L 2n thei. d.a0t @.ie0, de0endants alleged that =lainti00.s
neE com=ensation =lan Eas so un=o=ula., nea.l/ 50[ o0 its loan o00ice.s ha<e quit Eithin the =ast
0eE months: 2n 4cto@e. 200! ODust @e0o.e the neE com=ensation =lan tooK e00ectP, ?et7i0e
em=lo/ed nea.l/ $#00 loan o00ice.s. Eagle has @een in0o.med that ?et7i0e cu..entl/ em=lo/s onl/
a==.o+imatel/ "00 loan o00ice.s. . . . O(he othe.sP .esigned 0.om ?et7i0e as a .esult o0 its neE
@usiness model. . . . CE+h. *, =. ,A. Du.ing the sa0e ha.@o. =e.iod, =lainti00 in0o.med de0endants
- ',F!# -
V3.852
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
that the L"00 0igu.eL is LnoEhe.e close to accu.ate.L CE+h. 3, =. ,A. Du.ing a meet)and)con0e.,
=lainti00.s counsel added that in .es=onse to disco<e./, =lainti00 Eould =.oduce documents
shoEing that it still em=lo/s mo.e than $,000 loan o00ice.s. C3a..is, _`$$A. %ee also C?ustach,
_`!A. De0endants. laE/e. conceded that de0endants lacK =.oo0 o0 the "00 0igu.e, so he ag.eed to
L.emo<e OthatP allegationL 0.om de0endants. ule $$ @.ie0 . and he did so. CDu.ham, _`#A. But that
did not sto= Badostain 0.om including this 0alse 0igu.e in his decla.ation . although he ca.e0ull/
=.otected himsel0 against =e.Du./ @/ acKnoEledging that his @elie0 is inadmissi@le, as it .ests solel/
on hea.sa/. CBadostain, _`#A CL2 ha<e @een in0o.med @/ nume.ous KnoEledgea@le sou.ces that
?et7i0e noE em=lo/ees onl/ a==.o+imatel/ "00 loan o00ice.s ..., O@ut ?et7i0e.s .eco.ds shoE the
actual 0igu.es, so the/P Eill con0i.m o. .e0ute Othat 0igu.ePLA. 2n sho.t, de0endants t.ied to =lant a
seed in the Cou.t.s mind, des=ite KnoEing that the "00 0igu.e is liKel/ 0alse, and that Badostain.s
testimon/ is inadmissi@le hea.sa/. B. De0endants 7iKel/ 3a<e 6lte.io. ?oti<es 0o. *iling (his
?otion Be0o.e 0iling this motion, de0ense counsel KneE Ehat =lainti00.s claim in<ol<es. (he/
KneE that =lainti00 accuses Badostain and 7eEis o0 <iolating thei. non)=i.ac/ ag.eements @/
a==.o<ing o. suggesting hi.es @ehind the scenes, not @/ Lacti<el/ solicitingL loan o00ice.s.
1lainti00.s counsel st.essed this =oint du.ing the meet)and)con0e., and de0ense counsel
acKnoEledged his unde.standing. C3a..is, _`5A and CDe0s. ?otion, =. $$A and CE+h. DA. 9h/,
then, did de0endants de<ote 20[ o0 thei. B.ie0, including 4 o0 the 0i.st 5 =ages, to .e@utting a
theo./ that =lainti00 is not ad<ocatingI 9h/ did the/ s=end so much time a.guing that Badostain
and 7eEis did not need to acti<el/ solicit =lainti00.s loan o00ice.s, @ecause su==osedl/ those loan
o00ice.s al.ead/ disliKed Eo.King at ?et7i0e BanKI 2t a==ea.s de0endants a.e using this ule $$
motion to t./ to gain a tactical ad<antage, e<en i0
- '"F!# -
V3.853
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
that entails KnoEingl/ maKing i..ele<ant a.guments, Dust to gi<e them an Le+cuseL to =ut ce.tain
allegations in 0.ont o0 the Cou.t ea.l/ in the case. 6n0o.tunatel/, such a@uses o0 ule $$ a.e
common. :aia.do, '#5 *.2d at 4'4 Cthe.e is a Lg.oEing tendenc/L to La@usOePL ule $$ @/ using it
0o. ulte.io. =u.=oses; L(he ule is @eing =e.<e.ted . . . @/ some OlaEP 0i.ms and thei. clientsLA.
De0endants sometimes CmisAuse ule $$ motions as a <ehicle to sta.t conditioning the cou.t to @u/
into thei. theo./ o0 the case; i.e., to in0luence the Cou.t.s 0i.st im=.ession o0 the case. 9a.tsila
N%D N. Ame.ica, 2nc. <. 3ill 2nt.l, 2nc., #$5 *. %u==. 2d ,2#, ,2' CD.N.5. 2004A CLe<en i0 a ule
$$ motion is ultimatel/ denied, the mo<ing =a.t/ ma/ @e e00ecti<el/ .eEa.ded i0 the motion is
alloEed to lead the Cou.t into a sea.ching e<aluation o0 the me.its o0 a caseLA; E. :lucK Co.=., 252
*..D. at $"! C%.D. N.8. 200'A CLin man/ .es=ects thOis ule $$P motion is g.ounded on matte.s
that go to the me.its o0 the =a.tiesB dis=uteO, not to the a==.o=.iateness o0 ule $$ sanctionsP. . . .
O(hatP is not onl/ =.ematu.e @ut entails a misuse o0 ule $$ that could @e es=eciall/ det.imentalLA.
(hat ma/ @e de0endants. goal he.e. E<entuall/, Ehen this case .eaches summa./ Dudgment and
t.ial, de0endants Eill need to a.gue that the loan o00ice.s Eould ha<e quit an/Ea/ . not to de0end
against the claims thei. ule $$ motion add.esses, @ut to de0end against othe. claims, such as
@.each o0 0iducia./ dut/. Alte.nati<el/, de0endants ma/ ho=e to gain an edge @/ conditioning the
Cou.t in a second Ea/. 2n .es=onding to a ule $$ motion, =lainti00 necessa.il/ a.gues that it has
Lat least some su==o.tL 0o. its allegations. (hat is the a==lica@le legal standa.d, so that is all
=lainti00 should a.gue he.e. %till, such de0ensi<e)sounding language might c.eate a 0i.st im=.ession
in the Cou.t.s mind that =lainti00.s case is EeaK, e<en Ehen it .eall/ is st.ong. %ome de0endants
also use a ule $$ motion to LtestL a =lainti00.s case. 9a.tsila, #$5 *. %u==. 2d at ,2'. (he/ ma/
calculate that Ehen 0o.ced to de0end against a th.eat o0 sanctions, a t/=ical =lainti00.s laE/e. Eill
disclose his theo./ o0 the case, and his su==o.ting e<idence, 0a. mo.e 0ull/ and clea.l/ than he
- ''F!# -
V3.854
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 do in .es=onse to E.itten disco<e./ .equests. 2n sho.t, ule $$ can @e misused as a
Ldisco<e./ de<ice.L 9a.tsila, #$5 *. %u==. 2d at ,2'. (hat theo./ is =lausi@le he.e, es=eciall/ as
de0endants stoneEalled disco<e./ and dela/ed de=ositions 0o. se<e.al months. As a .esult, in
=.e=a.ing 0o. those de=ositions, de0endants noE can taKe 0ull ad<antage o0 an/thing the/ lea.n
a@out =lainti00.s case th.ough thei. ule $$ motion. *inall/, o0 cou.se, man/ de0endants use ule
$$ motions as an intimidation tactic, ho=ing to sca.e the o==osing =a.t/ o. counsel into d.o==ing
its claims, o. settling chea=l/. :aia.do, '#5 *.2d at 4'5 CLthe use o0 ule $$ as an additional tactic
o0 intimidation and ha.assment has @ecome =a.t o0 the so)called .ha.d@all. litigation techniques
es=oused @/ some 0i.ms and thei. clientsLA. 3e.e, in the co<e. lette. accom=an/ing thei. ule $$
th.eat, de0endants suggested that to a<oid ule $$ sanctions, =lainti00 should settle 0o. nothing @ut
a 0ace sa<ing toKen. CE+h. E, =. 4A CLthe.e a.e com=elling su@stanti<e and =.actical .easons 0o.
?et7i0e to maKe a g.ace0ul e+it 0.om this litigation. 20 ?et7i0e is inte.ested, Ee Eould @e ha==/ to
discuss logisticsLA. 20 the Cou.t 0inds that an/ o0 these ulte.io. moti<es Ee.e =.esent he.e, it
ce.tainl/ should aEa.d =lainti00 the 0ees it incu..ed .es=onding to this motion. But e<en i0 the
Cou.t does not 0ind that de0endants had im=.o=e. moti<es, it still can aEa.d 0ees to =lainti00: @ased
on the utte. lacK o0 me.it in de0endants. motion, andFo. the multi=le mis.e=.esentations de0endants
em=lo/ed to t./ to o@tain sanctions. E.g.: OBPecause . . . the allegations in the =.esent Oule $$P
motion a.e untena@le, mis=laced, ina==.o=.iate 0o. a ule $$ motion, o. sim=l/ ine+=lica@le . . .
the 1lainti00 Eill @e aEa.ded the costs associated Eith .es=onding to this motion as the =.e<ailing
=a.t/ unde. ule $$. . . . OA motion 0o.P ule $$ sanctions OisP =.o=e.l/ de=lo/ed onl/ in
e+ce=tional ci.cumstances, this is not such a ci.cumstance. 9a.tsila, #$5 *. %u==. 2d at ,#0.
1lainti00 .es=ect0ull/ su@mits that the same conclusion should @e .eached he.e.
CONCLUSION
- '!F!# -
V3.855
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
1lease set aside all the dismissals and .ecogniJe =.ocess and se.<ice o0 =.ocess as a==.o=.iatel/
conducted, consolidate these cases, and an/ othe. .elie0 this Cou.ts sees as a==.o=.iate.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS >&@E.1&1
(he unde.signed does he.e@/ a00i.m that the =.eceding document does not contain the social secu.it/
num@e. o0 an/ =e.son.
DA(ED (32%: 5anua./ $", 20$2,
FsF Zach Coughlin, signed elect.onicall/
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1lainti00
- !0F!# -
V3.856
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
DECLARATION OF FACH COU2LIN IN SUPPORT OF THE FORE2OIN2 DOCUMENT
$. (his Decla.ation is made =u.suant to the =.o<isions o0 N% 5#.045, 2 am =.esentl/ in the %tate o0
Ne<ada and 2 decla.e unde. =enalt/ o0 =e.Du./ that the 0o.egoing is t.ue and co..ect.
2. Decla.ant is the 1lainti00 in the a@o<e title action.
#. Decla.ant a<e.s that the 0actual statements set 0o. a@o<e in the 0o.egoing document a.e, to the
@est o0 his KnoEledge and unde.standing, accu.ate.
4. 2, Zach Coughlin, am a<aila@le to testi0/, i0 necessa./, as to these matte.s. 2 decla.e unde. =enalt/
o0 =e.Du./ that the 0o.egoing is t.ue and co..ect.
E+ecuted on 5anua./ 2$, 20$$
FsF Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
17A2N(2**
- !$F!# -
V3.857
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Proo# o# Ser+i!eG
4n this date, 2, Zach Coughlin elect.onicall/ se.<ed a t.ue and co..ect co=/ o0 the 0o.egoing
document to:
B.ian :onsal<es, Esq
1.4. Bo+ !0"
>ings Beach, CA !,$4#
Atto.ne/ 0o. (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices CC2%2% 2N(EVEN(24N %EV2CE%A 932C3 2% N4( A
NA?ED 1A(8 AND 3A% N4( 2N(E17ED 4 *27ED A% A EA7 1A(8 2N 2N(EE%(
721%4N, NE27%4N, C47E, %E7(ZE X :A2N
54%E13 1. :A2N, E%H.
Ne<ada Ba. No. ,,5#
%3ANN4ND N4D%(4?
Ne<ada Ba. No. '2$$
!0'0 9est 1ost oad, %uite $00
7asVegas, Ne<ada '!$4'
(E7: C"02A#'2)$500 *AG: C"02A #'2)$5$2
Atto.ne/ 0o. De0endant 9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, a Ne<ada Co.=o.ation, >A(38
BEC>EN2D:E, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as Boa.d 1.esident o0 97%, (4DD
(4V2NEN, 2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97% Boa.d ?em@e., 1A67 E7CAN4, 2ndi<iduall/
and in his ca=acit/ as E+ecuti<e Di.ecto. o0 97%, D4E% $)$00, 2ndi<iduall/ and in thei. ca=acit/ as
mem@e.s o0 the B4AD 4* D2EC(4% 4* 9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, CA8N
%(EN72:3(, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/, 54N %A%%E, 2ndi<iduall/ and in
his ca=acit/ as 97% agent, >AEN %AB4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/,
?AC A%37E8, 2ndi<iduall/ and in his ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/, ZANDA 741EZ; 2ndi<iduall/
and in he. ca=acit/ as 97% em=lo/ee;
DA(ED (32%: 5anua./ 2$, 20$2,
FsF Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
17A2N(2**
- !2F!# -
V3.858
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
INDEH TO EHHIEITS
$.EG32B2( $: A00ida<it o0 %e.<ice 0iled in CV$$)0$!55 0iled @/ 9ashoe Count/ %he.i00Bs 400ice
con0usingl/ com@ining se.<ice o0 =.ocess A00ida<it in tEo di00e.ent cases CV$$)0$!55 and CV$$)
0$'!,; Nine C!A =ages.
- !#F!# -
V3.859
EXHIBIT #1
EXHIBIT #1
F I L E D
Electronically
01-26-2012:01:53:51 AM
Clerk of the Court
V3.860
V3.861
/
,
..
2
3
12
13
14
., .. ---; ... ,,'-
Zkti- 0uCrlttL-1
vs.
2011 NOV 22 PM I: 1/
. G'ctm<
,
I
-.'
Case No, LvI/-Of ISS
Dept No. ___ -'-/-'0=--__
SUMMONS
.; .
I
TO THE DEFENDANT: YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU
WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND IN WRITING WITHIN 20 DAYS.o/
READ THE INFORMATION BELOW VERY CAREFULLY. I
IS
A civil complaint or petition has been filed by the plaintiff(s) against you for the relief as set forth in that ..
action, See Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4(b).
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
The object of this action is: _________________________ _
a. File with the Clerk of the Court, whose address is shown below, a formal written
accordance with the rules of the Court, and;
b. Serve a copy of your answer upon the attomey or plaintiff(s) whose name and address
is shown below.
RC\'l'>cd 9/27/2010 AA
SUMMONS COMPlAtNT
I
/
. ..
V3.862
Zach Coughlin
PLAINTIFF
Vs
Washoe Legal Services et al
DEFENDANT
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE
}
J ss:
}
Civil File Number: 110\3862
CASE No. CVI 101955
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Kim Graham, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That affiant IS a citizen of the United States, over
18 years of age, not a party to the within entered achon, and that in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, personally
served the described documents upon:
Person served:
Mark Ashley
LocatIOn: Washoe Legal Services 299 S Arlington Avenue Reno, NY 89501
Date:
1\1\41201\ Time: 1:56PM
The document(s) served were: SUMMONS: COPY OF CASE CVII-OI955 (I page)
Zachary Barker Coughlm
121 Ri ver Rock Street
Reno, NV 89501
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me before me this
/171- dayof '-/1n.A('/A.lWr 20ti.
C dt:VVL --
NOTARY PUBLIC In and for said State of Nevada,
County of Washoe
MICHAEL HALEY, SHERIFF

Sheriff's Au
911 PARR BOULEVARD RENO, NV 89512-1000 (775) 328-3310
V3.863
Zath Coughlin
PLAINTIFF
Vs
DEFENDANT
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ss:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil File Number: 11013868
CASE No. CVl 101955
Kim Graham, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That affiant is a citizen of the United States, over
18 years of age, not a party to the wlthm entered action, and that in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, p.ersonally
served the described documents upon'
Person served: Jon Sasser
LocatIOn: Washoe Legal Services 299 S Arlington Avenue Reno, NY 89501
Date: 1111412011 Time: 1:56PM
The document(s) served were: SUMMONS: COPY OF CASE CVU-01955 (1 PAGE)
Zachary Barker Coughlin
121 River Rock Street
Reno, NV 89501
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me before me this Sheriff' Agent
"
"""'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''" .....
: .v,. '" ROXANNA L. SILVA :
1 Notary PublIc State of Nevada
: Appointment REioorded In Washoe County
i '.... No: 01-1l'O2-!'lIPI, .. 1Jooom1Mlr 7. 2014,
,. ,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,''',,,,,,,,
V3.864
Zath Coughlin
PLAINTIFF
Vs
Washoe Legal Services et.1
DEFENDANT
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE
CASE No. CVII01955
ss:
18 years of age, not a party to the within entered action, and that in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, personally
Person served: Caryn Stemhcht
Location: Washoe Legal Services 299 S Arlmgton Avenue Reno, NV 89501
Date: 1111512011 Time: 9:50AM
The document(s) served were: SUMMONS: COPY OF CASE CVll-Ot955
Reno, NV 89501
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me before me thIs
1
I
-L....!-_dayof '71r1H III oLQ'l
c '-...,;
20_1_(.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and or said State of Nevada,
County of Washoe

! Public State of Ne\l'sda
"":e. Appointment Recorded in washoe Coonty E
; -,.... No: g7-11S9-2 E!q>ir .. C....,bo 7 20 i
. ,',", ".".,. '''''' .. , "" """"'''' '''''' ""',,' '"" ""'''"11'' "'
V3.865
Zach CoughlIn
PLAINTIFF
Vs
DEFENDANT
STATE OF NEVADA }
1 ss:
COUNTY OF WASHOE )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE No. CVlI01955
Sub-served:
Location:
Date:
CAAW by serving Denise Yoxslmer, ExecutIve Director
1735 Vassar Street Reno, NV 89502
11/14/2011 Time: 1:35PM
The document(s) served were: SUMMONS: COPY OF CASE CVll-OI955; SUMMONS: COPY OF CASE CVll-
01896; COPY: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT; RACIAL DlSCRIMNATION;
TORTOIOUS CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, WRITTEN,ORAL, OR IMPLIED; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 1983 STATE ACTOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS; WHiSTLEBLOWER
RETALlAIONS; PUNITIVE DAMAGES; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Reno, NV 89501
By.: ___ ____________ ___
Sheri
V3.866
Zacb Coughlin
PLAINTIFF
Vs
Washoe Legal Services et 31
DEFENDANT
STATE OF NEVADA }
} ss:
COVNTYOFWASHOE )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE No, CVlI01955
18 years of age, not a party to the within entered action, and that in the County of Washoe, State of Nevacia, personally
Person served: Melissa Mangiaracina
location:
Washoe Legal Services 299 S Arhngton A venue Reno, NV 8950 I
Date: 11/16/201 I TIme: II :02AM
The document(s) served were: SUMMONS; COPY: COMPLAINT (EXEMPT FROM ARBITRATION,
EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF REQUESTED; COPY: SUMMONS (CASE CVlI-01896); COPY: COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT; RACIAL D1SCRIMNATION; TORTOIOUS CONSTRUCTION
DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT,
WRITTEN,ORAL, OR IMPLIED; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 1983
STATE ACTOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS; WHiSTLEBLOWER RETALIAIONS; PUNITIVE
DAMAGES; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Reno, NV 89501
By:
Sh -Sty0rized Agent

l Notary Public State at Nevada
ApjXIintment Recorded \fl Washoe County
; ... ,,,0' No: 07.1159-2 - Expires Oecember 7. 2014
.... .., ...... " .............. " .... "....... . ............................. , " ..... ,.
V3.867
. .
,

,
, .
Zach Coughlin
PLAINTIFF
Vs
DEFENDANT
STATE OF NEVADA }
} ss:
COUNTY OF WASHOE }
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE No. CVl 101955
Person served:
Karen Sabo
Location:
Washoe Legal Services 299 S Arlington Avenue Reno, NY 89501
Date: 11116/2011 Time: 11 :04AM
The document(s) served were: SUMMONS: COPY OF CASE CVII01955 AND COpy OF SUMMONS, CASE
CVll-01896
Reno, NV 89501
SUBSCRmED AND SWORN to me before me this
20 li
L- H . A-"-- <- .::' (J vL..
NOTARY PUBLIC in and or said State ofNevada,
County of Washoe
i .. '"'::;:'';;::''''''''''''''''ROX''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ....
! :', '\ ANNA L, SILVA i
PUblic State of Nevada
Appointment Recorded in Wash- e ... Iy :
: .... ' NO' 07.11 . :
." ... " .. ,,,,,,,,:, .. ,,,, ..
orized Agent
V3.868
"
Zach Coughlin
PLAINTIFF
Vs
Washoe legal Services et al
DEFENDANT
STATE OF NEVADA I
Iss:
COUNTY OF WASHOE )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil File Number: 110\3843
CASE No, CVI 101955
Deputy Tony Moratti #603, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That affiant is a citizen of the United
States, over 18 years of age, not a party to the within entered action, and that in the County of Washoe, State of
Nevada, personally served the described documents upon:
Sul>-served: Tahoe Womens Services aka Tahoe Safe Alliance by serving Jackie Dontcho, office staff
Location: 948 Incline Way Incline Village, NV 89451
Date:
111912011 Time: 12:35PM
The document(s) served were: SUMMONS (COPY OF CASE CVlI-019SS); SUMMONS (COPY OF CASE
CVll-01896); copy: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT; RACIAL
DISCRIMNATlON; TORTOIOUS CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
BREACH OF EMPWYMENT CONTRACT, WRITTEN,ORAL, OR IMPLIED; INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 1983 STATE ACTOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS;
WHISTLEBWWER RETALlAIONS; PUNITIVE DAMAGES; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Reno, NV 89501
q'{J1 dayof 1/

County of Washoe
MICHAEL HALEY, S ERIFF
V3.869
r
o! ' .,
Zach Coughlin
PLAINTIFF
Vs
DEFENDANT
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE
55:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CivIl File Number: 11013839
CASE No. CVII01955
DavId Wolfe, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That affiant is a citizen of the United States, over 18
years of age, not a party to the within entered action, and that in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, personally
Person served: Paul Elcano
Location: Washoe Legal Services 299 S Arlington Avenue Reno, NV 89501
Date: 1111512011 Time: 10:47AM
The document(s) served were: SUMMONS; COPY OF COMPLAINT (CASE CVII,01955): (EXEMPT FROM
ARBITRATION: EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF REQUESTED)
Reno, NV 89501
NOTAR PUSL in and for said State ofNevada,
County of Washoe
,.(1)--.;0"'".,;;," .... ,
Notary Public State of Ne,.,'18da
t AWoi_nt Rooorded In Was"" t
j ., No: lG-123S-2 Elql41860ct0ber 16.
2013
t
........................ , ............... , .. ,., .. , .. , .. ".'.' ............... " ............ .
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-26-2012:09:18:42
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn to Set Aside Decree
-**Continuation
WOMEN'S SERVICES
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
V3.870
PAUL ELCANO
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.871

- 1 -
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
3860
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845


ZACHARY COUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants

Dept. No.: 6
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER
Defendant Crisis Intervention Services, incorrectly named as Tahoe Womens Services,
by and through its attorney Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., submits the following opposition to
Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside Order Granting Defendants Elcano, Torvinen, Sasser, Ashley,
Sabo, WLS, CIS and Breckenridges Motion(s) to Dismiss, hereafter referred to as Plaintiffs
Motion. Crisis Intervention Services is referred to herein as CIS.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an attorney licensed in Nevada that worked for, but was discharged from,
Defendant Washoe Legal Services. Plaintiff filed two lawsuits in the Second Judicial District
Courts based on allegations of wrongful discharge. The two lawsuits are this case and Case No.
CV11-01955 in Dept. No. 10. Both suits were filed against essentially the same defendants.
While Plaintiffs claim is based on wrongful discharge, Plaintiff never worked for CIS.
Plaintiff attempted to serve CIS with both suits. Plaintiff, however, apparently shrunk his
F I L E D
Electronically
01-29-2012:03:25:05 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.872

- 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
pleadings so that each page served (except the two summonses) was approximately 3 inches high
by 2 inches wide. The resulting font size was miniscule and completely illegible.
CIS therefore filed its Motion to Dismiss
1
on the grounds that the service of obviously
illegible documents did not constitute proper service under NRCP 4(d) and Local Rule 10(1)
which requires the pages of the documents served to be 8 1/2 x 11 inches in size and
legible.
2
CIS sought a dismissal with prejudice and an award of costs and attorneys fees
based on Plaintiffs service of obviously illegible documents and Plaintiffs pursuit of baseless,
duplicative litigation.
After filing its Motion to Dismiss, counsel for CIS obtained a legible copy of the
Complaint. CIS was not named as a defendant in the Complaint and was not mentioned
anywhere in the body of the Complaint.
Even though CIS was not named or mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiff opposed CISs
Motion to Dismiss.
3
In his opposition, Plaintiff admitted that he shrank the documents to a tiny
font before serving them, which is also a violation of Nevada District Court Rule 12(1) which
requires the font size of all pleadings and papers to be no smaller than a 10 point font. Plaintiff
also made the wholly unsupported allegation that the illegibility of the documents was caused by
CISs counsel receiving the documents via fax from his client. CISs counsel did not receive the
documents via fax and did not even own a fax machine at the time.
CIS filed its reply brief on December 20, 2011. CIS pointed out that Plaintiff had made
no meaningful arguments in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and argued that Plaintiffs
position was untenable because CIS was not named or mentioned in the suit.
On January 11, 2012, the Court entered its Order. The Order granted CISs Motion to
Dismiss and the motions to dismiss of other defendants. The Order, however, denied CISs
requests for a dismissal with prejudice and for an award of fees and costs. Plaintiffs suit was

1
Defendants Motion to Dismiss was filed on November 28, 2011. It was entitled Crisis Intervention Services
Motion to Quash Service and to Dismiss.
2
NRCP 4(d) requires that service be completed by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint.
3
Plaintiffs opposition was filed on December 15, 2011. It was entitled, Opposition to All Defendants Motions to
Dismiss and all Defendants Motion to Quash Service, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond / Continuance;
Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs Simultaneously Seeking Extensions of Time or Continuance to Respond.
V3.873

- 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
therefore dismissed without prejudice.
While the other defendants motions to dismiss were based on untimely service, CISs
Motion to Dismiss was based on the improper and insufficient service of tiny, illegible
documents and on the fact that CIS was not named or mentioned in the Complaint. The Order,
however, only discussed the untimely service argument of the other defendants.
Plaintiff has now filed a 93 page Motion arguing that service was in fact timely. Much of
Plaintiffs Motion is committed to arguing against an award of attorneys fees and costs to CIS,
but there was no award of fees and costs to CIS in the Courts Order. The Order specifically
denied CISs request for fees and costs at page 2:28. Plaintiff has apparently confused this case
with his duplicate case in Department 10 where Judge Elliot entered an award of attorneys fees
and costs against Plaintiff on the grounds that, among other things, that Plaintiff maintained his
Complaint against CIS without reasonable grounds.
4

As discussed below, since CIS is not named or mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiffs
Motion must be denied as to CIS. The dismissal of CIS from this suit is proper.
1. The Dismissal of Plaintiffs Suit Against CIS was Proper Because CIS is Not
Named or Mentioned in the Complaint.
CIS is not named or mentioned anywhere in Plaintiffs Complaint. This is admitted by
Plaintiff repeatedly in his Motion.
5
Plaintiff also admitted this in his pleadings to Judge Elliot.
In the 85 page motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiff in Dept. 10, Plaintiff asked why in
the hell opposing counsel Gonsalves made an appearance in this case / Case CV11-01896 when
Gonsalves own damn client was not even a party to this case / Case CV11-01896.
6
The
answer, of course, is that Plaintiff served CIS with summonses for both cases, opposed CISs
motions to dismiss in both cases, and has filed motions for reconsideration of the orders for
dismissal in both cases. Nonetheless, regardless of Plaintiffs inconsistencies, since CIS is not
named or mentioned anywhere in this Complaint, the dismissal of CIS from this suit is proper.

4
A copy of the order from Case No. CV11-01955 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
5
For example, see pages 39:20 and 46:14 of Plaintiffs Motion.
6
A copy of the pertinent portions of Plaintiffs motion from Case No. CV11-01955 is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
The cited language is from pages 3:18 and 20:23. (Emphasis added.)
V3.874

- 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
2. Plaintiffs Motion Must Be Denied on its Merits.
Plaintiff has filed his Motion pursuant to NRCP 59(e) which pertains to the alteration or
amendment of a judgment. In the case at hand, there has been no judgment. There has only
been an order for dismissal without prejudice with no award of fees or costs. NRCP 59(e)
therefore does not apply and Plaintiffs Motion must be denied.
To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the Courts Order, Plaintiffs
Motion still must be denied. Generally, reconsideration requires: 1) newly discovered evidence,
2) a change in controlling law, or 3) clear error. Multnomah County, Oregon v. AC & S, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Only in very rare instances in which new issues of fact or law
are raised supporting a ruling contrary to the ruling already reached should a motion for
rehearing be granted. Moore v. City of Las Vegas, 551 P.2d 244, 246, 92 Nev. 402 (Nev., 1976).
Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, change in law or clear error that
would apply to CIS. CIS is simply not named or mentioned in the Complaint and should not be a
part of this litigation.
3. Plaintiffs Motion Must Be Denied Because Plaintiffs Conduct Is Grossly
Unprofessional and Disrespectful to the Court.
Plaintiffs Motion is grossly unprofessional and disrespectful to the Court and to the other
attorneys. Plaintiff is Zachary Coughlin, an attorney licensed in the State of Nevada. In his
Motion, Mr. Coughlin sharply criticizes the Court and its decision to dismiss his case without
prejudice. Mr. Coughlin says the following regarding the Courts decision: This is a bunch of
crap,
7
What a joke
8
, and this is still a bunch of baloney!.
9

Mr. Coughlin scolds the Court stating, I would be happy if this Court would simply give
me credit for the things I do. (Motion at 60:21.)
Much of the remainder of Mr. Coughlins Motion is committed to making insulting and
inflammatory remarks about CISs attorney (Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq.). Mr. Coughlin says that

7
Motion at 62:13, emphasis added.
8
9
V3.875

- 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
Mr. Gonsalves is dishonest and evasive
10
. Mr. Coughlin refers to Mr. Gonsalves as sneaky
and dishonest Gonsalves.
11
Mr. Coughlin claims that Gonsalves is the most ridiculous and
embarrassing
12
and Gonsalves fudge[d] the settings on his computer
13
. Mr. Coughlins
tirade of insults and baseless allegations against Mr. Gonsalves continued throughout his 93 page
Motion.
14
Mr. Coughlins accusations eventually degenerated into mere taunts: Really, Brian?
Really? (Motion at 66:1) and Get a grip inside, Bryan, please. (Motion at 66:13).
Mr. Coughlin also used inappropriate language in his tirade to the Court such as
damn
15
, crap,
16
and b.s.
17
.
Finally, Mr. Coughlin posed the following improper questions to the Court:
Why are they allowed to b.s. the court from behind a curtain with a Groucho
Marx mask on with autotune in their mics, wizard of oz style, and not under
oath? (Motion at 41:7-9, emphasis added.)
Huh? (Motion at 56:4.)
But Im the clown who needs an NRS 7.085 sanction, right? (Motion at
60:7.)
In CISs view, a sanction for Mr. Coughlin would be appropriate. Mr. Coughlin has
already been sanctioned twice: once by Judge Elliot in Case No. CV11-01955 and once by Judge
Gardner in Case No. DV08-01168
18
. Mr. Coughlin is apparently undeterred by his previous

10
Motion at 39:8.
11
Motion at 49:19.
12
Motion at 71:25.
13
Motion at 59:8.
14
For example, Mr. Coughlin also makes the following baseless accusations against Mr. Gonsalves: Gonsalves and
TWS are committing a fraud on the court (Motion at 40:19), Gonsalves makes some lame attempt to cook up
an accusation (Motion at 70:14), Gonsalves reckless and dishonest characterizations (Motion at 52:18),
Gonsalves bad faith reliance (Motion at 55:28), fraud on Gonsalves (Motion at 39:26), Gonsalves has
hidden, mislead or left out (Motion at 40:22), and attorneys are lying for them (Motion at 57:13). (Emphasis
added.)
15
Motion at 48:13.
16
Motion at 62:13.
17
Motion at 41:7.
18
Judge Gardner found Mr. Coughlins presentation of the case and arguments in support thereof to be unfounded
in fact, unwarranted by existing law, unreasonable and vexatious throughout this entire proceeding. See page
V3.876

- 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
sanctions. Mr. Coughlins pursuit of CIS in this case is wholly baseless since CIS is not named
or mentioned in this case, and Mr. Coughlins Motion was filled with derogatory and
disrespectful remarks that are alone a sufficient basis for sanctions. CIS suggests that a monetary
sanction of $1,000.00 payable to CIS would be appropriate to deter Mr. Coughlin from
committing future misconduct.
Mr. Coughlins Motion was baseless on its merits, needlessly long and filled with
immaterial, inaccurate and inappropriate arguments. Much of Mr. Coughlins Motion is directed
toward an award of attorneys fees and costs when there was no award of fees and costs in this
case. Mr. Coughlin has unnecessarily extended this litigation and continues to maintain this suit
against CIS without any reasonable basis. Mr. Coughlins arguments are not well grounded in
fact or warranted by existing law. As CIS is not named or mentioned anywhere in the
Complaint, and since Mr. Coughlin has never sought to amend the Complaint to include CIS,
Mr. Coughlin has absolutely no basis to oppose the dismissal of CIS from this suit. CIS
therefore asks that Mr. Coughlins Motion be denied to the extent that it seeks to overturn the
dismissal of CIS. CIS also requests pursuant to NRS 18.010(2)(b) and/or NRS 7.085 that it be
awarded the attorneys fees incurred in opposing Mr. Coughlins Motion.
19

12:4 to 13:17 of the Order After Trial attached as Exhibit 2 to Crisis Intervention Services Reply in Support of
Motion to Quash Service and to Dismiss filed on December 20, 2011. According to the Complaint at page 24:1-3,
this sanction ultimately led to the termination of Plaintiffs employment with Washoe Legal Services which is the
basis of this suit.
19
NRS 18.010(2)(b) provides, in part:
the court may make an allowance of attorneys fees to a prevailing party: (b) Without regard to the recovery
sought, when the court finds that the claim was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to
harass the prevailing party.
NRS 7.085 applies to Mr. Coughlin because he is an attorney licensed in the State of Nevada. NRS 7.085
provides (emphasis added):
1. If a court finds that an attorney has:
(a) Filed, maintained or defended a civil action or proceeding in any court in this State and such
action or defense is not well-grounded in fact or is not warranted by existing law or by an
argument for changing the existing law that is made in good faith; or
(b) Unreasonably and vexatiously extended a civil action or proceeding before any court in this
State,
the court shall require the attorney personally to pay the additional costs, expenses and attorneys
fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.

2. The court shall liberally construe the provisions of this section in favor of awarding costs, expenses and
attorneys fees in all appropriate situations. It is the intent of the Legislature that the court award
V3.877

- 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
The amount of attorneys fees Defendant incurred in opposing Plaintiffs Motion is
$650.00. (A declaration of defense counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 to confirm.)
4. Conclusion.
Plaintiff served CIS with a lawsuit in which CIS is not named or mentioned. Since CIS is
not named or mentioned anywhere in Plaintiffs Complaint, CIS was properly dismissed from
this suit. Plaintiffs Motion must therefore be denied to the extent that it seeks to overturn the
dismissal of CIS. Since Plaintiff is unreasonably maintaining and extending this litigation
against CIS in a grossly unprofessional manner, CIS also respectfully requests an award of
monetary sanctions and attorneys fees against Mr. Coughlin.

The undersigned does hereby affirm that pursuant to NRS 239B.030, this Opposition to
Motion to Set Aside Order does not contain the social security number of any person.
DATED: January 29, 2012.

By:__________________________________
Services

costs, expenses and attorneys fees pursuant to this section and impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11
of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure in all appropriate situations to punish for and deter frivolous
or vexatious claims and defenses because such claims and defenses overburden limited judicial
resources, hinder the timely resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging in
business and providing professional services to the public.

V3.878

- 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
I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed this Opposition to Motion to Set
Aside Order with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which served the following
parties electronically:
Joseph P. Garin, Esq., for Kathy Breckenridge, Marc Ashley, Paul Elcano, Washoe
Legal Services, Caryn Sternlight, Karen Sabo and John
Sasser.


________________________________________________

V3.879

- 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
Index of Exhibits
1. Order Granting Motion to Quash Service and to Dismiss from Case No. CV11-01955.
2. Portions of Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Per NRCP 59 from Case No. CV11-
01955.
3. Declaration of Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq.
V3.880
F I L E D
Electronically
01-29-2012:03:25:05 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.881
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1
V3.882

CODE: 1845
2
3
4
5
6
F I LED
Electronicall y
04-13-2009:09:23:48 AM
Howard W. Conyers
Clerk of the Court
8 OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICf COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
10
11
ASHWIN JOSI-fl,
12 Plaintiff,
Case No. DV08-01168
vs.
13
Dept. No. 14
14 BHARTI JOSHI,
Defendant/ Counterc laimant.
15
------_______________________ 1
16
ORDER AFTER TRIAL
17
18
A Complaint for Divorce was filed by ASHWIN JOSHI (hereinafter Mr. Joshi), by
and through his attorney, JOHN P. SPRINGGA TE, ESQ., on July 8, 2008. An Answer and
19
20
21
22
John P. Springgate, Esq.; and Ms. Joshi, was present and represented by Zachary B.
23
Coughlin, Esq., of Washoe Legal Services.
24
25
26
follows.
27
III
28
III
V3.883
2
3
1.
2.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties were married May 11,1987, in Bombay, India.
The parties have two children, both of whom are now adults.
20 "women's wealth", the vehicles in each party's posseSSion, the vehicles in their children's
21 possession, and" the money the [Ms. Yoshi] earned while working for Legendary Luxury
23 account every month for two and one-half years, [and] which [Mr. Yoshi] told [Ms. Yoshi]
27 a. "Women's Wealth" Property - The parties agreed that the parties'
28 community interest in the" woman's wealth" jewelry (location unknown) belongs to Ms.
2
V3.884

Joshi. Mr. Joshi stated that he would contact his relatives, who may have some of the
2 property, and will request its immediate return to Ms. Joshi.
3 b. Mr. Joshi's Vehicle - Mr. Joshi introduced evidence that the balance
4 on rus 2005 Chevrolet Blazer is $15,009.75 as of March 6, 2009. (Trial Exhibit" A"); and
5 Kelley Blue Book value for the Blazer is $10,910 (Exhibit "B"). Therefore, a deficit in the
6 amount of approximately $4,100.00 exists on the vehicle. At the conclusion of trial, Mr.
7 Joshi requested that he be awarded the Chevrolet Blazer.
10 c. Ms. Joshi's Vehicle - There was no evidence introduced regarding the
11 value of Ms. Joshi's car.
12
d.
Son's Vehicle - Mr. Joshi testified that his adult son is presently
13 driving the Jeep Grand Cherokee and is making the payments for the car directly to the
14 lender, Gear Star Financial. Both parties testified that Ms. Joshi and the parties' son are
15 named on the title. No evidence was presented regarding the balance owed on the Jeep
16 Grand Cherokee.
17 Ms. Joshi presented no evidence on this issue. To the Court's knowledge,
16 Ms. Joshi conducted no discovery on this issue.
19 e. Dau&hter's Vehicle - Mr. Joshi testified that the parties' adult
20 daughter drives and makes payments on the Honda Accord and that title is held in the
21 name of both Mr. Joshi and the parties' daughter.
22 Ms. Joshi testified that she made a payment of $6,000.00 on her credit card for said
23 automobile and the present balance on the credit card was approximately $5,000.00.
24 However, Ms. Joshi presented no evidence to corroborate this contention. Ms. Joshi did
25 not specify a date on which said debt was incurred, she did not provide evidence of any
26 payments made on said credit card, and she did not present evidence of any credit card
27 with a balance in the amount of $5,000.00 remaining thereon.
28 Ms. Joshi presented no further evidence on this issue.
3
V3.885

e. London Bank Account - Mr. Joshi testified that that he did not know
2 if Ms. Joshi's earnings from Tanzania were placed in a London bank account. Mr. Joshi
3 testified he did not control Ms. Joshi' 5 money at that time.
5 account. To the Court's knowledge, Ms. Joshi conducted no discovery on this issue.
6 f. Community Bank Accounts - Ms. Joshi testified that she requested
10 There was no further evidence presented as to the community bank accounts.
11 4.
There is community debt to be divided.
14
a.
General Credit Card Debt - Mr. Joshi testified that he owes
15 apprOximately $15,650 in credit card debt (Trial Exhibit "E"), and argued the charges
17 expenses.
19 b. Best Buv Credit Card Debt - Mr. Joshi stated that the parties
20 purchased a computer and T.V. at Best Buy for approximately $1,314.00. Mr. Joshi
22 Mr. Joshi requested he be awarded the computer presently in Ms. Joshi's
25
c.
Medical Debt - Mr. Joshi testified he owes $6,735.00 to 5t. Mary's
26 Hospital for surgery in May 2008 (Trial Exhibit "F") and $500.00 to REMSA (Trial Exhibit
27 "G").
4
V3.886
- -- - ---------- --

3 d. Family Debt - there are two debts owing to family members or on
5 Mr. Joshi introduced evidence at trial regarding a $5,000.00 debt to Rod and
6 Meena Fowler (Trial Exhibit "H") in the form of a letter from Rod and Meena Fowler.
7 The letter states that the parties owe money in the amount of $6,000.00, which was "long
B overdue" by approximately six (6) years, for money loaned to Mr. Joshi's mother when
9 she was ill. The letter references a "copy of your letter agreeing to pay us back", but did
11 the referenced letter. Ms. Joshi testified that this debt was "made up."
13 member by the name of Ashik Nanaby (sp?), for buying plane tickets for the Joshi family
14 to come to the Unites States in 2001. Ms. J05m testified that she could not obtain any
15 information regarding this debt as the other party "wanted to stay out of the divorce."
17 e. General Community Debt - Mr. Josm testified that he pays
18 approximately $600 per month for community debts, excluding ms car and insurance.
23 Specifically, Ms. Joshi requested spousal support "until her death or remarriage,
25 The Court notes the following information has been proVided and has been taken
5
V3.887

2 moved to the United States. Ms. Joshi is presently employed by Raley's as a
3 pharmaceutical technician and earned approximately $29,500.00 in 2008. Ms. Joshi has
4 testified she has raised the parties' children and thereby has foregone educational
5 opport:unities and has pul her dreams aside.
6 Mr. Joshi testified he is a high school graduate. Mr. Joshi is employed as a catering
7 manager. In 2008, Mr. Joshi earned approximately $41,500.00 while working for two
8 companies - American Bar and Restaurant and Sierra Sport Service. At trial, Mr. Joshi
9 introduced his W-2 from American Bar and Restaurant reflecting earnings of $4,157.
10 (rrial Exhibit "C"); and his W-2 from Sierra Sport Service in the amount of $37,504.18
11 (rrial Exhibit "0"). Mr. Joshi testified that business is slow and he is presently working
12 for only one company - American Bar and Restaurant. Mr. Joshi testified he has only two
13 weeks of work scheduled for March, 2009; and he filed for unemployment benefits in
14 March, 2009.
15 Mr. Joshi requested the Court consider his net income after deducting taxes, factor
16 in the present $600 per month he is presently paying for community debt, and set off any
17 alimony responsibility by his assumption of an unequal distribution of community debt.
18 Further, to protect Ms. Joshi in the event Mr. Joshi filed for bankruptcy, Mr. Joshi
19 suggested that the court maintain jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support for five
20 years.
21 5. Ms. Joshi requests reasonable attorney's fees be paid to Washoe Legal
22 Services for the services of Mr. Coughlin. Mr. Joshi requests reasonable attorney's fees be
23 paid to his attorney, Mr. Springgate.
26 On July 18, 2008, Mr. Coughlin filed a Statement of Legal Aid Representation
27 which states Defendant is receiving "free legal assistance" from Washoe Legal Services
28 pursuant to NRS 12.015,
V3.888

2 Conference. At that hearing, the parties were unable to reach a settlement. Further, on
3 March 12, 2009, Judge Gardner conducted a Settlement Conference for approximately one
4 and one-half hours, prior to starting the trial at approximately 3:00 pm. The parties did
5 not agree on settlement and trial was commenced.
6 In his closing argument at trial, Mr. Coughlin, on behalf of Ms. Joshi, stated that he
7 did not understand and could not agree with equalizing debt when one party ended up
8 with a nicer car. He stated that he had "crunched the numbers" and could not see it the
9 other way. Mr. Coughlin cited an ALR article regarding community debt and stated his
10 client" does not have much for the creditors to take." He requested that his client assume
11 one-half the community debt and that the Court find Plaintiffs two $5,000 debts to family
12 members and friends as Mr. Joshi's separate debts. Mr. Coughlin stated his client is being
13 asked to "foot the bill" for Plaintiff's debts and referenced that Ms. Joshi is a caring and
14 committed mother.
15 Mr. Joshi testified that he had paid Mr. Springgate $4,000.00 since July, 2008,
16 for attorney's fees and costs.
17 Mr. Joshi requested that Mr. Coughlin personally pay his attorney's fees for 4.15
18 hours of trial at the rate of $225 per hour pursuant to NRS 7.085. Mr. Springgate testified
19 Mr. Coughlin had not conducted any discovery, had produced no evidence regarding
20 Ms. Joshi's community debts other than her Financial Declaration on file, had presented
21 no evidence regarding alimony, and had acted in a vexatious and unreasonable manner
22 in representing Ms. Joshi in this divorce proceeding.
23 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
24 1. Ongoing Support for the Adult Children's Education
25 Pursuant to NRS 125.510(9)(b), except where a contract providing otherwise has
26 been executed pursuant to NRS 123.080, the obligation for care, education, maintenance
27 and support of any minor child created by any order entered pursuant to this section
28 ceases: (a) Upon the death of the person to whom the order was directed; or (b) When
7
V3.889

the child reaches 18 years of age if he is no longer enrolled in high school. otherwise,
2 when he reaches 19 years of age.
3 There has been no evidence presented by Ms. Joshi justifying a request for
4 continuing support of the parties' adult children. As there has been no legal basis
5 presented to make such a finding, the Court denies Ms. Joshi's request that Mr. Joshi
6 financially provide for the adult children' s education.
7 2. Community Property/Debt-
6 Pursuant to NRS 125.150(1)(b) and Puttemlan v. Putterman, 113 Nev. 606, 939 P.2d
9 J 047 (1997), in granting a divorce, the Court shall ensure an equal dispOSition of the
10 community estate, absent compelling reasons justifying an unequal distribution. The
II Court must make written findings as to why such a division is appropriate.
12 a. "Women' s Wealth" - The parties have agreed that the parties'
13 community interests in the "women's wealth" belongs entirely to Ms. Joshi according to
14 their customary beliefs, and thereby should be declared her sole and separate property.
15 As such, Mr. Joshi is ordered to contact any and all relatives who may have this properly
16 and immediately return said property to Ms. Joshi as soon as possible.
17 b. Mr. Ioshi's Vehicle - The 2005 Chevrolet Blazer shall be considered
16 Mr. Joshi's sole and separate property. Mr. Joshi shall be responsible for the debt
19 remaining thereon. As the car is worth $10,910.00 but there is $15,009.75 due and owing
20 on said car, the Court will consider Mr. Joshi's assumption of this asset as an undertaking
21 of community debt of approximately $4,100.00.
22 c.
Ms. loshi's Vehicle Ms. joshi's car shall be considered her sole and
23 separate property. Ms. Joshi shall be responsible for any debt remaining thereon. As
24 there was no evidence presented as to its value (either positive or negative), the Court is
25 unable to determine a value for this community asset.
26 d.
Son's Vehicle - As the only evidence presented on this issue was the
27 fact that the parties' adult son drives this vehicle and makes the payments thereon, this
26 asset will not be divided among the community.
8
V3.890

e. Daughter's Vehicle - The only evidence presented on this issue was
2 the fact that the parties' adult daughter drives this car and makes payments thereon. Ms.
3 Joshi presented no evidence of a balance owing on the car or its fair market value.
4 Thereby, this car will not be divided as a community asset.
5 f. London Bank Account - there was no evidence presented to the
6 Court verifying said bank account exists. As such, there is no factual basis to support an
7 order dividing it as a community asset.
8 g. Community Bank Accounts - there was no evidence presented as to
9 the existence of conununity bank accounts. As such, there is no factual basis to support
10 an order dividing it as a community asset.
11 h. Computer - Mr. Joshi is awarded the computer purchased at Best
12 Buy. Ms. Joshi shall deliver said computer to Mr. Springgate's office on or before Friday,
13 April 17, 2009, at 5:00pm.
14
i.
Television - Ms. Joshi is awarded the teleVision purchased at Best
15 Buy. It is the Court's understanding this television is currently in Ms. Joshi's possession.
16 J. General Credit Card Debt - The evidence presented indicates a
17 general debt of approximately $15, 650.00 which has been expended for community
18 purposes.
20 solely and separa tely responsible for this debt.
21 k. Best Buy Credit Card Debt - The evidence presented indicates there
22 is a debt of approxinlately $1,314.00 outstanding for the purchase of the television and
23 computer.
26 / / /
27 / / /
9
V3.891

I. Medical Debt - As Mr. Joshi has offered to pay these debts, he shall
2 be solely and separately responsible for the payment of $6,735.00 to St.Mary's Hospital;
3 and $500.00 to Remsa.
4 m. Family Debt - There was no documentary evidence presented as to
5 the debt owing to Ashik Nanaby (sp?) for buying plane tickets for the Joshi family.
6 Further, as the only evidence provided regarding the $5,000.00 debt to Rod and Meena
7 Fowler indicates said debt was incurred for the benefit of Mr. Joshi's mother. As
8 Mr. Joshi has agreed to take on both of these debts, they shall henceforth be his sole and
9 separate responsibility.
10 n. General Community Debt - There was no evidence other than
II testimonial evidence to establish community debts. As Mr. Joshi has offered to pay any
12 remaining community debt in his name that is hereafter outstanding, said debt shall be
13 the sole and separate responsibility of Mr. Josm.
14 The Court notes Mr. Josm has likely incurred an unequal distribution of the
15 community debt in this case. The Court finds ms testimonial acquiescence at trial to take
16 on this debt is a compelling reason to make an unequal distribution of the community
17 debt.
IS 3. Spousal Support-
19 The statutory mandate for alimony is that it be "just and equitable."
20 NRS 125.150(1 )(a). Alimony is an equitable award to serve the post-<iecree needs and
21 rights of the former spouse. Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev. 1355, 929 P.2d 916 (1996). Although
22 post-decree incomes need not be equalized, in marriages of some duration, alimony may
23 be used to narrow large gaps between the post-divorce earning capacities of the parties
24 and to allow the recipient spouse to live" as nearly as possible to the station in life
25 enjoyed before the divorce." Shydler v. Shydler, 114 Nev. 192, 196 954 P.2d 37, 39 (1998).
26 The individual circumstances of each case will determine the appropriate amount and
27 length of any alimony award. Id.
28
10
V3.892

Pursuant to NRS 125.150(8), there are eleven (11) factors the court shall consider in
2 awarding alimony.
3 Ms. Joshi presented no evidence in support of her request for alimony other than
4 her own testimonial evidence that she raised the parties' children, had foregone
5 educational opportunities, and put her dreams on hold while married. Ms. Joshi testified
6 that she is healthy and has always worked. There was no reference to any of the eleven
7 factors in NRS 125.150(8) in Ms. Joshi's presentation and argument in support of an
B award of spousal support.
9 The Court finds that the parties presently eam approximately the same amount,
10 Ms. Joshi earns $2,458 per month and Mr. Joshi earned approximately $3,125 per month
11 in 2008, but testified he is working substantially less in 2009 and has filed for
12 unemployment benefits the begiruring of March 2009. (See NRS 125.150(8)(a. The
13 parties have been married 21 years and Ms. Joshi has always been employed during that
14 time. (See NRS 125.150(8)(d. Ms. Joshi obtained a college degree prior to marriage and
15 Mr. Joshi has a high school degree. (See NR5125.150(8)(h)). Both parties are healthy and
16 able to work. (See NRS 125.150(8)(k.
17 Based upon the evidence presented and the applicable law, this Court does not
18 believe Ms. Joshi is entitled to an award of alimony.
19 4. Attorney's Fees -
20 This Court enjoys discretion to award attorney's fees in a divorce action. (See
21 NRS 125.150(3); Love v. Love, 114 Nev. 572, 959 P.2d 523 (1998).) Also, pursuant to
22 NRS 18.010(2)(b), the court has authority to order attorney's fees "when the court finds
23 that the ... defense of the opposing party was brought or maintained without reasonable
24 ground or to harass the prevailing party." Finally, pursuant to NRS 7.085, if a court
25 finds that an attorney has: (al filed, maintained or defended a civil action or proceeding
26 in any court in this State and such action or defense is not well-grounded in fact or is not
27 warranted by existing law or by an argument for changing the eXisting law that is made
28 in good faith; or (b) unreasonably and vexatiously extended a civil action or proceeding
11
V3.893

before any court in this State, the court shall require the attorney personally to pay the
2 additional costs, expenses and attorney's fees reasonably incurred because of such
3 conduct.
4 At trial, Mr. Springgate stated that Mr. Coughlin had conducted no discovery in
5 this case. In addition, Mr. Coughlin failed to present one documentary piece of evidence
5 at trial on behalf of Ms. Joshi's claims. Mr. Coughlin argued incessantly with the Court
7 throughout trial and made sarcastic, derogatory remarks to the Court, Mr. Springgate,
8 and Mr. Joshi throughout trial.
9 The Court notes that there were well over 40 objections during four (4) hours of
10 trial. Mr. Springgate's objections were well-founded and continuously sustained except
11 in one instance. Mr. Coughlin was overruled on every objection except one and argued
12 with the Court over most rulings. Mr. Coughlin was admonished approximately 15 times
13 by the Court to quit arguing, to ask specific questions, to discontinue asking questions
14 calling for a legal conclusion, and to refrain from making degrading remarks to both Mr.
15 Joshi and Mr. Springgate.
16 The Court notes that at one point, after an exhibit had been admitted,
17 Mr. Coughlin could not find the copy provided by Mr. Springgate in discovery. Mr.
18 Coughlin demanded a copy be provided at trial, stating" am I supposed to be rifling
19 through my papers? My understanding is that you are supposed to provide a copy."
20 When asked if he had the copy of the document, Mr. Coughlin stated, "1 do not know. I
21 could spend my time and mental energy looking around for Mr. Springgate's document
22 like I am his assistant, or we could ask Mr. Spring gate to provide a copy at the time he is
23 seeking admission like I believe the rule states." Mr. Coughlin cited no rule and then
24 proceeded to interrupt the proceedings twice approximately five (5) minutes and twelve
25 (12) minutes post ruling to re-argue the point. Mr. Springgate replied to the arguments
26 by referencing when exactly the copy had been provided to Mr. Coughlin during
27 discovery and where the copy could be located. The Court had to admonish Mr.
28 Coughlin to quit arguing the point and reiterate that the exhibit had been admitted.
12
V3.894

Mr. Coughlin filed an Answer and Counterclaim on Ms. Joshi's behalf that
2 included allegations unsupported by law; and filed an Opposition to the request for
3 return of Mr. Joshi's passport without any factual or legal basis. Further, at trial, Mr.
4 Coughlin presented almost no evidence to support Ms. Joshi's requests and claims.
5 The most troubling aspect of this case was Mr. Coughlin's rude, sarcastic and
6 disrespectful presentation at trial; Mr. Coughlin'S inability to understand a balance sheet;
7 his failure to conduct discovery; and his lack of knowledge with regard to the rules of
8 evidence and trial procedure. All of this was compounded with a continuously
9 antagonistic presentation of the case that resulted in a shift from a fairly simple divorce
10 case to a contentious divorce trial lasting an excessive amount of time.
11 For all these reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Coughlin' 5 presentation of the case
12 and arguments in support thereof to be unfounded in fact, unwarranted by existing law,
13 unreasonable, and vexatious throughout this entire proceeding.
14 Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Springgate's request that Mr. Coughlin personally
15 pay Mr. Joshi 4.15 hours at the rate of $225 per hour for the cost of the trial is GRANTED.
16 Mr. Coughlin shall submit a check to Mr. Joshi in the amount of $934 within 30 days of
17 this Order.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Preparation of the Decree -
Mr. Springgate shall prepare the decree of divorce consistent with this
memorandum decision. Mr. Springgate shall tender his proposed decree to Mr.
Coughlin, pursuant to WDCR 9, within 20 days from the date of this order.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April ~ 2009. ~ , M ~
~ G h D ~ ~
DISTRICT JUDGE
13
V3.895

3 District Court, and that on the (1,3 day of April. 2009, I electronically filed the foregoin
4 with the Clerk of the Court System which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
5 following:
6
7 Document: ORDER AFTER TRIAL
8
9 JOHN P. SPRINGGATE ESQ
ZACHARY B. COUGHUN ESQ
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~ R ~ l
Adnurustrattve ASSistant
14
F I L E D
Electronically
01-29-2012:03:25:05 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.896
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 2
V3.897
2
J
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
$
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NY 89512
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
Attomey for Plaintiff Coughlin
F I LED
Electronically
01-20-2012:07:45:0 AM
Joey Orduna Hasti gs
Clerk of the Cou
Iransacti on # 2709 50
IN THE SECOND JUDIClAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEV ADA rN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLfN;
\2 Plaintiff.
Case No:CVl 1-01955
Dept No: 10
lJ v.
14 Washoe Legal Services, et ai,
Defendants.
15
16
17ij-__________________________ __
18
PI .AINTIFF'S MOTION TO
AI.TER OR AMfND PER NRCP 59
19
PLAINTIFF'S MOTlON TO ALTER OR AMEND PER NRep 59
20
And I do oppose Elcano's Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs .... This Motion is
21
12
made pursuant to the authorities discussed below, including Nev. R. Civ. P. 59,
2J WDCR 10 and 12, DCR 10,12, and 13, and is supported by the attached
24 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration ofZacbary B. Coughlin,
15
Esq., the papers and pleadings on file herein, and any oral argument this court may
26
allow, as it is being requested.
27
28
PLAlNTlFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND PER NRCP 59; 1185
V3.898
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
U
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2l
U
25
26
27
28
I. STATMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL mSTORY
Brian Gonsalves' motion for an attorney's fee sanction. "I remember when I had
my fIrst beer. .. ".
I sit there last Friday li stening to several brilliant and moving eulogies for a friend
of mine whom I spent many Thursday nights with attending meetings, and many a
lunch time group out by the old Hale Lane, where I used to work before going into
legal services at about a 50% paycut, hearing about how Bob was telling one the best
eulogizers you'll ever see that he dreamed of someday being a "legal aid attorney
helping poor people". You have no idea, Bob (which is all he would ever let me call
him), what kind of tribulations that path would have had in store for you, my friend,
may you rest in peace
It is ridiculous to hold the undersigned to all the standards an attorney who
could receive any attorney's fee award should be held to where the undersigned is a
pro se lit igant. You just know 01' Brian Gonsalves would be the fIrst one arguing
(amongst his many lies and prevarications) that the undersigned should be barred
from receiving any prevailing party attorney's fees award (or NRS 7.085 award of
sanctions) in li ght ofthe undersigned's pro se attorney litigant status. Opposing
counsel and the profession cannot have it both ways. To hold otherwise would be
making what is already, in some hedge fund manager's estimation a "fool's bet"
(going to law school and becoming and attorney:
http://blogs.ws j. com/law /2011111111 /Iaw-scbool-is-a -bad -bet -in-ha rd-tim es-
hedge-funds-sayl (See attached article in Exhihit 3) even more perilous and
reckless. Also, both opposing counsel Garin and Gonsalves cOllveniently
PLAlNTlFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND PER NRCP 59; 2/85
V3.899
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
II
IJ
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2l
24
25
26
27
Z8
"reinterpret" the 90 page summary eviction proceeding from a commercial law office
based upon only a No Cause Eviction Notice as "Coughlin was evicted for failing to
pay ren!..." in some pathetic attempt to paint the undersigned as a deadbeat rather
than, as their clients are kind of, like, supposed to be interested in .... actually
concerning themselves with legal issues traditionally the domain oflegal aid
societies, like, say, landlord tenant issues. Not that Washoe Legal Services does a
whole lot of that (my 18 months there were spent in close proximity to the attorney
and paralegal charged with working such matters and L can't honestly recall a single
moment of passion or zeal devoted by those individuals to their clients concerns, but
L can recall a lot of talking down to citizens of Washoe County who sought legal aid,
and much ninja-ry devoted to figuring out reasons why they could not do this or that,
and that is a trait in abundant supply at WLS, in my opinion) .... Regardless, both these
attorneys have fraudulently attempted to mislead this court as to the nature of the
eviction notice served in the undersigned eviction action in Reno Justice Court
REV20 [1-001708 and thereby sully the undersigned's reputation and create a poor
reflection upon his case. Futher, it is not even clear why in the hell opposing counsel
Gonsalves made an appearance for Tahoe Women's Services (which puts on
performances of a play called "The Vagina Monologues", obstensibly with public
funds, then coyly changes its name to something more gender neutral sounding once
somebody sues them for their blatant gender polarizing activities, which included
doing everything they possibly could to get the undersigned, a then dedicated and
underpaid-$55K with zero expense account etc. and something liek $60K in student
loans which ED EJcano expressed zero interest in pursuing a loan forgiveness
program for- domestic violence attorney at WLS, for whom the female Incline
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND PER NRC}' 59; 3/85
V3.900
2
3

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
11
2J
14
15
26
27
28
local rule out of context (where it applies to papers being file in the rule, Gonsalves
tries to play it like the rul es applies to copies of papers, but he is too lazy to actually
do some legal research on what a "copy" is .... not even reprint the Black's Law
Dictionary definition of the word "copy" like Garin does .... ). Thi s Court's Oder of
January 13th, 2012 is incorrect to the extent it suggest the attorney's fees sanction
Motion TWS and Gonsalves filed on November 29th, 2011 went unopposed (and,
were that the case, the 1/ 13112 Order suggest that the attorney's fees award would not
be subject to being void for lack of jursidiction, however, it would). Regardless, the
udnersigned gets three days for servi ce under NRCP 6(e), whether that service is via
electronic fili gn or mail. That being the case, the undersigned had until November
16th, 20 II to file an Opposition to Gonsalves' Motion (which, should likely be
rejected by tbe WDC fili gn offi e or e-Flex staff for its violati on of WDCR 10(1) in
that is combines motions yet is not pled in the alternative). Further, NRCP II
requires a Motion for Sanctions be separately fil ed from any other motions, not
hidden near the back of a Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash for Insufficient
Service of Process, as thi s guy Gonsalves tries to pull here. Further, Gonsalves
constantl y makes all these stupid arguments about how the undersigned is trying to
engage in duplicative litigation, despite Gonsalves being reminded repeatedly of the
undersigned well crafted October 5, 20 II Motion to Consolidate the cases. Further,
GONSALVES OWN DAMN CLIENT WAS NOT EVEN A PARTY TO THE
OTHER 'DUPLICATIVE' CASE, YET GONSALVES CHOSE TO COST
THEM MONEY BY FILING AN APPEARANCE, PAYING THE INITIAL
APPEARANCE FEE, AND, PRESUMABLY, BlLLING THEM FOR
REPRESENTING THEM IN AN ACTION FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND PER NRCP 59; 20/85
V3.901
2
J
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
II
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
lJ
24
15
26
27
18
litigation. IfMetLife is interested, we would be happy to discuss logistics"). If the
Court fmds that any of these ulterior motives were present here, it certainly should
award plaintiff the fees it incurred responding to this motion. But even ifthe Court
does not find that defendants had improper motives, it still can award fees to
plaintiff: based on the utter lack of merit in defendants. motion, and/or the multiple
misrepresentations defendants employed to try to obtain sanctions. E.g.:
[B]ecause . .. the allegations in the present [Rule II] motion are untenable,
misplaced, inappropriate for a Rule II motion, or simply inexplicable ... the
Plaintiff will be awarded the costs associated with responding to this motion as the
prevailing party under Rule II. ... [A motion for] Rule II sanctions [is] properly
deployed only in exceptional circumstances, this is not such a circumstance. Wartsila,
315 F. Supp. 2d at 630. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the same conclusion should
be reached here.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
DATED THIS: January 20, 2012,
S ~ y ~
lsi Zach Coughlin, signed electronically
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND PER NRCI' 59; 82/8 5
F I L E D
Electronically
01-29-2012:03:25:05 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.902
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3
V3.903
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1520
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845
Crisi s Intervention Services
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEV ADA
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
Dept. No.:
CVII-01896
6
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et. a!. ,
Defendants
DECLARATION OF BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ.
I, Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., do affirm under penalty of perjury that the assertions of this
Declaration are true and correct.
I. r am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of Nevada and the attorney
of record for Defendant Crisis Intervention Services in Case Nos. CVll-01955 and CVll-
01896.
2. To date, in defending Defendant Crisis Intervention Services against Plaintiff's
MOL ion to Set Aside Order Granting Defendants Elcano, Torvinen, Sasser, Ashley, Sabo, WLS,
CIS and Breckenridge's MoLion(s) to Dismiss in case No. CV 11 -0 1896, I charged said Defendant
at a rate of$125.00 per hour for 5.2 hours which equals a total billed amount of$650.00.
3. In my opinion, the above hours were reasonably and necessarily incurred to
defend Crisis Intervention Services and the hourly rate of$125.00 per hour is reasonable.
4.
A fair and reasonable value of the services rendered to Crisis Intervention
- 1 -
V3.904
Services in defense of said Motion is $650.00.
2 The undersigned does hereby affIrm that pursuant to NRS 2398.030 this document does
3 not contain the social security number of any person.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By: g ~ d c
- 2 -
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:21:22 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.905
c-!
p...
,
c
'" C;6

\--1._ '<:t
Ii,) :J T""'"
Nc.t:;o,O
..:!:::: ... 00 0
1i,)""'O Lf)

..rp:: z
"0 rC<;
U 0
oro..
gm>t:-
'" [3 gj

ziZ
c:"g
0

H
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
2010
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
)
vs. )
WLS employee. )
Defendants.
)
)
-----------------------------)
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES
28 III
V3.906
0

."
o!
Oi5
06
Eoo
\-! ....... -.::t
o ::J ......

00 0
C)"U Lr)
cr:.8>"7
Z
-0 U)'c<;
U 0
CJ 0
C > t:::..-
o "

'0

c"g
0
'"

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2 Defendants Paul Elcano, individually and in his capacity as Executive Director ofWLS,
3 Todd Torvinen, individually and in his capacity as WLS Board Member, Jon Sasser,
individually and in his capacity as WLS agent, Marc Ashley, individually and in his capacity as
WLS attorney, Karen Sabo, individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney, Kathy
Breckenridge, individually and in her capacity as Board President ofWLS, and Washoe Legal
Services, a Nevada Corporation, (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys
of record, Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., move this Court for an Order awarding
them attorney's fees incurred in this case as the prevailing party. This Motion is made
pursuant to NRS 18.010 and NRS 7.085, together with the attached Affidavit of Joseph P.
Garin, Esq., the pleadings and papers on file herein, the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities below, and any oral argument this Court permits.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 30
th
By:
LIPSON COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn
Sternlicht
-2-
V3.907
2 1. Introduction
3 Plaintiff Coughlin was formerly employed as an attorney for Washoe Legal SeNices
4 ("WLS"). Coughlin filed two lawsuits against WLS, et aI., attempting to assert claims for
5 wrongful termination:
6
7
8
9
10
Zach Cough/in v. Washoe Lega/ Services, et. a/.
Hon. Brent Adams
and
Zachary Cough/in v Washoe Lega/ Services, et. a/.
11 Docket Reports, attached hereto as Exhibit "1." On October 27, 2011, Coughlin began
12 attempts at seNice of the summons and complaint in the first case, Case No. CV11-01896,
13 against Defendants. Despite Coughlin's varying attempts at seNice on Defendants, as fully
14 briefed in their respective Motions to Dismiss, all attempts proved improper. Accordingly,
15 Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b )(3) and/or (4) and
16 NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal of the case as to all Defendants on January 11, 2012.
17 Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "2."
18 2.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney's fees as the prevailing party in
this matter pursuant to NRS 18.010.
NRS 18.010 states, in pertinent part:
1. The compensation of an attorney and counselor for his or her seNices is
governed by agreement, express or implied, which is not restrained by law.
2. In addition to the cases where an allowance is authorized by specific statute,
the court may make an allowance of attorney's fees to a prevailing party:
(a) When the prevailing party has not recovered more than $20,000; or
(b) Without regard to the recovery sought, when the court finds that the
claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint or defense of the
opposing party was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to
harass the prevailing party. The court shall liberally construe the provisions
of this paragraph in favor of awarding attorney's fees in all appropriate
situations. It is the intent of the Legislature that the court award attorney's
fees pursuant to this paragraph and impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11
of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure in all appropriate situations to
- 3 -
V3.908
2
3
4
punish for and deter frivolous or vexatious claims and defenses because
such claims and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the
timely resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging
in business and providing professional services to the public.
This Court granted Defendants' Motions based on non-service of process. Defendants
5 did not recover more than $20,0000. Accordingly, as the prevailing party, WLS and Paul
6 Elcano are entitled to receive their reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this action pursuant
7 to NRS 18.01 0(2)(a).
8 Furthermore, Plaintiff's Oppositions to Defendant's Motions to Dismiss were made
9 despite Plaintiff not having any reasonable grounds to do so, entitling Defendants to their
10 attorney's fees under NRS 18.01 0(2)(b). Plaintiff's Oppositions devoted little attention to the
11 issues before the Court. Oppositions, attached hereto as Exhibits "3" - "5." Indeed, Plaintiffs
12 failure to dispute the law or facts underlying the Motions served only to overburden limited
13 judicial resources and hinder timely resolution of meritorious claims. In sum, Defendants are
14 entitled to an award of attorney's fees as the prevailing party in this matter pursuant to NRS
15 18.010.
16 3.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney's fees in this matter pursuant to
NRS 7.085
NRS 7.085 provides:
1. If a court finds that an attorney has:
(a) Filed, maintained or defended a civil action or proceeding in any court in
this State and such action or defense is not well-grounded in fact or is not
warranted by existing law or by an argument for changing the existing law
that is made in good faith; or
(b) Unreasonably and vexatiouslvextended a civil action or proceeding
before any court in this State, the court shall require the attorney personally
to pay the additional costs, expenses and attorney's fees reasonably
incurred because of such conduct.
2. The court shall liberally construe the provisions of this section in favor of
awarding costs, expenses and attorney's fees in all appropriate situations. It is the
intent of the Legislature that the court award costs, expenses and attorney's fees
pursuant to this section and impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Nevada
Rules of Civil Procedure in all appropriate situations to punish for and deterfrivolous
- 4 -
V3.909
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
or vexatious claims and defenses because such claims and defenses overburden
limited judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of meritorious claims and
increase the costs of engaging in business and providing professional services to
the public.
As discussed above, Plaintiff failed to provide any true explanation for failing to properly
serve Defendants. Instead, Plaintiff opted for confusing and inapplicable arg uments that failed
to address the issue before this Court. Plaintiff not only filed an opposition that was
groundless as evidenced by this Court's Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but
unreasonably and vexatiously continued this proceeding, creating unnecessary litigation costs
to Defendants. Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "2." Therefore, pursuant to NRS 7.085 (a)
and (b), this Court should award Defendants their attorney's fees and costs.
11 4.
The attorney's fees and costs incurred by Washoe legal Services and Paul
Elcano are reasonable.
12
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer, &Garin, P.C., counsel for Defendants Paul Elcano, Todd
13
Torvinen, Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge, and Washoe Legal
14
Services, spent 9.7 hours defending against Plaintiff's Complaint. The total amount of
15
attorney's fees is $1 ,473.00. Attorney's Fees, attached hereto as Exhibit "1-A." The attorney's
16
fees incurred for legal services, including the preparation of motions to dismiss, were
17
reasonable and necessary in both amount and time spent.
1
The Court should award
18
Defendants the full amount incurred in reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $1,473.00.
19 \\\
20 \\\
21 \\\
22 \\\
23 \\\
24 \\\
25 \\\
26
27
1 The following factors should be considered in assessing the reasonableness of attorney's fees: (1) the
28 qualities of the advocate, (2) the character of the work to be done, (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer,
and (4) the result. Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat'l Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969).
- 5 -
V3.910
0
p.;
.ff
...
o!
0:5
:I';.;
\-l
<lJ ",....
N(/)O\D
1i '-0" 00

Z &l
'0 rn"c<)
U 0 g1N"'-
(,) 0
> b
<.l en

<lJ
o
Zoo

0

>-<
5. Conclusion
2 Based on the foregoing, Defendants Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Jon Sasser, Marc
3 Ashley, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge, and Washoe Legal Services respectfully request
4 that the Court enter an award in their favor and against Plaintiff for the legal fees incurred by
5 them in the amount of $1,473.00.
6 DATED this 30
th
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
By:
LIPSON COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Melissa Mangiaracina,
Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the
19 Social Security Number of any person.
17
18
20 Dated this 30
th
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:

(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Melissa Mangiaracina,
Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
- 6 -
V3.911
cj
p.;
-g"
'" os

I-r ....... V
'" ::;,--;
NCI)C\D

Z f;j
'0 t; u";" c<)
u 0
i3) 0
g ;> t::-
.$!3i'J
'OJ .....:l
zg
t::"g
0
U)
.&
H
th
3 Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees, using the ECF system which served the following
4 parties electronically:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lsi Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
-7-
V3.912
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
2 STATE OF NEVADA
3 COUNTY OF CLARK
)
)
)
ss:
4 JOSEPH P. GARIN, being first duly sworn deposes and says:
5
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada, and am a
6 partner with the law firm of LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P .C., counsel of
7 record for Defendants, in the above-captioned matter.
8 2. I make this Affidavit in support of Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees. I have
9 personal knowledge of the information contained in this Affidavit and would qualify as a
10 competent witness if called upon to testify to the facts contained herein.
11 3. I personally reviewed the firm's billing invoices in this matter and the rates charged
12 for the duration of this case were $180 for Partners and $150 for Associates and Paralegals.
13 These rates are reasonable for defending this action.
14 4. To date, I charged Defendants 9.7 hours which equals a total billed amount of
15 $1,473.00. A copy of the relevant bills have been redacted to preserve privilege and eliminate
16 charges related to other pending action. The relevant bills are attached as Exhibit "1-A."
17
5. In my opinion, all the aforementioned fees were reasonable and necessary to
18 defend Defendants in this matter.
19 Further, this affiant sayeth naught.
20
21
22 -
24
25
26
27
28
- 8 -
V3.913
EXHIBIT INDEX
No.1 Docket Reports on 2 pages
2
CV11-01955 and
CV11-01896
3
No.1-A Relevant Bills 4 pages
4
No.2 Order Granting Eight 3 pages
5
Motions to Dismiss
No.3 Opposition to Defendant's 3 pages
6 T orvinen and Elcano's
Motions to Dismiss
7
No.4 Opposition to all 4 pages
8
Defendant's Motions to
Dismiss and all Defendant's
9
Motions to Quash Service,
Motion for Extension of
10
Time to
u
p.;
11
."
" 08
12
eel:
\-( .-;::
<!) ::I .......
13
N(/)C- O
..=: "00 0
0""0 If)

Z
14
(3 w"C<>

Respond/Continuance;
Opposition to Motion to Tax
Costs Simultaneously
Seeking Extensions of Time
or Continuance to Respond
No.5 Supplement to Opposition 19 pages
to All Defendant's Motions
to Dismiss

15

'"

0
16
c ... c-
c
0-

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 9 -
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:21:22 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.914
-I 1 "1"
V3.915
Report Sele{fticm Criteria
CaselD: CV11-01896
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Cafe pescrlption
Case 10: CV11-01896 - ZACH COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL
Filing
Date:
SERVICES ETAL.(06)
Type: . WT - TORTS-WRONGFUL TERMINATION
Status: EVNTCLOSEO -Event C,losed
No related cases Vlere found.
No case events \-\ere found.
Case Parties
Seq # Assoc
1
HOtM

Expn
Type
Date
Judge

10
QQ

Name'
ADAMS,
HONORABLE
BRENT
.

(el Copyright2001 Affillaled Corrpuler SyS1srrs, Inc.ACSandihe ACSlogo are registered iraderrarks.
This oontains Irede settel.sand Is subjecllo a confidentiality agreerrent The unauthorized
possession, use, distribution, display, Of disclosure of this rrelerial or1he lnrorrretion coJilained herein Is prohibited,
All rights reserved. Usar Not torofficlal use.
V3.916
D.o.cket
.. - .... - -.'
BepQrt Selection Criteria
Case 10: CV11-01955
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
t!asQ OescriptiQIl
Case 10: - ZACHARY COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL
SRVC, ET AL(D1 0)
Date:
Status: INITIAL - Case Initiated.
ReiatQd CasQs
No related cases oore found.
t!asQ Eyent Schedyle
No case events 1I!ere found.
Case Parties
Seq# Assac
Expo
Type ID Name
Date
1 Judge J21Q ElllOTT
t
HONORABLE
STEVEN P.

, .
(e) Copyright 2001 Affiliated COllJ'u!er System;, Inc.ACS and 1I1e ACS logo are legislared lraderrerks.
Tills contains trade secrets and Is subJect to a confidentiallty agreerrent The unau1l1orlzed
possession. use, reproduction, distribution. display, or disclosure of1l11s rretarial ortha lnfonration contained herein is prohibited
.Al1.rights reserved, Usar Acceptslii;!rees 10 DiscJalmlT, Not for oflida\ use,
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:21:22 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.917
I I "1- "
V3.918
LAW OFFICES
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE
l
SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.
9080 WEST POST ROAD, #100
LAS VEGAS, NV 89148
TELEPHONE (702) 3821500
TELEFAX (702) 385-1512
December 14, 2011
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
: .
11/0712011 CH DRAFTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SERVICE
FOR REMAINING WLS DEFENDANTS IN CASE NO.
CV1101896
11/07/2011 CH . SUPPLEMENTING AND REVISING MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR REMAINING
DEFENnANT5::
11/07/2011 CH .. .. TRYING TO DETERMINE THE
oTATUS OF CASE NO. CV-10896, IN PREPARATION FOR
M{)T1f'''' 1"\'" ",eO\/II"'t;: OF PROCESS
11/08/2011 CH REGARDING MOTION TO DIMISS
FOR NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ALL REMAlNING

11/0812011 CH REGARDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
FOR OF PROCESS
VVINN.LlPSON NEILSON.COM
TAX 10# 382574325
0.50 hrs 160.00 Ihr 80.00
0.30 hrs 160.00 lhr 48.00
OAOhrs 160.00 Ihr 64.00
0.40hrs 160.00 Ihr 64.00
0.20 hrs 160.00 Ihr 32.00
. ' . _.! " ,.:. ,.;;, ,': ". :.
REDACTED
V3.919
11/14/2011 CH
11/14/2011 CH
11/14/2011 CH
11114/2011 CH
1111412011 CH
11/14/2011 CH
11/15/2011 CH
Paae 2
DRAFTING PAUL ELCANO'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR 1.00 hrs 150.00 Ihr 150.00
INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS, CV11-01896
. DRAFTING TODD TORVINEN'S MonON TO DISMISS FOR 0.30 hrs 150.00 Ihr
INSUFFIr:IFfl
IT
CV11-Q1896
MonON TO DISMISS 0.60 hrs 150.00 Ihr
rUt< INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS ANDIOR
PROCESS
REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS 0.70 hrs Ihr
SERVICE OF PROCESS ANDIOR
PROCESS.
SUPPLEMENtING AND FINALIZING PAUL ELCANO'S 0.10 hrs 150.00 Ihr
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF
PROCESS, CV11-01896
SUPPLEMENTING AND FINALIZING TODD TORVINEN'S 0.10 hrs 150.00 Ihr
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF
PROCESS, CV11-01896
REGARDING ADDITIONAL SERVICE 0.50 hrs 150.00 Ihr
ATfEMPTS AND THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MOTIONS
TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS .
ANn/OR
REDACTED
45.00
90.00
105.00
15.00
15.00
75.00
V3.920
..-:
":- ."' ;'
11/21/2011 CH
11/2112011 CH
11/21/2011 CH
11/21/2011 CH
11/2.112011 CH
11/2112011 CH
11/28/2011 CH
: REGARDING WHO HAS AND HAS
NUT BEEN SERVED
DRAFTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR KAREN SABO
REGARDING KAREN SABO'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
DRAFTING SPREADSHEET ON THE MOTIONS FILED TO
DATE AND MOTION NEEDED TO BE FILED
SUPPLEMENT AND REVISE MELISSA MAGIARACINA'S
MOTION TO DISMISS.
. "11/28/201'1 \ CH'" : ....... ;.
. .. - : .
11/28/2011 CH
11128/2011 CH
11/28/2011 CH
11128/2011 CH
11/2812011 CH
. FINALIZE MELISSA'S MANGIARACINA'S MOTION TO
DISMISS
DRAFTING MELISSA MANGIARACINA MOTION TO
DISMISS
DRAFTING MARC ASHLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
rUt{ WLS DEFENDANTS
DRAFTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR KATHY
BRECKENRIDGE FOR CASE NO. CV11-01896
REDACTED
Page 3
0.50 hrs 150.00 Ihr
75.00
0.10 hrs 150.00 Ihr 15.00
0.60 hrs 150.00 Ihr 90.00
OAOhrs 150.00/hr 60.00
0.20hrs 150.00 Ihr 30.00
0.20hrs 150.00 Ihr 30.00
0.10 hrs 150.00 Ihr 15.00
, 0.10 hrs 150.00 Ihr 15.00
0.10 hrs 150.00 Ihr 15.00
hrs 150.00 Ihr 90.00
0.40hrs 150.00 Ihr 60.00
0.90 hrs 150.00 Ihr 135.00
0.30 hrs 150.001hr 45.00
V3.921
Page 4
. 11130!20'11",CH . . REVIEW OF-PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS . 0.10 hrs 150.00 Ihr 15.00
TORVINEN AND ELCANO'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS IN
~ CASE NO CV11-01896
; : ~ .. _' .. _.: _." ,0.. " .. "-;
REDACTED
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:21:22 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.922
I IT "2"
V3.923
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
Code 3370
FilE D
Electronically
01-11-2012:04:20:41 PM
Clerk of the Court
IN AND FOR THE COUNlY OF WASHOE
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Case No. CV11-01896
Plaintiff,
Dept. No.6
v.
Defendants.
-------------------------,
ORDER
this action.
1
Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 27,2011. Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 4(i), Plaintiff would
Breckenridge ("Breckenridge"), Washoe Legal Services ("WLS") and Crisis Intervention
I The Court need not address Defendants' argwnent that Plaintiffs attempted service of process was insufficient since
-1-
V3.924
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
statutory period.
2
DATED: This ! ~ a y of January, 2012.
DISTRICT JUDGE
Court dismissed this action on procedural grounds without analyzing the merits of Plaintiff's case.
-2-
V3.925
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
that on the ft{f1 day of January, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
PO Box 2838
Reno, NV 89505
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:21:22 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.926
I IT "3"
V3.927
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$2645
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia st. #2
Reno, NY 89501
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
Attorney for Plaintiff Coughlin
F I LED
Electronic
11-30-2011: 12:0 AM
Craig Fran
Clerk of the
Transaction # 2 ~ F =
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEV ADA IN AND FOR
11 ZACH COUGHLIN;
12 Plaintiff.
Case No:CV11-01896
13 v.
Dept No: 6
OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S TORVINEN
AND ELCANO'S MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
14 Washoe Legal Services, et aI,
Defendants.
15
16
17
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
18
Plaintiff Coughlin HEREBY SUBMITS THIS OPPOSITION TO
19
20 DEFENDANT'S (WLS, ELCANO, AND TORVINEN, ALL BOTH IN THEIR
21 PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CAPACITIES OR AS BOARD MEMBERS
22 OR DIRECTORS OF WLS) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT
23
SERVICE OF PROCESS. This Motion is based upon the Memorandum of Point and
24
Authorities, the exhibits attache hereto, the pleadings and papers on file, and any oral
25
26 argument that may be presented in this matter. Dated this 29TH day of November,
27 2011.
28
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Page 1
V3.928
Plaintiffs Attempted Service Upon Defendant Paul Elcano is Sufficient Under NRCP 4
2 and The Fault for Any Shortcoming in Service Resides With the Washoe County
3 Sheriff's Office Pursuant to the IFP Granted in this or the Duplicative Case.
l. Plaintiffs went above and beyond in attempts to properly serve a copy of a summons
5 and complaint upon Defendant Paul Elcano, WLS, and Torvinen, even beyond getting
6
an IFP approved which required the WCSO to perform service, in addition to email
7
copies of the Complaints to Elcano, Torvinen, and WLS, and perhaps faxing as well.
8
renders service of process sufficient under NRCP 4.
9
10 DATE THIS: November 29
th
, 2011,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
20 does not contain the social security number of any person.
21
DATED this November 29
t
h, 2011
22
23
24
25
lsi Zach Coughlin
26
Zach Coughlin
27 Attorney for Plaintiff Coughlin
28
V3.929
Proof of Service:
2
I, Zach Coughlin efiled this on the opposing attorney on November 29, 2011
3
DATED this November 29
t
h, 2011
4
5
6
7 /s/ Zach Coughlin
8
Zach Coughlin
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:21:22 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.930
HI I
V3.931
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$2645
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
817 N. Virginia st. #2
Reno, NY 89501
Tele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
FilE D
Electronically
12-15-2011 :01 :37:0 PM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Cou
Transaction # 2648 96
STA TE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR
11 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN;
12 Plaintiff.
Case No:CVll-01896
Dept No: 6
13 v.
OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S
MOTIONS TO DISMISS and all
Defendant's Motions to Ouash Service.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND/CONTINUANCE;
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX
COSTS SIMLUTANEOUSLY SEEKING
EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR
CONTINUANCE TO RESPOND
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
&--------------------------------------------------------
OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
and all Defendant's Motions to Quash Service, MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND/CONTINUANCE;
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS SIMLUTANEOUSL Y
SEEKING EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR CONTINUANCE TO
RESPOND
The undersigned, while still desiring some sort of extension or continuance
27 allowing for time to file a more pronounced Opposition and to avoid the undue
28
OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS and all Defendant's Motions to Ouash Service.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND/CONTINUANCE; OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX
COSTS SIMLUTANEOUSLY SEEKING EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR CONTINUANCE TO RESPOND Page 1/
V3.932
burden brought about by the circumstances set forth in the undersigned December
14th, 2011 Motion, hereby Opposes Tahoe Women's Services Motion to Dismiss and
2 Motions to Quash Service as well as all of CAA W's, and WLS Motions, as the
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
arguments and circumstances are substantially similar in opposing all of their various
Motions. In addition, the undersigned asks the court to consider the extent to which
the Washoe County Sheriffs Office was required to effectuate service in CV11-
01896 (though a different matter than this case, to be sure) in combination with the
diligent efforts the undersigned too in seeking to get an Order Consolidating these
two substantially similar matters and setting forth the circumstances that required
these multiplicative filings.
DATE THIS: December 15,2011,
Sincerely,
loch Coughlin, Esq.
Plaintiff
COSTS SIMLUTANEOUSLY SEEKING EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR CONTINUANCE TO RESPOND Page 21
V3.933
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
Proof of Service:
On December 15,2011, I, Zach Coughlin deposited in the mail a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Opposition to:
Brian Gonsalves, Esq
P.O. Box 907
Kings Beach, CA96143
Attorney for Tahoe Women's Services
E-Filers were served electronically, including:
Committee to Aid Abused Women
Gary Fuller, Esq. Attorney for Defendant CAA W
Washoe Legal Services
Joe Garin, Esq. Attorney for Defendant WLS
lsi Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
Plaintiff
COSTS SIMLUTANEOUSLY SEEKING EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR CONTINUANCE TO RESPOND Page 3/
V3.934
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2J
24
25
26
27
28
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
1. EXHIBIT 1: Eight (8) pages representing a more accurate depiction of the
legibility of what the various Defendants were actually served, including a full size first
page of the Complaint and a full size Summons page,
2. Exhibit 2: Six (6) pages from Tahoe Women's Services attorneys Gonsalves
apparently faxed copy of the Complaint from his client which is utterly not indicative of
how legible the actual papers served on his client were, but which, nonethless Gonsalves
filed with this Court as an Exhibit purporting to represent the level of legibility of those
papers served upon his client, and silent as to whether a full size first page of the
Complaint and Summons were served on his client
3. Exhibit 3: 10 (ten) pages of emails between Plaintiff and Defendant Tahoe
Women's Services attorney Gonsalves speaking to the issues involved in this Motion
4. Exhibit 4: Twenty one (21) pages, October 5, 2011 Motion to Consolidate CV11-
10955 and CVll-l 0896 filed by Plaintiff Coughlin in CV11-1 0955 and CV11-0 1986
OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS and all Defendant's Motions to Onash Service,
COSTS SIMLUTANEOUSLY SEEKING EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR CONTINUANCE TO RESPOND Page 41
F I L E D
Electronically
01-30-2012:04:21:22 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.935
XHI I ""
V3.936
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$2645
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
Tele: 775-229-6737
Fax: 949-667-7402
F I LED
Electronically
12-22-2011 :04:55: 1 AM
Craig Franden
Clerk of the Cou
Transaction # 2661 31
STA TE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR
11 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN;
12 Plaintiff.
Case No: CVII-01896
Dept No: 6
13 v.
Defendants.
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO
ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO
DISMISS 15
16
7 ~ __________________________ _____
18
19
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
20
The undersigned, (who nows submits this filing, or some iteration of it for the
21
THIRD time, due to its previous incarnations being rejected by the E-Flex staff,
22
23 despite whatever NRCP 5(e) might say, and for which, not a single member of the
24 filing office staff has ever expressed the slightest bit of inquisitiveness with regard to
25 what that rule and, say, the Whitman or Sullivan cases might say about all the
26
"kicking back out" the filing office and e-Flex staff partakes in), while still desiring
27
28
some sort of extension or continuance allowing for time to file a more pronounced
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS Page 1
V3.937
Opposition and to avoid the undue burden brought about by the circumstances set
forth in the undersigned December 14th, 2011 Motion, hereby supplements the
2 previously submitted filings seeking relief from the dismissal and opposing all of the
3 Defendants various attempts to avoid litigating this case on substantive grounds.
4
5
Attached as Exhibit 1 are two Eflex emails to the undersigned establishing receipt of
an iterations of this motion dated December 16
th
, 2011, and a notice that that
6
7 attempted filing was rejected on December 19
t
h, 2011. The undersigned asks,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
respectfully, that the date of receipt be used under a relation back theory as the filing
date for this instant pleading to the extent it would be necessary to avoid any
limitations period running or otherwise preclude the arguments herein made by the
undersigned from being considered or to preclude a finding of any admission as to
the positions argued by the various opposing counsel. Further, the undersigned asks
the court to note that he is not, in all likelihood, going to ever be allowed to collect
attorney's fees in this matter as a pro se attorney litigant, and to that extent, the eFlex
staff should, perhaps, not apply the rigourous rejection criteria normally applied to
attorneys with respect to the undersigned's submission in this matter. Exhibit 2 is
some more emails related to Eflex rejections, seemingly in contravention ofNRCP
See).
Incorporated by reference herein are those arguments previously filed in this
matter related to the negligence and delay on the the part of the Washoe County
Sheriffs Office in carrying out the IPF Order as to service of the Summons and
Complaint in this matter.
Further, WLS's counsel's misleading arguments and partial snapshots of the
docket aside, it is not at all clear what filing date is accorded to the Complaint in this
V3.938
matter. Indeed, that very murkiness, and the potential pitfalls associated with it to
plaintiffs attempts to access justice, necessitated the duplicative filings in this matter
1
2 and CVll-01955, a circumstance for which plaintiff was extremely conscientious in
3 attempting to avoid causing the various defendants undue expense by filing and
4
extensively research motion seeking to consolidate the two cases and making diligent
5
inquiry with the WDC filing office staff, Judge Steinheimer's Administrative
6
7 Assistant, and various other legal authorities. It simply was not clear to counsel what
8 filing date would be accorded the Complaint upon the occurrence of either the
9
granting or the denial of Plaintiff's IFP in this matter, and indeed, a review ofthe
10
docket in cv11-01896 shows a filing date of August 11, 2011 for the Complaint.
11
WLS's counsel Garin attached an exhibit in his recent Motion to Dismiss which
12
13
14
15
16
displayed just the first screen or page or so of the docket, and which did indeed
contain a line reading" Filing Date: Monday, June 27th, 20ll" .... however, that
does note tell the whole story, and certainly does not indicate what was giving a
"Filing Date" of June 27
th
, 20lL.rather, a closer review of the docket reveals that the
17
18 IFP was not granted until August 9
th
, 2011, and the Complaint was not seemingly
19 issued a filing date until: "11-AUG-20ll 08:37 AM Complaint - Civil COUGHLIN,
20
ZACH Entry: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT;
21
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION; TORTIOUS CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN
22
23 VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT,
24 WRITTEN, ORAL, OR IMPLIED; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
25 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; SEC. 1983 STATE ACTOR CIVIL RIGHTS
26
27
28
VIOLATIONS; WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION; PUNITIVE DAMAGES
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (SCANNED IMAGE REFLECTS MANNER IN
V3.939
WHICH DOCUMENT WAS RECEIVED - 8-11-2011 -SC)".
Further, there now exists photographic evidence that Howard Patrick Jackson
2 served Jessica Garzae and Berta Mann the Summons and Complaint in the related
3 matter CVll-01955 on August 29
th
, 2011.
4
It simply was not clear enough to the undersigned to be worth risking much to
5
guess how a filing date would be determined in the WDC vis a vis rules requiring
6
7 that upon completion of the administrative process and the EEOC's issuance of a
8 Notice of Right to Sue, an employee has 90 days within which to bring a lawsuit in
9 federal or state court, NRS 233.160(1)(b); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(1); 29 U.S.C.
10
626( d) (2). NRCP 3 hold that "A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint
11
with the court." Plaintiff made diligent inquiries and performed research which yield
12
13 mixed answers and nothing of any too much certainty.
14
15
16
17
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT; RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION; TORTIOUS CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN
18 VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT,
19 WRITTEN, ORAL, OR IMPLIED; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
20 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; SEC. 1983 STATE ACTOR CIVIL RIGHTS
21
VIOLATIONS; WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION; PUNITIVE DAMAGES
22
23 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (SCANNED IMAGE REFLECTS MANNER IN
24 WHICH DOCUMENT WAS RECEIVED - 8-11-2011 -SC)
25
The undersigned feels it necessary to underscore to this honorable Court: please
26
do not assume that dismissing this case will not result in the end of my ability to
27
access justice in connection with the wrongful termination etc from WLS. The
28
V3.940
1
2
associated case, cv 11-0 1955 may well be dismissed as well, largely due to the
Washoe County Sheriffs Office failure to even attempt to serve the complaints
provided to it, even where some authority exists to support the notion that Plaintiff
3 went above and beyond by printing out copies of the complaints and summons (and
4
there were some copies of the Complaints in these matters that were one page per
5
6
7
page full reproductions, ie, not all of them are attackable under the various
defendants legibility arguments, for which no real citation to any useful authority has
8 been provided ... Gonsalves cites WDCR for the 8.5 by 11 inch requirement for the
9
10
11
motions submitted to the WDC, but fails to bring to the court any authority as to what
an "original copy" is, etc., etc. Garin merely pasted the Black's Law Dictionary for
the word "copy". I actually spent about 4 hours researching the issue and if given the
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
time could provide the court with some real insight into the issue. However, please
understand, this case CVII-01896 may be my last and only chance to litigate this
matter, and a review of the record will show that beyond securing an IFP in cvll-
01896 and providing lots of materials to the WCSO in plenty of time for them to be
served or corrected, the undersigned also arranged for three other instances where
19 private individuals, all over 18, non parties, and residents of Nevada served or
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attempted to serve WLS and Elcano, and in some cases, Torvine. Beyond MR.
Jackson's Proof of Service, the docket will reveal two other gentleman served Elcano
and WLS, with Fitzhenry also serving Torvien. Merely dismissing without prejudice
may be quite prejudicial considering the 90 days to file from "receipt" of the EEOC's
Right to Sue Letter issue, particularly where refiling would result in a later filing date
being secured, outside of the 90 day limitations period.
One would think such august institutions entrusted with such prestigious work as
V3.941
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
performing legal aid for the indigent would perhaps take a less corporate law firm
win at all costs approach to disposing of a matter that invokes an inquiry as to
whether these institutions commit acts so counter to their very reasons for existing,
ie, sanctioning discrimination, censuring free speech, "tent-folding" (to use a term
Elcano favors) in the face of political pressure (and there is much evidence to be
presented that a cabal of far left "women's rights organizations" (though whose
rights and interests these groups actually fight for is up for debate, as, in my
experience, they sometimes pressure the very women they are ostensibly "helping" or
into doing things these women expressly do not want to do or feel is in their own best
interest to do-the client involved in the Tahoe Women's Services interference
indicated exactly that to me and told Elcano that she felt like the Tahoe Women's
Services "advocate" was pressuring her to do things she did not want to do ) .... rather
some individuals in these groups seek to force their own personal political bents and
ideologies upon these women) pressured Elcano into firing the Plaintiff, whether any
legitimate reason for doing so existed or not). Opposes Tahoe Women's Services
Motion to Dismiss and Motions to Quash Service as well as all of CAA W's, and
WLS Motions, as the arguments and circumstances are substantially similar in
opposing all of their various Motions. In addition, the undersigned asks the court to
consider the extent to which the Washoe County Sheriffs Office was required to
effectuate service in CVII-01896 (though a different matter than this case, to be
sure) in combination with the diligent efforts the undersigned too in seeking to get an
Order Consolidating these two substantially similar matters and setting forth the
circumstances that required these multiplicative filings.
My recent experiences in the Summary Eviction Proceeding incident to a No
V3.942
Cause Eviction Notice against the commercial lease under which I rented a home law
office in Reno Justice Court case Rev20 11-00 1708 really illustrate to me the need for
2 tenant's rights advocacy in our community. I personally was able to work at WLS for
3
about 18 months or so and I heard a lot more "no" "can't" "won't" "your wrong" "sir,
4
listen to me, you aren't" and all other types of dismissive commentary instead of
5
aggressive tenant's rights advocacy. Reno is about to become Las Vegas in that
6
7 regard (actually, it already is pretty much, or worse, because at least in Las Vegas
8 they follow JCRCP RULE 83, and print/publish and get approved by the Nevada
9
Supreme Court the "boot the tenant out as quickly and cheaply and with as litigation
10
supply demand risk reward costs to the landlord as possible" rule that they want to
11
12
use, like JCRL V 44, whereas in the RJC, just look at what happens in the 87 page
13
Exhibit 1 attachment to my recent filing. I was evicted in RJC Rev2011-001708
14
from a commercial tenancy where a No Cause Eviction Notice was all that was
15
served, which is prohibited by NRS 40.253, then, a "rent escrow" deposit of $2,275
16
was forced upon me, in violation ofNRS 40.253(6), Anvui, and Glazier, then I was
17
18
denied my statutory right to hearing within 10 days in response to my 11116111
19 Motion to Contest Personal Property lien. The RJC finally got a hearing set, for
20
12/20111, exactly one day after Richard G. Hill, Esq and Casey Baker, Esq, informed
21
me, in writing, that they and their Beverly Hills HS graduate California
22
23 Neurosurgeon client would dispose of my property (which includes client files and
24
pretty much everything I own in the world because the WCSO carne and changed the
25
locks prior appropriate service of the eviction Order if NRCP 6( e )'s dicate allowing 3
26
days for mailing where personal service is not affected is read to view those 3 days as
27
a "less than 11 days" timeframe and therefore requires counting only nonjudicial days
28
V3.943
in that calculus, vis a vis the 10/27111 Summary Eviction Order, which was not
personally served on me, despite what the WCSO Affidavit of Service says, and
1
2 which, if signed on 10/27111, and the RJC is not open on Friday's, under NRCP 6(e),
3
could not have been served on me until after the time at which the lockout occurred,
4
if the "3 days for mailing" language under NRCP 6( e) does not count non-judicial
5
days. As, such, to the extent service has not been properly performed, the
6
7 undersigned again, the the extent such a Motion or Request is deemed to have not
8 been made so far, seeks an extension of time to so serve and or amend the Complaint
9 to add necessary parties.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"NJCRCP 83: RULES BY JUSTICE COURTS Each justice or
justice court in a township with more than one justice, by action of a
majority of the justices thereof, may from time to time make and
amend the rules governing its practice not inconsistent with these
rules. Copies of rules and amendments so made by any justice court
shall upon their promulgation be furnished to the Supreme Court, but
shall not become effective until after approval by the Supreme Court
and publication. In all cases not provided for by these rules the justice
courts may regulate their practice in any manner not inconsistent with
these rules."
Rules of Practice for the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Rule
12(10) provides:
(a) Papers eligible for filing. All papers and pleadings, including motions,
oppositions and replies may be filed in the drop box located outside the Court Clerk's
Office, with the exception of filings which require the payment of filing fees. Filings
which require the payment of filing fees must be made directly with the Court Clerk's
Office.
V3.944
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
(b) Procedure. Papers may be filed in the drop box during all hours the courthouse
is open. Papers must be date and time stamped prior to being placed in the drop box.
Drop box filings shall be deemed filed as of the date and time noted on the paper or
pleading. If a drop box filing has not been date and time stamped, the paper or pleading
shall be deemed filed at the time it is date and time stamped by the Court Clerk.
I would like my efiling subscription charges waived in light of the Court's failure to
comply with WDCR 12(10). Please let me know in writing the decision on that request.
Further, NRCP 5(e) holds that:
"(e) Filing With the Court Defined. The filing of pleadings and other papers with the
court as required by these rules shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court,
except that the judge may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the
judge shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the
clerk. A court may by local rule permit papers to be filed, signed or verified by electronic
means that are consistent with technical standards, if any, that the Judicial Conference of
the United States establishes. A paper signed by electronic means in compliance with the
local rule constitutes a written paper presented for the purpose of applying these rules.
The clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely
because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or
practices."
The filing officer clerk's in the 2nd Judicial District Court for Washoe County, and
the managers, supervisors, and administrators regularly refuse filing in contravention of
V3.945
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRCP 5(e). Further, the drop box required by WDCR 12(10) is no more. The drop box
was removed about 6 months ago. The efiling fee tripled, about six months ago, on July
1, 2011. The connection is hard to ignore. I seriously, seriously doubt the drop box was
as underutilized as I have heard suggested. I would imagine the hard working, dedicated
filing office staff may actually prefer having the drop box to cut down on the lines.
Nonetheless, I would be surprised if the dictates of WDCR 12(10) were rendered null by
any under use.
With regard to the WDC filing office/ eFlex staff refusing to file papers submitted for
filing, please consider:
Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark, 904 P.2d 1039,
111 Nev. 1367 (Nev., 1995): "This proper person petition for a writ of mandamus seeks
an order from this court directing the Eighth Judicial District Court to file petitioner's
application to proceed in forma pauperis and his civil complaint. 1 On July 25, 1995, we
ordered the state to file an answer to this petition. The state's answer was filed on August
11, 1995. 2 Documentation submitted by petitioner to this court establishes that petitioner
submitted to the clerk of the district court for filing an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and a civil complaint on May 15, 1995. Although the application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis was in proper form and was sworn to under penalty of perjury,
the clerk of the district court did not file that application. 3 The failure to file the
application was in violation of the clear statutory mandate that such an application be
filed. NRS 12.015(1) provides that "[a]ny person ... may file an affidavit [seeking leave to
proceed without payment of fees]." Further, we have repeatedly instructed the clerk of the
Eighth Judicial District Court that such documents must be filed. See Bowman v. District
Court, 102 Nev. 474, 728 P.2d 433 (1986) (clerk has a ministerial duty to accept and file
V3.946
2
3
4
5
(;
7
8
9
1()
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2()
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
documents if those documents are in proper form; clerk must not exercise any judicial
discretion); Barnes v. District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748 P.2d 483 (1987) (prisoner's right
of access to court cannot be denied on basis of indigency); Huebner v. State, 107 Nev.
328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991) (clerk must create an accurate record of all pleadings
submitted for filing, whether or not the documents are actually filed); Whitman v.
Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992) (clerk has no authority to return
documents submitted for filing; instead, clerk must stamp documents that cannot be
immediately filed "received," and must maintain such documents in the record of the
case); Donoho v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027,842 P.2d 731 (1992) (the clerk of the
district court has a duty to file documents and to keep an accurate record of the
proceedings before the court); Grey v. Grey, 111 Nev. 388, 892 P.2d 595 (1995) (clerk of
district court admonished for failure to keep accurate record of documents submitted for
filing). Petitioner alleges that the district court has refused to file his application and has
returned it with directions to provide more infonnation regarding employment. Indeed,
petitioner has attached to his petition for a writ in this court his original application as it
was returned to him. Attached to the top of the document is a "post-it" note with the
handwritten notation: "application denied incomplete info-employment currently." 4 The
state informs us that the note was written by "the chief judge." In addition, petitioner
alleges, and the allegation is apparently true, that along with his "denied" application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, his civil complaint was returned to him unfiled.
Finally, petitioner alleges, and has attached documentation to support the allegation, that
judges' law clerks often return to prisoners unfiled motions along with letters purporting
to rule on the legal sufficiency of those motions. The state argues in its answer to this
petition that "petitioner's application ... was denied on the basis that the address of the
V3.947
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
Petitioner which was later given to the Court by Petitioner ... did not appear to be a jail
and that such information was contrary to the information shown in the application which
stated that the Petitioner was in prison. The 'out of jail' address suggested an ability of the
Petitioner to be employed." This vague reference to an "out of jail" address is not
explained in the documents before this court. Nevertheless, the state's assertion that
petitioner's application was denied is incorrect. The handwritten notation on petitioner's
application. Further, the action of the clerk of the district court in returning petitioner's
application and civil complaint to him unfiled is in direct violation of this court's
instructions to the clerk of the district court in Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840
P.2d 1232 (1992). This court has several times confirmed the absolute obligation of the
district courts to file documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of citizens to
access to the courts, whether indigent or not. Barnes v. District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748
P.2d 483 (1987); Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991). Indeed, in
Donoho v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027,842 P.2d 731 (1992), a case directly analogous
to this case, we held that the clerk of the district court violated the rights of an indigent
party when she neglected to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a
motion for relief from a default judgment. Specifically, we stated: "[T]he clerk [of the
district court] had an absolute duty to file the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and to clearly stamp the date of receipt of the other documents on the
documents. Further, the clerk had a duty to keep an accurate record of the case pending
before the district court." Id. at 1029, 842 P .2d at 733 (citation omitted; emphasis added).
Thus, petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be filed. If, on
subsequent review of the application, the district court determines that petitioner has not
V3.948
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
shown he is indigent, the district court may order petitioner to provide further information
or may deny the application in an appropriately filed written order. If, on the other hand,
the district court grants the application, the district court must then proceed to require the
filing of petitioner's other documents and to consider them in due course. Donoho, 108
Nev. at 1030, 842 P.2d at 733. Of course, for statute of limitations purposes, the
complaint would have to be considered filed on the date of actual receipt by the clerk of
the district court. To continue the analysis, with respect to petitioner's civil complaint
which he is attempting to file concurrently, the district court clerk had an absolute
obligation to stamp the document "received" and to record the date on which the
document was in fact received at the courthouse. See Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810
P.2d 1209 (1991). This the clerk of the district court did. However, the clerk then had a
duty to maintain a copy of the received document in the record of the case, whether or not
the document is ever filed. Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949,840 P.2d 1232 (1992).
This, the clerk neglected to do. While Huebner dealt with the timeliness of a notice of
appeal, the rationale compelling this court's ruling in Huebner, that all documents must be
marked received and dated, applies with equal force to a party's submission of a
complaint. "The legal rights of the parties to litigation, whether acting in proper person or
through counsel, often turn on the date of receipt by the clerk of the district court of
documents and pleadings." Huebner, 107 Nev. at 330,810 P.2d at 1211. As with a notice
of appeal, the untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from hearing the
matter on its merits. It is the responsibility of the clerk of the district court to keep an
accurate record of all documents submitted to her, whether or not they are filed. As in
Huebner, ambiguities regarding when documents were received or filed must ultimately
be resolved in favor of the party submitting them. Id. at 332,810 P.2d at 1212. The issue
V3.949
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
presently before this court is not whether petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is sufficient to establish petitioner's indigence. Further, we are not now
concerned with the merits of petitioner's civil complaint. We are vitally concerned,
however, with the preservation of the constitutional right of access to the courts and with
the protection of the constitutional right to due process of law. A writ of mandamus is
available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting
from an office, trust or station. NRS 34.160. The clerk of the district court has an absolute
duty to file petitioner's application and to properly receive and keep a record of
petitioner's complaint. Accordingly, we grant this petition for a writ of mandamus. 6 The
clerk of this court shall serve a copy of petitioner's application and complaint on the clerk
of the district court forthwith. The clerk of this court shall also issue a writ of mandamus
compelling the clerk of the district court to file petitioner's application, and to receive
petitioner's complaint. These documents will be considered to have been filed and
received on May 15, 1995. --------------- 1 Petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition
enjoining the district court, the clerk of the district court and her employees from denying
prisoners access to the courts in the future. We deny petitioner's request for a writ of
prohibition. 2 Cause appearing, we grant petitioner's proper person request for leave to
file a reply to the state's answer. The clerk of this court shall file the reply, entitled
"petitioner's reply to petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition," which was received
by this court on August 21,1995.3 Although the document was entitled "application"
rather than "affidavit," it was sworn to under penalties of perjury, provided information
concerning petitioner's financial condition and clearly sought a judicial ruling regarding
the question of whether petitioner would be allowed to proceed with a civil action
without the payment of fees. Thus, any deviation as to form was not significant enough to
V3.950
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
justify the clerk's failure to file the document. The
clerk of the court has no discretion to make any judicial ruling regarding the legal
sufficiency of a document. When a document in proper form is submitted to the clerk, the
clerk has a ministerial duty to file that document. 4 We note that petitioner is presently an
inmate at the Nevada State Prison, and that his affidavit filed in this court in support of
this petition states that he is currently unemployed and has no prison job. He also avers
that his only asset is $6.57 in his prison account. 5 One such letter from a law clerk to an
inmate states: "Attached please find your Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis which
you recently submitted. NRS 12.015 requires an indigent litigant to set forth 'with
particularity facts concerning his income, property, and other resources .. .' Your
application to proceed sets forth this information very generally." "Please resubmit the
Motion with a more particular statement regarding your finances and any property you
own .... " Although this letter does not directly deny the motion, it clearly has the effect of
denying the motion without filing. Of course, like the clerk of the district court, a judge's
law clerk lacks judicial authority. 6 The state represents that "the District Court will file
the Petitioner's complaint upon submittal by the petitioner." This statement was based on
the state's view that we determined in our Order to Show Cause that petitioner should be
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. We, however, express no opinion regarding the
merits of petitioner's application or complaint. We merely determine that the application
should have been filed and judicially resolved, and the complaint should have been
properly received. We note that petitioner has sent the original documents to this court,
and thus may not be in a position to resubmit them. Also, for statute of limitations
purposes, the documents must be considered filed as of the date of original receipt. Thus,
V3.951
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
we have determined that this petition must be granted." Another very important and
instructive case is Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (Nev., 1992): "On
rehearing, appellant has submitted documents that conclusively demonstrate that
appellant submitted a timely notice of appeal to the clerk of the district court. Although
the clerk of the district court stamped the notice of appeal "received" on December 30,
1991, the clerk did not file the notice of appeal. Instead, the clerk of the district court
returned appellant's notice of appeal to appellant because it was not accompanied by a
filing fee and, although the notice was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis, appellant's affidavit in support of that motion was apparently
not signed. Consequently, there is no record of the submission of appellant's timely notice
of appeal. We note that the clerk of the district court filed appellant's motion for leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis on the date of receipt, December 30, 1991, and that
the district court eventually granted that motion. We have previously stated that "it is
extremely important that the clerk of the district court keep an accurate record of the date
of receipt of every document submitted to the clerk, regardless of whether the document
is in the appropriate form. Indeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the clerk of the
district court to neglect this ministerial duty." Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 330,810
P.2d 1209, 1211 (1991) (footnote omitted). In this case, the clerk of the district court has
failed to keep any record of the date of receipt of appellant's notice of appeal; instead, the
clerk stamped the document "received" and returned it to appellant. The clerk of the
district court had no authority to take such action. Although the clerk of the district court
had no duty to file appellant's notice of appeal before appellant paid the requisite filing
fee or was relieved of the duty to pay the filing fee by order of the district court, see NRS
19.013(2), the clerk had a duty to receive the document and to keep an accurate record of
V3.952
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
the case pending before the district court. Particularly in this case it was essential that the
notice of appeal be retained in the record, because we have held that a notice of appeal is
effective on the date of receipt by the district court clerk. See Huebner v. State, [108 Nev.
952] 107 Nev. 328,810 P.2d 1209 (1991). Rather than returning the notice of appeal to
appellant, the clerk of the district court should have retained the notice of appeal in the
record, and should have informed appellant by letter of any perceived deficiencies in the
document. 4 Appellant could then have taken whatever action was appropriate to pursue
his appeal. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant timely submitted to the
clerk of the district court a notice of appeal from an appealable order of the district court,
and that appellant's timely notice of appeal is not contained in the record due to the
inappropriate action of the district court clerk. Accordingly, we grant appellant's petition
for rehearing, and we proceed to address the merits of this appeal." Id. At 1232-1234.
See, also, Barnes v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev., In and For Clark County,
748 P.2d 483, 103 Nev. 679 (Nev., 1987)."
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Plaintiff
V3.953
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Proof of Service:
On December 21 st, 2011, I, Zach Coughlin filed eletronically the
foregoing document, and E-Filers were served electronically, including:
Brian Gonsalves, Esq
P.O. Box 907
Kings Beach, CA96143
Attorney for Tahoe Women's Services
Committee to Aid Abused Women
Gary Fuller, Esq. Attorney for Defendant CAA W
Washoe Legal Services
Joe Garin, Esq. Attorney for Defendant WLS
13 DATE THIS: December 21,2011,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
Plaintiff
SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO ALI, DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS Page 18
V3.954
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
1. Exhibit 1; eighty-three (83) pages of emails from WDC's eflex email
2 account eflex@washoecourts.us showing receipt of Coughlin's Opposition to Motion
J riginally submitted to Eflex on 12116111 and subsequent rejection notice of that
4 filing from Eflex, and third rejection of Couglin's attempt to submit a filing to the
5 Court and other stuff too.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-30-2012:16:24:56
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn for Attorney's Fee
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
WOMEN'S SERVICES
V3.955
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.956
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-30-2012:08:16:17
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
-**Continuation
WOMEN'S SERVICES
COUGHLIN
V3.957
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.958
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 01-31-2012:14:13:33
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn to Retax Costs
WOMEN'S SERVICES
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.959
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.960
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: 2450
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV BA No: !4"#
$422 E. !th %t. &2
eno, NV '!5$2
(ele: ""5)##')'$$'
*a+: !4!),,")"402
Atto.ne/ 0o. 1lainti00 Coughlin
2N (3E %EC4ND 56D2C2A7 D2%(2C( C46(
2N AND *4 (3E C46N(8 4* 9A%34E
ZAC3 C46:372N;

1lainti00.
<s.
4* 9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, CA8N
%AB4, 2ndi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97%
97% em=lo/ee;
De0endants.
A
A
A
A
A
A CA%E N4: CV$$)0$'!,
DE1(. N4: ,
?4(24N (4 E(AB C4%(%
?4(24N (4 E(AB C4%(%
(he unde.signed su@mits on his oCn @ehal0 this ?otion to eta+ Costs, to a==l/ to an/ and all
such ?emo.andums o0 Costs and o. atto.ne/Ds 0ees su@mitted @/ and de0endant in the matte., Chethe.
the/ Ce.e e<e. named in the ca=tion o. not. (his cou.t $E$$E$2 4.de., Chile 0a. di00e.ent than Chat
- $E5 -
?4(24N (4 E(AB C4%(%
F I L E D
Electronically
01-31-2012:12:02:05 AM
Clerk of the Court
V3.961
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
Cas 4de.d in CV$$)0$'!,m decided FthanG0ull/A should a==l/ to the instant motion. (hat 4.de.
.ead:
H 2n addition, C2%Ds .equest 0o. atto.ne/Ds 0ees and costs is denied at this time @ecause the Cou.t
dismissed this action on =.ocedu.al g.ounds Cithout anal/Iing the me.its o0 1lainti00s case.H %o said
this Cou.t. 8et anothe. ?emo.andum o0 Costs has @een su@mitted. 9h/J 2nte.esting that :a.in
com@ines the ?emo.andumDs o0 Costs /et 0ailed to so com@ine othe. motions o. 0ilings.
N% $'.$$0 Ve.i0ied memo.andum o0 costs: *iling and se.<ice; CitnessK and cle.GKs 0ee; .eta+ing
and settling costs. $. (he =a.t/ in Chose 0a<o. Ludgment is .ende.ed, and Cho claims costs, must 0ile
Cith the cle.G, and se.<e a co=/ u=on the ad<e.se =a.t/, Cithin 5 da/s a0te. the ent./ o0 Ludgment, o.
such 0u.the. time as the cou.t o. Ludge ma/ g.ant, a memo.andum o0 the items o0 the costs in the
action o. =.oceeding, Chich memo.andum must @e <e.i0ied @/ the oath o0 the =a.t/, o. the =a.t/Ks
atto.ne/ o. agent, o. @/ the cle.G o0 the =a.t/Ks atto.ne/, stating that to the @est o0 his o. he.
GnoCledge and @elie0 the items a.e co..ect, and that the costs ha<e @een necessa.il/ incu..ed in the
action o. =.oceeding. 2. (he =a.t/ in Chose 0a<o. Ludgment is .ende.ed shall @e entitled to .eco<e. the
Citness 0ees, although at the time the =a.t/ ma/ not actuall/ ha<e =aid them. 2ssuance o. se.<ice o0
su@=oena shall not @e necessa./ to entitle a =.e<ailing =a.t/ to ta+, as costs, Citness 0ees and mileage,
=.o<ided that such Citnesses @e sCo.n and testi0/ in the cause. #. 2t shall not @e necessa./ to em@od/
in the memo.andum the 0ees o0 the cle.G, @ut the cle.G shall add the same acco.ding to the 0ees o0 the
cle.G 0i+ed @/ statute. 4. 9ithin # da/s a0te. se.<ice o0 a co=/ o0 the memo.andum, the ad<e.se =a.t/
ma/ mo<e the cou.t, u=on 2 da/sK notice, to .eta+ and settle the costs, notice o0 Chich motion shall @e
0iled and se.<ed on the =.e<ailing =a.t/ claiming costs. 6=on the hea.ing o0 the motion the cou.t o.
Ludge shall settle the costs.
- 2E5 -
?4(24N (4 E(AB C4%(%
V3.962
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
%ee N..C.1. 4FiA. 2n addition, C2%Ds .equest 0o. atto.ne/Ds 0ees and costs is denied at this time
@ecause the Cou.t dismissed this action on =.ocedu.al g.ounds Cithout anal/Iing the me.its o0
1lainti00s case. %o said this Cou.t. 2t seemed :a.in asGed 0o. sanctiosn too...@oth o0 Chich amount
to mo.e than a Hs=ecial a==ea.anceH and the.e0o.e these =a.ties ha<e Cai<ed an/ se.<ice o0 =.ocess
.equi.ement and a.e noC in this litigation. And a de0ault is a==.o=.iate to ente. as the/ ha<e 0ailed
to 0ile and AnsCe. to the Com=laint Cithin 20 da/s o0 se.<ice.
*ailu.e to maGe legi@le co=/ o0 com=laint 0o. se.<ice 2n the 0olloCing case the cou.t 0ound
that the 0ailu.e o0 cou.t =e.sonnel to maGe a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint 0o. se.<ice on a de0endant
su==o.ted its a==a.ent holding that the.e Cas good cause unde. ule 4FLA o0 the *ede.al ules o0 Ci<il
1.ocedu.e 0o. a =lainti00Ds 0ailu.e to timel/ se.<e =.ocess. 9he.e a com=laint, alleging em=lo/ment
disc.imination, =hotoco=ied @/ cou.t =e.sonnel 0o. se.<ice on an em=lo/e. on @ehal0 o0 a 0o.me.
em=lo/ee =.oceeding =.o se and in 0o.ma =au=e.is, =.o<ed too 0aint 0o. the em=lo/e. to .ead, the
cou.t in ?c>enIie < Amt.aG ? o0 E F$!!0, %D N8A """ * %u== $$$!, 0ound that the 0ailu.e o0 cou.t
=e.sonnel to maGe a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint 0o. se.<ice su==o.ted its im=licit holding that the.e
Cas good cause unde. ule 4FLA o0 the *ede.al ules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e 0o. the =lainti00Ds 0ailu.e to
timel/ se.<e a legi@le co=/ o0 the com=laint. (he cou.t stated that, although the a.gument that se.<ice
should not @e deemed e00ecti<e unless the com=laint is legi@le is o.dina.il/ a st.ong one, the.e Cas
little Lusti0ication 0o. dismissing the =lainti00Ds com=laint on that g.ound, @ecause the de0ect in se.<ice
Cas att.i@uta@le to cou.t =e.sonnel. (he cou.t also noted that the em=lo/e., Cho had ad<ised the
em=lo/ee o0 the illegi@ilit/ o0 the com=laint @ut had 0ailed to so ad<ise the 6nited %tates ma.shal o.
the cou.t, notCithstanding the em=lo/e.Ds GnoCledge that the em=lo/ee Cas =.oceeding =.o se, Cas
=a.tl/ to @lame 0o. the dela/ in se.<ice.
CONCLUSION
- #E5 -
?4(24N (4 E(AB C4%(%
V3.963
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1lease den/ all Costs o. atto.ne/Ds 0ees .equested.
DA(ED (32%: 5anua./ #0th, 20$2,
EsE Zach Coughlin, signed elect.onicall/
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1lainti00
- 4E5 -
?4(24N (4 E(AB C4%(%
V3.964
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Proof of Sr!"#$
document to:
1.4. Bo+ !0"
>ings Beach, CA !,$4#
Atto.ne/ 0o. (ahoe 9omenDs %e.<ices FC2%2% 2N(EVEN(24N %EV2CE%A 932C3 2% N4( A
721%4N, NE27%4N, C47E, %E7(ZE M :A2N
54%E13 1. :A2N, E%N.
Ne<ada Ba. No. ,,5#
%3ANN4ND N4D%(4?
Ne<ada Ba. No. '2$$
7asVegas, Ne<ada '!$4'
(E7: F"02A#'2)$500 *AB: F"02A #'2)$5$2
DA(ED (32%: 5anua./ #0, 20$2,
EsE Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
17A2N(2**
- 5E5 -
?4(24N (4 E(AB C4%(%
V3.965
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 02-01-2012:14:02:03
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn Alter or Amend Judgment
WOMEN'S SERVICES
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.966
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.967
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: 2075
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV BA No: !"7#
$"22 E. !th %t. &2
eno, NV '!5$2
(ele: 775)##')'$$'
*a+: !"!),,7)7"02
Atto.ne/ 0o. the 1lainti00
2N (3E %EC4ND 56D2C2A7 D2%(2C( C46(
2N AND *4 (3E C46N(8 4* 9A%34E
ZAC3 C46:372N;

1lainti00.
<s.
4* 9A%34E 7E:A7 %EV2CE%, CA8N
%AB4, 2Andi<iduall/ and in he. ca=acit/ as 97%
97% em=lo/ee; ?elissa ?angia.acina,
indi<iduall/ and in ca=acit/ as 97% atto.ne/
CAA9; (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices
De0endants.
C
C
C
C
C
C CA%E N4: CV$$)0$'!,
DE1(. N4: ,
?otion to Alte. o. Amend 5udgment; o., 1led in the Alte.nati<e, ?otion 0o. Nunc 1.o (unc 4.de.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
- $A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
F I L E D
Electronically
02-01-2012:12:19:18 AM
Clerk of the Court
V3.968
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 a@o<e title motion is su@mitted @/ the unde.signed on his oDn @ehal0. Actuall/, the
4.de.Bs a.e <oid o. inco..ect. the $20 da/s had not .un.
ENC1 67E 5!. NE9 (2A7%; A?END?EN( 4* 56D:?EN(%

FaC :.ounds. A neD t.ial ma/ @e g.anted to all o. an/ o0 the =a.ties and on all o.
=a.t o0 the issues 0o. an/ o0 the 0olloDing causes o. g.ounds mate.iall/ a00ecting the
su@stantial .ights o0 an agg.ie<ed =a.t/: F$C 2..egula.it/ in the =.oceedings o0 the
cou.t, Gu./, maste., o. ad<e.se =a.t/, o. an/ o.de. o0 the cou.t, o. maste., o. a@use o0
disc.etion @/ Dhich eithe. =a.t/ Das =.e<ented 0.om ha<ing a 0ai. t.ial; F2C
?isconduct o0 the Gu./ o. =.e<ailing =a.t/; F#C Accident o. su.=.ise Dhich o.dina./
=.udence could not ha<e gua.ded against; F"C NeDl/ disco<e.ed e<idence mate.ial 0o.
the =a.t/ maHing the motion Dhich the =a.t/ could not, Dith .easona@le diligence,
ha<e disco<e.ed and =.oduced at the t.ial; F5C ?ani0est dis.ega.d @/ the Gu./ o0 the
inst.uctions o0 the cou.t; F,C E+cessi<e damages a==ea.ing to ha<e @een gi<en unde.
the in0luence o0 =assion o. =.eGudice; o., F7C E..o. in laD occu..ing at the t.ial and
o@Gected to @/ the =a.t/ maHing the motion. 4n a motion 0o. a neD t.ial in an action
t.ied Dithout a Gu./, the cou.t ma/ o=en the Gudgment i0 one has @een ente.ed, taHe
additional testimon/, amend 0indings o0 0act and conclusions o0 laD o. maHe neD
0indings and conclusions, and di.ect the ent./ o0 a neD Gudgment.
F@C (ime 0o. ?otion. A motion 0o. a neD t.ial shall @e 0iled no late. than $0 da/s
a0te. se.<ice o0 D.itten notice o0 the ent./ o0 the Gudgment.E
(his motion a==lies to all 4.de.s so 0a. @/ this Cou.t.
(1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court !ury "aster or ad#erse party
or any order of the court or "aster or a$use of discretion $y %hich either party
%as pre#ented fro" ha#ing a fair trial&
8e=, the 9ashoe Count/ %he.i00 unde.tooH to se.<e the se.<ice =a=e.s he.e and 0ailed.
2 Gusti0ia@l/ .elied u=on that. 1lus, the 9C%4 committed to.ts against me, including
using e+cessi<e 0o.ce.
(') Misconduct of the !ury or pre#ailing party&
8e=, all o==osining counsel, to <a./ing deg.ees ha<e committed such misconduct in
mis.e=.esenting to this Cou.t Dhat thei. clients De.e se.<ed, and Gust hoD legi@le it
Das, and Dhethe. the Esam=lesE attached De.e .easona@l/ .e=.esentati<e o0 the le<el
o0 legi@ilit/.
- 2A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.969
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(() Accident or surprise %hich ordinary prudence could not ha#e guarded
against&
All the di00iculties mentioned =.e<iousl/, including that incident to the e<iction, the (14Bs,
9C%4 0ailu.es, etc., etc.
()) Ne%ly disco#ered e#idence "aterial for the party "a*ing the "otion %hich
the party could not %ith reasona$le diligence ha#e disco#ered and produced at
the trial&
NeD e<idence e+ists Dith .es=ect to a mi+u= Dith the 9C%4 attem=ts at se.<ice.
ega.dless, 3oDa.d 5acHson did se.<e the %ummons and Com=laint, the <ideo and
still =ictu.es =.o<e it. (he unde.signed is alloDed to 0ill out a 0o.m 0o. the se.<e. to
sign, as long as it is t.uth0ul.
(+) E,cessi#e da"ages appearing to ha#e $een gi#en under the influence of
passion or pre!udice& or
(he sanctions he.e 0it this @ill. 97% and (9% a.e not ?othe. (he.esa once /ou go
an Do.H 0o. 97% 0o. $' monts in .eal li0e.
(-) Error in la% occurring at the trial and o$!ected to $y the party "a*ing the
"otion. /n a "otion for a ne% trial in an action tried %ithout a !ury the court
"ay open the !udg"ent if one has $een entered ta*e additional testi"ony
a"end findings of fact and conclusions of la% or "a*e ne% findings and
conclusions and direct the entry of a ne% !udg"ent.
(his a==lies he.e too. (he de0endantBs did not a.gue n.c= $2@5 @asis 0o. dismissal, /et
the o.de. is @ased on that onl/. 0u.the. the.e Das no =.o=e. citation 0o. the @asis 0o.
the atto.ne/ 0ee aDa.d and the same is <oid as the cou.t cannot maHe such a .ule
Dhe.e the =.ocedu.al .eqs o0 n.c= $$ a.e nt com=lied Dith 0i.st.
NA1 "FaCF2C =.o<ides: (he .unning o0 the time 0o. 0iling a notice o0 a==eal is te.minated as
to all =a.ties @/ a timel/ motion 0iled in the dist.ict cou.t @/ an/ =a.t/ =u.suant to the Ne<ada ules
o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e he.ea0te. enume.ated in this sentence, and the 0ull time 0o. a==eal 0i+ed @/ this
su@di<ision commences to .un and is to @e com=uted 0.om the date o0 se.<ice o0 D.itten notice o0
ent./ o0 an/ o0 the 0olloDing o.de.s made u=on a timel/ motion unde. such ules: FiC g.anting o.
den/ing a motion 0o. Gudgment unde. N..C.1. 50F@C; FiiC g.anting o. den/ing a motion unde.
N..C.1. 52F@C to amend o. maHe additional 0indings o0 0act, Dhethe. o. not an alte.ation o0 the
Gudgment Dould @e .equi.ed i0 the motion is g.anted; FiiiC g.anting o. den/ing a motion unde.
N..C.1. 5! to alte. o. amend the Gudgment; Fi<C g.anting o. den/ing a motion 0o. a neD t.ial unde.
N..C.1. 5!. A notice o0 a==eal 0iled @e0o.e the 0o.mal dis=osition o0 an/ timel/ =ost)Gudgment
- #A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.970
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
motion enume.ated in this su@di<ision shall ha<e no e00ect. A notice o0 a==eal must @e 0iled a0te. the
ent./ o0 a D.itten o.de. o0 the dist.ict cou.t .esol<ing an/ o0 the =ost)Gudgment motions enume.ated in
this su@di<ision and no late. than thi.t/ F#0C da/s 0.om the date o0 se.<ice o0 D.itten notice o0 ent./ o0
that o.de..
co..ecting cle.ical e..o.s in Gudgments: Ne<ada Alamo 2... Co. <. 6.%., '$ Ne<. #!0, "0" 1.2d
5 F$!,5C I %u== Channel $# o0 7as Vegas, 2nc. <. Ettlinge., !" Ne<. 57', 5'# 1.2d $0'5 F$!7'C I
%u== *inle/ <. *inle/, ,5 Ne<. $$#, $'! 1.2d ##" F$!"'C I %u== :ottDals <. enche., ,0 Ne<. #5,
!' 1.2d "'$, $2, A.7.. $2,2 F$!"0C I %u== 2<eson <. %econd 5udicial Dist. Cou.t, ,, Ne<. $"5,
20, 1.2d 755 F$!"!C I %u== >i.H=at.icH <. (emme, !' Ne<. 52#, ,5" 1.2d $0$$ F$!'2C I %u==
>oeste. <. Administ.ato. o0 Estate o0 >oeste., $0$ Ne<. ,', ,!# 1.2d 5,! F$!'5C I %u== ?c>issicH
<. ?c>issicH, !# Ne<. $#!, 5,0 1.2d $#,, F$!77C I %u== 4=aco 7um@e. J ealt/ Co. <. 1hi==s, 75
Ne<. #$2, #"0 1.2d !5 F$!5!C I %u== %il<a <. %econd 5udicial Dist. Cou.t in and 0o. 9ashoe
Count/, 57 Ne<. ",', ,, 1.2d "22 F$!#7C I 22, 2K, K22, K222, KV, KV2i, K2K %mith <. E==e.son, 72
Ne<. ,,, 2!" 1.2d #,2 F$!5,C I %u==.
AlloDing amendment nunc =.o tunc 9estBs >e/ Num@e. Digest 9estBs >e/ Num@e. Digest,
5udgment #2, %u@Gect to the .ules go<e.ning amendments and co..ections o0 Gudgments gene.all/, a
cou.t ma/ amend o. co..ect its oDn Gudgments nunc =.o tunc, @ut onl/ 0o. cle.ical e..o.s o.
omissions. %u@Gect to the .ules go<e.ning amendments and co..ections o0 Gudgments gene.all/,L$M the
=oDe. to amend o. co..ect a Gudgment nunc =.o tunc is inhe.ent in cou.ts o0 .eco.d.L2M (hus, i0 a
Gudgment has @een i..egula.l/ ente.ed, o. 0ails to contain all essential elements o. to e+=.ess the
cou.tBs t.ue decision, as a .esult o0 cle.ical e..o.s o. omissions, it ma/ @e com=leted @/ an o.de. nunc
=.o tunc, o. ma/ @e <acated and the co..ect Gudgment ente.ed nunc =.o tunc.L#M A nunc =.o tunc o.de.
ma/ @e used onl/ to co..ect a cle.ical e..o. in ente.ing a .ende.ed Gudgment, not to alte. o. amend that
- "A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.971
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
Gudgment.L"M (he cou.tBs =oDe. to o.de. the ent./ o0 Gudgments nunc =.o tunc ma/ not @e used 0o. the
=u.=ose o0 co..ecting Gudicial e..o.s o. omissions.L 5M (his =.ocedu.e ma/ not @e em=lo/ed to
<alidate a <oid Gudgment,L,M change o. .e<ise a Gudgment,L7M maHe a su@stanti<e change,L'M set aside
a Gudgment actuall/ .ende.ed,L!M change the Gudgment actuall/ .ende.ed to one that the cou.t neithe.
.ende.ed no. intended to .ende.,L$0M o. .ende. a Gudgment di00e.ent 0.om the one actuall/ .ende.ed,
L$$M e<en though the Gudgment actuall/ .ende.ed Das not the Gudgment the Gudge intended.L$2M 2t ma/
not @e used to enla.ge the Gudgment as o.iginall/ .ende.ed,L$#M change the .ights 0i+ed @/ it as it Das
o.iginall/ intended o. made,L$"M o. alloD the cou.t to .e<ieD and .e<e.se its action,L$5M no. em=lo/ed
Dhe.e the o.iginal Gudgment is D.ong as a matte. o0 laD.L$,M C6?67A(2VE %6117E?EN( C5%
56D:?EN(% N #'! 1age $ "! C.5.%. 5udgments N #'! O 20$2 (homson eute.s. No Claim to 4.ig.
6% :o<. 9o.Hs. Cases: 4nl/ e..o.s made in ente.ing a Gudgment a.e cle.ical and the.e0o.e su@Gect to
co..ection nunc =.o tunc a0te. the t.ial cou.t has lost =lena./ Gu.isdiction; an e..o. in .endition is
Gudicial. 2n .e Da.edia, #$7 %.9.#d 2"7 F(e+. 20$0C. LEND 4* %6117E?EN(M L*N$M NN #52 et seq.
L*N2M 2oDaI3o@son <. Dem=se/ Const. Co., 2#2 2oDa $22,, 7 N.9.2d '!, F$!"#C. ?o.I%chulte
<. %chulte, $"0 %.9.2d 5$ F?o. $!"0C. 4Hla.I3aDHs <. ?cCo.macH, $!#7 4> "!", $'0 4Hla. 5,!,
7$ 1.2d 72" F$!#7C. (e+.ICollins <. Da<en=o.t, $!2 %.9.2d 2!$ F(e+. Ci<. A==. :al<eston $!",C.
ule .estates =oDe. to ente. nunc =.o tunc o.de. A.H.I3olt Bonding Co., 2nc. <. %tate, #5# A.H. $#,,
$$" %.9.#d $7! F200#C. Basis A cou.tBs autho.it/ to ente. a nunc =.o tunc o.de. co..ecting the .eco.d
o0 a Gudgment is @ased on the cou.tBs .ight and dut/ to do enti.e Gustice and the cou.tBs cont.ol o0 its
oDn .eco.ds and autho.it/ to maHe them s=eaH the t.uth. 2ll.I *i.st BanH o0 4aH 1a.H <. ePeH, $7!
2ll. A==. #d !5,, $2' 2ll. Dec. '0,, 5#5 N.E.2d 20 F$st Dist. $!'!C. L*N#M *la.I ADC)3os=italit/
?anagement, 2nc. <. andell, ,20 %o. 2d 25" F*la. Dist. Ct. A==. "th Dist. $!!#C. 2ll.IAd)E+, 2nc. <.
Cit/ o0 Chicago, 2"7 2ll. A==. #d !7, $'7 2ll. Dec. $25, ,$7 N.E.2d ### F$st Dist. $!!#C. 2oDaI
- 5A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.972
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
*ede.al 7and BanH o0 4maha <. DunHel@e.ge., "!! N.9.2d #05 F2oDa Ct. A==. $!!#C. ?o.I3ighe.
Educ. Assistance *oundation <. 3ensle/, '7$ %.9.2d $$5, '! Ed. 7aD e=. $02$ F?o. Ct. A==.
9.D. $!!"C. Ne@.I2nte.state 1.inting Co. <. De=a.tment o0 e<enue, 2#, Ne@. $$0, "5! N.9.2d 5$!
F$!!0C. 4hioIDents=l/ 2nte.n., 2nc. <. >ostas, 2, 4hio A==. #d $$,, "!' N.E.2d $07! F'th Dist.
Cu/ahoga Count/ $!'5C.
(he 0iling o0 a nunc =.o tunc o.de. a0te. Gudgment is ente.ed co..ecting a nonsu@stanti<e
e..o. in the Gudgment does not initiate a neD =e.iod 0o. 0iling a notice o0 a==eal.
9hite <. 9est.icH, !2$ *.2d 7'" F'th Ci.. $!!0C.
ust <. Cla.H Count/ %chool Dist., 7"7 1.2d $#'0 22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./, eco.d,
and DocHeting 22'H270 H. Necessit/ 0o. ent./. Ne<.,$!'7 1.io. to ent./ o0 0inal Gudgment, dist.ict
cou.t .emains 0.ee to .econside. and issue D.itten Gudgment di00e.ent 0.om its o.al =.onouncement.
Cent.al (.ust Co. o0 Cali0o.nia <. 3olmes ?in. Co., !7 1. #!0 Ne<.,$!0' A Gudgment is a Gudicial act
o0 the cou.t, and it is as 0inal Dhen =.onounced @/ the cou.t as Dhen it is ente.ed and .eco.ded @/ the
cle.H as .equi.ed @/ the statute; the ent./ @eing the ministe.ial act o0 the cle.H. Be../ <. Equita@le
:old ?in. Co., !$ 1. 5#7 22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./, eco.d, and DocHeting 22'H27$ H.
Autho.it/ to ente.. Ne<.,$!07 A dec.ee 0o. a =e.=etual inGunction ente.ed @/ the cle.H Das <oid on its
0ace, Dhe.e it Das unsu==o.ted eithe. @/ the <e.dict .ende.ed o. @/ an o.de. o0 the Gudge di.ecting its
ent./. %tate e+ .el. NeDitt <. *ou.th 5udicial Dist. Cou.t in and 0o. ElHo Count/, $2$ 1.2d ""2 22'
56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./, eco.d, and DocHeting 22'H272 H. (ime 0o. ent./ in gene.al. Ne<.,$!"2
(he =.ematu.e ent./ o0 a Gudgment is not a Gu.isdictional de0ect and does not a<oid the Gudgment, @ut
at most maHes it Qi..egula.R and Q<oida@leR.%ee =u@lication 9o.ds and 1h.ases 0o. othe. Gudicial
const.uctions and de0initions. %chultP <. 9inte., 7 Ne<. $#0 Ne<.,$'7$ An o.de. made in the t.ial o0
an issue at laD, i0 a 0inal Gudgment, ma/ @e ente.ed in te.m o. <acation; @ut such an o.de., made in
- ,A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.973
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
<acation, can ha<e no <italit/ until, at least, it is deli<e.ed to the cle.H 0o. 0iling. ?cClintocH <.
?cClintocH, $#' 1.#d 5$# 22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./, eco.d, and DocHeting 22' 27# Ent./
Nunc 1.o (unc 22'H27#F$C H. 2n gene.al. Ne<.,200, Dist.ict cou.t ma/ not use a nunc =.o tunc o.de.
to change a Gudgment actuall/ .ende.ed to one Dhich the cou.t neithe. .ende.ed no. intended to
.ende.. %mith <. E==e.son, 2!" 1.2d #,2 Ne<.,$!5, 4@Gect and =u.=ose o0 nunc =.o tunc o.de. is to
maHe .eco.d s=eaH t.uth conce.ning acts al.ead/ done. ules o0 Ci<il 1.ocedu.e, .ule ,0Fa, @C. Allen
<. Allen, 270 1.2d ,7$ Ne<.,$!5" Suestion Dhethe. nunc =.o tunc o.de. should @e made de=ends
u=on ci.cumstances o0 =a.ticula. case, and it is to @e g.anted o. .e0used as Gustice ma/ .equi.e. *inle/
<. *inle/, $'! 1.2d ##" Ne<.,$!"' (he o@Gect o0 a Qnunc =.o tuncR o.de. is to maHe a .eco.d s=eaH the
t.uth conce.ning acts done, and such o.de. cannot @e made use o0 no. .eso.ted to to su==l/ omitted
action.%ee =u@lication 9o.ds and 1h.ases 0o. othe. Gudicial const.uctions and de0initions. *inle/ <.
*inle/, $'! 1.2d ##" Ne<.,$!"' (he =oDe. to o.de. ent./ o0 Gudgment nunc =.o tunc cannot @e used
to co..ect Gudicial e..o.s o. omissions, no. to change Gudgment actuall/ .ende.ed to one Dhich the
cou.t neithe. .ende.ed no. intended to .ende.. (al@ot <. ?acH, $,! 1. 25 Ne<.,$!$7 (he o@Gect and
=u.=ose o0 a nunc =.o tunc o.de. is to maHe a .eco.d s=eaH the t.uth conce.ning acts al.ead/ done, and
not to su==l/ an omitted action. EDing <. 5ennings, $5 Ne<. #7! 22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./,
eco.d, and DocHeting 22' 27# Ent./ Nunc 1.o (unc 22'H27#F2C H. *ailu.e to ente. Gudgment at time
o0 .endition. Ne<.,$''0 9he.e a cle.H 0ails to ente. a Gudgment o.de.ed @/ the cou.t, it is Dithin the
=oDe. o0 the cou.t to o.de. the Gudgment to @e ente.ed nunc =.o tunc. *inle/ <. *inle/, $'! 1.2d ##"
22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./, eco.d, and DocHeting 22' 27# Ent./ Nunc 1.o (unc 22'H27#F#C H.
E..o.s o. i..egula.ities in =.e<ious ent./. Ne<.,$!"' Cou.t, in ente.ing a Gudgment nunc =.o tunc, ma/
in its disc.etion .el/ on its memo./ as to Dhat Das actuall/ done and ma/ .e0.esh its memo./ 0.om
an/ sou.ce it deems .elia@le. EDing <. 5ennings, $5 Ne<. #7! 22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./,
- 7A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.974
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
eco.d, and DocHeting 22' 27# Ent./ Nunc 1.o (unc 22'H27#F"C H. E+istence o0 =.e<ious Gudgment
o. o.de.. Ne<.,$''0 A Gudgment .oll containing the ag.eement and o.de. 0o. Gudgment and the
minutes o0 the cou.t is com=etent e<idence, tending to esta@lish the 0acts necessa./ to autho.iPe the
cou.t to ente. a Gudgment nunc =.o tunc. Culina./ and 3otel %e.<ice 9o.He.s 6nion, 7ocal No. 22,
<. 3augen, #57 1.2d $$# 22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./, eco.d, and DocHeting 22'H27, H.
1.oceedings 0o. ent./. Ne<.,$!,0 Dist.ict cou.t .ule Das entitled to encou.agement o0 %u=.eme Cou.t;
@ut co..ection o0 notice o0 ent./ o0 Gudgment, @/ lining out QA=.ilR Dith t/=eD.ite. and inse.ting
Q?a/R, did not dest.o/ e00ecti<eness o0 notice, e<en i0 such co..ection constituted an Qinte.lineationR
in <iolation o0 dist.ict cou.t .ule. Dist.ict Cou.t ules, .ules 2, su@d. ,, $!; %u=.eme Cou.t ules, .ule
2, su@d. '; NC1 ,F@C. *i.st Nat. BanH <. A@el, "$ 1.2d $0,$ 22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./,
eco.d, and DocHeting 22' 277 5udgment oll o. eco.d 22'H27! H. ?atte.s included. Ne<.,$!#5
Co=/ o0 Gudgment, st.iHing amended com=laint and dismissing action, 0iled @/ the cle.H @ecame =a.t
o0 QGudgment .ollR. Com=.7aDs $!2!, N ''2!.%ee =u@lication 9o.ds and 1h.ases 0o. othe. Gudicial
const.uctions and de0initions. :locH <. Elges, $5! 1. ,2! Ne<.,$!$, 5udgment .oll includes =leadings
and Gudgment. Bu.@anH <. i<e.s, $' 1. 75# 22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./, eco.d, and DocHeting
22'H2', H. De0ects and o@Gections. Ne<.,$''' 9he.e the cle.H, in ente.ing an o.de. o<e..uling
de0endantBs motion 0o. a neD t.ial, ente.s de0endantBs name as Q3en./ i<esR and Q3en./ i<e.s,R
instead o0 Q*.anH i<e.s,R de0endant is @ound to taHe notice that the o.de. Das meant 0o. his case.
Blasdel <. >ean, ' Ne<. #05 22' 56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./, eco.d, and DocHeting 22'H2'7 H.
E00ect o0 ent./ and .eco.d as @etDeen =a.ties in gene.al. Ne<.,$'7# *inding and .ecital o0 a legal
se.<ice o0 summons in a Gudgment is as much a =a.t o0 the .eco.d, and entitled to the same c.edence,
as the 0ile ma.Hs o0 the cle.H ante.io. to such se.<ice. BoDe.s <. EdDa.ds, #'5 1.2d 7'# 22'
56D:?EN( 22'V22 Ent./, eco.d, and DocHeting 22'H2'! H. Con0lict in .eco.d. Ne<.,$!,# 9he.e
- 'A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.975
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
the.e is con0lict @etDeen minute o.de. and Gudgment, the Gudgment =.e<ails. Busha.d <. 9ashoe
Count/, 22! 1.2d $5, Ne<.,$!5$ 9he.e minute o.de. o0 decision o0 t.ial cou.t is at <a.iance Dith
0o.mal Gudgment 0iled the.ea0te., the 0o.mal Gudgment must =.e<ail. ?o.time. <. 1aci0ic %tates %a<. J
7oan Co., $"5 1.2d 7## Ne<.,$!"" 9he.e the.e is con0lict @etDeen a minute o.de. and a Gudgment,
the latte. =.e<ails. ?o.time. <. 1aci0ic %tates %a<. J 7oan Co., $"5 1.2d 7## Ne<.,$!"" A 0o.mal
D.itten o.de. alloDing 0ees to a .ecei<e.Bs atto.ne/ and .ese.<ing to t.ial cou.t the .ight to conside. an/
additional alloDance Das not am@iguous so as to @e go<e.ned @/ minute o.de. alloDing 0ees 0o. the
calenda. /ea. and .ese.<ing to t.ial cou.t the .ight to 0i+ 0utu.e 0ees 0o. 0utu.e se.<ices. Blasdel <.
>ean, ' Ne<. #05 Ne<.,$'7# E<e./ legal intendment is in 0a<o. o0 the <alidit/ o0 a Gudgment, Dhe.e
the.e is a con0lict in the .eco.d as to due se.<ice o0 summons.
0/N0LU1I/N
1lease set aside all the dismissals costs and o. atto.ne/ 0ees aDa.ds. and .ecogniPe =.ocess and
se.<ice o0 =.ocess as a==.o=.iatel/ conducted, consolidate these cases, and an/ othe. .elie0 this
Cou.ts sees as a==.o=.iate.
A22IRMATI/N 3ursuant to NR1 '(45.6(6
DA(ED (32%: 5anua./ #$, 20$2,
AsA Zach Coughlin, signed elect.onicall/
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1lainti00
- !A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.976
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- $0A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.977
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
3roof of 1er#ice7
document to:
1.4. Bo+ !07
>ings Beach, CA !,$"#
Atto.ne/ 0o. (ahoe 9omenBs %e.<ices FC2%2% 2N(EVEN(24N %EV2CE%C 932C3 2% N4( A
721%4N, NE27%4N, C47E, %E7(ZE J :A2N
54%E13 1. :A2N, E%S.
Ne<ada Ba. No. ,,5#
%3ANN4ND N4D%(4?
Ne<ada Ba. No. '2$$
7as Vegas, Ne<ada '!$"'
(E7: F702C#'2)$500 *AK: F702C #'2)$5$2
:a./ *ulle., Esq.
Atto.ne/ 0o. CAA9
DA(ED (32%: 5anua./ #$, 20$2,
TAsA Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
1lainti00
- $$A$$ -
?4(24N (4 A7(E 4 A?END (3E 56D:E?EN(
V3.978
F I L E D
Electronically
02-02-2012:02:06:41 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.979
9
10
II
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
r:ode: 3720
I '
I
TIffi SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRlCT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
I
IN AND FOR TIffi COUNTY OF WASHOE
} I /' ' ( ,
,:
Plaintiff/Petitioner, Case No. C (/ I/' -c-, j t t6
vs. Dept. No. __ _
-e C,c-J,
Defel antIRespondent.
r /
PROOF OF SERVICE ) I I
') 1 (_ / ( .ArVlAD rhtt 1
0
..,1"
On the day of 6 (, ie , 20 __ , '1 ser a true and correct
copy of the following document(s): C I t'I.- V\.. 'j .
(Write the title(s) of each ocument served.)
upon
(Write the name of the person served.)
21 in the manner(s) and at the location(s) described below:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WRITE YOUR INITIALS ON THE APPROPRlATE BLANK(S):
a. ___ copy of the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope upon
which first class postage was fully prepaid and mailed said document(s) via the United States
",-.:I 07- I \ -08 BCl
Proor of of::l
Zach Coughlin
1422 E. 9th St. #2
Reno, NV 89512
Nevada Bar No: 9473
Tel: 775 338 8118
Fax: 949 667 7402
6
V3.980
- , .
--
2
(To be filled out and signed by the person who served the Defendant or Respondent)
3 STATEOF JJ )
: COlJNTY OF h 0 JL
6
7
8
9
10
I I
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 J
:: I
24 I
2S
26
I
I
I
T, rrme7 h
(Name of person bfl1)Jleted service) (
1. That I am not a party to this action and I am over 18 years of age.
following documents. f I;J -
(1[/ (J q
upon --!odd r 1/ I fFtE JJ'
, at the following
(Name of Defendant Or Respondent who was served)
location. _. 2.3 2 Co __
_--,I FpJ (/j )v II
on the p2 t day of -:-:-_' 20d l
. -t (Month) (Yeat
I declare, under penalty of perjury under the law of then State of Nevada, that the foregoing is true
and correct.
!' "\\

(SI.gnature
/ -
2
Sli'vlMONS - COMPL>\IN,
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 02-02-2012:14:43:55
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Summons Filed
WOMEN'S SERVICES
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.981
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.982

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
3860
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, J on Sasser,
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLICHT,
WLS employee.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
/ / /
F I L E D
Electronically
02-07-2012:09:30:39 AM
Clerk of the Court
V3.983

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
It is requested that DEFENDANT CARYN STERNLICHTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS, having been filed and served on J anuary 18, 2012, and no
Opposition having been filed, be submitted to the Court for decision.
parties.
Dated this 7
th
day of February, 2012.
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, J on
Caryn Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
any person.
Dated this 7
th
day of February, 2012.
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, J on
Caryn Sternlicht
- 2 -
V3.984

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

(
7
0
2
)

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0
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
th
day of February, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of
Request for Submission, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Brian A. Gonsalves, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 907
Defendant for Crisis Intervention Services
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff; and
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women
/s/ Nancy Cooper
____________________________________________
An Employee of
- 3 -
V3.985
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 02-07-2012:09:32:43
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.986
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.987
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 02-07-2012:10:29:39
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
WOMEN'S SERVICES
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.988
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.989
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
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9
th
St. 2
!eno" N# $9%12
&ele: 77%'33$'$11$
(a): 949'**7'74+2
,ttorne- .or /ro Se ,ttorne- /lainti..
0N &1E SEC2ND 34D0C0,5 D0S&!0C& C24!& 2( &1E S&,&E 2( NE#,D,
0N ,ND (2! &1E C24N&6 2( 7,S12E
Z,C1 C248150N9
/5,0N&0(("
v:.
7,S12E 5E8,5 SE!#0CES E& ,59
DE(END,N&S.
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Case No: CV11-01896
Dept No: 6
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO
STERNLICHT OR WHOEVERS' MOTION TO DISMISS
C2<ES N27" ,==ellant" Zach Coughlin" >- and through him:el." and .ile: thi: motion
(2! E?&ENS02N 2( &0<E &2 (05E ,n 2==o:ition to all o. 8arin@: neAe:t <otion: to Di:mi::"
and the udner:igned actuall- Ai:he: thi: to >e .iled a: B=led in that alternativeC a: a 9 or in the
alternative 2==o:ition to <otion to Di:mi::" hoAever the .iling o..ice routinel- reDect: an-thing
/lainti.. :o .ile: a: violative o. 7DC! 1+" even Ahere the =hra:e B=led in the alternativeC i: =laced
in the ca=tion or name o. the .iling...
LEGAL ARGUMENT
- 1 -
Motion for Extension of Tie
F I L E D
Electronically
02-07-2012:12:55:09 AM
Clerk of the Court
V3.990
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)ten:ion: and e)cu:a>le neglect are a .unn- thing. 0t Eind o. de=end: Aho -ou are" Ahat
cla::e: -ou .it in" grou=:" etc. and hoA the e-e o. the >eholder vieA: -ou in deciding Ahether or not
to grant them. 0 get ever->od-@: >e:t :hot. ,lAa-: have. Sarah Cla::" 7a:hoe 5egal Service:
Child ,dvocac- ,ttorne-" can taEe o.. her :hoe: in :ta.. meeting: and :it B0ndian'St-leC F:orr- i. that
term ha: gone the =oliticall- incorrect Aa- o. the con.lict avoiding Bchine:e AallC >ut 0 don@t EnoA
another =hra:e .or it...; then do head:tand: again:t the Aall Ahile Elcano i: talEing" dre::ed liEe a
mid'career Stevie NicE:" Aearing -oga =ant: to court" and it: oEa-" :he@: color.ul....>ut me" 0 get .ired
and :anctioned G1"+++ .or arguing a =o:ition that i: the maDorit- vieA=oint throughout ,merican
3uri:=rudence and .or Ahich Nevada laA ha: nothing on =oint" and Ahere 0 alerted 3udge 8ardner to
an ,5! on =oint vi: a vi: that Bdut- :tronger than a de>tH:et o.. un:ecured third =art- credit card de>t
.or Ahich the hu:>and i: the :ole :ignator-Hre.u:e S=ringgate@: :ettlement o..er o. Aaive alimon- in
e)change .or <r. 3o:hi agreeing to taEe on all the third =art- credit card de>t .or Ahich he Aa: the
:ole :ignator- an-Aa-: FEind o. a chimera con:ideration;" and Ahere <r. 3o:hi enDo-ed the BDuluth'
model B=oAer and controlC o. having onl- hi: name on the card:" and the a>ilit- to :o :=end Aithout
con:ternation....and it: a Summar- Contem=t under N!S 22.+1+ Ahere 0 don@t immediatel- >end to a
:ettlemnt o..er =ut .orth at the :ettlement con.erence" Ahich Aa: 1+ minute: >e.ore the B&rialC" .or
mi:conduct in the court@: =re:enceI 1oA a>out com=l-ing Aith the =rocedural dictate: o. N!C/ 11"
<r. S=ringgate" and :erving me a .iling read- motion" =rovidign 21 da- :a.e har>or" etc. "etc. N!S
7.+$% Aa: .or medical mal=ractice ca:e:" and noA" =redicta>l-" it: u:ed .or ever-thing and an-thing"
including Ahere 0 re.u:ed to acce=t a :ettlement o..er >a:ed u=on a rationale and :u==ort that i: the
maDorit- vieA=oint in ,merican legal deci:ion: on the i::ue....and a doctrine o. the nece::arie: :uit i:
unliEel- given the de>t i: :=read out among:t numerou: credit card com=anie: each de>t >eing not
liEel- Aorth the co:t o. :uch a com=licated :uit again:t m- client" <:. 3o:hi F0 .iled a <andamu:
- 2 -
V3.991
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
action relative to the :anction i::ued" liEe 3o:e=h 1ou:ton...; &he .iling o..ice continue: to
im=ermi::i>l- reDect time :en:itive .iling: de:=ite N!C/ %Fe;" 7DC! 1$" and Nevada Su=reme Cour
deci:ion: liEe 7hitman and Sullivan and Donoho. /lainti.. reJue:t: and e)ten:ion to 2==o:e the
<otion to Di:mi:: or alternativel- a:E: that thi: Court incor=orate >- re.erence argument =reviou:l-
:u>mitted in relation to :u>:tantiall- :imilar <otion: >- 8arin" adding to that the .act that i.
Sternlicht Aa: onl- :erved a Summon: and no Com=laint" e)cu:a>le neglecdt given the 7CS2@:
=romi:e: to :erve Aere relied u=on to /lainti..@: detriment and there doe: e)i:t authorit- .or and a
good .aith >a:i: to argue that merel- :erving the Summon: :u..ice: .or the reJuirement to :ervice
>oth Summon: and Com=laint Fit: .ederal authorit-" >ut it: =er:ua:ive...;.
7DC! !ule 11. E)ten:ion or :hortening o. time. 1. ,ll motion: .or e)ten:ion: o. time :hall
>e made u=on % da-:K notice to all coun:el. Such motion :hall >e made to the Dudge Aho i: to tr- the
ca:e" or" i. the Dudge i: not in the courthou:e during regular Dudicial hour:" to a Dudge on the :ame
.loor Aho :hall :et or cau:e the motion to >e :et .or earl- hearing. F(or the :aEe o. thi: rule
De=artment 1+ i: deemed to >e on the :econd .loor.; 2. E)ce=t a: =rovided in thi: :u>:ection" no e)
=arte a==lication .or e)ten:ion o. time Aill >e granted. 4=on =re:entation o. a motion .or e)ten:ion"
i. a :ati:.actor- :hoAing i: made to the Dudge that a good .aith e..ort ha: >een made to noti.-
o==o:ing coun:el o. the motion" and the Dudge .ind: good cau:e there.or" the Dudge ma- order e)
=arte a tem=orar- e)ten:ion =ending a determination o. the motion. 3. (or good cau:e :hoAn" the
Dudge Aho i: to tr- the ca:e" or i. the Dudge i: not in the courthou:e during regular Dudicial hour:" the
chie. Dudge" ma- maEe an e) =arte order :hortening time u=on a :ati:.actor- :hoAing to the Dudge that
a good .aith e..ort ha: >een made to noti.- the o==o:ing coun:el o. the motion. 4. E)ten:ion: to
an:Aer or otherAi:e re:=ond to a com=laint :hall not e)ceed 4+ da-: Aithout court a==roval. &he trial
Dudge :hall determine the a==ro=riate :anction i. thi: rule i: violated. ,==ellant cite: e)cu:a>le
- 3 -
V3.992
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
neglect or other circum:tance: FliEe o==o:ing coun:el in an :ummar- eviction .rom one@: laA o..ice
>a:ed on no cau:e notice" not non=a-ment o. rent" commercial tenant in cv11'+3*2$ getting him
Arong.ull- arre:ted Fan having =olice that looE liEe the- >elong on the :hoe B3er:e- ShoreC give lot:
o. B>lame the victimC :tatement: regarding dome:tic violence committed again:t the under:igned in
:ituation: Ahere Ai:e <a:ter Edmund:on Fa con:ummate =ro.e::ional and Duri:t; actuall- granted
tAo E/2@: to the under:igned in (#12'++1$7 and (#12'++1$$ and =olice mi:conduct and the .ailure
to return :ecurit- de=o:it and ,==ellant: recentl- >eing a victim o. dome:tic violence in E/2 granted
in (#12'++1$$" and (#12'++1$7 in a:Eign .or an e)ten:ion and =age limit e)ce=tion.
<- mountain >iEe Aa: :tolen right a>out the time landlord <erli:: had N# Enereg- tre:=a::
on m- =ro=ert- and do an unnoticed :hut o.. o. electricit-. ,ll the .ood in m- re.ridgerator Aent >ad"
and other damage: Aere incurred. N# Energ- a::erted =rivit- o. contract Ahere the are not alloAed
to" Ahile >eing a mono=ol- :u==l-ing an e::ential Service. AAA.Shame2nN#Energ-.com
(urther" Du:t la:t (rida-" (e>ruar- 3rd" 2+12" N# Energ- again :hut o.. ,==ellant: electricit- Aithout
notice" and noA i: re.u:ing to alloA ,==ellant to have :ervice :tarted" demanding all :ort: o.
documentation" =roo." =rivate" =er:onall- identi.ia>le in.ormation" and :=eci.ic .orm: o.
Bagreement:C to Ahich N# Energ-" a mono=ol-" ha: not right. &hat cau:e thi: Brie. to e)ceed %
=age: and .orm: a >a:i: .or thi: reJue:t to alloA an e)ten:ion o. time to re.ine and .ini:h ,==ellant@:
2=ening Brie..
,l:o" a: 0 :it at Star>ucE: u:ing their Ai.i >ecau:e N# Energ- i: retaliating again:t me an not
onl- :hut o.. m- =oAer Aithout notice FAa: :ome>od- on li.e :u==ort in:ideI 7ould N# Energ- >e
lia>le i. :oI;" >ut then re.u:ed to alloA me to =ut the =oAer in m- name" even a.ter 0 caved to their
arrogant mono=ol- reJuirement to give them m- :ocial :ecurit- num>er" >ut not >e.ore the =hone
clerE and :u=ervi:or =roceeded to e)=lain the .iner =oint: o. Nevada landlord tenant laA to me"
- 4 -
V3.993
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
including hoA the .act that N!S 11$,.1++" Ahich indicate: Brental agreement:C could >e >oth ver>al
or Aritten" Aa: not the relevant :tandard" >ut rather that" N# Energ-@: Ahim: and de:ire: and
demand: .or one to :ign a..idavit: and =rovide them to N# Energ- to create =rivit- o. contract Ahere
non e)i:t: Fdid -ou live Aith the =reviou: tenant: .or an- =eriod o. timeI 0. :o" Ae Aon@t connect the
=oAer until their >ill i: =aid in .ull....Can !&C re.u:e to let me ride the >u: on that >a:i: tooI;.
7AA.Shame2nN#Energ-.com. 0ntere:tingl-" >e:ide: m- attem=t to FAhich Aa: :hot doAn in the 0(/
:tage; it doe:n@t :eem an- Doe :chmoe Nevada ha: ever :ued the >ehemoth N# Energ- or it:
=redece::or in name" Sierra /aci.ic" in 7a:hoe Di:trict Court" de:=ite the .act that the are a
mono=ol-" and nearl- ever->od- ha: to u:e them" and the- are EnoAn .or >ull-ing =eo=le around liEe
#lad and Nico" the :treet thug:" in 8rand &he.t ,uto 0# do to the citiLen: o. Centur- Cit-.
CONCLUSION
Ba:ed u=on the .oregoing the under:igned re:=ect.ull- reJue:t: that thi: Court grant an
e)ten:ion to .ile an 2==o:ition to the <otion to Di:mi::" or alternativel- den- :uch <otion to
Di:mi:: another relie. thi: Court deem: Du:t. ,==ellant Declare: under =enalt- o. =erDur-"
=ur:uant to N!S %3.+4%" that the a::ertion: in thi: document are true and correct.
AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030
&he under:igned doe: here>- a..irm that the =receding document doe: not contain the :ocial
:ecurit- num>er o. an- =er:on.

Dated: (e>ruar- *
rd
" 2+12
HSH Zach CoughlinMMMMMMMM
Zach Coughlin" /lainti..
- 5 -
V3.994
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
/ur:uant to N!C/ %F>;" 0 certi.- that 0 :erved a co=- o. the .oregoing document u=on the
.olloAing =art- >- electronicall- .iling on (e>ruar- *
rd
" 2+12 and there.ore :erving u=on regi:tered
e.iler:
3oe 8arin" E:J.
,ttorne- .or 75S
Brian 8on:alve:" E:J.
,ttorne- .or &7S" Cri:i:
712 ,!E N2& E#EN N,<E 0N &1E C,/&02N 2( &1E C2</5,0N& ,ND ,!E N2&
E#EN B/,!&0ESC 0( 624 ,SN <E
Date thi: (e>ruar- *
rd
" 2+12:
HSH Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin" /lainti..
- 6 -
V3.995
F I L E D
Electronically
02-08-2012:03:24:48 PM
Clerk of the Court
V3.996
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
Code 3370
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Case No. CV11-01896
Plaintiff, Dept. NO.6
v.
Defendants.
~ /
ORDER
Defendant Caryn Sternlicht ("Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Zacha
Coughlin's ("Plaintiff') complaint for non-service of process. No opposition was filed.
1
have 120 days to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant or until October 25,
2011. Plaintiff failed to serve Defendant within the mandated time period. In addition,
1 On February 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Sterlicht's 0
27 Whoevers' Motion to Dismiss; however, such motion is not an opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Failure of the opposing party to serve and file his written opposition may be construed as an
28 admission that the motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the same. DCR 13.
-1-
V3.997
Plaintiff failed to file a motion to enlarge time for service or show good cause as to wh
2 service was not made within the statutory period.
3
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss.
4
DATED: This ~ d y of February, 2012.
5
6 DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
V3.998
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
that on the .May of February, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
United States Postal Service in Reno. Nevada. a true and correct copy of the attached
Judicial Assistant
Judge: BRENT ADAMS
Clerk Accepted: 02-08-2012:15:25:17
Case Title:
SERVICES ET AL.(D6)
Document(s) Submitted: Ord Granting Mtn
Filed By: Heidi Boe
WOMEN'S SERVICES
COUGHLIN
PROPER PERSON
TODD TORVINEN
PAUL ELCANO
V3.999
SERVICES
ZANDRA LOPEZ
V3.1000

9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 Roa Vol 3 Coughlin V WLS Appeal of cv11-01896

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

9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 Roa Vol 3 Coughlin V WLS Appeal of cv11-01896

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

Case Number: CV11-01896

Case Number: CV11-01896

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi