1 COM

2 Robert Kern, Esq.

Nevada Bar Number 10104
3 KERN LAW, Ltd.
2421 Tech Center Ct., Ste 104
4 Las Vegas, NV 89128
(702) 518-4529 phone
5
(702) 825-5872 fax
6 eservice@KernLawOffices.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
7
IN THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
8
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
9

KERN LAW, LTD.

2421 Tech Center Ct., Suite 104, Las Vegas, NV 89128

Phone: (702) 518-4529 Fax: (702) 825-5872
eservice@KernLawOffices.com

10

)
) Case Number:
)
) Dept. Number:
)
)
)
)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
)
)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
)
Exempt from Arbitration:
Nevada State Democratic Party, a Nevada )
Injunctive Relief Requested
Organization, Roberta Lange, an individual, )
Zach Zaragoza, an individual, and Does I-X, )
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Aaron Jones, an individual, Andrew Martin,

11 an individual, Angela Morelli, an
individual,Brad Balon, an individual,
12 Persephone Bellows, an individual, Robert
Kern, an individual, Scott Miller, an
13 individual, and Tom McCullough, an
individual,
14
Plaintiffs,
15 vs.
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiffs listed above (Plaintiffs) bring suit against Defendants Nevada State

22 Democratic Party (NSDP), Roberta Lange (Lange), Zach Zaragoza (Zaragoza), and
Does I-X (collectively, Defendants) based on the following allegations:
23
24
25 1.

I. The Parties
Plaintiff Aaron Jones is an applicant to be a nominee for the position of National

26 Committeeman, and filed his application properly, after April 25, but before April 29. He is
27 also a nominee for NSDP Central Committee. He is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.
28

1
2

2.

Plaintiff Andrew Martin is an applicant to be a nominee for the position of NSDP

Executive Board member, and filed his application properly, after April 25, but before April

3 29. He is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.

4 3.

Plaintiff Angela Morelli is an applicant to be a nominee for the position of NSDP

5 Executive Board member, and filed her application properly, after April 25, but before April
29. She is also a nominee for NSDP Central Committee. She is a resident of Clark County,
6
Nevada.
7
4.
Plaintiff Brad Balon is an applicant to be a nominee for the position of NSDP
8 Executive Board member, and filed his application properly, after April 25, but before April
9 29. He is also a nominee for NSDP Central Committee. He is a resident of Clark County,
10 Nevada.
5.
Plaintiff Persephone Bellows is an applicant to be a nominee for the position of
11
NSDP Executive Board member, and filed her application properly, after April 25, but
12
before April 29. She is also a nominee for NSDP Central Committee. She is a resident of
13 Clark County, Nevada.
14 6.

Plaintiff Robert Kern is an applicant to be a nominee for the position of NSDP

15 Executive Board member, and filed his application properly, after April 25, but before April
29. He is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.
16
7.
Plaintiff Scott Miller is an applicant to be a nominee for the position of NSDP
17
Executive Board member, and filed his application properly, after April 25, but before April
18 29. He is also a nominee for NSDP Central Committee. He is a resident of Clark County,
19 Nevada.
Plaintiff Tom McCullough is an applicant to be a nominee for the position of NSDP
20 8.
Executive Board member, and filed his application properly, after April 25, but before April
21
29. He is also a nominee for NSDP Central Committee. He is a resident of Clark County,
22
Nevada.
23
9.
Defendant Nevada State Democratic Party, is political organization in Clark County,
24 Nevada. Defendant NSDP is a major political party as defined in NRS 293.128
25 10.

Defendant Roberta Lange is the Chair of the Nevada State Democratic Party, and

26 upon information and belief, was one of the parties who made the decision to reject
applications for nomination for Executive Board and National Committeeman and Woman
27
that were made prior to April 29, but after April 25.
28

1
2

11.

Defendant Zach Zaragoza is the Executive Director of the Nevada State Democratic

Party, and upon information and belief, was one of the parties who made the decision to

3 reject applications for nomination for Executive Board and National Committeeman and
4 Woman that were made prior to April 29, but after April 25.
Defendants Does I-X, inclusive are named as defendants, their true names and
5 12.
capacities being unknown to Plaintiff at this time, but who are liable as co-partners, agents,
6
assignees or in some other relationship with the other named defendants inasmuch as each
7
has contributed and/or participated in the conduct of the named defendants in dealing with
8 Plaintiffs. At such time as the true names and capacities of defendants Does I-X inclusive
9 have been ascertained, Plaintiffs will ask leave of this Court to truly set forth the same.
10
11
12

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND AUTHORITY

13.

This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute because the dispute arose in Clark

County, Nevada, and the State Democratic Convention will occur in Clark County, Nevada.

13
14

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

The Nevada State Democratic Convention will be held on May 14, 2016, and at that
15 14.
place and time, elections for the Nevada State Central Committee, the Nevada National
16
Committeeman and woman, and the NSDP Executive Board will be held.
17
15.
On April 9, 2016, NSDP began emailing registered delegates to the Nevada State
18 Democratic Convention, to be held in Las Vegas on May 14, 2016.
19 16.

That email contained a link to Additional information on the State Convention and

20 running to be a national delegate (Exhibit 1) which linked to a page on the NSDP website.
Upon information and belief, this linked to a document titled Final Election Rules which
21
indicated that the deadline for applying to be a nominee for the State Democratic Party
22
Executive Board, or for National Committeeman or Committeewoman, was April 29, 2016
23
at 5p.m. (Exhibit 2).
24 17.
Through the NSDP website, or otherwise, the Final Election Rules circulated
25 throughout the delegates and membership of the Nevada State Democratic Party. NSDP and
26 Lange were aware of this, as indicated in Lange's email, in which she stated If there is
confusion out there it is because others sent out the proposed rules prior to the board call
27
(Exhibit 3).
28

1
2

18.

On April 13, 2016, The Nevada State Democratic Party Executive Board met and

passed an amended set of election rules which changed the filing deadline from April 29,

3 2016 at 5p.m. to April 25, 2016 at 5p.m (Exhibit 4).

4 19.

No announcement was made of these rules being released, or of the change in

5 deadline.
20.
Upon information and belief, the amended rules (hereinafter Amended Rules),
6
were created and posted to the NSDP website on April 16, 2016.
7
21.
No notice was given to the public, or the campaigns that there had been a change to
8 the filing deadlines, or that a different set of rules was now available on the website.
9 22.

According to the Amended Rules (II. A.), the nomination application was to be sent

10 out to all delegates by email. Upon information and belief, not a single delegate was
emailed the nomination application.
11
23.
According to email records received from the Sanders campaign, of the 2,638 email
12
invitations sent out to delegates with the link to the rules, only 476 (18%) were received
13 after the Amended Rules were posted. This means that the majority of delegates either had
14 the wrong deadline, or were not informed of the deadline.
With no notification of the rule change, only party insiders had access to the
15 24.
information that April 25th was the deadline for application.
16
25.
As a direct result of the misinformation and the failure to notify delegates of the
17
proper deadlines and procedures, Many applicants for nomination to the NSDP Executive
18 Board and to National Committeeman and Committeewoman, including all Plaintiffs,
19 applied after the April 25 deadline, but prior to the April 29 deadline.
All applications made between April 25 and April 29 were rejected by NSDP, and
20 26.
upon information and belief, Roberta Lange, and Zach Zaragoza (Exhibit 5).
21
27.
All efforts were made to resolve this matter without resort to litigation, however
22
Lange and Zaragoza refused to negotiate.
23
24

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

25

(Declaratory Judgment re: Violation of NRS Chapter 293)

Plaintiffs Repeat and reallege the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs
26 28.
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
27
29.
NRS 293.2546 (11) Declares that each voter has the right to have complaints about
28
elections and election contests resolved fairly, accurately, and efficiently.
4

1
2

30.

NRS 293.720 States that Any officer in whose office any nomination paper has

been filed, who shall wrongfully suppress, neglect or fail to cause the proper filing thereof

3 at the proper time and the proper place, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
4 31.

NRS 293.840 Provides for a civil penalty for violations of Chapter 293. This fact,

5 together with the fact that NRS 293.2546 specifically indicates that this chapter creates
enforceable rights for voters, and taken together with NRS 293.127, makes clear that the
6
creation of a private right of action was intended by the legislature.
7
32.
NRS 293.127 Provides that Chapter 293 shall be interpreted liberally.
8 33.
Roberta Lange and Zach Zaragoza are officers of the Nevada State Democratic
9 Party, with the authority to accept or reject nominations for Executive Board, and National
10 Committeeman and Committeewoman.
34.
Plaintiffs' nomination forms for those offices have been filed with the NSDP, which
11
is the office of Zaragoza and Lange.
12
35.
Defendants have refused to accept said nomination forms, and refused to register
13 Plaintiffs as nominees for their respective positions.
14 36.

Defendants' refusal is wrongful, because it is in violation of the NSDP governing

15 documents.
37.
The 2016 NSDP Convention Rules (Section A.(IV)(a)(Exhibit 6), which set the
16
deadline for application for nomination to the positions in question, state that the Delegate
17
Selection Plan takes precedence over the Convention Rules.
18 38.
The Delegate Selection Plan (Exhibit 7) states in section VI.(B)(5):
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 39.

The Democratic Party in Nevada should publicize fully and in such a manner
as to assure notice to all interested parties a full description of the legal and
practical procedures for selection of Democratic Party officers and
representatives on all levels. Publication of these procedures should be done
in such fashion that all prospective and current members of each State
Democratic Party will be fully and adequately informed of the pertinent
procedures in time to participate in each selection procedure at all levels of
the Democratic Party organization.
Defendants' practice of keeping the relevant deadlines secret was in direct and

26 blatant violation of its own rules, and was thereby wrongful.

27
28

1
2

40.

Such acts being wrongful, they would then constitute a wrongful failure to file the

nomination papers of Plaintiffs, in direct violation of NRS 293.720, calling for both civil

3 and criminal penalties.

4 41.

The Delegate Selection Plan calls for disputes to be raised through the Rules

5 Committee of NSDP, however that regulation indicates that the Committee shall have 21
days to reply, which would be past the date of the convention, where the elections in
6
question are to occur, thus making such application moot.
7
42.
Nevada law does not require administrative remedies to be exhausted when such acts
8 would be futile. For this reason, applying for relief through the NSDP rules committee is not
9 required prior to relief.
NRS 33.010 allows for injunctive relief when the act complained of would cause
10 43.
irreparable injury, or when Defendants acts in violation of Plaintiffs' rights would tend to
11
make the judgment ineffectual.
12
44.
Both circumstances apply to the present case, as no money damages would give
13 Plaintiffs the opportunity to run for their respective offices at the State Convention if a
14 judgment is not rendered prior to said convention. This injury would be irreparable, as an
15 election is not a repeatable circumstance, nor one that can be repaired financially.
45.
As such, Plaintiffs request both temporary and permanent injunctive relief to order
16
Defendants to honor the applications filed by Plaintiffs and all applicants who filed by the
17
April 29 deadline, and allow them to run for the offices they applied for.
18 46.
Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment by this court to declare whether Defendants
19 complied with Nevada law and the Nevada Delegate Selection Plan in their setting the
20 requirements for nominations to the Executive Board and for National Committeeman and
woman.
21
47.
It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to obtain the legal services of an attorney and
22
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to reimbursement of attorneys fees and costs incurred in this
23
action.
24
25

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

26

(Declaratory Judgment re: Violation of NRS 293.157)

27
28

48.

Plaintiffs Repeat and reallege the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs

of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

1
2

49.

NRS 293.157 requires that members of a major party state central committee shall

have terms of 2 years.

3 50.

The NSDP Bylaws are in accord, and in Article III, Section 2, iii, state Members

4 shall be elected to terms of two (2) years and shall take office after the State Convention at
5 which they were elected and serve until adjournment of the next succeeding State
Convention and until their successors have been elected.
6
51.
The current Convention Rules passed by Defendants (Exhibit 6), in B.(IX)(b), state:
7
All current members of the State Central Committee shall be given an opportunity to serve
8 another term as a committee member.
9 52.

In practice, Defendants have only held elections for the central committee spots

10 voluntarily vacated, holding no elections for the seats of those who wished to remain.
53.
This language and practice effectively allows life appointments of members of the
11
State Central Committee, in violation of the NSDP Bylaws, and in violation of NRS
12
293.157
13 54.
All Plaintiffs other than Robert Kern desire to run for the State Central Committee,
14 and have so indicated in application forms (Other than Andrew Martin and Scott Miller,
15 who are current Central Committee members).
55.
NRS 293.840 Provides for a civil penalty for violations of Chapter 293. This fact,
16
together with the fact that NRS 293.2546 specifically indicates that this chapter creates
17
enforceable rights for voters, and taken together with NRS 293.127, makes clear that the
18 creation of a private right of action was intended by the legislature..
19 56.

NRS 293.127 Provides that Chapter 293 shall be interpreted liberally.

NRS 33.010 allows for injunctive relief when the act complained of would cause
20 57.
irreparable injury, or when Defendants acts in violation of Plaintiffs' rights would tend to
21
make the judgment ineffectual.
22
58.
Both circumstances apply to the present case, as no money damages would give
23
Plaintiffs the opportunity to run for State central Committee at the State Convention if a
24 judgment is not rendered prior to said convention. This injury would be irreparable, as an
25 election is not a repeatable circumstance, nor one that can be repaired financially.
As such, Plaintiffs request both temporary and permanent injunctive relief to order
26 59.
Defendants to honor NRS 293.157 and the NSDP Bylaws and allow every spot on the State
27
central Committee to be elected.
28

1
2

60.

Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment by this court to declare whether the

members of the Central Committee can hold their position for life, or if they must be re-

3 elected every two years.

4 61.

It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to obtain the legal services of an attorney and

5 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to reimbursement of attorneys fees and costs incurred in this
action.
6
7

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

9
Plaintiffs Repeat and reallege the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs
10 62.
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
11
63.
The Nevada State Democratic Party is a domestic non profit organization.
12
64.
The rules and by-laws of such an organization constitutes a contract between the
13 organization and its members.
14 65.

In Nevada all contracts have an implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

Defendants owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiffs.

15 66.
67.
Defendants breached said duty by failing and refusing to follow the requirements of
16
their own rules and bylaws as indicated in the previous causes of action above, and by
17
violating multiple sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes, chapter 293.
18 68.
As a result of Defendants' breaches of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
19 Plaintiffs have incurred damages in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment by this court to declare the rights of the
20 69.
parties and the construction of the Nevada Delegate Selection plan (which is a rule of the
21
organization), and Chapter 293 as applied to the current facts.
22
70.
It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to obtain the legal services of an attorney and
23
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to reimbursement of attorneys fees and costs incurred in this
24 action.
25

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26

(Breach of Contract)

27
28

71.

Plaintiffs Repeat and reallege the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs

of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

72.

The Nevada State Democratic Party is a domestic non profit organization.

8

1
2

73.

The rules and by-laws of such an organization constitutes a contract between the

organization and its members.

3 74.

The NSDP adopted the Nevada Delegate Selection Plan as a rule of the organization,

4 which requires in section VI.(B)(5):

The Democratic Party in Nevada should publicize fully and in such a manner as to
5
assure notice to all interested parties a full description of the legal and practical
procedures for selection of Democratic Party officers and representatives on all
6
levels. Publication of these procedures should be done in such fashion that all
prospective and current members of each State Democratic Party will be fully and
7
adequately informed of the pertinent procedures in time to participate in each
8
selection procedure at all levels of the Democratic Party organization.
The NSDP's failure to notify the public of the deadline for nominations constituted a
9 75.
violation of the above rule.
10
76.
As a direct and proximate result of said breach, Plaintiffs have been damaged by
11
being wrongfully denied the right to run for elected office.
12 77.
The NSDP adopted the NSDP Bylaws as a rule of the organization, which requires
13 in section Article III, Section 2, iii: Members shall be elected to terms of two (2) years and
14 shall take office after the State Convention at which they were elected and serve until
adjournment of the next succeeding State Convention and until their successors have been
15
elected.
16
78.
The NSDP's practice of allowing central committee seats to be retained for life is a
17 breach of the above by-law.
18 79.

As a direct and proximate result of said breach, Plaintiffs have been damaged by

19 being wrongfully denied the right to run for elected office.

80.
Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment by this court to declare the rights of the
20
parties and the construction of the Nevada Delegate Selection plan (which is a rule of the
21
organization), and Chapter 293 as applied to the current facts.
22 81.
It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to obtain the legal services of an attorney and
23 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to reimbursement of attorneys fees and costs incurred in this
24 action.
25
26
27
28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

1.

For an injunction ordering Defendants to honor NRS 293.157 and the NSDP
Bylaws and allow every spot on the State central Committee to be elected;
9

1
2

2.

For an injunction ordering Defendants to honor the applications filed by

Plaintiffs and all applicants who filed by the April 29 deadline, and allow

them to run for the offices they applied for;

3.

and the construction of the Nevada Delegate Selection plan (which is a rule

6
7

of the organization), and Chapter 293 as applied to the current facts;

4.

8
9

For a declaratory judgment t by this court to declare the rights of the parties

For an award of Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit

incurred herein;

5.

For such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

10
11

DATED this 5th day of May, 2016

12
13
14
15
16

KERN LAW
By: __/s/ Robert Kern__________________
Robert Kern, Esq.
2421 Tech Center Ct., Ste. 104
Las Vegas, NV 89128
(702) 518-4529
Attorney for Plaintiffs

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10