Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 496

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

ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Plaintiff,

vs.

WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL, Defendants.

/

RECORD ON APPEAL

VOLUME 4 OF 5

DOCUMENTS

Sup. Ct. Case No. 60302 Case No. CV11-01896 Dept. 6

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

RESPONDENT 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

1 Document Code:

Zach Coughlin

2 Nevada Bar No: 9473 3 1422 E. 9 th St. #2 Reno, NV 89512

4 Tele: 775-338-8118 Fax: 949-667-7402

5 Attorney for Pro Se Attorney Plaintiff

6

F I L E D

Electronically 02-08-2012:07:48:28 PM Joey Orduna Hastings Clerk of the Court Transaction # 2753601

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

8

9 ZACH COUGHLIN;

10

11

12

PLAINTIFF,

vs.

13 WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL;

14

15

16

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

) Case No: CV11-01896

)

) Dept No: 6

)

)

)

)

)

17 OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in the 18 Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

19 COMES NOW, Appellant, Zach Coughlin, by and through himself, and files this motion

20 FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE An Opposition to all of Garin's newest Motions to Dismiss,

21 and the udnersigned actually wishes this to be filed as “pled in that alternative” as a ; or in the

22

alternative Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, however the filing office routinely rejects anything

23

Plaintiff so files as violative of WDCR 10, even where the phrase “pled in the alternative” is
24

25 placed in the caption or name of the filing

NOTE

THIS IS AN UPDATE, THE PART

26 IMMEDIATELY PRECEEDING THIS NOTE INDICATES THE DESIRE TO HAVE THIS

27 COURT VIEW THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS AN OPPOSITION AND

28

-

1

-

OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in

the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

V4.1001

1

SETS FORTH SOME OF THE IMPERMISSIBLE OBSTACLES, IN LIGHT OF NRCP 5(E)

2 RELATED TO THE UNDERSIGNED SEEKING TO PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE. TO

3

THE EXTENT THE UNDERSIGNED HAS BEEN PREVENTED FORM HAVE HIS

4

FILINGS ACCEPTED FOR FILING OR GIVEN A FILE STAMPE, OR HAVING A

5

6 “RELATION BACK” DOCTRINE APPLY, THE ORDER IS VOID UNDER NRCP 60B(4)

7 AND should BE SET ASIDE OR VACTED. FURTHER Nevada law allows interpreting a

8 NRCP 59 motion as a motion for reconsideration and vice versa depending on the spirit of what

9 is submitted, and a similar application is in order her, given the underline caveat above.

10

Further, this is a nrcp 59 motion to alter or amend the order in that the Order contains clear

11

12 error in finding that an opposition was not filed. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION

13 OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or

14 plead in the alternative, OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS. Further, while DCR 13

15 may saysthat failing to oppose a Motion may be interpreted to take the motion's contents as

16

admitted or true, DCR 13 does not say the Court must do that. Certainly, basic fairness has a

17

place in that analysis.
18

19

COMES NOW, Appellant, Zach Coughlin, by and through himself, and files this motion

20

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE An Opposition to all of Garin's newest Motions to Dismiss,
21

22 and the udnersigned actually wishes this to be filed as “pled in that alternative” as a ; or in the

23 alterntive Opposition to Motino to Dismiss, however the filing office routinely rejects anything

24 Plaintiff so files as violative of WDCR 10, even where the phrase “pled in the alternative” is placed

25

26

in the caption or name of the filing

PLEASE

NOTE, THIS IS AN UPDATE.

THIS MOTION

WAS SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY BUT WAS REJECTED. AFTER HAVING SOME 22

27

28 STRAIGHT FILINGS ACCEPTED, THE UNDERSIGNED RECENTLY WENT THROUGH

-

2 -

OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in

the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

V4.1002

1

A SPELL WHERE 19 OF 23 FILINGS WERE REJECTED. THE REJECTION OF THE

2 RECENT FILING WAS PROVIDED WITH THE FOLLOW RATIONALE: “Rejected 02-07-

3

2012:10:28:46 AM Reason: The case number in the caption is incorrect. Please resubmit filing

4

with the complete case number. If you have any questions, please call Lori at 328-3114. Date

5

6 removed from ECF: 04-27-2012”

7 I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WDCR 10 ALLOWS FOR the voluminous REJECTIONs of my

8 FILIng ON the basis cited, and a 14 page letter to Clerk of Court Orduna was recently

9 submitted for consideration with specifics detailing where the udnersigned believes the

10

application of wdcr 10 and other rules has been impermissilbe. To be clear, the undersigned is

11

12 trying his best to comply with wdcr 10, and respectfully intends to do everyting possilbe to give

13 the court what it wants and to pracdtice in a manner in furtherance of conservation of judicial

14 resources and practical economy

CERTAINLY, I HAVE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE AN

15 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN CARPENTIER V AAMES BASED UPON

16

THE WRONG CASE NUMBER (BY ONE DIGIT, SAME AS HERE) BEING IN THE

17

CAPTION. IN CARPENTIER, A DEADLINE WAS NOT BLOWN DUE TO THE CASE
18

19 NUMBER BEING WRONG.

HERE, IT LIKELY IS, UNLESS THIS COURT RELATES

20 BACK THE DATE OR DECLARES EXCUSABLE NEGLECT. BOTH HERE AND IN THE

21 CARPENTIER MATTER THE DOCUMENT WAS “FILED” IN THE CORRECT CASE IN

22

LIGHT OF THE EFLEX METHOD OF DECLARING THE “EXISTING CASE” BEING

23

RATHER CLEVER, IN REQUIRING A PARTY TO BOTH SPELL THE NAME
24

25 CORRECTLY AND ENTER THE CASE NUMBER

THUS,

EVEN IF THE CAPTION IS

26 WRONG, ARGUABLY, THE FACT THAT ONE MANAGES TO GET THE DOCUMENT

27 FILED ON EFLEX IN THE RIGHT CASE IS CURATIVE

28

-

3 -

UNLESS

THE FILING OFFICE

OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in

the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

V4.1003

1 PROVIDES A REJECTION LIKE THAT SEEN ABOVE, THEN

I

DO NOT KNOW WHAT

2 HAPPENS.

3

IT IS INTERETING THOUGH, TO CONSIDER A PARALLEL TO A

SITUATION WHERE A NURSE MAY TAKE A SCALPEL OUT OF A DOCTOR'S HANDS

4

IN THE OR, BECAUSE THE DOCTOR IS USING A RED SCALPEL, WHERE THE RULES

5

6 SAY HE SHOULD USE A YELLOW SCALPEL. OF COURSE THE PATIENT DIES ON

7 THE TABLE (LIKE THIS CASE IS APPARENTLY) BECAUSE, REGARDLESS OF THE

8 COLOR OF THE SCAPEL USED, THE PATIENT NEEDED THAT PROCEDURE DONE

9 QUICKLY WHERE TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE.

10

BUT AT LEAST THE COLOR OF

THE SCALPEL RULE WAS MAINTAINED. SO, THERE'S THAT. WHICH IS NICE.

11

12 ALSO, FOR AN EXUCSABLE NEGELCT ARGUMENT, NV ENERGY SHUT OFF MY

13 POWER, UNNOTICED LAST FRIDAY. I HAVEN'T HAD A SHOWER SINCE, AND HAVE

14 BASICALLY BEEN LIVING AT STARBUCKS USING THEIR WIFI ON MY LAPTOP

15 (WHEREAS MY PRACTICE WAS PRIMARILY DESKTOP BASED) AND USING A

16

“HIJACK THIS” ANTIVIRUS CAUSE MY FILINGS ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2011 TO BE

17

LATE, SEVERAL NOT GETTING SUBMITTED UNTIL VERY EARLY MORNING
18

19 FEBRUARY 7TH

20

LEGAL ARGUMENT

21 Extensions and excusable neglect are a funny thing. It kind of depends who you are, what

22

classes you fit in, groups, etc. and how the eye of the beholder views you in deciding whether or not

23

to grant them.
24

I get everybody's best shot.

Always have.

Sarah Class, Washoe Legal Services

25 Child Advocacy Attorney, can take off her shoes in staff meetings and sit “Indian-Style” (sorry if that

26 term has gone the politically incorrect way of the conflict avoiding “chinese wall” but I don't know

27 another phrase for it

28

)

then do headstands against the wall while Elcano is talking, dressed like a

-

4

-

OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in

the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

V4.1004

1 mid-career Stevie Nicks, wearing yoga pants to court, and its okay, she's colorful

but me, I get fired

2 and sanctioned $1,000 for arguing a position that is the majority viewpoint throughout American

3

Jurisprudence and for which Nevada law has nothing on point, and where I alerted Judge Gardner to

4

an ALR on point vis a vis that “duty stronger than a debt/set off unsecured third party credit card debt

5

6 for which the husband is the sole signatory/refuse Springgate's settlement offer of waive alimony in

7 exchange for Mr. Joshi agreeing to take on all the third party credit card debt for which he was the

8 sole signatory anyways (kind of a chimera consideration), and where Mr. Joshi enjoyed the “Duluth-

9 model “power and control” of having only his name on the cards, and the ability to so spend without

10

consternation

11

and

its a Summary Contempt under NRS 22.010 where I don't immediately bend to a

12 settlemnt offer put forth at the settlement conference, which was 10 minutes before the “Trial”, for

13 misconduct in the court's presence? How about complying with the procedural dictates of NRCP 11,

14 Mr. Springgate, and serving me a filing ready motion, providign 21 day safe harbor, etc. ,etc.

NRS

15 7.085 was for medical malpractice cases, and now, predictably, its used for everything and anything,

16

including where I refused to accept a settlement offer based upon a rationale and support that is the

17

majority viewpoint in American legal decisions on the issue
18

and

a doctrine of the necessaries suit is

19 unlikely given the debt is spread out amongst numerous credit card companies each debt being not

20 likely worth the cost of such a complicated suit against my client, Ms. Joshi (I filed a Mandamus

21 action relative to the sanction issued, like Joseph Houston

22

)

The filing office continues to

impermissibly reject time sensitive filings despite NRCP 5(e), WDCR 18, and Nevada Supreme Cour

23

decisions like Whitman and Sullivan and Donoho. Plaintiff requests and extension to Oppose the
24

25 Motion to Dismiss or alternatively asks that this Court incorporate by reference argument previously

26 submitted in relation to substantially similar Motions by Garin, adding to that the fact that if

27 Sternlicht was only served a Summons and no Complaint, excusable neglecdt given the WCSO's

28

-

5 -

OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in

the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

V4.1005

1

promises to serve were relied upon to Plaintiff's detriment and there does exist authority for and a

2 good faith basis to argue that merely serving the Summons suffices for the requirement to service

3

4

both Summons and Complaint (its federal authority, but its persuasive

).

WDCR Rule 11. Extension or shortening of time. 1. All motions for extensions of time shall

5

6 be made upon 5 days’ notice to all counsel. Such motion shall be made to the judge who is to try the

7 case, or, if the judge is not in the courthouse during regular judicial hours, to a judge on the same

8 floor who shall set or cause the motion to be set for early hearing. (For the sake of this rule

9 Department 10 is deemed to be on the second floor.) 2. Except as provided in this subsection, no ex

10

parte application for extension of time will be granted. Upon presentation of a motion for extension,

11

12 if a satisfactory showing is made to the judge that a good faith effort has been made to notify

13 opposing counsel of the motion, and the judge finds good cause therefor, the judge may order ex

14 parte a temporary extension pending a determination of the motion. 3. For good cause shown, the

15 judge who is to try the case, or if the judge is not in the courthouse during regular judicial hours, the

16

chief judge, may make an ex parte order shortening time upon a satisfactory showing to the judge that

17

a good faith effort has been made to notify the opposing counsel of the motion. 4. Extensions to
18

19 answer or otherwise respond to a complaint shall not exceed 40 days without court approval. The trial

20 judge shall determine the appropriate sanction if this rule is violated. Appellant cites excusable

21 neglect or other circumstances (like opposing counsel in an summary eviction from one's law office

22

based on no cause notice, not nonpayment of rent, commercial tenant in cv11-03628 getting him

23

wrongfully arrested (an having police that look like they belong on the shoe “Jersey Shore” give lots
24

25 of “blame the victim” statements regarding domestic violence committed against the undersigned in

26 situations where wise Master Edmundson (a consummate professional and jurist) actually granted

27 two EPO's to the undersigned in FV12-00187 and FV12-00188 and police misconduct and the failure

28

-

6 -

OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in

the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

V4.1006

1

to return security deposit and Appellants recently being a victim of domestic violence in EPO granted

2 in FV12-00188, and FV12-00187 in askign for an extension and page limit exception.

3

My mountain bike was stolen right about the time landlord Merliss had NV Eneregy trespass

4

on my property and do an unnoticed shut off of electricity. All the food in my refridgerator went bad,

5

6 and other damages were incurred. NV Energy asserted privity of contract where the are not allowed

7 to, while being a monopoly supplying an essential Service. www.ShameOnNVEnergy.com

8 Further, just last Friday, February 3rd, 2012, NV Energy again shut off Appellants electricity without

9 notice, and now is refusing to allow Appellant to have service started, demanding all sorts of

10

documentation, proof, private, personally identifiable information, and specific forms of

11

12 “agreements” to which NV Energy, a monopoly, has not right. That cause this Brief to exceed 5

13 pages and forms a basis for this request to allow an extension of time to refine and finish Appellant's

14 Opening Brief.

15 Also, as I sit at Starbucks using their wifi because NV Energy is retaliating against me an not

16

only shut off my power without notice (was somebody on life support inside? Would NV Energy be

17

liable if so?), but then refused to allow me to put the power in my name, even after I caved to their
18

19 arrogant monopoly requirement to give them my social security number, but not before the phone

20 clerk and supervisor proceeded to explain the finer points of Nevada landlord tenant law to me,

21 including how the fact that NRS 118A.100, which indicates “rental agreements” could be both verbal

22

or written, was not the relevant standard, but rather that, NV Energy's whims and desires and

23

demands for one to sign affidavits and provide them to NV Energy to create privity of contract where
24

25 non exists (did you live with the previous tenants for any period of time? If so, we won't connect the

26 power until their bill is paid in full

Can

RTC refuse to let me ride the bus on that basis too?).

28

Interestingly, besides my attempt to (which was shot down in the IFP

-

7

-

OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in

the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

V4.1007

1

stage) it doesn't seem any joe schmoe Nevada has ever sued the behemoth NV Energy or its

2 predecessor in name, Sierra Pacific, in Washoe District Court, despite the fact that the are a

3

monopoly, and nearly everybody has to use them, and they are known for bullying people around like

4

Vlad and Nico, the street thugs, in Grand Theft Auto IV do to the citizens of Century City.

5

6

CONCLUSION

7 Based upon the foregoing the undersigned respectfully requests that this Court grant an

8 extension to file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively deny such Motion to

9 Dismiss any other relief this Court deems just.

10

Appellant Declares under penalty of perjury,

pursuant to NRS 53.045, that the assertions in this document are true and correct.

11

12

AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030

13 The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the social

14 security number of any person.

15

16 Dated: February 6 rd , 2012

17

� 15 16 Dated: February 6 r d , 2012 � 17 � /S/ Zach Coughlin
� 15 16 Dated: February 6 r d , 2012 � 17 � /S/ Zach Coughlin

/S/ Zach Coughlin
18

Zach Coughlin, Plaintiff

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-

8

-

OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in

the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

V4.1008

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I served a copy of the foregoing document upon the

3 following party by electronically filing on February 6 rd , 2012 and therefore serving upon registered efiler:

4

Joe Garin, Esq.

5 Attorney for WLS

6 Brian Gonsalves, Esq.

7 Attorney for TWS, Crisis WHO ARE NOT EVEN NAME IN THE CAPTION OF THE COMPLAINT AND ARE NOT

8 EVEN “PARTIES” IF YOU ASK ME

9

10

Date this February 6 rd , 2012: 11 � � 12 /S/ Zach Coughlin 13
Date this February 6 rd , 2012:
11 �
12 /S/ Zach Coughlin
13 Zach Coughlin, Plaintiff

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-

9 -

OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; or please in

the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend to ORder

V4.1009

****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION ***** PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

A filing has been submitted to the court RE:

Judge:

Official File Stamp:

Clerk Accepted:

Court:

Case Title:

Document(s) Submitted:

Filed By:

CV11-01896

BRENT ADAMS

02-08-2012:19:48:28

02-09-2012:15:02:41

Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada

ZACH COUGHLIN VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL.(D6)

Opposition to Mtn

ZACHARY COUGHLIN, 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 MARC ASHLEY, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, PAUL ELCANO, CARYN STERNLIGHT, 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

TODD TORVINEN

PAUL ELCANO

V4.1010

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES

ZANDRA LOPEZ

SHANNON NORDSTROM, ESQ

V4.1011

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 BAR No: 9473 1422 E. 9th St. #2 Reno, NV 89512

Tele: 775-338-8118 Fax: 949-667-7402

Attorney for Pro Se Attorney Plaintiff

F I L E D

Electronically 02-11-2012:12:19:34 AM Joey Orduna Hastings Clerk of the Court Transaction # 2759280

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

ZACH COUGHLIN;

)

)

Plaintiff.

)

vs.

)

WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada

)

Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE,

)

CASE NO: CV11-01955

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 STERNLIGHT, Individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney, JON SASSER, Individually and in his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO, I/ndividually and in her capacity as WLS attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA LOPEZ; Individually and in her capacity as WLS employee; Melissa Mangiaracina,

DEPT. NO: 10

individually and in capacity as WLS attorney CAAW; Tahoe Women's Services

Defendants.

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

PLAINTIFF, Zach Coughlin, by and through himself as his own attorney files this ROPPOSITION

TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES is based on the Memorandum of Points and

-

1/11

-

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1012

1 Authorities below, together with the pleadings and files herein, and any oral argument this Court

2 permits.

 

3 MEMORANDUM

OF POINT S

AND AUTHORITIE S

1. Introduction Factual Background.
4

 

5

bASICALLY, THIS COURT KNOWS WHETHER OR NOT ATTORNEY'S FEES ARE

AVAILABLE. sURE, POLK MIGHT SAY SOMETHING, DCR MIGHT SAY SOMETHING, BUT

6 COMMON SENSE REMAINS A CATCH ALL EXCEPTION. ALL THE ATTORNEYS ARE

 

7 ASKIGN FOR SANCTIONS, NOT HADLY ANY OF THEM HAVE BOTHERED FOLLOWING

8 THE 21 DAY SAFE HARBORD NRCP 11 (I DID AT ONE POINT, BUT

PROBABLY

NOT IN

9 EVERY SITUATION, ITS BEEN A RACE TO THE SANCTION FILIGN GUTTER HERE

)

AND

10 THE LAWSUIT WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, ALL THE ORDERS ARE

11

PROBABLY SCRIVENERS ERRORS TO THE EXTENT THEY CITE TO NRCP 12B5 IN

DISMISSING WHEN NOBODY ARGUED A 12B5 MOTION. SO DOES RES JUDICATA SAY I

12 WIN ON 12B3 AND 12B4 ARGUMENTS FROM NRCP? pOLK?

13 There is something really important to note. tHE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON jUNE 30 TH,

14 201 1. TORVINE N JUN E 30TH, 201 1

15 TIMELY, AND GIVE N HIS POSITION AT WLS, WHICH HAS AT VARIOU S

WAS

SERV ED

IS OCTOB ER

ON OCTOB ER

28TH,

201 1.

27TH,

201 1.

120

DAYS

TORVINE N

WAS

SERV ED

AFTER

16 POITN S INCLUDED BEING AN OFFIC E R OR DIREC TO R AND OR CFO, OR

SOMETHING SIMILAR (TORVINE N IS A CPA IN ADDITION TO BEING AN
17 ATTORN E Y AND HIS FATH ER FOUND WLS WITH CHARISMATIC REAGA N

18 COMMENDE E/GADFLY COE SWOBE IN 196 5

)

SO

TORVINE N

AND BY

19 EXTE N S IO N, WLS, WERE SERV ED TIMELY. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE COURT KNOW S THIS. TORVINE N WAS GIVEN A COMPLE T E L Y LEGIBL E

20 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND SUMMON S. PERHAP S THE TITLE ON THE

21 DOCKE T VIS A VIS THE NOVEMB ER 2, 201 1 FILIGN WHEREIN FITZHENRY' S

22

PROOF SERVIC E WAS

HAS BE E N CURED BY THE FILING OF SU CH TODAY). Plaintiffs 85 page Motion to

SUBMITT ED

(AND IT LACK

A SUMMON S,

BUT

THAT

23 Alter or Amend Per NRCP 59 is a rollicking truth explosion peppered with insight into the human

24 condition as well as a great deal of cogent legal argument, whereas Garin files his usual robo-

25 Opposition complete with assertion and argument that he would make regardless of what the

26 opposing party actually filed. Sort of like a "macro" computer program, auto-pilot lawyering,

27 2001 "A Insurance Defense Lawyer Odyssey

".

And Hal is telling Garin he's got it coverd

28

-

2/11

-

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1013

1 iN THAT REGARD, AN IN A NOVEL LEGAL TECHNIQUE, THE UDNERSIGNED HERBY

2 DOES SOME ROBO-REPLYING HIMSELF, IN HOMAGE TO GARIN, AND PASTES GARIN'S

3 ENTIRE OPPOSITION AND ASK THIS COURT TO TAKE IT AS THE UNDERSINGED'S

4 REPLY SAVE THAT THE READER SHOULD READ EVERYTHIGN THAT FOLLOWS WITH A "NOT" IN FRONT OF EVERY ASSERTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFF, AND INSTEAD APPLY THE CONTRARY OF WHAT IS SAID TO GARIN, BASELESS CONSLUSORY ACCUSATIONS
6 AND ALL:

7

5

8 "The points that Plaintiff's Motion does raise have previously been briefed, argued,

9 and decided. Nevertheless, Plaintiff made a conscious choice to file this Motion to insult and harass this Court and Defense counsel for the motions filed and the Court's earlier decisions. This should not be tolerated. The Court should deny the Motion and sua sponte order sanctions against Plaintiff. Plaintiff Coughlin was formerly employed as an attorney for Washoe Legal Services ("WLS"). Coughlin filed two lawsuits against WLS, et aI., attempting to assert claims for wrongful termination: Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services, et. al. Case No.: CV11- 01896 Hon. Brent Adams Filed: June 27, 2011 and Zachary Coughlin v Washoe Legal Services, et. al. Case No.: CV11-01955 Hon. Steven P. Elliott Filed: June 30, 2011 Docket Reports, attached hereto as Exhibit "1." On August 29, 2011, Coughlin began attempts at service of the summons and complaint in the second case, Case No. CV11-01955, against Defendants. Despite Coughlin's varying attempts at service on Defendants, as fully briefed in their respective Motions to Dismiss, all attempts proved improper. Accordingly, Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(3) and/or (4) and NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal of the case as to all Defendants on December 8, 2011 and January 13, 2012, collectively. Orders, attached hereto as Exhibits "2" through "8." On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed an 85 page Motion to Alter or Amend Per NRCP 59. Plaintiff's Motion is nothing more than a blatant attempt to get another shot at Motions already thoroughly briefed, argued, and lost.1 Plaintiff fails to make any cogent argument in his 85 page diatribe as to why he is filing the present

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 Motion. Instead, Plaintiff chooses to insult and 1 This Court recently denied

28 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Order

-

3/11

-

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1014

1 Granting Dismissal, on January 13, 2011, Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "9,"

2 harass this Court and Defense counsel for the motions filed and for the Court's

3 prior rulings. Plaintiff chooses to bring up issues either properly decided or

4 inapposite to the present Motion.2 Overall, Plaintiff's arguments are wholly unsubstantiated and frivolous. Defendants requests this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Per NRCP 59, deny any and all additional relief
6 requested by Plaintiff, and further requests the Court sanction Plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff 7 does not meet the standard under NRCP 59. "Rule 59(e) provides an opportunity,

5

8 within severely limited time, to seek correction at the trial court level of an

9 erroneous order or judgment, thereby initially avoiding the time and expense of appeal." Chiara v. Belaustegui, 86 Nev. 856, 859, 477 P.2d 857 (1970). Among the grounds for this type of motion are correcting manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice, or a change in controlling law. AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, 245 P.3d 1190, 1193 (2010). Notably, the motion must state with particularity its grounds and set forth the relief or order sought. Id. Here, Plaintiff fails to articUlate with particularity the grounds on which he brings this Motion. The 85 page Motion raises various arguments, none of which make clear who this Motion pertains to, on what grounds it is brought, or what relief is requested. To the contrary, Plaintiff makes nonsensical arguments which fail to demonstrate any type of manifest error in law or fact, newly discovered evidence or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice, or a change in controlling law.3 Plaintiff makes arguments he made or could have made in his various oppositions to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff's arguments do not meet the standard set forth in NRCP 59. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion should be denied. 2 Plaintiff makes blanket arguments throughout the Motion that are difficult to follow. Plaintiff includes statements regarding consolidation, reconsideration, request for attorney's fees, Rule 11 sanctions, reargues service of process, tolling, requests a declaration, and argues he had a right to untimely amend his oppositions pursuant to NRCP 15. 3 Plaintiff argues in forma pauperis throughout

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 this Motion, however Plaintiff never applied to proceed in forma pauperis in this

28 case. 3. Plaintiff does not meet the standard for a Motion for Reconsideration. If

-

4/11

-

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1015

1 Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the Court's dismissal, it must be denied once

2 again. A court "may reconsider a previously decided issue if substantially different

3 evidence is subsequently introduced or the decision is clearly erroneous." Masonry

4 and Title Contractors Ass'n of So. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd., 113 Nev. 737, 741 941 P .2d 486, 489 (1997) (citing Moore v. City of Las Vegas, 92 Nev. 402, 405, 551 P.2d 244, 246 (1976) ("Only in very rare instances in which new issues of
6 fact or law are raised supporting a ruling contrary to the ruling already reached 7 should a motion for rehearing be granted."» Plaintiff's grounds for bringing this

5

8 Motion are unclear. It can best be surmised that Plaintiff believes service of

9 process on Defendants is proper despite the Court's findings that Plaintiff's service attempts were improper. Plaintiff does not present any new evidence to light or change the fact that service of process on Defendants did not comply with NRCP 4. The Court properly held that Plaintiff did not comply with procedural service requirements in serving Defendants. All service papers were accurately attached to each respective motion. Whether Plaintiff is potentially prejudiced by this dismissal does not affect this Court's determination. Indeed, this is Plaintiff's second time making the same arguments before this Court in seeking reconsideration. Plaintiff does not meet the standard for reconsideration and therefore the Motion should be denied. 4. Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 60. If Plaintiff is seeking to set aside or vacate the Court's dismissal, Plaintiff's request must be denied once again. Setting aside or vacating a judgment or order are generally appropriate if the district court is presented with newly discovery evidence, evidence of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or fraud. See NRCP 60. It can best be surmised that Plaintiff is claiming excusable neglect in failing to properly serve Defendants in accordance with NRCP 4 and is also claiming that Defendants misrepresented to the Court Plaintiff's service papers. Plaintiff does not introduce new evidence that would support setting aside or vacating the Court's Orders nor does Plaintiff appear to be arguing there is new evidence. Accordingly, Defendants will address Plaintiff's - 5 - presumed arguments of excusable neglect and misrepresentation in setting aside or vacating the Court's dismissal. A. Plaintiff

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 fails to establish excusable neglect. In Stoecklein v. Johnson Eiec. , Inc. , the

28 Nevada Supreme Court set forth standards for relief under N RCP 60(b) ( 1)4,

-

5/11

-

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1016

1 stating, "The presence of the following factors indicates that the requirements of

2 this rule have been satisfied: (1) prompt application to remove the judgment; (2) an

3 absence of an intent to delay the proceedings; (3) a lack of knowledge of the

4 procedural requirements on the part of the moving party; and (4) good faith. 109 Nev. 268, 271, 849 P.2d 305 (1993). The only factor that Plaintiff has met is the first factor. With respect to the second factor, Plaintiff has needlessly delayed the
6 proceedings by failing to properly serve Defendants, by failing to essentially 7 oppose Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and by continuing to file groundless

5

8 motions to set aside the Court's dismissal. With respect to the third factor, Plaintiff

9 is a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of Nevada. He is or should be well aware of procedural requirements and have knowledge that NRCP 4 imputes a burden on a Plaintiff to properly provide service of process to a Defendant to satisfy due process concerns. Lastly, with respect to the fourth factor, Plaintiff is certainly not filing the motion in good faith. Rather, Plaintiff seeks to insult and harass this Court, Defendants and their counsel for the motions filed and for the Court's prior rulings. Plaintiff's support for "excusable neglect" rests solely on an eviction proceeding and his financial troubles at the time which allegedly hindered him from properly serving defendants in accordance with NRCP 4. Plaintiff disregards the fact that he had 120 days to properly serve Defendants, had the ability to file a motion to enlarge time for service, and had an opportunity to oppose Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has made no showing supporting excusable neglect and therefore, this Court should deny Plaintiff's request to set aside or vacate the Court's dismissal. 4 NRCP 60(b)(1) states, "On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." B. Defendants' made accurate representations to the Court regarding Plaintiff's service attempts on Defendants. In order to prevail on grounds of misrepresentation and lor fraud on the court, the burden is on the moving party to show by clear and convincing evidence that "an unconscionable plan or

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 scheme

28 perpetrated. Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 146 n.2, 625 P.2d 568 (1981)

designed to improperly influence the court in its decision" was

-

6/11

-

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1017

1 (citing England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir. 1960). Here, Plaintiff alleges

2 that Defendants' attached inaccurate service papers to their respective Motions to

3 Dismiss and therefore made misrepresentations to the Court. Plaintiff makes

4 baseless accusations against Defendants with absolutely no support and contradicts himself throughout the Motion. At one point Plaintiff acknowledges he improperly served Defendants and then turns around and accuses Defendants of
6 attaching inaccurate service papers. All the while Plaintiff has not produced what 7 he claims to be "the accurate" service papers provided to Defendants. Indeed,

5

8 Defendants provided accurate representations of the service papers. Plaintiff

9 raises no basis upon which to grant the relief requested; he has failed to meet his burden in making these unfounded accusations. In sum, Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 60 and this Court should deny Plaintiff's request to set aside or vacate the Court's dismissal. 5. This Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Consolidation. Plaintiff contends that his Motion for Consolidation is pending before the Court. This Court denied any proposed motion, on January 13, 2011, when it ordered Plaintiff's First and Second Set of Supplemental Motions denied. Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "9." 6. Plaintiff's fails to oppose Elcano's Motion for Attorney Fees. To the extent that this Motion is an Opposition to Washoe Legal Services and Paul Elcano's Motion for Attorney Fees, it fails to formulate any opposition the Motion. Other than a blanket first sentence that says Plaintiff is opposing Elcano's Motion for Attorney's Fees, the remainder of the Motion fails to make any sound argument that evidences an opposition. A - 7 - party's 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). Accordingly, Plaintiff has potentially conceded Defendants' arguments.5 7. Plaintiff's request for attorney fee's is i mproper and unfounded. Plaintiff contends that this Court should award him attorney's fees for the costs incurred in opposing Defendants' motion for sanctions. Specifically, Plaintiff avers that Defendants' Motions are frivolous, misrepresent the holdings of cases, misrepresent facts, and that Defendants have an ulterior motive for filing their motions. Plaintiffs arguments are without merit

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 seeing as Defendants' never filed a motion for sanctions. Importantly, Plaintiff

28 refuses to recognize that he failed to abide by NRCP 4's mandate in serving

-

7/11

-

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1018

1 Defendants, and in failing to do so, the Court properly dismissed this case against

2 Defendants. Defendants have not misrepresented the law or facts to this Court.

3 Motions to Dismiss were properly and timely filed after Plaintiff's numerous and

4 varying service attempts on Defendants. Given Plaintiff's unfounded request, this Court should deny Plaintiff request for attorney's fees. 8. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is i mproper and unfounded. In this Motion, Plaintiff appears to be
6 arguing that he should be awarded sanctions and l or that he previously filed a 7 motion for sanctions. First, a review of the docket clearly shows that Plaintiff never

5

8 filed a Motion for Sanctions against Defendants. Second, if Plaintiff is seeking to

9 file a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to NRCP 11 via this Motion to Alter or Amend, which appears to be the case, he is improperly doing so. NRCP 11 (c)(1 )(A) not only requires that a motion for sanctions be made separately from other motions or requests, but requires the motion describe the specific conduct to be sanctioned and that the non-moving party be provided 21 days after service of the motion to withdraw or correct the sanctionable conduct. Plaintiff has not done any of the aforementioned. Plaintiff did not file a motion for sanctions separately, did not specify the conduct to be sanctioned, and did not serve nor provide Defendants 21 days to withdraw or correct any sanctionable conduct. As a result, this Court should deny Plaintiff's request for sanctions. 5 Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Elcano's Motion for Attorney's Fees on January 25, 2012. 9. Plaintiff did not have a right to make untimely oppositions pursuant to NRCP 15. Plaintiff contends that his Supplemental Oppositions to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss were properly and timely filed in accordance with NRCP 15. It is unclear what Defendant is trying to argue- whether this Court erred in denying Plaintiff's Supplemental Oppositions and I or whether Defendants' improperly argued that his Supplemental Oppositions were untimely. Nevertheless to address Plaintiff's contentions, NRCP 15 governs amendments and supplements to pleadings not motions. See NRCP 7. In this case, Plaintiff sought to supplement an Opposition- a motion. Accordingly, NRCP 15 is inapplicable; Plaintiff's argument are flawed and should not be considered by this Court. 10. This Court should sanction Plaintiff for his unprofessional and

27 disrespectful remarks throughout the Motion. Defendants request this Court

28 sanction Plaintiff for his unprofessional and disrespectful remarks addressed to this

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-

8/11

-

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1019

1 Court and Defense counsel. Previously, the Court's warned Plaintiff to refrain from

2 making derogatory and unprofessional remarks. This Court stated, "the Court

3 admonishes Plaintiff to conduct himself professionally and civilly in the proceedings

4 before this Court. Plaintiff's sarcastic, derogatory, and disrespectful remarks, do not assist in resolving this litigation, and may result in sanctions if continued. "6 Despite the prior warning, Plaintiff continues to make inflammatory and
6 disrespectful remarks aimed at this Court, Defense counsel and several 7 Defendants. Plaintiff should be sanctioned to prevent him from continuing such

5

8 misconduct. Specifically, Plaintiff criticizes the Court's dismissal by stating "This is

9 a bunch of crap,"7 itlt is ridiculous,,,a itWhat a joke."g" those Washoe CountvJudges won't know the 6 Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "3." See page 2:26-28. 7 Motion to Alter or Amend at 52:28 8 Motion to Alter or Amend at 2:14 9 Motion to Alter or Amend at 53:1 - 9 - difference,"1o and "this is still a bunch of baloney!,,11 Plaintiff then decides to insult Defense counsel by referring to counsel as, "tacky Garin, ,,12 "Joey Detroit by way of Vegas At Cha Sirviss,"13 and "old

10

11

12

13

14 chestnut. "14 Plaintiff proceeds to mock Defense counsel through some form of

15 back and forth dialogue in the Motion,15 and through statements such as "I am Joe

16 Garin and my stuff looks pretty legit,"16 and "I iust do my oid Joe-Garin-patented

17 obfuscate and confuse, throw mud, and mis-state what Coughlin argued and filed song and dance, ya know?" Plaintiff also alleges, "What is so despicable about
18

Garin

,"17 "Garin is purposefully scanning pages on really low dpi settings to

19

make then look way worse than they actually do, ,118 and "Garin's whole defense has been a study in avoiding having anybody with anything damaging to say not 21 saying anything while having people with nothing to say say something about that 22 to which they have no knowledge, including Garin himself. ,119 Plaintiff's criticisms 23 are a shameful attempt to divert the attention away from Plaintiff's shortcomings. 24 They are offensive, disrespectful and entirely unprofessional. This Court should sanction Plaintiff for ignoring the Court's prior warning and continuing to make improper and inflammatory remarks. Defendants' suggest a $1,500.00 sanction

25

20

26 payable to Defendants would be appropriate. / 1/ 10 Motion to Alter or Amend at

27 22:2 11 Motion to Alter or Amend at 52:4 12 Motion to Alter or Amend at 21: 16 13

28 Motion to Alter or Amend at 21: 18 14 Motion to Alter or Amend at 21 : 19 15

-

9/11

-

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1020

1 Motion to Alter or Amend at 21 - 22: 1-15 16 Motion to Alter or Amend at 22: 1 17

2 Motion to Alter or Amend at 48:25 18 Motion to Alter or Amend at 52:26-28 19

3 Motion to Alter or Amend at 54: 19-22 - 10- 11. Conclusion Based on the foregoing,

4 Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend, deny any and all additional relief requested by Plaintiff, and award Defendants monetary sanctions. DATED this 31st day of January, 2012.

5

6

CONCLUSION

7

Please set aside all the dismissals and recognize process and service of process as appropriately
8

9 conducted, consolidate these cases, and any other relief this Courts sees as appropriate.

10

11

AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030

12 The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the social security

13 number of any person.

14

DATED THIS: February 10, 2012,

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

/s/ Zach Coughlin, signed electronically Zach Coughlin, Esq. Plaintiff

-

10/11 -

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1021

1

Proof of Service:

2 On this date, I, Zach Coughlin electronically served a true and correct copy of the foregoing

3

4

document to those who are registered efilers and or whom eflex still lists as receiving electronic

notice

such in the us mail on this date:

Brian Gonsalves, Esq

as

to those who aren't, they were mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing by placing

5 P.O. Box 907

6 Kings Beach, CA 96143

7 Attorney for Tahoe Women's Services (CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES) WHICH IS NOT A NAMED PARTY AND HAS NOT INTERPLED OR FILED AS A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

8

9

LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN

10 JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.

11 Nevada Bar No. 6653

12 SHANNOND NORDSTROM

13 Nevada Bar No. 8211

14

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100

Las Vegas, Nevada 89148

15 TEL: (702)382-1500 FAX: (702) 382-1512

16 Attorney for Defendant WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada Corporation, KATHY

17 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

18 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

19 STERNLIGHT, Individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney, JON SASSER, Individually and in

20 his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO, Individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA LOPEZ; Individually

21 and in her capacity as WLS employee;

22 Gary Fuller, Esq.

Attorney for CAAW
23

DATED THIS: February 10th, 2012,

24

25

26

27

28

_/s/ Zach Coughlin

Zach Coughlin

Plaintiff

-

11/11 -

OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

V4.1022

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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

2175

LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.

F I L E D

Electronically 02-13-2012:02:15:41 PM Joey Orduna Hastings Clerk of the Court Transaction # 2761482

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 Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services,

Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

)

)

)

)

) DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER

ZACH COUGHLIN,

vs.

CASE NO.:

CV11-01896

DEPT. NO.:

6

Plaintiff,

)

WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada

)

)

)

)

)

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 STERNLIGHT,

)

)

)

)

)

Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, Individually and in her capacity as Board

)

President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, Individually and in his capacity as WLS

Individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney, JON SASSER, Individually and in

his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO, Individually and in her capacity as WLS

attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA

LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as WLS employee, DOES and ROES 1-100.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Defendants.

/ / /

V4.1023

1

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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

Defendants Paul Elcano, individually and in his capacity as Executive Director of WLS,

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 of WLS, and Washoe Legal Services, a

Nevada Corporation, (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys of record,

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., hereby submit their Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Motion to Set Aside Order.

This Opposition is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, together

with the pleadings and files herein, and any oral argument this Court permits.

DATED this 13 th day of February, 2012.

By:

LIPSON G NEILSON COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

Joseph P. Garin (Bar No. 6653) Shannon D. Nordstrom (Bar No. 8211) 9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 (702) 382-1500 Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services, Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge, Jon Sasser,and Caryn Sternlicht

/

/

/

/ /

/ /

/ /

- 2 -

V4.1024

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

1. Introduction

3

Plaintiff’s 93 page Motion to Set Aside Order is a rambling diatribe peppered with

4

insulting and unprofessional remarks and very little in terms of legal argument. The points that

5

Plaintiff’s Motion does raise have previously been briefed, argued, and decided. Nevertheless,

6

Plaintiff made a conscious choice to file this Motion to insult this Court and Defense counsel

7

for the motions filed and the Court’s earlier decisions. This Court should deny the Motion and

8

sua sponte sanctions against Plaintiff.

9

Plaintiff Coughlin was formerly employed as an attorney for Washoe Legal Services

10

(“WLS”). Coughlin filed two lawsuits against WLS, et al., attempting to assert claims for

11

wrongful termination:

12

Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services, et. al. Case No.: CV11-01896

13

Hon. Brent Adams Filed: June 27, 2011

14

and Zachary Coughlin v Washoe Legal Services, et. al.

15

Case No.: CV11-01955 Hon. Steven P. Elliott

16

Filed: June 30, 2011

17

18

Docket Reports, attached hereto as Exhibit “1.” On October 27, 2011, Coughlin began

19

attempts at service of the summons and complaint in the second case, Case No. CV11-01896,

20

against Defendants. Despite Coughlin’s varying attempts at service on Defendants, or lack

21

thereof, as fully briefed in their respective Motions to Dismiss, all attempts proved improper.

22

Accordingly, Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(3)

23

and/or (4) and NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal of the case as to all Defendants on

24

January 11, 2012. Order, attached hereto as Exhibit “2.”

25

On January 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a 93 page Motion to Set Aside Order. Plaintiff’s

26

Motion is nothing more than an attempt to get another shot at Motions already briefed, argued,

27

and lost. Plaintiff chooses to insult this Court and Defense counsel for the motions filed and

28

for the Court’s prior rulings. Moreover, Plaintiff chooses to bring up issues either properly

- 3 -

V4.1025

1

decided or inapposite to the present Motion. 1 By and large, this case has evolved into a

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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

guessing game in terms of what Plaintiff is filing with this Court and what he believes he is

filing.

Overall, Plaintiff’s arguments are unsubstantiated and needlessly long. Defendants

request this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Order, deny any and all additional relief

requested by Plaintiff, and further request the Court sanction Plaintiff for his immaterial and

unprofessional remarks and failure to comply with WDCR 21.

3. Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 60.

Plaintiff’s request to set aside or vacate the Court’s dismissal must be denied. 2 Setting

aside or vacating a judgment or order are generally appropriate if the district court is presented

with newly discovery evidence, evidence of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or fraud.

See NRCP 60.

It can best be surmised that Plaintiff is claiming mistake and excusable neglect in failing

to timely and properly serve Defendants in accordance with NRCP 4 and is also claiming that

Defendants misrepresented to the Court Plaintiff’s service papers. Plaintiff does not introduce

new evidence that would support setting aside or vacating the Court’s Order nor does Plaintiff

appear to be arguing there is new evidence. Accordingly, Defendants will address Plaintiff’s

presumed arguments of mistake, excusable neglect, and misrepresentation in setting aside

or vacating the Court’s dismissal.

A. Plaintiff fails to present evidence of mistake.

On January 11, 2012, this Court ordered Defendants dismissed from this case on the

grounds that Plaintiff’s service attempts were untimely. Specifically, the Court stated, “The

Court need not address Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s attempted service of process was

1 Plaintiff makes blanket arguments throughout the Motion that are difficult to follow. Plaintiff includes statements regarding consolidation, reconsideration, request for attorney’s fees, Rule 11 sanctions, reargues service of process, tolling, statute of limitations, requests a declaration, and requests a default. Specifically, a Motion to Dismiss based on statute of limitations is not before this Court. Thus, Plaintiff’s citations and statements

in this regard are misplaced.

2 Plaintiff titles the Motion as a Motion to Set Aside pursuant to NRCP 60. However he states, “This Motion is made pursuant to the authorities discussed below, including NRCP 59.” Motion at 3:18-19. Therefore, Defendants will address both arguments.

- 4 -

V4.1026

1

insufficient since the Court has already determined that it was untimely.” See Exhibit “2.”

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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

Plaintiff argues that the Court’s dismissal determining June 27, 2011 as the filing date of the

Complaint is incorrect, and if correct, he was unaware that the 120 days would start running

from such date. In support of his argument, Plaintiff string cites to a plethora of cases, some

applicable to this matter, however, the vast majority not. While there is no binding precedent

holding that the filing date in in forma pauperis cases is the date in which the court receives

the complaint, and a few jurisdictions have ruled to the contrary, the Ninth Circuit has provided

this Court with some direction.

In Cintron v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 813 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir.1987), a case Plaintiff

cites in his Motion, the Ninth Circuit held that a complaint is considered filed when it is placed

in possession of the clerk of the court. In other words, when the clerk receives the Complaint

the matter is deemed commenced and filed. Such a holding is consistent with NRCP 3 and

5(e). 3

In this case, the clerk of the court received Plaintiff’s Complaint on June 27, 2011. As

evidenced by the Docket Report, the matter was deemed filed on June 27, 2011. Therefore,

pursuant to NRCP 4, Plaintiff had 120 days from that date to properly serve Defendants, which

he failed to do. The fact that Plaintiff, a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of Nevada,

was unaware of his service requirements is inexcusable and does not support evidence of

mistake. Importantly, Plaintiff never bothered to file a motion to enlarge his time

/

/

/ /

/ /

3 NRCP 3 states, “A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”

NRCP 5(e) states, “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.”

- 5 -

V4.1027

1

for service, never truly opposed Defendants’ respective Motions to Dismiss, and has

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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

needlessly continued this proceeding through unsubstantiated motions. In conclusion, Plaintiff

has failed to present any evidence of mistake.

B. Plaintiff fails to establish excusable neglect.

In Stoecklein v. Johnson Elec., Inc., the Nevada Supreme Court set forth standards for

relief under NRCP 60(b)(1) 4 , stating, “The presence of the following factors indicates that the

requirements of this rule have been satisfied: (1) prompt application to remove the judgment;

(2) an absence of an intent to delay the proceedings; (3) a lack of knowledge of the procedural

requirements on the part of the moving party; and (4) good faith. 109 Nev. 268, 271, 849 P.2d

305 (1993).

Plaintiff cannot satisfy any of these factors. Plaintiff, currently a license Nevada attorney

with litigation experience, has not acted promptly in any respect in this case. With respect to

the second factor, Plaintiff has needlessly delayed the proceedings by failing to properly serve

Defendants, by failing to essentially oppose Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, and by continuing

to file groundless motions to set aside the Court’s dismissal. With respect to the third factor,

Plaintiff is a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of Nevada. He has litigation

experience and is well aware of procedural requirements. He knows that NRCP 4 requires a

plaintiff to timely and properly provide service of process to a Defendant to satisfy due process

concerns.

Lastly, with respect to the fourth factor, Plaintiff is certainly not filing the motion in good

faith. Rather, Plaintiff seeks to insult and harass this Court, and to needlessly multiply these

proceedings. Plaintiff’s argument for excusable neglect rests solely on an eviction proceeding

and his alleged financial troubles at the time which allegedly hindered him from properly

serving defendants in accordance with NRCP 4. Plaintiff disregards that he waited until the last

minute before attempting to complete service. He had 120 days to properly serve Defendants.

He had the ability to file a motion to enlarge time for service. He had an opportunity to oppose

4 NRCP 60(b)(1) states, “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”

- 6 -

V4.1028

1

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. He has been afforded ample opportunity to move the case

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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

along. Plaintiff seeks to absolve himself of the failed service attempts by placing blame on the

Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. However, Plaintiff has made no showing to support his

allegations. Furthermore, Exhibit “1" attached to the Motion to Set Aside Order proves Plaintiff

failed to both timely and properly serve Defendants.

Interestingly, Plaintiff’s argument appears to largely rest on a New York case, McKenzie

v. Amtrak M of E, 777 F.Supp. 1119, 1121 (S.D. NY 1990) in averring excusable neglect/good

cause under NRCP4(i). 5 In McKenzie the New York court found that a plaintiff proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis was excused from failure to timely serve a legible copy of the

complaint on a Defendant because court personnel provided the plaintiff with an illegible copy

of the complaint. Id.

McKenzie is inapplicable in this case for several reasons. First, Plaintiff was never

provided an illegible copy of the complaint. Rather Plaintiff, by his own admission, was

responsible for providing illegible copies to the Defendants he attempted to serve. 6 The defect

in service is attributable to Plaintiff, not court personnel or anyone else for that matter.

Secondly, unlike McKenzie, Plaintiff is a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of

Nevada and either knows or should know NRCP 4's service requirements. The Court cannot

simply disregard this key factor. Overall, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of

excusable neglect and this Court should deny Plaintiff’s request to set aside or vacate the

Court’s dismissal against Defendants.

/ / /

5 NRCP (i) states, “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. If the party on whose behalf such service was required fails to file a motion to enlarge the time for service before the 120-day service period expires, the court shall take that failure into consideration in determining

good cause for an extension of time. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall extend the time for service and set a reasonable date by which service should be made.”

6 Defendants Marc Ashley, Jon Sasser, and Washoe Legal Services were never served in this case. Albeit, Plaintiff appears to be arguing in his Motion that WLS was served on December 9, 2011 via service on Paul Elcano.

- 7 -

V4.1029

1

C.

Defendants’ made accurate representations to the Court regarding Plaintiff’s service attempts on Defendants.

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

2

3

In order to prevail on grounds of misrepresentation and /or fraud on the court, the

4

burden is on the moving party to show by clear and convincing evidence that “an

5

unconscionable plan or scheme

designed to improperly influence the court in its decision”

6

was perpetrated. Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 146 n.2, 625 P.2d 568 (1981) (citing

7

England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir. 1960).

8

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ attached inaccurate service papers to their

9

respective Motions to Dismiss and therefore made misrepresentations to the Court. Plaintiff

10

makes baseless accusations against Defendants with absolutely no support and contradicts

11

himself throughout the Motion. At one point Plaintiff acknowledges he improperly served

12

Defendants and then turns around and accuses Defendants of attaching inaccurate service

13

papers. All the while Plaintiff has not produced what he claims to be “the accurate” service

14

papers provided to Defendants.

15

Indeed, Defendants provided accurate representations of the service papers. Plaintiff

16

raises no basis upon which to grant the relief requested; he has failed to meet his burden in

17

making these unfounded accusations. In sum, Plaintiff does not meet the standard under

18

NRCP 60 and this Court should deny Plaintiff’s request to set aside or vacate the Court’s

19

dismissal.

20

4.

Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 59

21

“Rule 59(e) provides an opportunity, within severely limited time, to seek correction at

22

the trial court level of an erroneous order or judgment, thereby initially avoiding the time and

23

expense of appeal.” Chiara v. Belaustegui, 86 Nev. 856, 859, 477 P.2d 857 (1970). Among the

24

grounds for this type of motion are correcting manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered

25

or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice, or a change in

26

controlling law. AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, 245 P.3d 1190,

27

1193 (2010). Notably, the motion must state with particularity its grounds and set forth the relief

28

or order sought. Id.

- 8 -

V4.1030

1

Here, Plaintiff fails to articulate with particularity the grounds on which he brings this

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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. The 93 page Motion raises various arguments, the majority of which are superfluous

and confusing given the length of the motion and Plaintiff’s string cites from various legal

reports. None of Plaintiff’s arguments truly make clear on what grounds the Motion is brought,

or what relief is requested. To the contrary, Plaintiff makes nonsensical arguments which fail

to demonstrate any type of manifest error in law or fact, newly discovered evidence or

previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice, or a change in

controlling law. 7 Plaintiff merely makes arguments he made or could have made in his various

oppositions to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s arguments do not meet the standard

set forth in NRCP 59. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied.

5. Plaintiff does not meet the standard for a Motion for Reconsideration.

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal, it must be

denied. A court “may reconsider a previously decided issue if substantially different evidence

is subsequently introduced or the decision is clearly erroneous.” Masonry and Title

Contractors Ass’n of So. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd., 113 Nev. 737, 741 941 P.2d 486,

489 (1997) (citing Moore v. City of Las Vegas, 92 Nev. 402, 405, 551 P.2d 244, 246 (1976)

(“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.”))

Plaintiff’s grounds for bringing this Motion are unclear. Plaintiff cites to pages and page

of case law without tying it into this case. It can best be surmised that Plaintiff believes service

of process on Defendants was both timely and proper despite the Court’s findings that

Plaintiff’s service attempts were untimely. Plaintiff does not present any new evidence to light

or change the fact that service of process on Defendants did not comply with NRCP 4. The

Court properly held that Plaintiff did not comply with procedural service requirements in serving

Defendants. All service papers were accurately attached to each respective motion. Whether

/ / /

7 Plaintiff argues in forma pauperis throughout this Motion, however Plaintiff never applied to proceed in forma pauperis in this case.

- 9 -

V4.1031

1

Plaintiff is potentially prejudiced by this dismissal does not affect this Court’s determination.

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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

Plaintiff does not meet the standard for reconsideration and therefore the Motion should be

denied. 8

6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Consolidation does not exist.

Plaintiff contends that his Motion for Consolidation is pending before the Court. It

appears Plaintiff has confused this case with the second case, Case No. CV11-01955. A

Motion for Consolidation was never filed in this case. Moreover, the Court in the second case

denied any proposed motion on January 13, 2011, when it ordered Plaintiff’s First and Second

Set of Supplemental Motions denied. Order, attached hereto as Exhibit “3.”

7. Plaintiff’s request for attorney fee’s is improper and unfounded.

Plaintiff contends that this Court should award him attorney’s fees for the costs incurred

in opposing Defendants’ motion for sanctions. Moreover, Plaintiff avers that Defendants’

Motions are frivolous, misrepresent the holdings of cases, misrepresent facts, and that

Defendants have an ulterior motive for filing their motions.

Plaintiffs arguments are without merit seeing as Defendants’ never filed a motion for

sanctions. Importantly, Plaintiff refuses to recognize that he failed to abide by NRCP 4's

mandate in serving Defendants, and in failing to do so, the Court properly dismissed this case

against Defendants. Defendants have not misrepresented the law or facts to this Court.

Motions to Dismiss were properly and timely filed after Plaintiff’s numerous and varying service

attempts on Defendants. Given Plaintiff’s unfounded request, this Court should deny Plaintiff’s

request for attorney’s fees.

8. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is improper and unfounded.

In this Motion, Plaintiff appears to be arguing that he should be awarded sanctions and

/ or that he previously filed a motion for sanctions. First, a review of the docket clearly shows

that Plaintiff never filed a Motion for Sanctions against Defendants. Second, if Plaintiff is

8 Even if this Court is persuaded that Plaintiff's service attempts were timely, for those Defendants that were

served, the Court must still consider the sufficiency of the service. As fully discussed in Defendants’ respective Motions to Dismiss, service and / or process was nonetheless improper.

- 10 -

V4.1032

1

seeking to file a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to NRCP 11 via this Motion to Set Aside Court

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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

Order, which appears to be the case, he is improperly doing so. NRCP 11(c)(1)(A) not only

requires that a motion for sanctions be made separately from other motions or requests, but

requires the motion describe the specific conduct to be sanctioned and that the non-moving

party be provided 21 days after service of the motion to withdraw or correct the sanctionable

conduct.

Plaintiff has not done any of the aforementioned. Plaintiff did not file a motion for

sanctions separately, did not specify the conduct to be sanctioned, and did not serve nor

provide Defendants 21 days to withdraw or correct any sanctionable conduct. As a result, this

Court should deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

9. This Court should sanction Plaintiff for his unprofessional and disrespectful remarks throughout the Motion.

Defendants request this Court sanction Plaintiff for his unprofessional and disrespectful

remarks addressed to this Court and Defense counsel. Previously, the Court in the second

case warned Plaintiff to refrain from making derogatory and unprofessional remarks. The Court

stated,

“the Court admonishes Plaintiff to conduct himself professionally and civilly in the

proceedings before this Court. Plaintiff’s sarcastic, derogatory, and disrespectful remarks, do not assist in resolving this litigation, and may result in sanctions if

continued.” 9

Despite the prior warning, Plaintiff continues to make inflammatory and disrespectful remarks

aimed at this Court, Defense counsel and several Defendants. Plaintiff should be sanctioned

to prevent him from continuing such misconduct.

Specifically, Plaintiff criticizes the Court’s dismissal by stating “This is a bunch of

crap,10 “What a joke,11 and “this is still a bunch of baloney!12 Plaintiff then proceeds to

insult Defense counsel through statements such as “What is so despicable about what

9 Order, attached hereto as Exhibit “4.” See page 2:26-28.

10 Motion at 62:13

11 Motion at 62:13

12 Motion at 61:20

- 11 -

V4.1033

Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

9080 West Post Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148

382-1500(702)

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

Garin does

Garin’s whole

defense has been a study in avoiding having anybody with anything damaging to say

not saying anything while having people with nothing to say say something about that

to which they have no knowledge, including Garin himself.15

Plaintiff’s criticisms are a shameful attempt to divert the attention away from Plaintiff’s

shortcomings. They are offensive, disrespectful and entirely unprofessional. This Court should

sanction Plaintiff for continuing to make improper and inflammatory remarks. Defendants’

suggest a $1,000.00 sanction payable to Defendants would be appropriate.

10. This Court should award Defendants monetary sanctions pursuant to WDCR 21.

Washoe District Court Rule 21 states,

"If a party or an attorney fails or refuses to comply with these rules, the court may make such orders and impose such sanctions as are just, including, but not

limited to the following: 1. Hold the disobedient party or attorney in contempt of court. 2. Continue any hearing until the disobedient party or attorney has

complied with the requirements imposed. 3. Require the disobedient party to pay the other party's expenses, including a reasonable attorney's fee, incurred

settings to make then look way worse than they actually do,14 and

“Garin is purposefully scanning pages in pages on really low dpi

,

13

in preparing for and attending such hearing. 4. Enter an order authorized by N.R.C.P. 37."

(Emphasis added). Furthermore, Washoe District Court Rule 10(9) provides, “(a)ny motion,

opposition, reply, etc. must be filed as a separate document unless it is pleaded in the