IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CITY OF BOULDER CITY, )

Electronically Filed
Aug 20 2019 04:41 p.m.
Petitioner, ) Elizabeth A. Brown
Clerk of Supreme Court
VS. )
TFIE EIGHTH JT'DICIAL DISTRICT )
corrRT FoR THE STATEOF ) Supreme Court No: 79005
NEVADA, IN AND FOR TFIE )
COUNTY OF CLARK, AND TFIE ) District Case No: C-18-334314-A
HONORABLE RTCHARD F. )
SCOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE )
Respondents, )
and )
JOHN BRIDGFORD HIINT, )
Real Party in Interest. )

MOTION TO I) ISOUALIFY MAROUIS A CH COFFING

Stephen P. Stubbs, Attorney atLaw

Nevada Bar No. 10449

626 S. Third Street

Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephon e: (7 02) 7 59-3224
Facsimile : (7 02) 293 -3289

Email : stephen@stephenpstubbs.com

Attorneyfor Real Party in Interest John Bridgþrd Hunt

Docket 79005 Document 2019-34937

 TABLE OF' CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION I

ARGIJMENT I

I. Marquis Aurbach Coffins Now Represents the Citv of

Bou lder citu and the Boulder Citv Municinal Court
Judee Victor Miller in Unity Aeainst Mr. Hunt. 2

II. Judpe Miller. Bv and Thro Marouis Aurbach Coffinp

Declared Mr. Hunt Guiltv Before Trial. . . 2

ilI. Judse Miller Then Issued a Biased R ulins Asainst Mr. Hunt
On the Sam e f)av That While Marouis Aurbach Coffins Filed
Judge Miller's Opposition 4

IV. Citv Attornev Steve Morris Particinated with Marauis

Aurbach Coffins In Judse Miller. and Judse
Miller Submitted City Attornev Steve Morris's Declaration
Miller's District Court Fili 5

V. Because Judse Miller's Acts. Bv and Throush

Marauis and Aurbach. Show Strong Policv Reasons Whv
a District Court Jud çe Should Have the Power to Make
Constitutional Rulinss On Trials Anew. Marouis Aurbach
Coffins Has a ClearConflict..... 6

CONCLUSION 7

I
 INTRODUCTION

Mr. Hunt hereby moves to disqualif, Marquis Aurbach Coffing from

representing the City of Boulder City, as they have already represented the Boulder

City Municipal Court Judge Victor Miller in this same matter.

ARGUMENT

On February 27, 2018, Judge Miller issued a gag order against Attorney

Stephen Stubbs in this case because Attorney Stubbs made a Facebook post on

February 19,2018 stating that City Attorney Steve Morris doesn't care about the

Irrst amendment.r 3 PA 569. On February 2,2}Iï,Attorney Stubbs filed a Petition

for Writ of Mandamus in the Eighth Judicial District Court to contest Judge Miller's

gag order, and Judge Miller hired Marquis Aurbach Coffing to oppose Attorney

Stubbs's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filing his Response on April 4,2018. RPIIA

052-066; RPIIA 067 -136

1 Attorney Stubbs's Facebook post was just a few weeks before the Boulder City
Council was to make a final decision on whether to give Steve Morris a long-term,
permanent contract as City Attorney, and Judge Miller specifically wrote in his gag
order that fact, clearly protecting Steve Morris from negative public statements. 3
PA 573:26-28.
I
 I. Marouis Aurbach Coffins Now Represents the Citv of Boulder City
and the Boulder Citv Municipal Court Judee Victor Miller in Unitv
Against Mr. Hunt.

Marquis Aurbach Coff,rng represented Judge Miller in his opposition to

Attorney Stubbs's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which created a myriad of ethical

problems that are now compounded with this new filing, âs Marquis Aurbach

Coffrng is now directly representing the City of Boulder City in the Writ that is

currently before this Court. In an apparent statement of unity of interests between

Judge Miller, City Attorney Steve Morris and the City of Boulder City, Marquis

Aurbach Coffing now represents everyone except John Hunt, executive and judicial,

in both civil and criminal matters with the same case. This creates several conflicts

of interest and shows the fundamental problems of collusion that have plagued this

case from the beginning.

il. .Iudse Miller. Bv and T h roush Marquis Aurbach Coffins I)eclared

Mr. Hunt Guiltv Before Trial.
In Judge Miller's Response to Attorney Stubbs's Petition for Writ of
Mandamus, drafted and filed by Marquis Aurbach Coffing, Judge Miller recited

Judge Miller's conclusion of facts of the underlying criminal case in a damning and

prejudicial way against Mr. Hunt. RPIIA 069:8-070:4. Interestingly, Judge Miller

adopted the exact facts that the City of Boulder City set out in their February 23,

2018 Motion for Summary Judgment in the companion civil rights case in the

2
Federal Court (John Hunt v. City of Boulder City,2:17 -cv-015 19-JCM-NJK). RPIIA

022:8-023:5; 3 PA 646:lI-647:5. Please compare Judge Miller's statements of

facts regarding "The Incident" Judge Miller's Response to the City ofBoulder City's

"Introduction" of the City's February 23,2078 Motion for Summary Judgment in

the federal civil rights case. Id. The identical language is as follows:

On June 81 2016, several Nevada law enforcement agencies were

conducting a crosswalk enforcement activity ("the Activity")
where officers cited drivers who failed to yield to a decoy pedestrian
in a crosswalk. During the Activity, Hunt blew through a
crosswalk, almost struck the decoy, and subsequently received a
traffic citation. Hunt, after thinking about the "disgusting"
activity, returned to the crosswalk with the intent of walking back
and forth in the crosswalk until "infinity." Upon reaching the
crosswalk (about 40 minutes after receiving his citation), Hunt,
without looking for traffic, darted out into the crosswalk forcing
vehicles to abruptly stop to avoid hitting him. After Hunt's third
trip across the crosswalk, Sergeant Glenn (who had no knowledge
of Hunt's prior traffic stop) decided to contact Hunt to determine
whether he was intentionally interfering with traffic (i.e., a crime)
or whether he was a danger to himself or others (i.e., mentally ill,
intoxicated, or on drugs). Sergeant Glenn drove to Hunt's location
and ordered Hunt to the front of his marked patrol vehicle. Hunt
informed Sergeant Glenn that he would not compty with his
demand. In response, Sergeant Glenn approached Hunt and
attempted to move him away from the roadway and into a parking
lot. Hunt admits that he physically resisted Sergeant Glenn's
efforts. As a result of the resistance, Sergeant Glenn attempted to
handcuff Hunt from a standing position. Hunt admittedly resisted
the handcuffing. Due to Hunt's resistance, several other law
enforcement officers assisted Sergeant Glenn in taking Hunt to the
ground, rolling him over onto his stomach, and eventually
handcuffing him. Hunt suffered no physical injuries. Sergeant

J
 Glenn arrested Hunt for failing to yietd to traffic (Nev. Rev. Stat.
54848.283) and resisting a public officer (Nev. Rev. Stat. S 199.230).

This is an outrageous and clear violation of Judge Miller's ethical duties under

the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the

Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 2.3 (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment),

2.4 (External Influences on Judicial Conduct), and 2.9 (Ex-Parte Communications)

All filed by the law firm of Marquis Aurbach Coffing. There is literally no
explanation for this "statement of facts" in Judge Miller's Response to be verbatim

from the City of Boulder City's Motion except that Judge Miller and the City of

Boulder City are in cahoots against Mr. Hunt. This is improper and wrong, and

creates potential malpractice claims, along with additional conflicts of interest.

Judge Miller declared John Hunt guilty (by and through his attorneys, Marquis

Aurbach Coffing), on April 9, 2018 before a trial, and before any evidence was

presented to Judge Miller regarding the substantive facts of the criminal case. 3 PA

696.

III. Miller Then Issued B ulin inst Mr. Hunt

Same f)av That While Marouis Aurbach C offin g Filed Judse Miller's
Opposition.

Before Judge Miller Recused himself off,rcially on April 2,2018, Judge Miller

issued a substantive order denying John Hunt's Motion to Dismiss the Obstruction

Charge on 1'tAmendment Grounds. 3 PA 681. Notably, Judge Miller's April 2,2018

4
substantive order was filed on the same day that Marquis Aurbach Coffing filed

Judge Miller's Response to Attorney Stubbs's 'Writ of Mandamus, declaring John

Hunt guilty before trial. RPIIA 067

Ultimately, the Honorable Eighth Judicial District Court Judge Susan Johnson

reversed Judge Miller's February 27,2018 gag order as unconstitutional, even stated

in her written order: "...Judge Miller is more concerned of the prejudice to him in

deciding legal issues", and "At best, one might glean JUDGE MILLER would be

upset when or if he read the Facebook post". 3 PA 707:10-11 and l7-18

IV. Citv Attornev Morris Particina ted with Marquis Aurbach

Coffins In Renresen tins Judse Miller. and Judse Miller Submitted
Citv A ttornev Steve Morris's ration of Sunno rt With Judse
Miller's Dis Court Filins.
In Judge Miller's Response to Attorney Stubbs's Petition for Writ of
Mandamus, prepared and filed by Marquis Aurbach Coffing, Judge Miller attached

an "Exhibit A" (Declaration of Steven Morris), which specifically states that City

Attorney Steve Morris is in support of Judge Miller's Response. RPIIA 084-087. All

the while, the underlying criminal case was still active. This was undeniable and

clear evidence of improper ex-parte communications, through the law firm of

Marquis Aurbach Coffing, between Judge Miller and City Attorney Steve Morris, as

they worked together on Judge Miller's Response to the Petition for Writ of

Mandamus, and Judge Miller included City Attorney Steve Morris's supportive
5
declaration in his Response in violation of Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Rule

2.9 (Ex-Parte Communications). Please note that City Attorney Steve Morris signed

his Declaration on April 2,2018, which is the same day thatJudge Miller's Response

was filed. RPIIA 087. This shows that the Declaration was one of the last things

done, and shows coordination and unification of effort between City Attorney Steve

Morris, Marquis Aurbach Coffing and Judge Miller during Mr. Hunt's criminal case.

Considering that Steve Morris's ONLY paralegal at the time (Pauline Hornyak)

doubled as a clerk of the Boulder City Municipal Court, and the problems were

accentuated.

V Because .Iudse Mille rts Bad A Bv and Throush Marouis and

Aurbach. Show Strons Policv ns Whv a District Court Judse
Should Have the Power to Make Constitutional Rulinss On Trials
Anew. Marouis Aurbach Coffin g Has a Clear Conflict.

In the instant Answer for this Petition for Writ, Mr. Hunt presents evidence to

the Nevada Supreme Court of the collusion by the City and Judge Miller. This

collusion shows why it is important that the District Court have authority to decide

pre-trial motions on trials anew. Now that Marquis Aurbach Coffing is representing

both Judge Miller and the City of Boulder City, who will Marquis Aurbach Coffing

give their loyalty to? Or even worse, do they have a unity of interest here? Under

Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct l.T,Marquis Aurbach Coffing cannot jointly

take on the representation of both the City of Boulder City and Judge Miller in such
6
closely related matters unless the City of Boulder City and Judge Miller are unified

in interest. There is a clear conflict.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Mr. Hunt respectfully requests that this Court disquali$

Marquis Aurbach Coffing from representing the City of Boulder City further in this

matter

DATED this 20th day of August, 2019.

/s/Stephen P. Stubbs
Stephen P. Stubbs, Attomey atLaw
Nevada Bar No. 10449
626 S. Third Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephon e: (7 02) 7 59 -3224
Facsimile : (7 02) 293 -3289
Email : stephen@stephenpstubbs. com
Attorneyþr Real Party in Interest John Bridgþrd Hunt

7
 CERTIF'ICATE O F COMPLIANCE

I hereby certiÛr that the foregoing MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING complies with the typeface and type style

requirements of NRAP 32(a)@)-(6), because this brief was been prepared in a

proportionally spaced typeface using a Microsoft Word 365 processing program in

14-point Times New Roman type style. I further certifu that this brief complies

with the page- or type-volume limitations of NRAP 32(a)(7) because it contains

approximately I,973 words

Finally, I hereby certifu that I have read the MOTIOI\ TO DISQUALIFY

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING, and to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief, it is not frivolous or interposed for any improper purpose.

I further certifl'that this brief complies with all applicable Nevada Rules of

Appellate Procedure, in particular NRAP 2S(e)(1), which requires every assertion

in the brief regarding matters in the record to be supported by a reference to the

page and volume number, if any, of the transcript or appendix where the matter

relied on is to be found. I understand that I may be subject to sanctions in the

event that the

8
accompanying brief is not in conformity with the requirements of the Nevada

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Dated this 20th day of August 2019.

. Stubbs
Stephen P. Stubbs, Attorney atLaw
Nevada Bar No. 10449
626 S. Third Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephon e: (7 02) 7 59-3224
Facsimile : (7 02) 293 -3289
Email : stephen@stephenpstubbs.com
Attorney þr Real Party in Interest John Bridgþrd Hunt

9
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certift that the foregoing MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MARQUIS

AURBACH COFFING was electronically filed with the Nevada Supreme Court

on the 20thDay of August,2Ol9. Electronic Service of the foregoing document shall

be made in accordance with the Master Service List

I further certifu that I served a copy of these documents by mailing true and

correct copies thereof, postage prepaid addressed to:

Honorable Richard F. Scotti, District Court Judge

Eighth Judicial District Court,
Department 2
200 Lewis Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89155
scottir@clarkcountycourts.us
Respondents

Marquis Aurbach Coffing

Micah S. Echols, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 8437
Tom'W. Stewart, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 14280
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephon e: (7 02) 382-07 I I
Facsimile : (7 02) 3 82-5 8 1 6
mechols@maclaw.com
tstewart@maclaw.com

10
Steven L. Morris, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 7454
Gury R. Booker, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 2028
Off,rce of the City Attorney
City of Boulder City
401 California Ave.
Boulder City, Nevada 89005
Telephon e: (7 02) 293 -9238
Facsimile (7 02) 293 -9 438
smorris@bcnv.org
Attorneys þr Petitioner, City of Boulder City

/s/Stephen P. Stubbs
Stephen P. Stubbs, Attorney atLaw
Nevada Bar No. 10449
626 S. Third Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephon e: (7 02) 7 59 -3224
Facsimile : (7 02) 293 -3289
Email : stephen@stephenpstubbs.com
Attorneyþr Real Party in Interest John Bridgþrd Hunt

11