9 18 12 Vol 5 of 5 ROA WLS 60302 Coughlin V WLS Appeal of CV11-01896

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

ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
Sup. Ct. Case No. 60302
Case No. CV11-01896
vs. Dept. 6
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL,
Defendants.
/
RECORD ON APPEAL
VOLUME 5 OF 5
DOCUMENTS
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Zachary Coughlin Gary Fuller, Esq. for Committee to Aid
P.O. Box 60952 Abused Women
Reno, NV 89506 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
V5.1496
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
2645
BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845
Attorney for Defendant
Crisis Intervention Services
ZCIZ MAR 14 AM 9: 119

1-'" - ,-
" " "
; : !
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et. al.,
Defendants
Case No.:
Dept. No.:
CVII-01896
6
CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE
Defendant Crisis Intervention Services, incorrectly named as Tahoe Women's Services,
by and through its attorney Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., hereby opposes the motion to extend time
for service filed by Plaintiff Zachary Coughlin, Esq., on March 7, 2012.
Mr. Coughlin's motion should be denied because it was not properl served to this
Defendant. Counsel for Crisis Intervention Services is no longer an electronic filer and therefore
does not have access to pleadings via eflex. Since this Defendant is not an efiler, Mr. Coughlin
,
is required to print and mail his pleadings to this Defense counsel (or have those pleadings hand
delivered to Defense Counsel's office). Defense counsel has notified Mr. Coughlin on numerous
occasions (by e-mail.byU.S.Mail and in a number of pleadings) that defense counsel is no
longer an efiler and requested that Mr. Coughlin serve his pleadings by mail, but Mr. Coughlin
never sends copies of his pleadings. (See Exhibit 1.) Since Mr. Coughlin's motion was not
properly served, it should be denied.
- 1 -
V5.1497
I To the extent that Mr. Coughlin's motion seeks an extension of time to complete service
2 of the complaint and summons, Mr. Coughlin's motion must be denied because the time to
3 complete service ran months ago, the case has already been dismissed and Mr. Coughlin has
4 already begun the appeal process.
5 The undersigned does hereby affirm that pursuant to NRS 239B.030, this document and
6 any attachments hereto do not contain the social security number of any person.
7
8 DATED: March 14,2012.
9
10
11
12
B y : ~ ~
BRIAN A. GONSALVES, ESQ., SBN 9815
Attorney for Defendant Crisis Intervention
Services
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
14
Case No.: CVll-01896
15 I hereby certify that on this date I filed this Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Extend
16 Time for Service with the Clerk of the Court and the ECF system will serve the following parties
17 electronically:
18 Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff.
19 Joseph P. Garin, Esq., for Kathy Breckenridge, Marc Ashley, Paul Elcano, Washoe
20 Legal Services, Caryn Sternlight, Karen Sabo and John
21 Sasser.
22 DATED: March 14,2012.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq.
- 2 -
V5.1498
1
Index of Exhibits
2 1. Email dated January 31, 2012, Email dated February 8, 2012, and letter dated February 8,
,
3
2012, all of which are from Brian Gonsalves to Zachary Coughlin.
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
- 3 -
V5.1499
EXHIBIT --l\';;-, _
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
EXHIBIT
23
24
25
26
27
28

V5.1500
HotmaIll'nnt Message
Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services
From: Brian Gonsalves (bgonsalves@live.com)
Sent: Tue 1/31/12 1:58 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com; Gary Fuller (gfuller@grgflaw.com); Joseph Garin
(jgarin@lipsonneilson.com)
Gentlemen:
I am no longer an e-filer.
Documents can be served to me by mail at
Brian A. Gonsalves; Attorney at law
P.O. Box 907
"'"6-.a..., .....
Mr. Coughlin: I see that you filed two items today. As I am no longer an efiler, I am unable to access
those documents. Please print those items and any future filings and mail them to me at the address
above.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Gonsalves
bttp:/lby 160w .bay 160.maiI.Iive.comlmaiJlPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5e Iff5b 1-8ca4-4c3a-... 1I31120 12
- .-._---- ~ .
,-- ~ ~ . ~ . ---_.
-_ .. _._-._---
--._------------_.
V5.1501
=.
RE: Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services
From: Brian Gonsalves (bgonsalves@live.com)
Sent: Wed 2/OM.2 2:33 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
1 attachment
Coughlin.03.pdf (290.0 KB)
Mr. Coughlin:
Please see the attached correspondence demanding that you properly print and mail your filings to
me since I have not received any of your recent pleadings, and demanding payment of the attorney's
fees and costs award that you owe to my client.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Gonsalves
From: bgonsalves@live.com
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com; gfuller@grgflaw.com;jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
Subject: Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 20U 13:58:42 -0900
Gentlemen:
I am no longer an e-filer.
Documents can be served to me by mail at
Brian A. Gonsalves, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 907
Mr. Coughlin: I see that you filed two items today. As I am no longer an efiler, I am unable to access
those documents. Please print those items and any future filings and mail them to me at the address
above.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Gonsalves
http://bY160w.baY160.mail.live.comlmaillPrintMessages.aspx?cpids=8bc 13ba3-4dce-4f2c-9... 2/8/2012
V5.1502
February 8, 2012
Sent via u.s. Mail and viae-mail tozacl!cougbJin@hotmail.com.
Zachary Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. Ninth St., #2
Reno, NV 89512
R.e: Coughlin v. Crisis Intervention Services
Case Nos. CVII-01896 and CVII-0l955
Mr. Coughlin:
As you know per my e-rnall to you dated Janll9l)' 31, 2012, I am no longer an e-filer in
Washoe County and therefore can not access documents through efIex. In order to serve your
documents, you need to print them. and mail them to me. My mailing address is at the bottom of
this page.
Since I notified you that I am not an efiler, you have filed seven documents: a reply brief
and a motion on January 31, 2012; two motions to alter or amend on February 1,2012; two
summonses on February 2, 2012; and an opposition on February 7, 2012. I have not received
any of these documents from you.
Please comply with the service .requirements and print and mail your pleadings to me.
Also, another week has passed and I still have not received payment from you for the
$1.296.62 which was awarded to my client for attorney's fees, nor have I received any response
from you regarding payment. Please let me know when I can expect to receive payment from
you. If you can not afford to pay the award in a single lump sum, I am still willing to consider a
reasonable payment plan. Please contact me, in writing, at your earliest convenience and let me
know when you will be sending payment.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely.
~ / z
BRIAN A. GONSALVES
BIUAN A. GONSALVS, AnoRNY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 907. KINGs BEACH, CAuFoIWIA96143
53O-386-684j bgonsalves@Jive.com
--_. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
-_ ....... _-_ .. _._-.---_ ... _-_._.
F I L E D
Electronically
03-22-2012:06:26:15 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2843689
V5.1503
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
p;
11
""
015
12
olI-
Boo
tl '3 v
NVJO:O
13 co c

cr.<'I:;. ......
a z
14
'0 to; 0":' "l
!P'
t::-
15

Zoo
c;" g
16
51
c..

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2175
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNON D. NORDSTROM
Nevada Bar No. 8211
9080 West Post Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 -fax
jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
Attomeys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services,
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge,
Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn Stemlicht
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, )
Individually and in her capacity as Board )
President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, )
Individually and in his capacity as WLS )
Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually )
and in his capacity as Executive Director of )
WLS, DOES 1-100, Individually and in their )
capacity as members of the BOARD OF )
DIRECtORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES, CARYN STERN LIGHT, )
Individually and in her capacity as WLS l
attomey, 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, )
Defendants. l

III
CASE NO.: CV11-01896
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
V5.1504
u
p;
0'
."

08

13 "Cf <:C 5i
r.n8;>"7

o to: ur <")
U 0 <"l N'
ff'o
g t::> c
<Il
'jj ""'
z:;s
c:f5:

J
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
4
5
6
7
8
9
2 Defendants Paul Elcano, individually and in his capacity as Executive Director of WLS,
3 Todd Torvinen, individually and in his capacity as WLS Board Member, Jon Sasser,
individually and in his capacity as WLS agent, Marc Ashley, individually and in his capacity as
WLS attorney, Karen Sabo, individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney, Kathy
Breckenridge, individually and in her capacity as Board President ofWLS, and Washoe Legal
Services, a Nevada Corporation, (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys
of record, Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., hereby submit their Motion for
Reconsideration.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This Motion is made pursuant to Washoe District Court Rule 12(8), the Memorandum
of Points and Authorities below, together with the pleadings and files herein, and any oral
argument this Court permits.
DATED this 23,d day of March, 2012.
By:
LIPSON COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

Joseph P. Garin (Bar No. 6653)
Shannon D. Nordstrom (Bar No. 8211)
(702) 382-1500
Attorneys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services,
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Kathy
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn
Sternlicht
V5.1505
u
p.;
0
0

tJ8

t:"3 v
NCI)Q:,O
.:a -5 co
r.F:J3>"";'
cr:::.::: Z
-0 to <:")
U ,,0 aN'
...... Ii) 0
[j:>!::::-

o

0
!
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 1. Introduction
3 Plaintiff Coughlin was formerly employed as an attorney for Washoe Legal Services
4 ("WLS"). Coughlin filed two lawsuits against WLS, et aI., attempting to assert claims for
5 wrongful termination:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Lega/ Services, et. a/.
Case No.: CV11-01896
Hon. Brent Adams
Filed: June 27, 2011
and
Zachary Coughlin v Washoe Lega/ Services, et. a/.
Hon. Steven P. Elliott
On October 27, 2011, Coughlin began attempts at service of the summons and
complaint in the first case, Case No. CV11-01896, 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 Plaintiffs
Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(3) andlor (4) and NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal
of the case as to all Defendants on and January 11, 2012.
On January 23,2012, Defendants filed their Verified Memorandum of Costs. Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Retax Costs on January 31,2012. Thereafter, Oppositions were filed on
February 15, 2012 and February 20,2012. The matter was submitted for decision on March
20 6,2012.
21 On March 13,2012, the Court rendered Plaintiffs Motion to Retax Costs moot on the
22 basis that Defendants filed their Verified Memorandum of Costs outside the time period
23 prescribed by NRS 18.110(1). A Notice of Entry of Order was filed March 14,2012.
24 In light of Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e), Defendants move this Court to
25 reconsider its March 13,2012 Order only with respect to Plaintiff's Motion to Retax Costs
26 being rendered moot.
27 III
28 III
-3-
V5.1506
0
p;

08
1-
Eoo
q::3 "<t
Nv:J-O
il 'd'g:;
CfJ8;>'7
z
(3
u 0
<:J 0

0
&
1 2. Defendants meet the standard for a Motion for Reconsideration
2 A court "may reconsider a previously decided issue if substantially different evidence
4
5
3 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. CityofLas Vegas, 92 Nev. 402, 405, 551 P.2d 244, 246 (1976)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
("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."))
Defendants grounds for bringing this Motion are based on Nevada Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(e) which states, "Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or
take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper,
other than process, upon the party and the notice or paper is served upon the party by mail
or by electronic means, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period." Accordinlgy, while
NRS 18.1010(1) prescribes that Defendants had five days after the entry of judgment to file
a verified memorandum of costs, three days pursuant to NRCP 6(e) should be added to this
calculation. Five judicial days plus three days for mailinglelectronic service from the date of
the entry of judgment would render January 23,2012, as the last day Defendants could file
a verified memorandum of costs. Defendants filed their Verified Memorandum of Costs that
18 day.
19 Based on the above, Defendants' timely filed their Verified Memorandum of Costs and
20 Plaintiff's Motion to Retax Costs should not be rendered moot on these grounds.
21 III
22 III
23 III
24
25
26
27
28
.. ,
- 4-
V5.1507
0
p.;

l'l8

tls v
:-,:</;0:0

z &l
'0 t; tA''''''''
U C <"IN
fYo
g m > t::.-

"0-
Zoo
a;:
0
J
1 3. Conclusion
2 Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant
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' Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Washoe District Court Rule 12(8) on the
limited grounds described.
DATED this 23'0 day of March, 2012.
By:
r
(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
(Pursuant to NRS 2398.030)
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the
Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 23'0 day of March, 2012
LIPSON NEILSqt:! COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C
(,ICe .
By: \.
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and
Caryn Sternlicht
- 5 -
******IMPORTANTNOTICE-READTHISINFORMATION*****
PROOFOFSERVICEOFELECTRONICFILING
AfilinghasbeensubmittedtothecourtRE:
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
Document(s)Submitted:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-22-2012:18:26:15
03-23-2012:11:02:15
SecondJudicialDistrictCourt-StateofNevada
ZACHCOUGHLINVS.WASHOELEGAL
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
MtnforReconsideration
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
Youmayreviewthisfilingbyclickingonthe
followinglinktotakeyoutoyourcases.
Thisnoticewasautomaticallygeneratedbythecourtsauto-notificationsystem.
Ifserviceisnotrequiredforthisdocument(e.g.,Minutes),pleasedisregardthebelowlanguage.
Thefollowingpeoplewereservedelectronically:
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.forBOARDOF
DIRECTORSOFWASHOELEGALSERVICES
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
ZACHARYCOUGHLIN,ESQ.forZACHARY
COUGHLIN
Thefollowingpeoplehavenotbeenservedelectronicallyandmustbeservedbytraditional
means(seeNevadaelectronicfilingrules):
ZANDRALOPEZ
SHANNONNORDSTROM,ESQ
ZANDRALOPEZ,EMPLOYEEWLS
V5.1508
F I L E D
Electronically
03-26-2012:04:22:18 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1509
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
<..1
P-<
11

C,!)g
12

.... t=: """"

13 ...!:; a

N
8"
14
a-
'V 8

15

zg
d':?
16
0
3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2175
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Jon Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada )
Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually)
capacity as members of the BOARD OF l
DIRECtORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES, CARYN STERN LIGHT, )
attorney, JON SASSER, Individually and in )
attorney, MELISSA MANGIARACINA, )
WLS employee, l
Defendants.
l
DEPT. NO.: 6
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM
SERVICE OF PROCESS
V5.1510
(j

0'
'il
C)g
kl-
.....

, N
'8"
o aN'
Il.I 0
g ';;O>t:-

a

0
3
1
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
2 EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM SERVICE OF PROCESS
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Breckenridge, individually and in her capacity as Board President of WLS, Caryn Stern licht,
individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney and Washoe Legal Services, a Nevada
Corporation, (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys of record, Upson,
Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., hereby submit their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Extension of Time to Perform Service of Process.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 26
th
day of March, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
- 2,
V5.1511
2 1. Introduction
6
7
8
9
10
Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Legal Services, et. al.
Hon. Brent Adams
and
Zachary Coughlin v Washoe Legal Services, et. al.
11 On October 27, 2011, Coughlin began attempts at service of the summons and complaint in
12 the first case, Case No. CV11-01896, against Defendants. Despite Coughlin's varying
13 attempts at service on Defendants, as fully briefed in their respective Motions to Dismiss, all
14 attempts proved improper. Accordingly, Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint
15 pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(3) and/or (4) and NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal of the case
16 as to all Defendants on January 11,2012. On March 13, 2012, this Court affirmed its dismissal
17 of the Complaint against Defendants.
18 On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Perform Service of
19 Process on Defendants. Plaintiffs Motion is nothing more than a blatant attempt to get
20 another shot at arguments already thoroughly briefed, argued, and lost - numerous times
21 now.' Plaintiff fails to make any cogent argument in his Motion as to why he failed to properly
22 serve Defendants before the expiration of the 120 day deadline. Importantly, he fails to
23 establish any good cause for failing to file a timely and proper motion to enlarge the 120-day
24 period for effectuating service. Instead, Plaintiff chooses to make the same nonsensical
25 arguments he has made in prior Motions which this Court denied. Indeed, Plaintiff brings up
26
27
28 1 This Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside and Motion to Alter or Amend, on March 13,2012.
3 .
V5.1512

"
'0

<.!liS

;:!;
t)t.no-.o
"i:l .... cf 00 5::

;3 ,,::.

c:: t; > c

0

0
j
1 issues either properly decided or inapposite to the Motion.
2
It is wholly unclear how many times
2 Plaintiff will continue to file the same Motions in hopes of a better result with no factual or legal
3 support.
4 Accordingly, Defendants request this Court deny Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of
5 Time to Perform Service of Process and deny any and all additional relief requested by
6 Plaintiff.
7 2. Plaintiff's Motion fails to Establish Good Cause for an Extension of Time to
8 Perform Service of Process
9 NRCP 4(i) requires a party who failed to effectuate service of process within the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
mandated 120 days from the filing of the complaint to demonstrate good cause for the delay
of service.
3
The Rule also requires a Plaintiff to move to enlarge the time for service prior to
the expiration of the 120-day service period. If the party fails to do so, "the court shall take that
failure into consideration in determining good cause for an extension of time." NRCP 4(i).
In Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 55, 245 P .3d 1198, (Nev.
2010) the Nevada Supreme Court analyzed the effect of filing an untimely motion to enlarge
time for service of process pursuant to NRCP 4(i). The Court concluded "that only upon a
showing of good cause to file an untimely motion to enlarge time for service should the district
2 Plaintiff makes blanket arguments throughout the Motion that are difficult to follow. First, he confuses
the present case with the second analogous case, Case No, CVll-01955. Second, he seeks to "set aside" all
dismissals in this Motion and seeks consolidation, despite failing to provide any support for this relief and these
requests having been denied in the past. Lastly, Plaintiff cuts and pastes case law without formulating any
arguments.
3 NRCP 4(i) specifically 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 oftime. 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."
-4-
V5.1513
1 court then apply Scrimer's4 good-cause factors for the delay in service. However, in the initial
2 analysis of an untimely motion, some of Scrimer's factors may be applicable to determine if
3 good cause exists for filing a tardy motion." Id. at 1201. In other words, "[o]nly upon a showing
4 of good cause for the delay in filing the motion to enlarge time should the court then engage
5 in a complete Scrimer analysis to determine whether good cause also supports the request
6 for enlargement of time for service of process under NRCP 4(i)." Id.
7 Here, Plaintiff's Motion is untimely pursuant to NRCP 4(i) and he fails to demonstrate
8 good cause for filing an untimely motion to enlarge time for service of process and fails to
9 demonstrate good cause for granting an extension of time to effectuate service of process.
10 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 11, 2011, as clarified in this Court's March 13,2012
11 Order. Therefore, he had until December 9,2011 to properly serve Defendants. He failed to
12 do so.
13 Plaintiff waited over three months past the service deadline to file the present Motion.
14 In the interim, he has filed various motions to set aside, to alter or amend, and for
15 reconsideration. He has even appealed this Court's dismissal of Defendants from the case.
16 Plaintiff has offered no explanation why he could not file a motion to extend time for service
17 before the expiration deadline or why he decided to waste judicial resources and file various
18 motions without seeking leave for an extension to effectuate service on Defendants. Most
19 importantly, nothing in Plaintiff's Motion satisfies the Scrimer factors to support good cause
20 in filing the untimely motion or for granting an extension. All Plaintiff manages to do in the
21 present Motion is confuse the facts between this case and the second similar action and place
22
23
24
4 The Scrimer factors are: (1) difficulties in locating the defendant, (2) the defendant's efforts at evading
25 service or concealment of improper service until after the 12O-day period has lapsed, (3) the plaintiffs diligence
in attempting to serve the defendant, (4) difficulties encountered by counsel, (5) the running of the applicable
26 statute of limitations, (6) the parties' good faith attempts to settle the litigation during the 120-<lay period, (7) the
lapse of time between the end of the 120-<lay period and the actual service of process on the defendant, (8) the
27 prejudice to the defendant caused by the plaintiff's delay in serving process, (9) the defendant's knowledge of the
existence of the lawsuit, and (10) any extensions of tim e for service granted by the district court. Scrimer v. District
28 Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190,1195-96 (2000).
- 5 -
V5.1514
<..1
P-<
il

c.)g
,:0-
.....

....t:: -00 a

8 -

cu 8
g 5>t::-

0
j-
unsubstantiated blame on the Washoe County Sheriff's Office for his failure to properly
2 effectuate service on Defendants and the Washoe County Court Clerk for his defective filings.
3 This should not be tolerated.
4 3. Conclusion
5 Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff's
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Extension of Time to Perform Service of Process, and deny any and all additional
relief requested by Plaintiff.
DATED this 26
th
day of March, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, Melissa Mangiaracina,
Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
,6-
V5.1515
W
<'-<
c
c

08
.:;-

___

d -
IS N'

S>t::.

0

1
2
3
4
5
AFFIRMATION
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM
SERVICE OF PROCESS, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security
Number of any person.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated this 26
th
day of March, 2012

By:
Joseph P. Gann (Bar No. 6653)
(702) 382-1500
-7-
V5.1516
u
0.;
"
-0

08
oll-

_ 0
vll
'"

8 B
a
g t:::-

0
"
j<
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I certify that on the 26
th
day of March, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of
3 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
4 PERFORM SERVICE OF PROCESS, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage
5 prepaid, addressed as follows:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
Attorney for Defendant Crisis Intervention Services
and by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff; and
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.
- 8 -
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-26-2012:16:22:18
03-27-2012:11:53:40
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1517
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-27-2012:00:08:44
03-27-2012:11:56:04
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
MtnAlterorAmendJudgment
ZACHARYCOUGHLIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1518
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
F I L E D
Electronically
03-27-2012:12:08:44AM
JoeyOrdunaHastings
Document Code: ClerkoftheCourt
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Transaction#2849616
NV BAR No: 947
!" B"# $%9&'
Reno, NV (9&%$
)ele: 77&*(*(++(
,a-: 949*$$7*74%'
ZachCoughlin.hotmail.com
/n 01o 0e1
/N )2E 3EC"ND 45D/C/A6 D/3)R/C) C"5R)
", )2E 3)A)E ", NEVADA
/N AND ,"R )2E C"5N)7 ", 8A32"E
ZAC2 C"5926/N: A
A
!lainti;;. A
<s. A
8A32"E 6E9A6 3ERV/CE3, a Ne<ada A
Co10o1ation, =A)27 BREC=ENR/D9E, A CA3E N": CV++*%+(9$
/ndi<iduall> and in he1 ca0acit> as Boa1d
!1esident o; 863, )"DD )"RV/NEN, DE!). N": $
/ndi<iduall> and in his ca0acit> as 863 . Boa1d
?em@e1, !A56 E6CAN", /ndi<iduall> and in
his ca0acit> as E-ecuti<e Di1ecto1 o; 863,
D"E3 +*+%%, /ndi<iduall> and in thei1 ca0acit>
as mem@e1s o; the B"ARD ", D/REC)"R3
", 8A32"E 6E9A6 3ERV/CE3, CAR7N
3)ERN6/92), /ndi<iduall> and in he1 ca0acit>
as 863 atto1ne>, 4"N 3A33ER, /ndi<iduall>
and in his ca0acit> as 863 agent, =AREN
3AB", /ndi<iduall> and in he1 ca0acit> as 863
atto1ne>, ?ARC A326E7, /ndi<iduall> and in
his ca0acit> as 863 atto1ne>, ZANDRA
6"!EZ: /ndi<iduall> and in he1 ca0acit> as
863 em0lo>ee:
De;endants.
?")/"N ,"R E#)EN3/"N ", )/?E )" !ER,"R? 3ERV/CE ", !R"CE33
Zach Coughlin, 0lainti;;, su@mits this motion on his oBn @ehal;.
)his ?otion is made 0u1suant to the autho1ities discussed @eloB, including NRC! 4CiA and is
su00o1ted @> the attached ?emo1andum o; !oints and Autho1ities, the Decla1ation o; Zacha1> B.
- +D+& -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, OR PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
V5.1519
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Coughlin, Esq., the 0a0e1s and 0leadings on ;ile he1ein, and an> o1al a1gument this cou1t ma> alloB,
as it is @eing 1equested.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
)his ;ilign is @eign ;iled da>s ea1l> Bith an intent to su00lement it gi<en the con;iusion o<e1
Bhethe1 8DC De0a1tments g1ant litigates additional da> sunde1 NRC! $CeA Bhe1e ;iligns a1e
elctd1onicall> ;iled and se1ed.
Ci<il 1ights actions, !1e<ailing 0a1t>, nominal damages, see ,a11a1 <. 2o@@>, 5.3.)e-.+99', ++ 3.Ct.
&$$, &%$ 5.3. +%, +'+ 6.Ed.'d 494. !1e<ailing 0a1t>, signi;icant issue test, see )e-as 3tate )eache1s
AssEn <. 9a1land /nde0endent 3chool Dist., 5.3.)e-.+9(9, +%9 3.Ct. +4($, 4(9 5.3. 7(', +% 6.Ed.'d
($$, on 1emand (74 ,.'d '4'.
AssEn <. 9a1land /nde0endent 3chool Dist., 5.3.)e-.+9(9, +%9 3.Ct. +4($, 4(9 5.3. 7(', +% 6.Ed.'d
($$, on 1emand (74 ,.'d '4'.
An A00lication ;o1 /,! status Bas ;iled along Bith a 01o0osed Com0laint on 4une '7th, '%++.
)he /,! Bas ;inall> g1anted August (, '%++, and the Com0liant Bas stam0ed Bith a ;iling date o;
August ++, '%++ and ente1ed in the DocFet in this matte1 on that date as Bell. +'% da>s ;1om August
++, '%++ is Decem@e1 9, '%++, Bhich ha00ens to @e the da> that )1a<is 3he1man, o<e1 +( >ea1 old
non 0a1t> 1esident o; 8ashoe Count> se1<ed !aul Elcano and 863 Cgi<en Elcano is 863Es 1egiste1ed
agentA Bith the 3ummons and Com0laint in this matte1, and 01oo; o; the same Bas ;iled on Decem@e1
- 'D+& -
V5.1520
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
+%, '%++. ,u1the1, B1ecFen1idge Bas se1<ed @> the 8C3" on ++D+&D++ in CV++*%+(9$ C@ut that
same A;;ida<it o; 3e1<ice, ;iled onl> in CV++*%+(9$ also indicates B1ecFen1idge Bas se1<ed the
3ummons and Com0laint ;o1 CV++*%+9&& as Bell, @ut the 8C3" did not manage to ;ile an A;;ida<it
o; 3e1<ice attesting to that in CV++*%+9&&, so the case against he1 the1e got dismissed. 8hat is
inte1esting is that the 0eo0le Bho Be1e not su@Gect to and "1de1 ;1om the Chie; 4udge, De0a1tment
,ou1, indicating that the> should se1<e 01ocess 0u1suant to an /,! "1de1 Cie, me, and m> 1agtag g1ou0
o; 1andom ;1iends, st1ange1s, etcA manage to do a much, much mo1e tho1ough Go@ than the g1ou0 o;
8C3" De0uties Bith 1athe1 nice sala1ies managed to do Cie, the g1ou0 Bho Be1e getting 0aid quite
Bell, Bith a nice !ER3 0lan to @ootA. )o to0 it o;;, =a1en 3a@o Bas se1<ed something ;1om CV++*
%+(9$ Ca 3ummonsH a co0> o; the Com0laintHA its Gust that the 8C3" ;iled the A;;ida<it o; 3e1<ice
attesting to that in the wrong case CV++*%+9&& on ++D''D++ Cthe A;;ida<it ;o1 3a@o Bas ;iled in
CV++*%+9&& @ut indicates ?s. 3a@o Bas se1<ed: II6ocation: 8ashoe 6egal 3e1<ices '99 3 A1lington
A<enue Reno, N7 (9&%+ Date: ++++$D'%++ )ime: ++ :%4A? )he documentCsA se1<ed Be1e:
35??"N3: C"!7 ", CA3E CV++*%+9&& AND C"!7 ", 35??"N3, CA3E CV++*%+(9$IA.
)his Cou1tEs 4anua1> ++, '%++ "1de1 held that: I !lainti;; ;iled a com0laint on 4une '7,'%++.
!u1suant to N.R.C.!. 4CiA, !lainti;; Bould ha<e +'% da>s to se1<e the summons and com0laint on
De;endants o1 until "cto@e1 '&, '%++. !lainti;; ;ailed to se1<e De;endants !aul Elcano CIElcanoIA,
)odd )o1<ine CI)o1<inenIA, 4on 3asse1 CI3asse1IA, ?a1c Ashle> CIAshle>IA, =a1en 3a@o CI3a@oIA,
=ath> B1ecFen1idge CIB1ecFen1idgeIA, 8ashoe 6egal 3e1<ices CI863IA and C1isis /nte1<ention
3e1<ices CIC/3IA Bithin the mandated time 0e1iod. /n addition, !lainti;; ;ailed to ;ile a motion to
enla1ge time ;o1 se1<ice o1 shoB good cause as to Bh> se1<ice Bas not made Bithin the statuto1>
0e1iod. Acco1dingl>, the Cou1t g1ants De;endants Elcano, )o1<inen, 3asse1, Ashle>, 3a@o, 863, C/3
and B1ecFen1idgeEs motionCsA to dismiss Bithout 01eGudice.' ,N ': Although C/3 sought dismissal
- D+& -
V5.1521
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Bith 01eGudice, the Cou1t ma> dismiss an action Bithout 01eGudice Bhen se1<ice is untimel>. 3ee
N.R.C.!. 4CiA. /n addition, C/3Es 1equest ;o1 atto1ne>Es ;ees and costs is denied at this time @ecause the
Cou1t dismissed this action on 01ocedu1al g1ounds Bithout anal>Jing the me1its o; !lainti;;s case.I
/ donEt @elie<e an> o; the ;actual ;indings in that "1de1 a1e accu1ate, as all o; those
indi<idualsDentities Be1e se1<ed Cma>@e not @> the 8C3", @ut / got )1a<is 3he1man to se1<e 863
and Elcano on Decem@e1 9, '%++, Bhich is not too late conside1ing the Com0laint is ;ile stam0ed
August ++, '%++, and / had 4e1ome ,itJhen1> se1<e )odd )o1<inen Cand attem0t to se1<e 863 and
Elcano @> lea<ing a 1eal nice co0> o; the 3ummons and Com0laint unde1 ElcanoEs home doo1 matA on
"cto@e1 '7th, '%%+ CBhich, again, / do not @elie<e is outside the +'% da>s alloBed unde1 NRC! 4, as
the ;iling o;;ice Bill not issue a 3ummons in a case Bhe1e the /,! is still 0ending...as such, the /,!
onl> @eing g1anted on August ( and the Com0laitn stam0ed in on August ++, '%++....maFes the
,itJhen1> se1<ice on "cto@e1 '7th, '%++ onl> some 77 da>s o1 so into the +'% da> 0e1iod alloBed
unde1 NRC! +'%. ,u1the1, / @elie<e a ca1e;ul 1e<ieB o; the 0leadings Bill 1e<eal a ?otion ;o1
E-tension o; )ime to E;;ectuate 3e1<ice Bas ;iled, as Bas a ?otion to Consolidate these cases on
"cto@e1 &, '%++. !lease set aside the dismissal.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I!lainti;;KA00ellant Rode1icF C. ?ann ;iled a ci<il action Bithin the
go<e1ning statute o; limitations @ut then did not se1<e 01ocess Bithin +'%
da>s o; ;iling, as 1equi1ed Ca@sent time e-tensionA @> ,ed.R.Ci<.!. 4CmA.
?ann then mo<ed ;o1 an e-tension o; time to se1<e De;endantK A00ellee
Ame1ican Ai1lines, Bas g1anted additional time @> the dist1ict cou1t, and
e;;ected se1<ice Bithin the Gudiciall> e-tended time. 8e conside1 C+A Bhethe1
the ;ailu1e to se1<e 01ocess Bithin the initial +'%Kda> 0e1iod causes the
statute o; limitations to 1un again and C'A Bhethe1 the dist1ict cou1t ma>
e-tend the time to se1<e 01ocess, unde1 Rule 4CmA, a;te1 the +'% da>s ha<e
e-0i1ed Bhen the statute o; limitations Bould othe1Bise @a1 the 1e*;iling o;
the suit i; the dist1ict cou1t had declined e-tension o; time and had dismissed
the suit...."n ?a> %, '%%+, ?ann ;iled an amended com0laint and the
dist1ict cou1t issued a summons. "n 4une 4, '%%+, ?ann se1<ed on De;endant
Ame1ican Ai1lines the o1iginal com0laint, the amended com0laint, the
- 4D+& -
V5.1522
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
o1iginal summons, and the su@sequent summons. Ame1ican Ai1lines late1
mo<ed to dismiss 0u1suant to ,ed.R.Ci<.!. +'C@AC&A and C@AC$A, alleging
inadequate and untimel> se1<ice o; 01ocess and lacF o; 0e1sonal Gu1isdiction.
)he dist1ict cou1t g1anted the motion and dismissed the case Bith 01eGudice,
a00a1entl> @elie<ing that com0liance Bith the statute o; limitations as
01o<ided @> 4' 5.3.C. L '%%%eK&C;AC+A is linFed to se1<ice o; 01ocess Bithin
the +'%Kda> 0e1iod set out in Rule 4CmA: /n this case, 0lainti;;Es o1iginal
com0laint Bas timel> ;iled, on the (9th da> o; the M+%9% 9% da> 0e1iod.
,iling a com0laint gi<es a 0lainti;; +'% da>s to com0lete se1<ice o; 01ocess
acco1ding to ,ed.R.Ci<.!. 4CmA. /n this case 0lainti;; ;ailed to timel> se1<e
and e- 0a1te mo<ed the cou1t ;o1 an e-tension o; time to com0lete se1<ice,
Bhich the cou1t g1anted. 8hile the cou1t has disc1etion Bith 1ega1ds to
se1<ice o; 01ocess, the cou1t does not ha<e the 0oBe1 to alte1 the 9% da>
statute o; limitations. 8ilson <. 91umman "hio Co10., (+& ,.'d '$, '7 C$th
Ci1.+9(7A. !lainti;;Es ;ailu1e to ;ile suit against Ame1ican NAi1linesO Bithin the
9% da> 0e1iod mandated @> the ADA 1equi1es the cou1t to dismiss. CEm0hasis
added.A ?ann a00eals. // N+ON'O )he co11ectness o; the dist1ict cou1tEs
dismissal on statute o; limitations g1ounds is a question o; laB 1e<ieBed de
no<o. 3ee 5nde1Bood Cotton Co., /nc. <. 2>undai ?e1ch. ?a1ine CAm.A,
/nc., '(( ,.d 4%&, 4%7 C9th Ci1.'%%'A. )he inte101etation o; a ,ede1al Rule
o; Ci<il !1ocedu1e is also a question o; laB 1e<ieBed de no<o. 3ee 5nited
3tates <. ,oste1, ''7 ,.d +%9$, +%99 C9th Ci1.'%%%A. /// NON4O )his a00eal
1equi1es 1esolution o; tBo issues. ,i1st, Be add1ess Bhethe1 ?annEs ;ailu1e to
se1<e 01ocess Bithin the initial +'%Kda> 0e1iod 01esc1i@ed @> ,ed.R.Ci<.!.
4CmA caused the statute o; limitations to sta1t to 1un again. 8e conclude that
it did not. "nce a com0laint is ;iled, the statute o; limitations is tolled unless
and until the dist1ict cou1t dismisses the action. 3ee 4 Cha1les A. 81ight and
A1thu1 R. ?ille1, ,ede1al !1actice and !1ocedu1e: Ci<il d L +%& Cd ed.
'%%'A.,N+ ,N+. Neithe1 0a1t> dis0utes that ?ann ;iled his com0laint Bithin
the 9%Kda> statute o; limitations. And, neithe1 0a1t> dis0utes that the statute
o; limitations initiall> is tolled u0on ;iling o; a com0laint. 3ee 3ain <. Cit> o;
Bend, %9 ,.d ++4, ++( C9th Ci1.'%%'A. N&O 3econd, Be add1ess Bhethe1
the dist1ict cou1t had the disc1etion to e-tend the time to se1<e 01ocess e<en
a;te1 the +'%Kda> 0e1iod had e-0i1ed. 8e conclude that it did. ,ed.R.Ci<.!.
4CmA 01o<ides: /; se1<ice o; the summons and com0laint is not made u0on a
de;endant Bithin +'% da>s a;te1 the ;iling o; the com0laint, the cou1t, u0on
motion o1 on its oBn initiati<e a;te1 notice to the 0lainti;;, shall dismiss the
action Bithout 01eGudice as to that de;endant o1 di1ect that se1<ice @e e;;ected
Bithin a s0eci;ied time: 01o<ided that i; the 0lainti;; shoBs good cause ;o1 the
;ailu1e, the cou1t shall e-tend the time ;o1 se1<ice ;o1 an a001o01iate 0e1iod.
,N' !age 4 '4 ,.d +%((, && ,ed.R.3e1<.d +&7, +4 A.D. Cases 4, '&
ND6R ! '4&, % Cal. Dail> "0. 3e1<. '(%$, '%% Dail> 4ou1nal D.A.R. &&7
CCite as: '4 ,.d +%((A ,N'. Rule 4CmA 1e0laced ;o1me1 Rule 4CGA in the
+99 amendments. )he cu11ent 1ule 1equi1es a dist1ict cou1t to g1ant an
e-tension o; time i; good cause is shoBn and 0e1mits the dist1ict cou1t to
g1ant such an e-tension e<en a@sent good cause. 2ende1son <. 5nited 3tates,
- &D+& -
V5.1523
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
&+7 5.3. $&4, $$', ++$ 3.Ct. +$(, +4 6.Ed.'d ((% C+99$A. )his di;;e1s
;1om ;o1me1 Rule 4CGA, Bhich did not 0e1mit e-tensions a@sent good cause.
/d. at $$+K$', ++$ 3.Ct. +$(. "n its ;ace, Rule 4CmA does not tie the hands
o; the dist1ict cou1t a;te1 the +'%Kda> 0e1iod has e-0i1ed. Rathe1, Rule 4CmA
e-0licitl> 0e1mits a dist1ict cou1t to g1ant an e-tension o; time to se1<e the
com0laint a;te1 that +'%Kda> 0e1iod. C;. 2ende1son <. 5nited 3tates, &+7
5.3. $&4, $$+, ++$ 3.Ct. +$(, +4 6.Ed.'d ((% C+99$A Cconcluding that Pthe
+'%Kda> 01o<ision o0e1ates not as an oute1 limit su@Gect to 1eduction, @ut as
an i11educi@le alloBanceQA. )he dist1ict cou1tEs disc1etion is not diminished
Bhen the statute o; limitations Bould @a1 1e*;iling o; the suit i; the dist1ict
cou1t decided to dismiss the case instead o; g1ant an e-tension. )o the
cont1a1>, the ad<iso1> committee notes e-0licitl> contem0late that a dist1ict
cou1t might use M+%9+ its disc1etion to g1ant an e-tension in that <e1>
situation: PRelie; ma> @e Gusti;ied, ;o1 e-am0le, i; the a00lica@le statute o;
limitations Bould @a1 the 1e*;iled action.Q ,ed.R.Ci<.!. 4, Ad<iso1>
Committee Note to +99 Amendments, 3u@di<ision CmA. 3ee also De )ie <.
"1ange Ct>., +&' ,.d ++%9, ++++ n. & C9th Ci1.+99(A C1ecogniJing that an
e-tension ma> @e Ba11anted i; the statute o; limitations has 1unA. N$O 2e1e,
e<en though the dist1ict cou1t 01o0e1l> used its disc1etion to e-tend the time
;o1 ?ann to se1<e 01ocess, the dist1ict cou1t late1 dismissed the action a;te1
concluding the statute o; limitations had not @een satis;ied. As the1e Bas no
othe1 a00a1ent @asis, Be must assume that the dist1ict cou1t @elie<ed that the
statute o; limitations @egan to 1un u0on ?annEs ;ailu1e to se1<e 01ocess
Bithin the +'%Kda> 0e1iod.,N But the ;ailu1e to se1<e 01ocess Bithin Rule
4CmAEs +'%Kda> 0e1iod does not a;;ect the tolling o; the statute o; limitations
unless the ;ailu1e to se1<e 01ocess causes the dist1ict cou1t to dismiss the
action. C;. 2ende1son, &+7 5.3. at $&$, ++$ 3.Ct. +$( Cholding that once a
;ede1al suit is commenced in com0liance Bith the go<e1ning statute o;
limitations, Pthe manne1 and timing o; se1<ing 01ocess a1e gene1all>
nonGu1isdictional matte1s o; R01ocedu1eS QA: !a1daJi <. Cullman ?ed. Ct1.,
(9$ ,.'d ++, ++&K+$ C++th Ci1.+99%A Cholding that se1<ice o; 01ocess
1equi1ements a1e not @ound u0 Bith the statute o; limitations unde1 4' 5.3.C.
L '%%%eK&C;AC+AA. )he dist1ict cou1t did not dismiss ?annEs action @ut 1athe1
e-tended the +'% da> se1<ice o; 01ocess 0e1iod, a decision 0e1;ectl> Bithin its
disc1etion. ,N4 ,N. )he dist1ict cou1tEs 1eliance on 8ilson <. 91umman
"hio Co10., (+& ,.'d '$ C$th Ci1.+9(7A, is mis0laced in 0a1t @ecause that
case conce1ned the 1e ;iling o; a com0laint a;te1 it had al1ead> @een dismissed
@> the dist1ict cou1t ;o1 ;ailu1e to 01osecute. ,N4. 8e 1eGect De;endantEs
claims that the g1ant o; a %Kda> e-tension Bas 01eGudicial. 2a<ing
concluded that the dist1ict cou1tEs dismissal o; this case Bas e11o1, Be 1e<e1se
and 1emand ;o1 ;u1the1 01oceedings.I ?ann <. Ame1ican Ai1lines, '4 ,.d
+%((, && ,ed.R.3e1<.d +&7, +4 A.D. Cases 4, '& ND6R ! '4&, % Cal.
Dail> "0. 3e1<. '(%$, '%% Dail> 4ou1nal D.A.R. &&7C C.A.9
C8ash.A,'%%A.
Extension for Good Case Good !ase for an extension of ti"e to ser#e $ro!ess %as &een s%o'n
- $D+& -
V5.1524
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
3ome atto1ne>Es 0leadings looF 1eall> good, ;o1matting Bise, Gust @eauti;ul, hoBe<e1, the>
donEt 1eall> shed an> light on the legal issues in<ol<e o1 0ut ;o1th an ta1geted legal 1esea1ch. ()* A".
+r. )d Pro!ess , --. s$ea/s to t%e re0e#ant isses %ere. T%e ndersi1ned see/s an 2ad#isor3
o$inion2 or ad#an!e indi!ation fro" t%is Cort t%at4 s%o0d t%is Motion for Extension of Ti"e
to Effe!tate Ser#i!e of Pro!ess &e 1ranted4 'o0d t%is !ort r0e t%e EEOC5s 67 da3 0i"itations
$eriod to fi0e fro" 2re!ei$t2 of Ri1%t To Se Letter &ar t%is 0iti1ation 8or an3 !ase of a!tion
2refi0ed2 in 0i1%t of t%e dis"issa0 'it%ot $re9di!e: de to a ne' fi0in1 date &ein1 otside t%e
67 da3 0i"itations $eriod for &rin1in1 sit; T%e ndersi1ned as/s t%is no' in t%e interest of
9di!ia0 e!ono"3 and to 0essen an3 &rden $on t%e defendants in!ident to defendin1 a!tions
not &ased in fa!t or 0a' a 0a NRCP --.
8he1e the 0lainti;;Es counsel had no notice o; the de;ecti<e se1<ice and
negligence o; the 01ocess se1<e1 Bas in<ol<ed.N+O T Bhe1e the 0lainti;;Es counsel Bas
misled in ce1tain 1es0ects and he e-e1cised diligence in attem0ting se1<ice.N'O T
Bhe1e the 0lainti;;Es e11o1 in maFing se1<ice o; 01ocess u0on the B1ong 0a1t> Bas
deemed to @e 1easona@le.NO T Bhe1e the 0lainti;; Bas lulled into @elie<ing that
01o0e1 se1<ice had @een accom0lished.N 4O T Bhe1e the 0lainti;; Bas 01o se and had a
good*;aith @elie; that he had made 01o0e1 se1<ice.N &O T Bhe1e the de;endant e<aded
se1<ice.N$O T @> ci1cumstances @e>ond the cont1ol o; the 0lainti;;Es counsel due to the
counselEs se<e1e illness and e-tensi<e caseload.<=> ? '%ere a !ort !0er/ fai0ed to
isse in for"a $a$eris $0aintiff5s s""ons and to a$$oint a U.S. "ars%a0 to
ser#e $ro!ess.<@> ? &3 re0ian!e on t%e U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e4<6> as '%ere t%e
U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e fai0ed to !o"$0ete ser#i!e '%en reAired for a $0aintiff
$ro!eedin1 in for"a $a$eris after &ein1 s$$0ied 'it% t%e ne!essar3 identif3in1
infor"ation.<-7> ? &3 extraordinar3 diffi!0t3 t%at t%e $0aintiffs ex$erien!ed in
0o!atin1 defendant des$ite di0i1ent efforts.<--> ? in $ro$er !ir!"stan!es4 &3
sett0e"ent ne1otiations.N+'O T @> a 0lainti;;Es 1easona@le @elie; that he Bas unde1 a
legal const1aint not to se1<e his com0laint Bhile the de;endant Bas in @anF1u0tc>
01oceedings and Bhile the case Bas not on the dist1ict cou1tEs acti<e caseload.N+O
C5?56A)/VE 35!!6E?EN) Cases: Em0lo>ee te1minated ;1om he1 0osition as a
01ison*@ased in;ectious diseases counselo1 shoBed good cause ;o1 he1 ;ailu1e to se1<e
a medical se1<ices com0an> Bithin the +'%*da> 0e1iod, and Bas thus entitled to a time
e-tension: counsel a@andoned his 1e01esentation o; the em0lo>ee <e1> ea1l> on in the
01osecution o; he1 com0laint, and did not communicate Bith he1, o00osing counsel o1
- 7D+& -
V5.1525
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
the cou1t ;o1 almost a >ea1 @e;o1e su@stituted counsel Bas o@tained, and the
em0lo>eeEs e;;o1ts to 0u1sue the 01osecution o; he1 case Be1e diligent and 1easona@le.
Cunningham <. NeB 4e1se>, '% ,.R.D. 9+, $' ,ed. R. 3e1<. d +%% CD.N.4. '%%&A.
)he1e Bas Igood causeI ;o1 01o se 01isone1Es ;ailu1e to se1<e co11ections o;;ice1 Bith
o1iginal com0laint @e;o1e the +'%*da> se1<ice deadline Bhe1e dela>s @> the ?a1shals
in com0leting se1<ice, Bhethe1 due to di;;iculties in dete1mining the a001o01iate
add1ess ;o1 o;;ice1, o1 sim0l> @ecause o; the high <olume o; 1equests, did not e<idence
dilato1> @eha<io1 on the 0a1t o; 01isone1, Bho Bas 01oceeding in ;o1ma 0au0e1is,
0a1ticula1l> since o;;ice1 1ecei<ed actual notice o; suit. 3idne> <. 8ilson, ''( ,.R.D.
&+7 C3.D. N.7. '%%&A. !lainti;; demonst1ated good cause ;o1 ;ailing to timel> se1<e
0h>sician in medical mal01actice case, Bhe1e 0lainti;;Es atto1ne> immediatel> sought
to ha<e 0h>sician se1<ed a;te1 associated local counsel ;ailed to initiate se1<ice,
atto1ne> had not lea1ned o; the ;ailu1e until th1ee da>s @e;o1e deadline ;o1 se1<ice, and
se1<ice Bas onl> one da> late. ,oss <. 8illiams, 99 3o. 'd 7( C?iss. '%%(A. NEND
", 35!!6E?EN)O N,N+O 3mith <. 3ent1> /ns., $74 ,. 3u00. +4&9, 9 ,ed. R. 3e1<.
d +'(( CN.D. 9a. +9(7A. N,N'O Baden <. C1aig*2allum, /nc., ++& ,.R.D. &(' CD.
?inn. +9(7A. N,NO 8oods <. !a1ten1eede1ei ?.3. 7anFee Cli00e1, ++' ,.R.D. ++&, $
,ed. R. 3e1<. d +&% CD. ?ass. +9($A. N,N4O DitFo; <. "Bens*/llinois, /nc., ++4
,.R.D. +%4 CE.D. ?ich. +9(7A. N,N&O RanFel <. )oBn o; 91een@u1gh, ++7 ,.R.D. &%,
9 ,ed. R. 3e1<. d +9% C3.D. N.7. +9(7A. As to autho1it> that 01o se status alone is not
good cause, see L L ++$, ++7. N,N$O RuiJ Va1ela <. 3ancheJ VeleJ, (+4 ,.'d ('+, 7
,ed. R. 3e1<. d $'$ C+st Ci1. +9(7A. )alFing a 01ocess se1<e1 out o; lea<ing 0a0e1s
cannot e-actl> @e called a<oiding se1<ice, @ut it is not e-actl> coo0e1ati<e eithe1:
consequentl>, such an occu11ence might @e good cause ;o1 a ;ailu1e to e;;ect timel>
se1<ice. 8illiams*9uice <. Boa1d o; Educ. o; Cit> o; Chicago, 4& ,.d +$+, 97 Ed.
6aB Re0. ++, % ,ed. R. 3e1<. d (4( C7th Ci1. +99&A. N,N7O 6e?aste1 <. Cit> o;
8innemucca, ++ ,.R.D. 7, $ ,ed. R. 3e1<. d 44' CD. Ne<. +9($A. <FN@> *3rd #.
Stone4 6B F.Cd )-=4 C( Fed. R. Ser#. Cd -664 -66( FED A$$. 7)=@P 8(t% Cir.
-66(:. <FN6> +a!/son #. Fo0e34 -.( F.R.D. .B.4 6B Ed. La' Re$. )6( 8E.D. N.Y.
-66B: 8%o0din1 t%at '%ere t%e fai0re to "a/e ti"e03 ser#i!e 'as so0e03 fa0t of
t%e U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e4 t%e $0aintiff s%o0d not &e $ena0iDed for it:. A $ro se
$0aintiff s%o0d not &e $ena0iDed for re0ian!e on a United States "ars%a0 to effe!t
$ersona0 ser#i!e. Terre00 #. *re'er4 6C. F.)d -7-. 86t% Cir. -66-:. Good !ase is
s%o'n '%en t%e de0a3 in ser#i!e is de to a &a!/0o1 at t%e "ars%a05s offi!e. U.S. #.
+a!/ CoDDa4 In!.4 -7( F.R.D. )(B4 ) Fed. R. Ser#. Cd -7=B 8S.D. N.Y. -6@.:.
<FN-7> Antone00i #. S%ea%an4 @- F.Cd -B)) 8=t% Cir. -66(: 8statin1 s!% a fai0re
is ato"ati!a003 1ood !ase reAirin1 extension of ti"e nder Fed. R. Ci#.P.
B8"::E Fa0/er #. S"ner4 -B F.Cd -B-.4 )@ Fed. R. Ser#. Cd 6-( 86t% Cir. -66B:.
F%ere t%e $0aintiff $ro!eedin1 in for"a $a$eris re$eated03 reAested t%e U.S.
Mars%a0 to ser#e t%e defendant4 &t %e fai0ed to do so4 1ood !ase ex!sed %er
fai0re to $ersona003 ser#e t%e U.S. Attorne3. D"a1in #. Se!retar3 of Hea0t%
and H"an Ser#i!es4 )@ F.Cd -)-@4 )6 Fed. R. Ser#. Cd =C= 8D.C. Cir. -66B:. As
to t%e reAire"ent t%at t%e U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e ser#e $ro!ess in !ertain
!ir!"stan!es4 see , , -)=4 -)6. N,N++O Coleman <. C1an@e11> Ba>e Rental Agenc>,
'%' ,.R.D. +%$, &% ,ed. R. 3e1<. d ($% CN.D. N.7. '%%+A. 9ood cause is shoBn
Bhe1e a 0lainti;; attem0ted se1<ice on a de;endant th1ough its autho1iJed agent, then
- (D+& -
V5.1526
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
lea1ned that the de;endant had sto00ed su@sc1i@ing to that se1<ice, then attem0ted to
e;;ect se1<ice at the @anF @1anch Bhe1e the 0lainti;; o0ened the account in dis0ute
Bhen the de;endant and the @anF Be1e @oth 0a1t o; a com0le- co10o1ate st1uctu1e.
2aBtho1ne <. Citico10 Data 3>stems, /nc., '+9 ,.R.D. 47 CE.D. N.7. '%%A. N,N+'O
BanF o; Ca0e Ve1de <. B1onson, +$7 ,.R.D. 7%, $ ,ed. R. 3e1<. d $%& C3.D. N.7.
+99$A. N,N+O De )ie <. "1ange Count>, +&' ,.d ++%9, 4+ ,ed. R. 3e1<. d &'& C9th
Ci1. +99(A.I
)he a@o<e 0assage is ;1om: $'B Am. 4u1. 'd !1ocess L ++&.
N.R.C.!. 4CiA. /n addition, C/3Es 1equest ;o1 atto1ne>Es ;ees and costs is denied at this time
@ecause the Cou1t dismissed this action on 01ocedu1al g1ounds Bithout anal>Jing the me1its o;
!lainti;;s case. 3o said this Cou1t. /t seemed 9a1in asFed ;o1 sanctiosn too...@oth o; Bhich amount
to mo1e than a Is0ecial a00ea1anceI and the1e;o1e these 0a1ties ha<e Bai<ed an> se1<ice o; 01ocess
1equi1ement and a1e noB in this litigation. And a de;ault is a001o01iate to ente1 as the> ha<e ;ailed
to ;ile and AnsBe1 to the Com0laint Bithin '% da>s o; se1<ice.
,ailu1e to maFe legi@le co0> o; com0laint ;o1 se1<ice /n the ;olloBing case the cou1t ;ound
that the ;ailu1e o; cou1t 0e1sonnel to maFe a legi@le co0> o; the com0laint ;o1 se1<ice on a de;endant
su00o1ted its a00a1ent holding that the1e Bas good cause unde1 Rule 4CGA o; the ,ede1al Rules o; Ci<il
!1ocedu1e ;o1 a 0lainti;;Es ;ailu1e to timel> se1<e 01ocess. 8he1e a com0laint, alleging em0lo>ment
disc1imination, 0hotoco0ied @> cou1t 0e1sonnel ;o1 se1<ice on an em0lo>e1 on @ehal; o; a ;o1me1
em0lo>ee 01oceeding 01o se and in ;o1ma 0au0e1is, 01o<ed too ;aint ;o1 the em0lo>e1 to 1ead, the
cou1t in ?c=enJie < Amt1aF ? o; E C+99%, 3D N7A 777 , 3u00 +++9, ;ound that the ;ailu1e o; cou1t
0e1sonnel to maFe a legi@le co0> o; the com0laint ;o1 se1<ice su00o1ted its im0licit holding that the1e
Bas good cause unde1 Rule 4CGA o; the ,ede1al Rules o; Ci<il !1ocedu1e ;o1 the 0lainti;;Es ;ailu1e to
timel> se1<e a legi@le co0> o; the com0laint. )he cou1t stated that, although the a1gument that se1<ice
should not @e deemed e;;ecti<e unless the com0laint is legi@le is o1dina1il> a st1ong one, the1e Bas
little Gusti;ication ;o1 dismissing the 0lainti;;Es com0laint on that g1ound, @ecause the de;ect in se1<ice
Bas att1i@uta@le to cou1t 0e1sonnel. )he cou1t also noted that the em0lo>e1, Bho had ad<ised the
- 9D+& -
V5.1527
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
em0lo>ee o; the illegi@ilit> o; the com0laint @ut had ;ailed to so ad<ise the 5nited 3tates ma1shal o1
the cou1t, notBithstanding the em0lo>e1Es FnoBledge that the em0lo>ee Bas 01oceeding 01o se, Bas
0a1tl> to @lame ;o1 the dela> in se1<ice.
/t sim0l> Bould not @e all that ;ai1 to sa> NRC! 4CiA gi<e the !lainti;; +'% da>s to e;;ectuate
se1<ice o; 01ocess Bhen the Com0laint Bas not e<en gi<en a ;iling date in the docFet ;o1 CV++*%+(9$
until August ++ CDe0a1tment 4 tooF ;1om the su@mission o; the /,! on 4ul> '7th, '%++ until August 9,
'%++ to issue the "1de1 91anting /,!, and this occu11ed du1ing a 0e1iod Bhe1e the 8DC Bas
changing the /,! ;o1m it maFes a<aila@le to the 0u@lic and the ;iling o;;ice actuall> 1e;used to acce0t
an ea1lie1 attem0ted su@mission o; the !etition ;o1 /,! and 01o0osed Com0liant, citing 1ationale @oth
<ague and cont1adicto1> and 1elated to 8DCR +%. )his Cou1t 4anua1> ++th, '%+' "1de1 indicates
that the e-0i1ation o; +'% da>s C;1om the 4une '7th date Bhen the Com0laint Bas stam0ed I1ecei<edI
@> the ;iling o;;ice as the 01o0osed 0leading called ;o1 unde1 NR3 +'.%+&A Bould @e "cto@e1 '&th,
'%++.
Action o; cou1t o1 cle1F o; cou1t as constituting o1 su00o1ting ;inding o; Igood cause,I unde1 1ule 4CGA
o; ,ede1al Rules o; Ci<il !1ocedu1e, ;o1 ;ailu1e to timel> se1<e 01ocess u0on de;endant. +%( A.6.R.
,ed. ($' C"1iginall> 0u@lished in +99'A.
E;;o1ts o; 0lainti;; o1 0lainti;;Es agent ;o1 se1<ice o; 01ocess as constituting o1 su00o1ting
;inding o; Igood cause,I unde1 Rule 4CGA o; ,ede1al Rules o; Ci<il !1ocedu1e, ;o1 ;ailu1e to timel>
se1<e 01ocess u0on de;endant, +++ A.6.R. ,ed. &%
NRC! 4CiA: ICiA 3ummons: )ime 6imit ;o1 3e1<ice. /; a se1<ice o; the summons and com0laint is not
made u0on a de;endant Bithin +'% da>s a;te1 the ;iling o; the com0laint, the action shall @e dismissed
as to that de;endant Bithout 01eGudice u0on the cou1tSs oBn initiati<e Bith notice to such 0a1t> o1
- +%D+& -
V5.1528
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
u0on motion, unless the 0a1t> on Bhose @ehal; such se1<ice Bas 1equi1ed ;iles a motion to enla1ge the
time ;o1 se1<ice and shoBs good cause Bh> such se1<ice Bas not made Bithin that 0e1iod. /; the 0a1t>
on Bhose @ehal; such se1<ice Bas 1equi1ed ;ails to ;ile a motion to enla1ge the time ;o1 se1<ice @e;o1e
the +'%*da> se1<ice 0e1iod e-0i1es, the cou1t shall taFe that ;ailu1e into conside1ation in dete1mining
good cause ;o1 an e-tension o; time. 50on a shoBing o; good cause, the cou1t shall e-tend the time
;o1 se1<ice and set a 1easona@le date @> Bhich se1<ice should @e made.I
NR3 +'.%+& Actions in<ol<ing indigent 0e1sons. +. An> 0e1son Bho desi1es to 01osecute o1 de;end a
ci<il action ma>: CaA ,ile an a;;ida<it Bith the cou1t setting ;o1th Bith 0a1ticula1it> ;acts conce1ning
the 0e1sonSs income, 01o0e1t> and othe1 1esou1ces Bhich esta@lish that the 0e1son is una@le to
01osecute o1 de;end the action @ecause the 0e1son is una@le to 0a> the costs o; so doing: o1 C@A 3u@mit
a statement o1 othe1Bise indicate to the cou1t that the 0e1son is a client o; a 01og1am ;o1 legal aid. '. /;
the cou1t is satis;ied that a 0e1son Bho ;iles an a;;ida<it 0u1suant to su@section + is una@le to 0a> the
costs o; 01osecuting o1 de;ending the action o1 i; the cou1t ;inds that a 0e1son is a client o; a 01og1am
;o1 legal aid, the cou1t shall o1de1: CaA )he cle1F o; the cou1t: C+A )o alloB the 0e1son to commence o1
de;end the action Bithout costs: and C'A )o ;ile o1 issue an> necessa1> B1it, 01ocess, 0leading o1 0a0e1
Bithout cha1ge. C@A )he she1i;; o1 othe1 a001o01iate 0u@lic o;;ice1 Bithin this 3tate to maFe 0e1sonal
se1<ice o; an> necessa1> B1it, 01ocess, 0leading o1 0a0e1 Bithout cha1ge. . /; the 0e1son is 1equi1ed to
ha<e 01oceedings 1e0o1ted o1 1eco1ded, o1 i; the cou1t dete1mines that the 1e0o1ting, 1eco1ding o1
t1ansc1i0tion o; 01oceedings Bould @e hel0;ul to the adGudication o1 a00ellate 1e<ieB o; the case, the
cou1t shall o1de1 that the 1e0o1ting, 1eco1ding o1 t1ansc1i0tion @e 0e1;o1med at the e-0ense o; the
count> in Bhich the action is 0ending @ut at a 1educed 1ate as set @> the count>. ...I
- ++D+& -
V5.1529
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
NR3 +'.%+& does not sa> Ithis Cou1t shall gi<e the !lainti;;, Bhom Bas g1anted an /,!, the tasF and
e-0ense o; 01e0a1ing Ise1<ice 0acFetsI ;o1 the 3he1i;;, Bhom shall @eha<e in an inc1easingl>
demanding manne1 toBa1d the !lainti;; and act as i; the> a1e doing the !lainti;; a ;a<o1 in e;;ectuating
se1<ice o; 01ocess and as thought the> onl> ha<e to do it i; the !lainti;; asFs 1eall> nicel> and
genu;lects a @unch....I /ndeed, ?c=enJie seems to maFe clea1 that, at least in some Gu1isdictions, the
Cou1t and 3he1i;; handle all the 0hotoco0>ing and deli<e1ing to the 3he1i;; that Bhich is necessa1> to
e;;ectuate se1<ice. ,u1the1, the1e a1e some highl> 0e1sonal, in;lammato1>, and sensiti<e ;acts 1elated
to the unde1signed 1elationshi0 Bith the 8ashoe Count> 3he1i;;Es ";;ice that ma> @a1e on the
8C3"Es ;ailu1e to co11ectl> com0l> Bith the "1de1 91anting /n ,o1ma !au0e1is status to the
unde1signed. 2oBe<e1, these ;acts a1e o; such a natu1e that 01udence dictates onl> going into them
Be1e a@solutel> necessa1>. 3u;;ice to sa>, it is highl> cu1ious that the 8C3"Es, gi<en the time ;1ame
in Bhich it occu11ed, onl> manged to ;ile ' A;;ida<its o; 3e1<ice in this case, CV++*%+(9$, Bhe1es
some nine 0ages o; A;;ida<its o; 3e1<ice Be1e ;iled in the I1elatedI case C;o1 Bhich the unde1signed
;iled an "cto@e1 &, '%++ ?otion to ConsolidateA, CV++*+%9&&, a case ;o1 Bhich the unde1signed
sc1a0ed togethe1 e<e1> last dime he had in the Bo1ld and 0aid the ;iling ;ee in ;ea1 that the /,! in this
matte1 Bould @e denied and, acco1ding to ;iling o;;ice 0e1sonnel and De0a1tment 4 Administ1ati<e
Assistant, should the /!, @e denied Bhe1e, in the inte1im, the 1unning o; the a00lica@le statute o;
limitations should occu1, as Bould ha<e @een the case he1e should the /,! ha<e @een denied and
should the unde1signed ha<e ;ailed to ;ile in CV++*+%9&& C)itle V// alloBs 9% da>s to ;ile ;1om
I1ecei0tI o; the EE"CEs Right to 3ue 6ette1, a situation made all the mo1e con;using gi<en the
EE"CEs ;ailu1e to 01o0e1l> u0date the unde1signed mailing in;o1mation u0on a B1itten notice o;
Change o; Add1ess @eing con;i1med 1ecei<ed @> the EE"C BeeFs 01io1 to the mailing o; the Right )o
3ue 6ette1, and the 53!3 ceasing to ;o1Ba1d to the unde1signed the o1iginal Right )o 3ue 6ette1, @ut
- +'D+& -
V5.1530
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1athe1 1etu1n it to the EE"C Bith the Ino longe1 at this add1essI >elloB sticFe1 and notice o; the
1eci0ients neB add1ess Cas is the 53!3 custom u0on the e-0i1ation o; +' months ;1om the ;iling o; an
";;icial Change o; Add1ess ;o1m Bith the 53!3A.
!lease set aside all the dismissals and 1ecogniJe 01ocess and se1<ice o; 01ocess as
a001o01iatel> conducted, o1 g1ant additional time to e;;ectuate such se1<ice o; 01ocess, including a
1uling that the 1equi1ements to ;ile a case Bithin 9% da>s o; I1ecei0tI o; the EE"C Right )o 3ue
6ette1 is met 1ega1dless o; such an e-tension, and o1 consolidate these cases, and an> othe1 1elie;
this Cou1ts sees as a001o01iate.
AFFIRMATION Prsant to NRS )C6*.7C7
)he unde1signed does he1e@> a;;i1m that the 01eceding document does not contain the social secu1it>
num@e1 o; an> 0e1son.
Dated this ?a1ch '$, '%+' Cthough / ha<e attem0ted to ;ile this thing nume1ous
times 01e<iousl> @ut ha<e had m> ;ilings 1eGected unde1 the most sus0icious o;
ci1cumstances and e<en a00lications o; 8DCR +%A,
DsD Zach Coughlin, signed elect1onicall>
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
!lainti;;
- +D+& -
V5.1531
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF GACH COUGLIN IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT
+. )his Decla1ation is made 0u1suant to the 01o<isions o; NR3 &.%4&, / am 01esentl> in the 3tate o;
Ne<ada and / decla1e unde1 0enalt> o; 0e1Gu1> that the ;o1egoing is t1ue and co11ect.
'. Decla1ant is the !lainti;; in the a@o<e title action.
. Decla1ant a<e1s that the ;actual statements set ;o1 a@o<e in the ;o1egoing document a1e, to the
@est o; his FnoBledge and unde1standing, accu1ate.
4. /, Zach Coughlin, am a<aila@le to testi;>, i; necessa1>, as to these matte1s. / decla1e unde1 0enalt>
o; 0e1Gu1> that the ;o1egoing is t1ue and co11ect.
Dated this ?a1ch '$, '%+'
DsD Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
!6A/N)/,,
- +4D+& -
V5.1532
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Proof of Ser#i!eH
"n this date, /, Zach Coughlin elect1onicall> se1<ed a t1ue and co11ect co0> o; the ;o1egoing
document to all 1egiste1ed e;ile1s, and to those Bhom a1e not / 0laced a t1ue and co11ect co0> o; the
;o1egoing document in the us0s mail on this date:
B1ian 9onsal<es, Esq
!.". Bo- 9%7
=ings Beach, CA 9$+4
Atto1ne> ;o1 )ahoe 8omenEs 3e1<ices CCR/3/3 /N)ERVEN)/"N 3ERV/CE3A 82/C2 /3 N") A
NA?ED !AR)7 AND 2A3 N") /N)ER!6ED "R ,/6ED A3 A REA6 !AR)7 /N /N)ERE3)
6/!3"N, NE/63"N, C"6E, 3E6)ZER U 9AR/N
4"3E!2 !. 9AR/N, E3V.
Ne<ada Ba1 No. $$&
32ANN"ND N"RD3)R"?
Ne<ada Ba1 No. ('++
9%(% 8est !ost Road, 3uite +%%
6asVegas, Ne<ada (9+4(
)E6: C7%'A('*+&%% ,A#: C7%'A ('*+&+'
Atto1ne> ;o1 De;endant 8A32"E 6E9A6 3ERV/CE3, a Ne<ada Co10o1ation, =A)27
BREC=ENR/D9E, /ndi<iduall> and in he1 ca0acit> as Boa1d !1esident o; 863, )"DD
)"RV/NEN, /ndi<iduall> and in his ca0acit> as 863 Boa1d ?em@e1, !A56 E6CAN", /ndi<iduall>
and in his ca0acit> as E-ecuti<e Di1ecto1 o; 863, D"E3 +*+%%, /ndi<iduall> and in thei1 ca0acit> as
mem@e1s o; the B"ARD ", D/REC)"R3 ", 8A32"E 6E9A6 3ERV/CE3, CAR7N
3)ERN6/92), /ndi<iduall> and in he1 ca0acit> as 863 atto1ne>, 4"N 3A33ER, /ndi<iduall> and in
his ca0acit> as 863 agent, =AREN 3AB", /ndi<iduall> and in he1 ca0acit> as 863 atto1ne>,
?ARC A326E7, /ndi<iduall> and in his ca0acit> as 863 atto1ne>, ZANDRA 6"!EZ: /ndi<iduall>
and in he1 ca0acit> as 863 em0lo>ee:
DA)ED )2/3: Dated this ?a1ch '$, '%+'
DsD Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
!lainti;;
- +&D+& -
V5.1533
F I L E D
Electronically
03-30-2012:03:59:38 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1534
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
'"
11
" ."

Cl8
12
1-
Boo
..... - "<t-
o 0_
13
5Ulo.O

(.1";8>'7
v"t=r; ;z; &:l
14
c ,,;<""l
U 0 &.iN'
iJ.) 0
> t.::.-
15
'" '"
'-
"2
Zo
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1360
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
jgarin@lipsonneilson.com .
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Breckenridge,
IN THE SECOND JUDiciAL DISTRICT COURT OF
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
)

')
)
)
)
Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, !I)
President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, !)
Board Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually:)
WLS, DOES 1-100, Individually and in their
capacity as members of the BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL ;
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT, "
attorney, JON SASSER, Individually and in
his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO, }
WLS employee, )
)

Defendants.

III
DEPT. NO.: 6
V5.1535
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
,,;
11
""
08
12

13
""'[i co
Vl8>'7

14
-0
u 0 !fN'
." 0
i;l t::::>C
15
o 0 "

"2
Zo
16

0
!
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATI; OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 30th day of March, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, upon the following parties, via first class
mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Zach Coughlin
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
Attorney for Plaintiff, In Pro Per
P.O. Box 907
Defendant for Crisis. Intervention Services
and by using the ECF system which served tne following parties electronically:
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women; and
mployee Qf
Lipson, Neilson C Ie, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.
- 2-
V5.1536
u
ro;
0"
'0

08
1-

.... - "<t-
o ,_
:-<lVlc-,O
-=5 "On CO
r.n8:>"':'
z
'0 ",n<'"\
Wg
g ;> t::-
'"
.3
z&l
o<?
0
0..

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE, filed in Case No. CV11-01896" does not contain the Social Security Number
of any person.
Dated this 30
th
day of March, 2012
LIPSON NE, COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

By:
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
"3-
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-30-2012:15:59:38
03-30-2012:16:52:36
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
CertificateofService
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1537
F I L E D
Electronically
03-30-2012:04:59:17 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1538
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0

11
.g
'" c.!):5
12
td-
l!loo
[)s
13
NU) 0'\ 0
.....:::: "'00 0
Q) "0 '"

14 c3 '"

...

15

Z:56
C>
16
aer-
o
'" 0..
;.:)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3860
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNOND.NORDSTROM
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Jon Sasser,
Marc Ashley, Kathy Breckenridge, and Caryn Sternlicht
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
VS. l
DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL )
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLICHT, )
WLS employee. )
Defendants.
/II
)
)
l
DEPT. NO.: 6
REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION
V5.1539
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

p.,
11
.
'" 08
12

13

14
8'" "'"

15

22;6

16
0
'"
.&
.....l
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
It is requested that DEFENDANT CARYN STERNLlCHT'S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES, having been filed and served on March 8, 2012, and no Opposition
having been filed,1 be submitted to the Court for decision.
The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of this request has been served on all
parties.
Dated this 30
th
day of March, 2012.
By:
LIPSON NEILSON COLE SELTZER

(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Jon
Sasser, Marc Ashley, Kathy Breckenridge, and
Caryn Sternlicht
1 The time to Oppose the Motion expired on March 26, 2012.
- 2 -
V5.1540
c.5

lOr
';:1
'" 08
,,'(l"'"

c3'" q"
o
..... (1,)0
t::::.,

zg

0
3
AFFIRMATION
2 (Pursuant to NRS 239B.030)
3 The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, Request for
4 Submission, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of
5 any person.
6 Dated this 30
th
day of March, 2012.
7
8
9 By:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(702) 382-1500
. Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Jon
Caryn Sternlicht
- 3 -
V5.1541
cJ

d

'" 0:5
c:d .....

"'00 0
<!J"""d U"l
'" '"' .....
"P2 N
"8

...
t::--

2:36

0
V)
;3-
th
day of March, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Request
3 for Submission, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin
PO Box 60952,
Reno, NV, 89506
Attorney for Plaintiff, In Pro Per
P.O. Box 907
Defendant for Crisis I ntervention Services
lsi CeCilia M. Schleicher
An Employee of
- 4 -
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
03-30-2012:16:59:17
04-02-2012:10:48:28
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
RequestforSubmission
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1542
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-03-2012:00:13:08
04-03-2012:08:35:59
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1543
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-03-2012:00:19:43
04-03-2012:08:40:08
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1544

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

F I L E D
Electronically
04-03-2012:12:13:08AM
JoeyOrdunaHastings
Document Code: ClerkoftheCourt
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Transaction#2863860
NV BAR No: 947
!" B"# $%9&'
Reno, NV (9&%$
)ele: 77&*(*(++(
,a-: 949*$$7*74%'
/n 01o 0e1
/N )2E 3EC"ND 45D/C/A6 D/3)R/C) C"5R)
/N AND ,"R )2E C"5N)7 ", 8A32"E
ZAC2 C"5926/N: A
A
!lainti;;. A
<s. A
863 em0lo>ee:
De;endants.
?")/"N )" A6)ER "R A?END "RDER "; ?a1ch +
th
, '%+'
Zach Coughlin, 0lainti;;, su@mits this motion on his oBn @ehal;. NRC! 4CgA: D CgA Retu1n.
)he 0e1son se1<ing the 01ocess shall maEe 01oo; o; se1<ice the1eo; to the cou1t 01om0tl> and in an>
e<ent Bithin the time du1ing Bhich the 0e1son se1<ed must 1es0ond to the 01ocess. !1oo; o; se1<ice
- +F9 -
?")/"N )" A6)ER "R A?END "RDER DEN7/N9 "; ?a1ch +, '%+'
V5.1545
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
shall @e as ;olloBs: C+A /; se1<ed @> the she1i;; o1 de0ut>, the a;;ida<it o1 ce1ti;icate o; such she1i;; o1
de0ut>: o1, C'A /; @> an> othe1 0e1son, the a;;ida<it the1eo;: o1 CA /n case o; 0u@lication, the a;;ida<it
o; the 0u@lishe1, ;o1eman o1 01inci0al cle1E, o1 othe1 em0lo>ee ha<ing EnoBledge the1eo;, shoBing
the same, and an a;;ida<it o; a de0osit o; a co0> o; the summons in the 0ost o;;ice, i; the same shall
ha<e @een de0osited: o1, C4A )he B1itten admission o; the de;endant. /n case o; se1<ice othe1Bise than
@> 0u@lication, the certificate or affidavit shall state the date, 0lace and manne1 o; se1<ice. ,ailu1e to
maEe 01oo; o; se1<ice shall not a;;ect the <alidit> o; the se1<ice.D NRC! Rule 4CgA clea1l> alloBs ;o1
a Gce1ti;icate o1 a;;ida<itH and the ;o1ms 01o<ided @> this Cou1t itsel; a1e Bhat Bas used, and such
;o1ms do not mention a s0ace ;o1 a nota1> o1 othe1 hallma1Es o; an A;;ida<it. )o hold othe1Bise
g1eatl> ad<antages the silE sheet laB ;i1ms that can a;;o1d to ha<e a nota1> on sta;;. )he ;iling o;
Decem@e1 +%
th
, '%++ in this matte1 01o<es that !aul Elcano, and the1e;o1e 863, Bhe1e a001o01iatel>
se1<ed notice int his matte1, and ;u1the1, )o1<inen Bas 01o<ided a legi@le co0> o; the Com0laint and a
3ummons. Additionall>, an> ;ailu1e to se1<e an> o; the othe1 0a1ties is the ;ault o; the 8ashoe Count>
3he1i;;Is ";;ice, Bhich should 0e1ha0s concent1ate mo1e on lea1ing Bhat G0e1sonall> se1<edH actuall>
means in a legal sense, and less on @1eaEing and ente1ing and e<icting atto1ne>Is act gun 0oint:
htt0:FFBBB.>outu@e.comFBatchJ<KssE%,82,NE7
htt0:FFBBB.>outu@e.comFBatchJ<K=L9'aELsl14
An A00lication ;o1 /,! status Bas ;iled along Bith a 01o0osed Com0laint on 4une '7th, '%++. )he
/,! Bas ;inall> g1anted August (, '%++, and the Com0liant Bas stam0ed Bith a ;iling date o; August
++, '%++ and ente1ed in the DocEet in this matte1 on that date as Bell. +'% da>s ;1om August ++,
'%++ is Decem@e1 9, '%++, Bhich ha00ens to @e the da> that )1a<is 3he1man, o<e1 +( >ea1 old non
0a1t> 1esident o; 8ashoe Count> se1<ed !aul Elcano and 863 Cgi<en Elcano is 863Is 1egiste1ed
+%, '%++.
- 'F9 -
V5.1546
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
,u1the1, it is a clea1 e11o1 o; laB to hold that the case has not @een decided on the me1tis, then
to suggest that it has @ecause a cu1so1> glance o; the G0leadingsH suggest as much. NR3 +(.%+%C'AC@A,
;u1the1 Bould seem to 1equi1e the se1<ice o; some ;iling 1ead> sanctions motions, Bhich Bas not done
he1e, in acco1dance Bith NRC! ++.
)his ?otion is made 0u1suant to the autho1ities discussed @eloB, including NRC! &9CeA and
NRC! &', and DCR+C7A and 8DCR +'C(A and is su00o1ted @> the attached ?emo1andum o; !oints
and Autho1ities, the Decla1ation o; Zacha1> B. Coughlin, Esq., the 0a0e1s and 0leadings on ;ile
he1ein, and an> o1al a1gument this cou1t ma> alloB, as it is @eing 1equested.
)he ?a1ch +, '%+' "1de1 said: G)he1e a1e cu11entl> ;ou1 motions 0ending @e;o1e this Cou1t:
C+A De;endants !aul Elcano CDElcanoDA, )odd )o1<inen CD)o1<inenDA, 4on 3asse1 CD3asse1DA, ?a1c
Ashle CDAshle>DA, =a1en 3a@o CD3a@oDA, =ath> B1ecEen1idge CDB1ecEen1idgeDA, 8ashoe 6ega
3e1<ices CD863DA and Ca1>n 3te1nlichtIs CD3te1nlichtDA motion ;o1 atto1ne>sI ;ees: C'A !lainti Zacha1>
CoughlinIs CD!lainti;;IA motion to set aside the o1de1 ente1ed 4anua1> ++, '%+': C !lainti;;Is motion to
1eta- costs: and C4A !lainti;;Is motion to alte1 o1 amend the Ludgment, % in the alte1nati<e, to issue a
Nunc !1o )unc "1de1.+ /. De;endantsI ?otion ;o1 Atto1ne>sI ,ees /s 91anted. De;endants seeE an
aBa1d o; M+,47.%% in atto1ne>sI ;ees. C?ot. ;o1 ,ees, 4an. %, '%+'A. Because the Cou1t dismissed
!lainti;;Is com0laint ;o1 ;ailu1e to e;;ectuate 01o0e + C1isis /nte1<ention 3e1<ices CDC/3DA o00osed
!lainti;;s motionCsA on the g1ounds that it did not 1ecei<e 01o0e1 se1<ice )o that e-tent, and ;o1 the
1easons set ;o1th in this o1de1, !lainti;;s motions a1e eithe1 denied andFo1 1ende1ed moot as t
De;endant C/3. C
note Cryi i ti!! "ei#$ !ited a a reci%ie#t of the e!ectro#ic ervice "y the Ditrict Co&rt' o....(
- F9 -
V5.1547
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
se1<ice o; 01ocess, the Cou1t did not add1ess the me1its o; !lainti;;Is com0laint in the o1de
ente1ed 4anua1> ++,'%+'. 2oBe<e1, a;te1 1e<ieBing the 1eco1d, including the com0laint ;iled August
++, '%++, i is clea1 that the com0laint Bas @1ought o1 maintained Bithout 1easona@le g1ounds o1 t
ha1ass De;endants. 3ee N.R.3. +(.%+%C'AC@A. !lainti;; ;iled a simila1 @ut much mo1e detailed
com0laint in CV++*%+9&&. Bot com0laints include essentiall> the same De;endants and allege the
same causes o; actio against those De;endants. 2oBe<e1, the com0laint ;iled in the 01esent action
;ails t include a sho1t and 0lain statement o; the claim shoBing that !lainti;; is entitled to 1elie;. 3ee
N.R.C.!. (CaA. /nstead, !lainti;;Is com0laint and the maLo1it> o; his su@sequen 0leadings, include
citations to i11ele<ant case laB, e-tended 01ose and 1am@ling account o; hoB !lainti;;Is li;e seems to
@e s0i1aling out o; cont1ol. !lainti;;, a disg1untled em0lo>ee, @1ought @oth com0laints Bithin da>s o;
each othe1. )he com0laint ;iled in this action Bas @1ought andFo1 maintained to ha1ass De;endants.
Consequentl>, De;enda,nts a1e entitled to atto1ne>sI ;ees. 3ee N.R.3. +(.%+%C'AC@A. )he Cou1t ;inds
that De;endants ha<e satis;ied N.R.C.!. &4CdAC'ACBA as to thei motion ;o1 atto1ne>sI ;ees. C?ot. ;o1
,ees, 4an. %, '%+'A. /n aBa1ding atto1ne> ;ees, the Cou1t has disc1etion to dete1mine Bhat amount i
1easona@le: N/On dete1mining the amount o; ;ees to aBa1d, the cou1t is not limited to one s0eci;ic
a001oach: its anal>sis ma> @egin Bith an> method 1ationall> designed to calculate a 1easona@le
amount, including those @ased on a Ilodesta1I amount o1 a contingenc> ;ee. 8e em0hasiPe that,
Bhiche<e1 method is chosen as a sta1ting 0oint, hoBe<e1, the cou1t must continue its anal>sis @>
conside1ing the 1equested amount in light o; the ;acto1s enume1ated @> this cou1t in B1unPell <.
9olden 9ate National BanE . .. Nthe ad<ocateIsO 01o;essional qualities, the natu1e o; the litigation, the
Bo1E 0e1;o1med, and the 1esult. /n this manne1, Bhiche<e1 method the cou1t ultimatel> uses, the 1esult
Bill 01o<e 1easona@le as long as the cou1t 01o<ides su;;icient 1easoning and ;indings in su00o1t o; its
ultimate dete1mination. 3huette <. BeaPe1 2omes 2oldings Co10., +'+ Ne<. (7, ($4*($&, +'4 !.d
- 4F9 -
V5.1548
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
&%, &4(*&4 C'%%&A Cinte1nal citations omittedA. )he Cou1t has ca1e;ull> Beighed the B1unPell ;acto1s
@ased u0on a lodesta1 anal>si and ;inds that an aBa1d o; M+,47.%% in atto1ne>sI ;ees is 1easona@le.
3ee 3huette, +'+ i Ne<. at ($4*($&. Acco1dingl>, De;endantsI motion ;o1 atto1ne>sI ;ees is g1anted. //.
!lainti;;Is ?otion to 3et Aside the "1de1 Ente1ed 4anua1> ++, '%+' / Denied. )he e<idence ad<anced
@> !lainti;; does not meet the standa1d ;o1 setting aside % <acating the Cou1tIs dismissal o1de1 ente1ed
4anua1> ++,'%+'. 3ee N.R.C.!. $%. Essentiall>, !lainti;; is seeEing 1econside1ation o; the dismissal
o1de1. !lainti;; ha not demonst1ated that the o1de1 Bas clea1l> e11oneous. ?ason1> and )ile
Cont1acto1. AssIn o;3. Ne<. <. 4olle>, 51ga Q 8i1th, 6td., ++ Ne<. 77,74+,94+ !.'d 4($, 4(9
C+997A. !lainti;;Is com0laint Bas 1ecei<ed on 4une '7, '%++ and ;iled on August ++, '%++. !u1suant to
N.R.C.!. 4CiA !lainti;; had +'% da>s, until Decem@e1 9, '%++, to se1<e th summons and com0laint on
De;endants. )he1e;o1e, the Cou1t had to dete1mine Bhethe !lainti;; se1<ed De;endants Elcano,
)o1<inen, 3asse1, Ashle>, 3a@o, B1ecEen1idge, 86 and C/3 Bithin the mandated time 0e1iod. )he
Cou1t ;ound that !lainti;; had not timel> se1<ed De;endants. 2oBe<e1, @ecaus !lainti;; su@mitted an
a00lication ;o1 in ;o1ma 0au0e1is status, the one*hund1ed and tBent C+'%A da>s @egan to 1un on
August ++,'%++. "n "cto@e1 '7, '%++, !lainti;; attem0ted to se1<e De;endant Elcano @> lea<ing
01ocess unde1 a mat on De;endant ElcanoIs ;1ont 0o1ch. Although timel>, !lainti;;I attem0ted se1<ice
is insu;;icient. 6ea<ing 01ocess unde1 someoneIs mat is not an a001o<e method o; se1<ice o; 01ocess.
3ee N.R.C.!. 4CdAC$A. "n "cto@e1 '7, '%++, !lainti;; attem0ted to se1<e De;endant )o1<inen Bith
thi1t>*;i< C&A 0ages Bo1th o; documents 1elating to the instant case. N.R.C.!. 4CdA 01o<ides: )he
summons and com0laint shall @e se1<ed togethe1. )he 0lainti;; shall ;u1nish the 0e1son maEing
se1<ice Bith such co0ies as a1e necessa1>. 3e1<ice shall @e made @> deli<e1ing a co0> o; the summons
attached to a co0> o; the com0laint ... !1ocess Bas insu;;icient since the Dco0>D o; the summons and
the com0laint Be1 illegi@le.' As a 1esult, !lainti;; ;ailed to e;;ectuate 01o0e1 01ocess on De;endant
- &F9 -
V5.1549
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
)o1<ine and the com0laint against him is dismissed 0u1suant to N.R.C.!. +'C@ACA. "n No<em@e1
+$, '%++, !lainti;; attem0ted to se1<e De;endant 3a@o Bith summons. "nce again, !lainti;; ;ailed to
e;;ectuate 01o0e1 01ocess on De;endant 3a@o @ ;ailing to se1<e he1 Bith a co0> o; the summons and
com0laint. 3ee N.R.C.!. Acco1dingl>, the com0laint against he1 is dismissed 0u1suant to N.R.C.!.
+'C@ACA. "n No<em@e1 +&, '%++, !lainti;; attem0ted to se1<e De;endant B1ecEen1idge @ se1<ing
eight>*nine C(9A 0ages Bo1th o; documents, some 1elated to the 01esent laBsuit and othe1s 1elated to
CV++*%+9&&. Although a co0> o; the summons Bas attached to th com0laint, once again, the
com0laint Bas illegi@le. As a 1esult, !lainti;; ;ailed to e;;ectuat 01o0e1 01ocess on De;endant
B1ecEen1idge @> ;ailing to se1<e he1 Bith a Dco0>D o; th com0laint. 3ee N.R.C.!. 4CdA. )he com0laint
against De;endant B1ecEen1idge is dismisse 0u1suant to N.R.C.!. +'C@ACA. !lainti;; made no attem0t
to se1<e De;endants 3asse1 and Ashle> Bith a co0> o; th summons and com0laint @> Decem@e1 9,
'%++. !lainti;; did not shoB good cause ;o1 hi ;ailu1e to se1<e De;endants 3asse1 and Ashle>. Because
!lainti;; ;ailed to se1<e @oth De;endants Bithin one*hund1ed and tBent> C+'%A da>s a;te1 ;iling the
com0laint, !lainti;;I com0laint against De;endants 3asse1 and Ashle> a1e dismissed. 3ee N.R.C.!.4CiA.
"n Decem@e1 9,'%++, !lainti;; attem0ted to se1<e De;endant 863 <ia its 1egiste1ed agent, De;endant
Elcano. Although timel>, !lainti;; ;ailed to com0l> Bith N.R.C.!. 4CgA @ not ;iling an a;;ida<it Bith
the Cou1t to e<idence 01o0e1 se1<ice o; 01ocess. Acco1dingl>, th com0laint against 863 is dismissed.
!lainti;;Is motion to set aside the o1de1 ente1ed 4anua1> ++,'%+' is denied. ///. !lainti;;Is ?otion to
Reta- Costs /s ?oot. ' )he Ne<ada 3u01eme Cou1t has held that notice o; a litigation is not a
su@stitute ;o1 01o0e1 se1<ice % 01ocess. C.2.A. Ventu1e <. 9.9. 8allace Consulting Enginee1s, /nc.,
+%$ Ne<. (+, (4, 794 !.'d 7%7, 7% R+99%A. )he com0laint against C/3 is also dismissed 0u1suant to
N.R.C.!. +'C@ACA ;o1 ;ailing to se1<e a Dco0>D % / the summons and com0laint. )he Cou1t g1anted
De;endantsI motion to dismiss on 4anua1> ++, '%+'.4 C"1., 4an. ++, '%+'A. De;endants ;iled a notice o;
- $F9 -
V5.1550
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
ent1> o; o1de1 on 4anua1> +', '%+'. De;endant ;iled thei1 <e1i;ied memo1andum o; costs on 4anua1>
', '%+'. De;endants had ;i<e C&A da>s a;te1 the ent1> o; Ludgment to ;ile a <e1i;ie memo1andum o;
costs. 3ee N.R.3. +(.++%C+A. De;endants ;ailed to ;ile thei1 memo1andu o; costs Bithin the mandated
time 0e1iod. Acco1dingl>, !lainti;;Is motion to 1eta- costs is moot. /V. !lainti;;Is ?otion to Alte1 o1
Amend the 4udgment, "1 in the Alte1nati<e a ?otion ;o1 Nunc !1o )unc "1de1 is Denied. !lainti;;
;iled a motion to alte1 o1 amend the Ludgment 0u1suant to N.R.C.!. &9, o1 in the alte1nati<e, 1equested
a Nunc !1o )unc "1de1. A motion to alte1 o1 amend the Ludgment shall @e ;iled no late1 than ten C+%A
da> a;te1 se1<ice o; a B1itten notice o; ent1> o; Ludgment. N.R.C.!. &9CeA. )he ten C+%A da> tim limit
;o1 the se1<ice o; a motion to alte1 o1 amend the Ludgment is e-tended @> th1ee da> Bhe1e the notice
o; the ent1> o; Ludgment is se1<ed @> mail. N.R.C.!. $C@A. Ent1> o; Ludgment Bas ;iled on 4anua1> +',
'%+'. !lainti;; had until 4anua1> '&, '%+' to ;ile a motion to alte1 o1 amend the Ludgment. !lainti;;
;iled his motion on ,e@1ua +,'%+'. !lainti;;Is motiR ARntimel> and is, the1e;o1e, denied.H
!lease set aside all the dismissals and 1ecogniPe 01ocess and se1<ice o; 01ocess as
1uling that the 1equi1ements to ;ile a case Bithin 9% da>s o; D1ecei0tD o; the EE"C Right )o 3ue
6ette1 is met 1ega1dless o; such an e-tension, and o1 consolidate these cases, and an> othe1 1elie; this
Cou1ts sees as a001o01iate.
- 7F9 -
V5.1551
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION P&r&a#t to NRS )*+,.-*-
Dated this A01il ', '%+' Cthough / ha<e attem0ted to ;ile this thing nume1ous times
01e<iousl> @ut ha<e had m> ;ilings 1eLected unde1 the most sus0icious o;
ci1cumstances and a00lications o; 8DCR +%A,
FsF Zach Coughlin, signed elect1onicall>
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
!lainti;;
- (F9 -
V5.1552
5
10
15
20
25

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Proof of Service.
!.". Bo- 9%7
Atto1ne> ;o1 )ahoe 8omenIs 3e1<ices CCR/3/3 /N)ERVEN)/"N 3ERV/CE3A 82/C2 /3 N") A
6/!3"N, NE/63"N, C"6E, 3E6)ZER Q 9AR/N
4"3E!2 !. 9AR/N, E3S.
Ne<ada Ba1 No. $$&
32ANN"ND N"RD3)R"?
Ne<ada Ba1 No. ('++
)E6: C7%'A('*+&%% ,A#: C7%'A ('*+&+'
DA)ED )2/3: Dated this A01il ', '%+'
FsF Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
!lainti;;
- 9F9 -
V5.1553
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

F I L E D
Electronically
04-03-2012:12:19:43 AM
Document Code: Clerk of the Court
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV BAR No: 947
!" B"# $%9&'
Reno, NV (9&%$
)ele: 77&*(*(++(
,a-: 949*$$7*74%'
/n 01o 0e1
/N )2E 3EC"ND 45D/C/A6 D/3)R/C) C"5R)
/N AND ,"R )2E C"5N)7 ", 8A32"E
ZAC2 C"5926/N: A
A
!lainti;;. A
<s. A
863 em0lo>ee:
De;endants.
?")/"N )" A6)ER "R A?END "RDER DEN7/N9 ?")/"N )" !R"CEED /N ,"R?A
!A5!ER/3
Zach Coughlin, 0lainti;;, su@mits this motion on his oBn @ehal;. )he unde1signed does not oBn an o;;ice
@uilding that he 1ents out to laB>e1s o1 a laB ;i1m. No@od> seems to 1emem@e1 that the udne1signed Bent "5) ", 2/3
8A7 to ha<e these cases consolidated and that the tBo cases, CV++*%+(9$ and CV++*%+9&& Be1e onl> ;iled @ecause the
- +C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1554

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

unde1signed could not get a 1elia@le indication ;1om the Cou1t as to hoB the ;iling date Bould @e calculated should his
4une '7
th
, '%++ su@mission o; an /,! and 01o0osed Com0laint had @een denied, <is a <is the 9% da>s to ;ile ;o1m D1ecei0tE
o; the EE"C Right to 3ue lette1. 5nde1signed does not ha<e a F+7&,%%% >ea1 sala1> Bith ca1 and 0hone alloBance and
health @ene;its. 863 does not ha<e to 0a> the F%% e;iling ;ees 0e1 atto1ne> each >ea1, >et / do. 7et, / donGt get @ig
checHs ;1om the go<e1nment each >ea1 to hel0 me do it, 863 does, @ut again, 863 has its e;iling ;ees Bai<ed, etc.
Actuall>, R?C 4udge Nash 2olmes 1ecentl> B1ote 3tate Ba1 o; Ne<ada Ba1 Counsel !at1icH =ing to alleged some
unatt1i@uted hea1sa> suggesting that the udne1signed Bas li<ing in his ca1. )his, Bhe1e R?C 4udge 2oBa1d denied an
/,! as Bell. All those ta- 1etu1ns, 01o;its loss statements, ;inancial 0lanne1 audits, and /!" 01os0ecti ma> @e di;;icult to
access gi<en all he di;;e1ent e<ictions, custodial a11ests, seiIu1es o; cell 0hones @> 4udge Nash 2olmes, dest1o>ing o; his
dog @> the R!D, etc. that the unde1signed has ;aced latel>. Being a licensed Ne<ada atto1ne> isnGt an automatic Dtu1n on
the ;aucet mone> 0ou1s outE 01o0osition. ,u1the1, the Chie; 4udge ma> ha<e 1uled on matte1s @e>ond the Ju1sidiction
acco1ded to 1ule on one /,! a00lication, maHing an o1de1 that s0eaHs to AN7 ,5)5RE a00lication.
)his ?otion is made 0u1suant to the autho1ities discussed @eloB, including NRC! &9KeA and
NRC! &', and DCR+K7A and 8DCR +'K(A and is su00o1ted @> the attached ?emo1andum o; !oints
and Autho1ities, the Decla1ation o; Zacha1> B. Coughlin, Esq., the 0a0e1s and 0leadings on ;ile
he1ein, and an> o1al a1gument this cou1t ma> alloB, as it is @eing 1equested.
)his ;ilign is @eign ;iled da>s ea1l> Bith an intent to su00lement it gi<en the con;iusion o<e1
Bhethe1 8DC De0a1tments g1ant litigates additional da> sunde1 NRC! $KeA Bhe1e ;iligns a1e
elctd1onicall> ;iled and se1ed.
+'. %+&. Actions in<ol<ing indigent 0e1sons +. An> 0e1son Bho desi1es to 01osecute o1 de;end a ci<il
action ma>: KaA ,ile an a;;ida<it Bith the cou1t setting ;o1th Bith 0a1ticula1it> ;acts conce1ning the
0e1sonLs income, 01o0e1t> and othe1 1esou1ces Bhich esta@lish that the 0e1son is una@le to 01osecute
- 'C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1555
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

o1 de;end the action @ecause the 0e1son is una@le to 0a> the costs o; so doing: o1 K@A 3u@mit a
statement o1 othe1Bise indicate to the cou1t that the 0e1son is a client o; a 01og1am ;o1 legal aid. '. /;
;o1 legal aid, the cou1t shall o1de1: KaA )he cle1H o; the cou1t: K+A )o alloB the 0e1son to commence o1
de;end the action Bithout costs: and K'A )o ;ile o1 issue an> necessa1> B1it, 01ocess, 0leading o1 0a0e1
Bithout cha1ge. K@A )he she1i;; o1 othe1 a001o01iate 0u@lic o;;ice1 Bithin this 3tate to maHe 0e1sonal
t1ansc1i0tion o; 01oceedings Bould @e hel0;ul to the adJudication o1 a00ellate 1e<ieB o; the case, the
count> in Bhich the action is 0ending @ut at a 1educed 1ate as set @> the count>. 4. /; the 0e1son
01e<ails in the action, the cou1t shall ente1 its o1de1 1equi1ing the losing 0a1t> to 0a> into cou1t Bithin
& da>s the costs Bhich Bould ha<e @een incu11ed @> the 01e<ailing 0a1t>, and those costs must then @e
0aid as 01o<ided @> laB. &. 8he1e the a;;ida<it esta@lishes that the 0e1son is una@le to de;end an
action, the 1unning o; the time Bithin Bhich to a00ea1 and ansBe1 o1 othe1Bise de;end is tolled du1ing
the 0e1iod @etBeen the ;iling o; the a;;ida<it and the 1uling o; the cou1t the1eon. $. An a;;ida<it ;iled
0u1suant to this section, and an> a00lication o1 1equest ;o1 an o1de1 ;iled Bith the a;;ida<it, does not
constitute a gene1al a00ea1ance @e;o1e the cou1t @> the a;;iant o1 gi<e the cou1t 0e1sonal Ju1isdiction
o<e1 the a;;iant. 7. )he o1de1 o; the cou1t to Bhich a00lication is made 0u1suant to this section is not
a00eala@le. (. As used in this section, Dclient o; a 01og1am ;o1 legal aidE means a 0e1son: KaA 8ho is
1e01esented @> an atto1ne> Bho is em0lo>ed @> o1 <oluntee1ing ;o1 a 01og1am ;o1 legal aid o1ganiIed
unde1 the aus0ices o; the 3tate Ba1 o; Ne<ada, a count> o1 local @a1 association, a count> o1 munici0al
- C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1556
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

01og1am ;o1 legal se1<ices o1 othe1 01og1am ;unded @> this 3tate o1 the 5nited 3tates to 01o<ide legal
assistance to indigent 0e1sons: and K@A 8hose eligi@ilit> ;o1 such 1e01esentation is @ased u0on
indigenc>. CRED/)K3A Added @> 6aBs +9$7, 0. +'%9. Amended @> 6aBs +9(9, 0. '%+: 6aBs +99+,
0. 4&&: 6aBs '%%&, c. $9, M +, e;;. "ct. +, '%%&. 2/3)"R/CA6 AND 3)A)5)"R7 N")E3 '%%&
6egislation 6aBs '%%&, c. $9, M +, 1eB1ote the section Bhich 01e<iousl> 1ead: D+. An> 0e1son Bho
desi1es to 01osecute o1 de;end a ci<il action ma> ;ile an a;;ida<it Bith the cou1t setting ;o1th Bith
0a1ticula1it> ;acts conce1ning his income, 01o0e1t> and othe1 1esou1ces Bhich esta@lish that he is
una@le to 01osecute o1 de;end the action @ecause he is una@le to 0a> the costs o; so doing. /; the Judge
is satis;ied that the 0e1son is una@le to 0a> the costs, he shall o1de1: DKaA )he cle1H o; the cou1t: DK+A
)o alloB the 0e1son to commence o1 de;end the action Bithout costs: and DK'A )o ;ile o1 issue an>
necessa1> B1it, 01ocess, 0leading o1 0a0e1 Bithout cha1ge. DK@A )he she1i;; o1 othe1 a001o01iate 0u@lic
o;;ice1 Bithin this 3tate to maHe 0e1sonal se1<ice o; an> necessa1> B1it, 01ocess, 0leading o1 0a0e1
Bithout cha1ge. D'. /; the 0e1son is 1equi1ed to ha<e 01oceedings 1e0o1ted o1 1eco1ded, o1 i; the cou1t
dete1mines that the 1e0o1ting, 1eco1ding o1 t1ansc1i0tion o; 01oceedings Bould @e hel0;ul to the
adJudication o1 a00ellate 1e<ieB o; the case, the cou1t shall o1de1 that the 1e0o1ting, 1eco1ding o1
t1ansc1i0tion @e 0e1;o1med at the e-0ense o; the count> in Bhich the action is 0ending @ut at a
1educed 1ate as set @> the count>. D. /; the 0e1son 01e<ails in the action, the cou1t shall ente1 its o1de1
1equi1ing the losing 0a1t> to 0a> into cou1t Bithin & da>s the costs Bhich Bould ha<e @een incu11ed @>
the 01e<ailing 0a1t>, and those costs must then @e 0aid as 01o<ided @> laB. D4. 8he1e the a;;ida<it
esta@lishes that the 0e1son is una@le to de;end an action, the 1unning o; the time Bithin Bhich to
a00ea1 and ansBe1 o1 othe1Bise de;end is tolled du1ing the 0e1iod @etBeen the ;iling o; the a;;ida<it
and the 1uling o; the cou1t the1eon. D&. An a;;ida<it ;iled 0u1suant to this section, and an> a00lication
o1 1equest ;o1 an o1de1 ;iled Bith the a;;ida<it, does not constitute a gene1al a00ea1ance @e;o1e the
- 4C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1557
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

cou1t @> the a;;iant o1 gi<e the cou1t 0e1sonal Ju1isdiction o<e1 him. D$. )he o1de1 o; the cou1t to
Bhich a00lication is made 0u1suant to this section is not a00eala@le.E '%%9 6egislation )echnical
co11ections Be1e made to con;o1m Bith 6egislati<e Counsel Bu1eau 1e<isions K'%%9A. CR"33
RE,ERENCE3 Dist1ict cou1ts, ;ees ;o1 o;;icial 1e0o1te1, see NR3 .4%. 4usticesG cou1ts, Bai<e1 o;
costs and o;;icial ;ees ;o1 indigent litigants, see NR3 $&.%4%. )e1minating 0a1ental 1ights,
a00ointment o; atto1ne> ;o1 indigent 0a1ents, see NR3 +'(.+%%. 6/BRAR7 RE,ERENCE3 Costs
+'7. 8estlaB =e> Num@e1 3ea1ch: +%'H+'7. C.4.3. Costs MM (7, 9. RE3EARC2 RE,ERENCE3
A6R 6i@1a1> 9( A6R '(4, Constitutionalit> o; 3tatutes !1o<iding ;o1 Re;und o; )a-es /llegall> o1
E11oneousl> E-acted. N")E3 ", DEC/3/"N3 /n gene1al ' A;;ida<it Bu1den o; 01oo; & Due
01ocess +C' ,acto1s to @e conside1ed $ ,1i<olous claims ( ?andamus 4 Validit> + 8ai<e1 o; secu1it>
;o1 costs 7 +C'. Due 01ocess /n dete1mining Bhethe1 an indigent 0a1t> in a contem0t 01oceeding @ased
on non0a>ment o; child su00o1t has a due 01ocess 1ight to a00ointment o; counsel, a;te1 @alancing
each o; the due 01ocess elements against the othe1, the> as a Bhole a1e measu1ed against the
01esum0tion that a 1ight to a00ointed counsel a1ises onl> Bhen the indigent 0a1t> ma> lose his
0e1sonal ;1eedom. Rod1igueI <. Eighth 4udicial Dist. Cou1t e- 1el. Count> o; Cla1H, '%%4, +%' !.d
4+, +'% Ne<. 79(, ce1tio1a1i denied +'& 3.Ct. '9%&, &4& 5.3. +++$, +$' 6.Ed.'d '9(. Constitutional
6aB 4494 +. Validit> Ve-atious*litigant 1est1icti<e o1de1 against 01o0e1*0e1son ci<il litigant, o1de1ing
that litigant Bould not @e alloBed to 01oceed as 01o0e1 0e1son litigant Bith Bai<e1 o; ;ees in an> neB
actions and Bould @e 1equi1ed to o@tain lea<e o; cou1t @e;o1e ;iling an> neB action, Bas
unconstitutionall> o<e1@1oad, gi<en that o1de1 ;ailed to set an> standa1d against Bhich a ;utu1e cou1t*
access dete1mination Bould @e made: o1de1 contained a00a1ent @lanHet 01ohi@ition on ;iling o; an>
neB actions in ;o1ma 0au0e1is, des0ite litigantGs indigence and 1ega1dless o; Bhethe1 the ;utu1e action
in<ol<ed a ;undamental 1ight. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t. o; ?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic 3a;et>, '%%&,
- &C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1558
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

++% !.d %, +'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. /nJunction +(9 B> conditioning Bai<e1 o; ;iling ;ee on
indigents a@ilit> to o@tain ce1ti;icates o; atto1ne>s that indigentsG causes o; actions o1 de;enses had
me1it, statute <iolated equal 01otection gua1antees contained in 3tate and ,ede1al Constitution: statute
could o0e1ate to 01eclude ;iling o; me1ito1ious actions @> indigent 0e1sons as Bell as ;1i<olous
actions. 5.3.C.A. Const.Amend. +4: N.R.3. +'. %+&: Const. A1t. 4, M '+. Ba1nes <. Eighth 4udicial
Dist. Cou1t o; 3tate o; Ne<., /n and ,o1 Cla1H Count>, +9(7, 74( !.'d 4(, +% Ne<. $79.
Constitutional 6aB ''(: Costs +'9 Com0laints Bhich 01isone1s attem0ted to ;ile in dist1ict cou1t
asse1ted causes o; action ;o1 mal01actice against thei1 atto1ne>s in connection Bith thei1 c1iminal
01oceedings, and thus com0laints did not im0licate an> ;undamental 1ight 1ecogniIed @> ,ede1al
Constitution, and inasmuch as com0laints did not im0licate ;undamental 1ight, 01o<ision o; statute
1equi1ing su@mission o; a;;ida<it o; atto1ne> to su00o1t motion to 01oceed in ;o1ma 0au0e1is Bould @e
held constitutional i; classi;ication scheme c1eated @> statute Bas 1ationall> 1elated to ;u1the1ing
legitimate state inte1est. N.R.3. +'.%+&. Ba1nes <. Eighth 4udicial Dist. Cou1t o; 3tate o; Ne<., /n and
,o1 Cla1H Count>, +9(7, 74( !.'d 4(, +% Ne<. $79. Costs +'K$A 81it o; mandamus Bould issue to
com0el dist1ict cou1t to ;ile com0laints and motions to 01oceed in ;o1ma 0au0e1is and to 1e;1ain ;1om
en;o1cing statute conditioning Bai<e1 o; ;iling ;ees on indigentsG a@ilit> to o@tain ce1ti;icates o;
atto1ne>s that indigentsG claims had me1it: statute <iolated equal 01otection gua1antees contained in
3tate and ,ede1al Constitutions. 5.3.C.A. Const.Amend. +4: N.R.3. +'. %+&: Const. A1t. 4, M '+.
Ba1nes <. Eighth 4udicial Dist. Cou1t o; 3tate o; Ne<., /n and ,o1 Cla1H Count>, +9(7, 74( !.'d 4(,
+% Ne<. $79. Constitutional 6aB ''(: Costs +%$: ?andamus + '. /n gene1al 50on 1ecei<ing a
01o0e1*0e1son ci<il com0laint and an a00lication to 01oceed in ;o1ma 0au0e1is, the dist1ict cou1t must
;i1st conside1 the a00licationGs me1its and dete1mine Bhethe1 the accom0an>ing a;;ida<it and an>
additional in<estigation demonst1ate that the a00licant is una@le to 0a> the costs o; 01oceeding Bith
- $C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1559
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the action, and i; the cou1t so ;inds, the cou1t must g1ant the a00licant lea<e to 01oceed Bithout the
0a>ment o; costs, and ;ile the com0laint. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t. o; ?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic
3a;et>, '%%&, ++% !.d %, +'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. Costs +'( A00ointment o; atto1ne> to
1e01esent 0au0e1 is 01o<ided @> statute onl> ;o1 t1ial le<el o; litigation, not ;o1 a00eals. N.R.3. +'.%+&,
su@d. +KaA K'A. Cas0e1 <. 2u@e1, +9$9, 4&$ !.'d 4$, (& Ne<. 474, ce1tio1a1i denied 9% 3.Ct. +'4',
97 5.3. +%+', '& 6.Ed.'d 4'&. A00eal And E11o1 (9K+A . A;;ida<it Cle1H o; dist1ict cou1t Bas
1equi1ed to ;ile a00lication ;o1 lea<e to 01oceed in ;o1ma 0au0e1is that Bas in 01o0e1 ;o1m and Bas
sBo1n to unde1 0enalt> o; 0e1Ju1>, e<en though document Bas entitled Da00licationE 1athe1 than
Da;;ida<it,E as set ;o1th in statute. N.R.3. +'.%+&, su@d. +. 3ulli<an <. Eighth 4udicial Dist. Cou1t /n
and ,o1 Count> o; Cla1H, +99&, 9%4 !.'d +%9, +++ Ne<. +$7. Cle1Hs "; Cou1ts $7 4. ?andamus
Actions o; chie; Judge o; dist1ict cou1t in 1e;using to alloB ;iling o; 01isone1sG 0leadings Be1e not
a00eala@le dete1minations, and g1a<amen o; 0etitions ;o1 B1its o; mandamus Bas that chie; Judge
acted a1@it1a1il> and ca01iciousl> in 1e;using to alloB ;iling o; 0leading, so that 01isone1s Be1e
Bithout 0lain, s0eed> and adequate 1emed> in o1dina1> cou1se o; laB to challenge 1e;usal to ;ile thei1
0leadings, and chie; JudgeGs actions Bould esca0e 1e<ieB i; 0etitions Be1e not ente1tained @> cou1ts,
so that 3u01eme Cou1t Bould e-e1cise its disc1etion and conside1 0etitions ;o1 mandamus on me1its.
Rules A00.!1oc., Rule AK@A: N.R.3. +'.%+&, su@d. 4. Ba1nes <. Eighth 4udicial Dist. Cou1t o; 3tate o;
Ne<., /n and ,o1 Cla1H Count>, +9(7, 74( !.'d 4(, +% Ne<. $79. ?andamus KA: ?andamus + &.
Bu1den o; 01oo; Ve-atious*litigant 1est1icti<e o1de1 against 01o0e1*0e1son ci<il litigant satis;ied
1equi1ement o; containing su@stanti<e ;indings as to ;1i<olous o1 ha1assing natu1e o; litigantGs actions,
though dist1ict cou1t could ha<e made additional su@stanti<e ;indings, Bhe1e dist1ict cou1t s0eci;icall>
;ound that litigant ;iled nume1ous unme1ito1ious and cont1adicto1> documents and documents in
Bhich he me1el> 1easse1ted allegations unde1 changed ca0tions, 1eco1d demonst1ated that litigant
- 7C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1560
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

1e0eatedl> su@mitted me1itless legall> im01o0e1 and cont1adicto1> ;ilings, and litigantGs 1e0eated
attacHs on o00osing counsel and dist1ict Judge demonst1ated 0atte1n o; intent to ha1ass de;endants and
the cou1t. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t. o; ?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic 3a;et>, '%%&, ++% !.d %, +'+
Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. /nJunction '%4 Ve-atious*litigant 1est1icti<e o1de1 against 01o0e1*0e1son
ci<il litigant, o1de1ing that litigant Bould not @e alloBed to 01oceed as 01o0e1 0e1son litigant Bith
Bai<e1 o; ;ees in an> neB actions and Bould @e 1equi1ed to o@tain lea<e o; cou1t @e;o1e ;iling an>
neB action, Bas im01o0e1, Bhe1e it did not contain su@stanti<e ;indings as to ;1i<olous o1 ha1assing
natu1e o; litigantGs actions, though 1eco1d indicated that man> o; litigantGs ;ilings Be1e di;;icult to
unde1stand and o;ten 01ocedu1all> im01o0e1: litigantGs allegations in cu11ent action against 3tate
1elating to his a11est Be1e not Bithout a1gua@le me1it, and a 01elimina1> e<identia1> hea1ing, a;te1
litigant had @een g1anted in ;o1ma 0au0e1is status and com0laint had @een ;iled @ut @e;o1e issuance o;
summonses, could ha<e hel0ed 01e<ent con;usion 1ega1ding the ;ilings. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t.
o; ?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic 3a;et>, '%%&, ++% !.d %, +'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. /nJunction
'%4 Ve-atious*litigant 1est1icti<e o1de1 against 01o0e1*0e1son ci<il litigant did not satis;> 1equi1ement
o; c1eating adequate 1eco1d ;o1 a00ellate 1e<ieB: Bhile o1de1 contained 0a1tial e-0lana* tion, i.e., that
litigant 1e0eatedl>, in that case and othe1s, Basted 3tateGs 1esou1ces Bith me1itless and unintelligi@le
;ilings that did not con;o1m Bith cou1t 1ules, and Bhile o1de1 included tBo e-am0les o; such ;ilings,
o1de1 did not othe1Bise contain list o; ;ilings and 1ulings that led cou1t to im0ose @1oad ;iling
1est1iction, and o1de1 did not su;;icientl> indicate that litigant had 01e<iousl> instituted othe1 suits that
Be1e dete1mined me1itless o1 othe1Bise 1esulted in ad<e1se 1esolution. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t. o;
?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic 3a;et>, '%%&, ++% !.d %, +'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. /nJunction '%4
"nce the 01o0e1*0e1son ci<il 0lainti;;Gs a00lication to 01oceed in ;o1ma 0au0e1is is g1anted and the
com0laint is ;iled, the dist1ict cou1t is ;1ee to 1e<ieB the com0laintGs me1its ;o1 a00a1ent de;ects, and i;
- (C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1561
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the com0laint a00ea1s com0letel> D;1i<olousE on its ;ace, meaning that it a00ea1s to lacH an a1gua@le
@asis eithe1 in laB o1 in ;act, then the cou1t ma> di1ect the cle1H to de;e1 issuing the summonses
0ending the com0letion o; its 1e<ieB, and the cou1t ma> then hold a 01elimina1> e<identia1> hea1ing
Bith the 0lainti;; to dete1mine Bhethe1 the action should @e alloBed to 01oceed, and i; the dist1ict
cou1t dete1mines that the action o1 a s0eci;ic claim is indeed ;1i<olous, the cou1t can dismiss the
action o1 claim. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t. o; ?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic 3a;et>, '%%&, ++% !.d %,
+'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. Costs +'(: Costs +'K+A )he dismissal o; a com0laint as ;1i<olous,
@ased on in;o1mation o@tained in a 01elimina1> e<identia1> hea1ing a;te1 the 01o0e1*0e1son ci<il
0lainti;; has @een g1anted in ;o1ma 0au0e1is status and the com0laint has @een ;iled, @ut @e;o1e
issuance o; summonses, is an e-t1eme action, and i; the com0laint can @e amended to cu1e an>
a00a1ent de;ects, the 0lainti;; should @e 0e1mitted to do so. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t. o; ?oto1
Vehicles and !u@lic 3a;et>, '%%&, ++% !.d %, +'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. Costs +'(: Costs
+'K+A )he initial @u1den o; esta@lishing indigenc> in ci<il 01oceedings 1ests Bith the 0etitione1, Bho
must demonst1ate not that he is enti1el> destitute and Bithout ;unds, @ut that 0a>ments ;o1 counsel
Bould 0lace an undue ha1dshi0 on his a@ilit> to 01o<ide the @asic necessities o; li;e ;o1 himsel; and
his ;amil>. Rod1igueI <. Eighth 4udicial Dist. Cou1t e- 1el. Count> o; Cla1H, '%%4, +%' !.d 4+, +'%
Ne<. 79(, ce1tio1a1i denied +'& 3.Ct. '9%&, &4& 5.3. +++$, +$' 6.Ed.'d '9(. Costs +'(: Costs +'K&A
$. ,acto1s to @e conside1ed )1ial cou1t Bas 1equi1ed to dete1mine Bhethe1 ;o1me1 hus@and Bas
indigent, ;o1 0u10oses o; dete1mining Bhethe1 he Bas entitled to a00ointment o; counsel in contem0t
01oceedings ;o1 non0a>ment o; child su00o1t, and to su00o1t that dete1mination Bith ;indings
1ega1ding his ;inancial status, including an> income de1i<ed ;1om @usiness he Bas aBa1ded in
di<o1ce, his em0lo>ment 01os0ects, and 0otential a@ilit> to 0a>. Rod1igueI <. Eighth 4udicial Dist.
Cou1t e- 1el. Count> o; Cla1H, '%%4, +%' !.d 4+, +'% Ne<. 79(, ce1tio1a1i denied +'& 3.Ct. '9%&, &4&
- 9C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1562
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5.3. +++$, +$' 6.Ed.'d '9(. Child 3u00o1t 49+: Child 3u00o1t 494 8he1e tBo 0eo0le a1e li<ing
togethe1 and ;unctioning as a single economic unit, Bhethe1 ma11ied, 1elated, o1 othe1Bise,
conside1ation o; thei1 com@ined ;inancial assets ma> @e Ba11anted ;o1 the 0u10oses o; dete1mining a
0a1t>Gs indigenc> status in a ci<il 01oceeding. Rod1igueI <. Eighth 4udicial Dist. Cou1t e- 1el. Count>
o; Cla1H, '%%4, +%' !.d 4+, +'% Ne<. 79(, ce1tio1a1i denied +'& 3.Ct. '9%&, &4& 5.3. +++$, +$'
6.Ed.'d '9(. Costs +'( 8hen con;1onted Bith a 0a1t> Bho is Bill;ull> unde1em0lo>ed, es0eciall> ;o1
0u10oses o; a<oiding cou1t*o1de1ed su00o1t 0a>ments, additional inqui1> into Bhethe1 the 0a1t> is
indigent is 1equi1ed: in such case, it is 01udent ;o1 the cou1t to conside1 the em0lo>a@ilit> o; the
non0a>ing 0a1t> and Bhat his a@ilit> to 0a> Bould @e i; em0lo>ment Be1e 0u1sued and o@tained.
Rod1igueI <. Eighth 4udicial Dist. Cou1t e- 1el. Count> o; Cla1H, '%%4, +%' !.d 4+, +'% Ne<. 79(,
ce1tio1a1i denied +'& 3.Ct. '9%&, &4& 5.3. +++$, +$' 6.Ed.'d '9(. Child 3u00o1t $%%: Costs +'(
,acto1s 0a1ticula1l> 1ele<ant to the dete1mination o; Bhethe1 a 0a1t> to a ci<il 01oceeding is indigent
a1e K+A the 0a1t>Gs em0lo>ment status and income, including income ;1om go<e1nment sou1ces such as
social secu1it> and unem0lo>ment @ene;its, K'A the oBne1shi0 o; an> unencum@e1ed assets, including
1eal o1 0e1sonal 01o0e1t> and monies on de0osit, and ;inall>, KA the 0a1t>Gs total inde@tedness and an>
;inancial assistance 1ecei<ed ;1om ;amil> o1 close ;1iends. Rod1igueI <. Eighth 4udicial Dist. Cou1t e-
1el. Count> o; Cla1H, '%%4, +%' !.d 4+, +'% Ne<. 79(, ce1tio1a1i denied +'& 3.Ct. '9%&, &4& 5.3.
+++$, +$' 6.Ed.'d '9(. Costs +'( 7. 8ai<e1 o; secu1it> ;o1 costs Non1esident 0lainti;; Bas not
1equi1ed to 0ost secu1it> ;o1 costs in ci<il action, Bhe1e t1ial cou1t ente1ed in ;o1ma 0au0e1is o1de1
Bhich included language e;;ecti<el> e-cusing secu1it> 1equi1ement, though late1 o1al and B1itten
o1de1s add1essed secu1it> 1equi1ement: o1al o1de1s Be1e ne<e1 1educed to B1iting and the> did not
<acate in ;o1ma 0au0e1is o1de1, and to e-tent that an> B1itten o1de1s add1essed secu1it> 1equi1ement,
the> did not e-01essl> <acate in ;o1ma 0au0e1is o1de1 and no o1de1 Bas ente1ed at a time ea1l> enough
- +%C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1563
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

in 01oceedings to e;;ecti<el> gi<e 0lainti;; an> o00o1tunit> to 1es0ond @> 0osting secu1it>. 4o1dan <.
3tate e- 1el. De0t. o; ?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic 3a;et>, '%%&, ++% !.d %, +'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing
denied. Costs + Neithe1 the statute 0e1mitting a dist1ict cou1t to alloB an indigent 0lainti;; to
commence a ci<il action Bithout costs, no1 an> othe1 statute, clea1l> and mani;estl> 1emo<ed dist1ict
cou1tGs inhe1ent 0oBe1 to Bai<e, u0on ;inding o; indigenc>, statuto1> 1equi1ement that non1esident
0lainti;; 0ost secu1it> ;o1 costs. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t. o; ?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic 3a;et>,
'%%&, ++% !.d %, +'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. Costs +'( (. ,1i<olous claims )he dismissal o; a
com0laint as ;1i<olous, @ased on in;o1mation o@tained in a 01elimina1> e<identia1> hea1ing a;te1 the
01o0e1*0e1son ci<il 0lainti;; has @een g1anted in ;o1ma 0au0e1is status and the com0laint has @een
;iled, @ut @e;o1e issuance o; summonses, is an e-t1eme action, and i; the com0laint can @e amended to
cu1e an> a00a1ent de;ects, the 0lainti;; should @e 0e1mitted to do so. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t. o;
?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic 3a;et>, '%%&, ++% !.d %, +'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. Costs +'(:
Costs +'K+A "nce the 01o0e1*0e1son ci<il 0lainti;;Gs a00lication to 01oceed in ;o1ma 0au0e1is is
g1anted and the com0laint is ;iled, the dist1ict cou1t is ;1ee to 1e<ieB the com0laintGs me1its ;o1
a00a1ent de;ects, and i; the com0laint a00ea1s com0letel> D;1i<olousE on its ;ace, meaning that it
a00ea1s to lacH an a1gua@le @asis eithe1 in laB o1 in ;act, then the cou1t ma> di1ect the cle1H to de;e1
issuing the summonses 0ending the com0letion o; its 1e<ieB, and the cou1t ma> then hold a
01elimina1> e<identia1> hea1ing Bith the 0lainti;; to dete1mine Bhethe1 the action should @e alloBed
to 01oceed, and i; the dist1ict cou1t dete1mines that the action o1 a s0eci;ic claim is indeed ;1i<olous,
the cou1t can dismiss the action o1 claim. 4o1dan <. 3tate e- 1el. De0t. o; ?oto1 Vehicles and !u@lic
3a;et>, '%%&, ++% !.d %, +'+ Ne<. 44, 1ehea1ing denied. Costs +'(: Costs +'K+A N. R. 3. +'.%+&,
NV 3) +'.%+& Cu11ent th1ough the '%%9 7&th Regula1 3ession and the '%+% '$th 30ecial 3ession o;
- ++C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1564
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the Ne<ada 6egislatu1e and technical co11ections 1ecei<ed ;1om the 6egislati<e Counsel Bu1eau
K'%+%A. KCA '%++ )homson Reute1s. No Claim to "1ig. 53 9o<. 8o1Hs. END ", D"C5?EN)
AssGn <. 9a1land /nde0endent 3chool Dist., 5.3.)e-.+9(9, +%9 3.Ct. +4($, 4(9 5.3. 7(', +% 6.Ed.'d
($$, on 1emand (74 ,.'d '4'.
AssGn <. 9a1land /nde0endent 3chool Dist., 5.3.)e-.+9(9, +%9 3.Ct. +4($, 4(9 5.3. 7(', +% 6.Ed.'d
($$, on 1emand (74 ,.'d '4'.
An A00lication ;o1 /,! status Bas ;iled along Bith a 01o0osed Com0laint on 4une '7th, '%++.
)he /,! Bas ;inall> g1anted August (, '%++, and the Com0liant Bas stam0ed Bith a ;iling date o;
August ++, '%++ and ente1ed in the DocHet in this matte1 on that date as Bell. +'% da>s ;1om August
++, '%++ is Decem@e1 9, '%++, Bhich ha00ens to @e the da> that )1a<is 3he1man, o<e1 +( >ea1 old
non 0a1t> 1esident o; 8ashoe Count> se1<ed !aul Elcano and 863 Kgi<en Elcano is 863Gs 1egiste1ed
+%, '%++. ,u1the1, B1ecHen1idge Bas se1<ed @> the 8C3" on ++C+&C++ in CV++*%+(9$ K@ut that
same A;;ida<it o; 3e1<ice, ;iled onl> in CV++*%+(9$ also indicates B1ecHen1idge Bas se1<ed the
3ummons and Com0laint ;o1 CV++*%+9&& as Bell, @ut the 8C3" did not manage to ;ile an A;;ida<it
o; 3e1<ice attesting to that in CV++*%+9&&, so the case against he1 the1e got dismissed. 8hat is
inte1esting is that the 0eo0le Bho Be1e not su@Ject to and "1de1 ;1om the Chie; 4udge, De0a1tment
,ou1, indicating that the> should se1<e 01ocess 0u1suant to an /,! "1de1 Kie, me, and m> 1agtag g1ou0
o; 1andom ;1iends, st1ange1s, etcA manage to do a much, much mo1e tho1ough Jo@ than the g1ou0 o;
- +'C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1565
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

8C3" De0uties Bith 1athe1 nice sala1ies managed to do Kie, the g1ou0 Bho Be1e getting 0aid quite
Bell, Bith a nice !ER3 0lan to @ootA. )o to0 it o;;, =a1en 3a@o Bas se1<ed something ;1om CV++*
%+(9$ Ka 3ummonsN a co0> o; the Com0laintNA its Just that the 8C3" ;iled the A;;ida<it o; 3e1<ice
attesting to that in the wrong case CV++*%+9&& on ++C''C++ Kthe A;;ida<it ;o1 3a@o Bas ;iled in
CV++*%+9&& @ut indicates ?s. 3a@o Bas se1<ed: OO6ocation: 8ashoe 6egal 3e1<ices '99 3 A1lington
A<enue Reno, N7 (9&%+ Date: ++++$C'%++ )ime: ++ :%4A? )he documentKsA se1<ed Be1e:
35??"N3: C"!7 ", CA3E CV++*%+9&& AND C"!7 ", 35??"N3, CA3E CV++*%+(9$OA.
)his Cou1tGs 4anua1> ++, '%++ "1de1 held that: O !lainti;; ;iled a com0laint on 4une '7,'%++.
!u1suant to N.R.C.!. 4KiA, !lainti;; Bould ha<e +'% da>s to se1<e the summons and com0laint on
De;endants o1 until "cto@e1 '&, '%++. !lainti;; ;ailed to se1<e De;endants !aul Elcano KOElcanoOA,
)odd )o1<ine KO)o1<inenOA, 4on 3asse1 KO3asse1OA, ?a1c Ashle> KOAshle>OA, =a1en 3a@o KO3a@oOA,
=ath> B1ecHen1idge KOB1ecHen1idgeOA, 8ashoe 6egal 3e1<ices KO863OA and C1isis /nte1<ention
3e1<ices KOC/3OA Bithin the mandated time 0e1iod. /n addition, !lainti;; ;ailed to ;ile a motion to
enla1ge time ;o1 se1<ice o1 shoB good cause as to Bh> se1<ice Bas not made Bithin the statuto1>
0e1iod. Acco1dingl>, the Cou1t g1ants De;endants Elcano, )o1<inen, 3asse1, Ashle>, 3a@o, 863, C/3
and B1ecHen1idgeGs motionKsA to dismiss Bithout 01eJudice.' ,N ': Although C/3 sought dismissal
Bith 01eJudice, the Cou1t ma> dismiss an action Bithout 01eJudice Bhen se1<ice is untimel>. 3ee
N.R.C.!. 4KiA. /n addition, C/3Gs 1equest ;o1 atto1ne>Gs ;ees and costs is denied at this time @ecause the
Cou1t dismissed this action on 01ocedu1al g1ounds Bithout anal>Iing the me1its o; !lainti;;s case.O
/ donGt @elie<e an> o; the ;actual ;indings in that "1de1 a1e accu1ate, as all o; those
indi<idualsCentities Be1e se1<ed Kma>@e not @> the 8C3", @ut / got )1a<is 3he1man to se1<e 863
and Elcano on Decem@e1 9, '%++, Bhich is not too late conside1ing the Com0laint is ;ile stam0ed
August ++, '%++, and / had 4e1ome ,itIhen1> se1<e )odd )o1<inen Kand attem0t to se1<e 863 and
- +C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1566
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

Elcano @> lea<ing a 1eal nice co0> o; the 3ummons and Com0laint unde1 ElcanoGs home doo1 matA on
"cto@e1 '7th, '%%+ KBhich, again, / do not @elie<e is outside the +'% da>s alloBed unde1 NRC! 4, as
the ;iling o;;ice Bill not issue a 3ummons in a case Bhe1e the /,! is still 0ending...as such, the /,!
onl> @eing g1anted on August ( and the Com0laitn stam0ed in on August ++, '%++....maHes the
,itIhen1> se1<ice on "cto@e1 '7th, '%++ onl> some 77 da>s o1 so into the +'% da> 0e1iod alloBed
unde1 NRC! +'%. ,u1the1, / @elie<e a ca1e;ul 1e<ieB o; the 0leadings Bill 1e<eal a ?otion ;o1
E-tension o; )ime to E;;ectuate 3e1<ice Bas ;iled, as Bas a ?otion to Consolidate these cases on
"cto@e1 &, '%++. !lease set aside the dismissal.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
O!lainti;;PA00ellant Rode1icH C. ?ann ;iled a ci<il action Bithin the
go<e1ning statute o; limitations @ut then did not se1<e 01ocess Bithin +'%
da>s o; ;iling, as 1equi1ed Ka@sent time e-tensionA @> ,ed.R.Ci<.!. 4KmA.
?ann then mo<ed ;o1 an e-tension o; time to se1<e De;endantP A00ellee
Ame1ican Ai1lines, Bas g1anted additional time @> the dist1ict cou1t, and
e;;ected se1<ice Bithin the Judiciall> e-tended time. 8e conside1 K+A Bhethe1
the ;ailu1e to se1<e 01ocess Bithin the initial +'%Pda> 0e1iod causes the
statute o; limitations to 1un again and K'A Bhethe1 the dist1ict cou1t ma>
e-tend the time to se1<e 01ocess, unde1 Rule 4KmA, a;te1 the +'% da>s ha<e
e-0i1ed Bhen the statute o; limitations Bould othe1Bise @a1 the 1e*;iling o;
the suit i; the dist1ict cou1t had declined e-tension o; time and had dismissed
the suit...."n ?a> %, '%%+, ?ann ;iled an amended com0laint and the
dist1ict cou1t issued a summons. "n 4une 4, '%%+, ?ann se1<ed on De;endant
Ame1ican Ai1lines the o1iginal com0laint, the amended com0laint, the
o1iginal summons, and the su@sequent summons. Ame1ican Ai1lines late1
mo<ed to dismiss 0u1suant to ,ed.R.Ci<.!. +'K@AK&A and K@AK$A, alleging
inadequate and untimel> se1<ice o; 01ocess and lacH o; 0e1sonal Ju1isdiction.
)he dist1ict cou1t g1anted the motion and dismissed the case Bith 01eJudice,
a00a1entl> @elie<ing that com0liance Bith the statute o; limitations as
01o<ided @> 4' 5.3.C. M '%%%eP&K;AK+A is linHed to se1<ice o; 01ocess Bithin
the +'%Pda> 0e1iod set out in Rule 4KmA: /n this case, 0lainti;;Gs o1iginal
com0laint Bas timel> ;iled, on the (9th da> o; the Q+%9% 9% da> 0e1iod.
,iling a com0laint gi<es a 0lainti;; +'% da>s to com0lete se1<ice o; 01ocess
acco1ding to ,ed.R.Ci<.!. 4KmA. /n this case 0lainti;; ;ailed to timel> se1<e
and e- 0a1te mo<ed the cou1t ;o1 an e-tension o; time to com0lete se1<ice,
Bhich the cou1t g1anted. 8hile the cou1t has disc1etion Bith 1ega1ds to
se1<ice o; 01ocess, the cou1t does not ha<e the 0oBe1 to alte1 the 9% da>
statute o; limitations. 8ilson <. 91umman "hio Co10., (+& ,.'d '$, '7 K$th
- +4C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1567
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

Ci1.+9(7A. !lainti;;Gs ;ailu1e to ;ile suit against Ame1ican RAi1linesS Bithin the
9% da> 0e1iod mandated @> the ADA 1equi1es the cou1t to dismiss. KEm0hasis
added.A ?ann a00eals. // R+SR'S )he co11ectness o; the dist1ict cou1tGs
dismissal on statute o; limitations g1ounds is a question o; laB 1e<ieBed de
no<o. 3ee 5nde1Bood Cotton Co., /nc. <. 2>undai ?e1ch. ?a1ine KAm.A,
/nc., '(( ,.d 4%&, 4%7 K9th Ci1.'%%'A. )he inte101etation o; a ,ede1al Rule
o; Ci<il !1ocedu1e is also a question o; laB 1e<ieBed de no<o. 3ee 5nited
3tates <. ,oste1, ''7 ,.d +%9$, +%99 K9th Ci1.'%%%A. /// RSR4S )his a00eal
1equi1es 1esolution o; tBo issues. ,i1st, Be add1ess Bhethe1 ?annGs ;ailu1e to
se1<e 01ocess Bithin the initial +'%Pda> 0e1iod 01esc1i@ed @> ,ed.R.Ci<.!.
4KmA caused the statute o; limitations to sta1t to 1un again. 8e conclude that
it did not. "nce a com0laint is ;iled, the statute o; limitations is tolled unless
and until the dist1ict cou1t dismisses the action. 3ee 4 Cha1les A. 81ight and
A1thu1 R. ?ille1, ,ede1al !1actice and !1ocedu1e: Ci<il d M +%& Kd ed.
'%%'A.,N+ ,N+. Neithe1 0a1t> dis0utes that ?ann ;iled his com0laint Bithin
the 9%Pda> statute o; limitations. And, neithe1 0a1t> dis0utes that the statute
o; limitations initiall> is tolled u0on ;iling o; a com0laint. 3ee 3ain <. Cit> o;
Bend, %9 ,.d ++4, ++( K9th Ci1.'%%'A. R&S 3econd, Be add1ess Bhethe1
the dist1ict cou1t had the disc1etion to e-tend the time to se1<e 01ocess e<en
a;te1 the +'%Pda> 0e1iod had e-0i1ed. 8e conclude that it did. ,ed.R.Ci<.!.
4KmA 01o<ides: /; se1<ice o; the summons and com0laint is not made u0on a
de;endant Bithin +'% da>s a;te1 the ;iling o; the com0laint, the cou1t, u0on
motion o1 on its oBn initiati<e a;te1 notice to the 0lainti;;, shall dismiss the
action Bithout 01eJudice as to that de;endant o1 di1ect that se1<ice @e e;;ected
Bithin a s0eci;ied time: 01o<ided that i; the 0lainti;; shoBs good cause ;o1 the
;ailu1e, the cou1t shall e-tend the time ;o1 se1<ice ;o1 an a001o01iate 0e1iod.
,N' !age 4 '4 ,.d +%((, && ,ed.R.3e1<.d +&7, +4 A.D. Cases 4, '&
ND6R ! '4&, % Cal. Dail> "0. 3e1<. '(%$, '%% Dail> 4ou1nal D.A.R. &&7
KCite as: '4 ,.d +%((A ,N'. Rule 4KmA 1e0laced ;o1me1 Rule 4KJA in the
+99 amendments. )he cu11ent 1ule 1equi1es a dist1ict cou1t to g1ant an
e-tension o; time i; good cause is shoBn and 0e1mits the dist1ict cou1t to
g1ant such an e-tension e<en a@sent good cause. 2ende1son <. 5nited 3tates,
&+7 5.3. $&4, $$', ++$ 3.Ct. +$(, +4 6.Ed.'d ((% K+99$A. )his di;;e1s
;1om ;o1me1 Rule 4KJA, Bhich did not 0e1mit e-tensions a@sent good cause.
/d. at $$+P$', ++$ 3.Ct. +$(. "n its ;ace, Rule 4KmA does not tie the hands
o; the dist1ict cou1t a;te1 the +'%Pda> 0e1iod has e-0i1ed. Rathe1, Rule 4KmA
e-0licitl> 0e1mits a dist1ict cou1t to g1ant an e-tension o; time to se1<e the
com0laint a;te1 that +'%Pda> 0e1iod. C;. 2ende1son <. 5nited 3tates, &+7
5.3. $&4, $$+, ++$ 3.Ct. +$(, +4 6.Ed.'d ((% K+99$A Kconcluding that Dthe
+'%Pda> 01o<ision o0e1ates not as an oute1 limit su@Ject to 1eduction, @ut as
an i11educi@le alloBanceEA. )he dist1ict cou1tGs disc1etion is not diminished
Bhen the statute o; limitations Bould @a1 1e*;iling o; the suit i; the dist1ict
cou1t decided to dismiss the case instead o; g1ant an e-tension. )o the
cont1a1>, the ad<iso1> committee notes e-0licitl> contem0late that a dist1ict
cou1t might use Q+%9+ its disc1etion to g1ant an e-tension in that <e1>
situation: DRelie; ma> @e Justi;ied, ;o1 e-am0le, i; the a00lica@le statute o;
- +&C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1568
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

limitations Bould @a1 the 1e*;iled action.E ,ed.R.Ci<.!. 4, Ad<iso1>
Committee Note to +99 Amendments, 3u@di<ision KmA. 3ee also De )ie <.
"1ange Ct>., +&' ,.d ++%9, ++++ n. & K9th Ci1.+99(A K1ecogniIing that an
e-tension ma> @e Ba11anted i; the statute o; limitations has 1unA. R$S 2e1e,
e<en though the dist1ict cou1t 01o0e1l> used its disc1etion to e-tend the time
;o1 ?ann to se1<e 01ocess, the dist1ict cou1t late1 dismissed the action a;te1
concluding the statute o; limitations had not @een satis;ied. As the1e Bas no
othe1 a00a1ent @asis, Be must assume that the dist1ict cou1t @elie<ed that the
statute o; limitations @egan to 1un u0on ?annGs ;ailu1e to se1<e 01ocess
Bithin the +'%Pda> 0e1iod.,N But the ;ailu1e to se1<e 01ocess Bithin Rule
4KmAGs +'%Pda> 0e1iod does not a;;ect the tolling o; the statute o; limitations
unless the ;ailu1e to se1<e 01ocess causes the dist1ict cou1t to dismiss the
action. C;. 2ende1son, &+7 5.3. at $&$, ++$ 3.Ct. +$( Kholding that once a
;ede1al suit is commenced in com0liance Bith the go<e1ning statute o;
limitations, Dthe manne1 and timing o; se1<ing 01ocess a1e gene1all>
nonJu1isdictional matte1s o; T01ocedu1eL EA: !a1daIi <. Cullman ?ed. Ct1.,
(9$ ,.'d ++, ++&P+$ K++th Ci1.+99%A Kholding that se1<ice o; 01ocess
1equi1ements a1e not @ound u0 Bith the statute o; limitations unde1 4' 5.3.C.
M '%%%eP&K;AK+AA. )he dist1ict cou1t did not dismiss ?annGs action @ut 1athe1
e-tended the +'% da> se1<ice o; 01ocess 0e1iod, a decision 0e1;ectl> Bithin its
disc1etion. ,N4 ,N. )he dist1ict cou1tGs 1eliance on 8ilson <. 91umman
"hio Co10., (+& ,.'d '$ K$th Ci1.+9(7A, is mis0laced in 0a1t @ecause that
case conce1ned the 1e ;iling o; a com0laint a;te1 it had al1ead> @een dismissed
@> the dist1ict cou1t ;o1 ;ailu1e to 01osecute. ,N4. 8e 1eJect De;endantGs
claims that the g1ant o; a %Pda> e-tension Bas 01eJudicial. 2a<ing
concluded that the dist1ict cou1tGs dismissal o; this case Bas e11o1, Be 1e<e1se
and 1emand ;o1 ;u1the1 01oceedings.O ?ann <. Ame1ican Ai1lines, '4 ,.d
+%((, && ,ed.R.3e1<.d +&7, +4 A.D. Cases 4, '& ND6R ! '4&, % Cal.
Dail> "0. 3e1<. '(%$, '%% Dail> 4ou1nal D.A.R. &&7K C.A.9
K8ash.A,'%%A.
Extension for Good Case Good !ase for an extension of ti"e to ser#e $ro!ess %as &een s%o'n
3ome atto1ne>Gs 0leadings looH 1eall> good, ;o1matting Bise, Just @eauti;ul, hoBe<e1, the>
donGt 1eall> shed an> light on the legal issues in<ol<e o1 0ut ;o1th an ta1geted legal 1esea1ch. ()* A".
+r. )d Pro!ess , --. s$ea/s to t%e re0e#ant isses %ere. T%e ndersi1ned see/s an 2ad#isor3
o$inion2 or ad#an!e indi!ation fro" t%is Cort t%at4 s%o0d t%is Motion for Extension of Ti"e
to Effe!tate Ser#i!e of Pro!ess &e 1ranted4 'o0d t%is !ort r0e t%e EEOC5s 67 da3 0i"itations
$eriod to fi0e fro" 2re!ei$t2 of Ri1%t To Se Letter &ar t%is 0iti1ation 8or an3 !ase of a!tion
2refi0ed2 in 0i1%t of t%e dis"issa0 'it%ot $re9di!e: de to a ne' fi0in1 date &ein1 otside t%e
- +$C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1569
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

67 da3 0i"itations $eriod for &rin1in1 sit; T%e ndersi1ned as/s t%is no' in t%e interest of
9di!ia0 e!ono"3 and to 0essen an3 &rden $on t%e defendants in!ident to defendin1 a!tions
not &ased in fa!t or 0a' a 0a NRCP --.
8he1e the 0lainti;;Gs counsel had no notice o; the de;ecti<e se1<ice and
negligence o; the 01ocess se1<e1 Bas in<ol<ed.R+S U Bhe1e the 0lainti;;Gs counsel Bas
misled in ce1tain 1es0ects and he e-e1cised diligence in attem0ting se1<ice.R'S U
Bhe1e the 0lainti;;Gs e11o1 in maHing se1<ice o; 01ocess u0on the B1ong 0a1t> Bas
deemed to @e 1easona@le.RS U Bhe1e the 0lainti;; Bas lulled into @elie<ing that
01o0e1 se1<ice had @een accom0lished.R 4S U Bhe1e the 0lainti;; Bas 01o se and had a
good*;aith @elie; that he had made 01o0e1 se1<ice.R &S U Bhe1e the de;endant e<aded
se1<ice.R$S U @> ci1cumstances @e>ond the cont1ol o; the 0lainti;;Gs counsel due to the
counselGs se<e1e illness and e-tensi<e caseload.<=> ? '%ere a !ort !0er/ fai0ed to
isse in for"a $a$eris $0aintiff5s s""ons and to a$$oint a U.S. "ars%a0 to
ser#e $ro!ess.<@> ? &3 re0ian!e on t%e U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e4<6> as '%ere t%e
U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e fai0ed to !o"$0ete ser#i!e '%en reAired for a $0aintiff
$ro!eedin1 in for"a $a$eris after &ein1 s$$0ied 'it% t%e ne!essar3 identif3in1
infor"ation.<-7> ? &3 extraordinar3 diffi!0t3 t%at t%e $0aintiffs ex$erien!ed in
0o!atin1 defendant des$ite di0i1ent efforts.<--> ? in $ro$er !ir!"stan!es4 &3
sett0e"ent ne1otiations.R+'S U @> a 0lainti;;Gs 1easona@le @elie; that he Bas unde1 a
legal const1aint not to se1<e his com0laint Bhile the de;endant Bas in @anH1u0tc>
01oceedings and Bhile the case Bas not on the dist1ict cou1tGs acti<e caseload.R+S
C5?56A)/VE 35!!6E?EN) Cases: Em0lo>ee te1minated ;1om he1 0osition as a
01ison*@ased in;ectious diseases counselo1 shoBed good cause ;o1 he1 ;ailu1e to se1<e
a medical se1<ices com0an> Bithin the +'%*da> 0e1iod, and Bas thus entitled to a time
e-tension: counsel a@andoned his 1e01esentation o; the em0lo>ee <e1> ea1l> on in the
01osecution o; he1 com0laint, and did not communicate Bith he1, o00osing counsel o1
the cou1t ;o1 almost a >ea1 @e;o1e su@stituted counsel Bas o@tained, and the
em0lo>eeGs e;;o1ts to 0u1sue the 01osecution o; he1 case Be1e diligent and 1easona@le.
Cunningham <. NeB 4e1se>, '% ,.R.D. 9+, $' ,ed. R. 3e1<. d +%% KD.N.4. '%%&A.
)he1e Bas Ogood causeO ;o1 01o se 01isone1Gs ;ailu1e to se1<e co11ections o;;ice1 Bith
o1iginal com0laint @e;o1e the +'%*da> se1<ice deadline Bhe1e dela>s @> the ?a1shals
in com0leting se1<ice, Bhethe1 due to di;;iculties in dete1mining the a001o01iate
add1ess ;o1 o;;ice1, o1 sim0l> @ecause o; the high <olume o; 1equests, did not e<idence
dilato1> @eha<io1 on the 0a1t o; 01isone1, Bho Bas 01oceeding in ;o1ma 0au0e1is,
0a1ticula1l> since o;;ice1 1ecei<ed actual notice o; suit. 3idne> <. 8ilson, ''( ,.R.D.
&+7 K3.D. N.7. '%%&A. !lainti;; demonst1ated good cause ;o1 ;ailing to timel> se1<e
0h>sician in medical mal01actice case, Bhe1e 0lainti;;Gs atto1ne> immediatel> sought
to ha<e 0h>sician se1<ed a;te1 associated local counsel ;ailed to initiate se1<ice,
atto1ne> had not lea1ned o; the ;ailu1e until th1ee da>s @e;o1e deadline ;o1 se1<ice, and
se1<ice Bas onl> one da> late. ,oss <. 8illiams, 99 3o. 'd 7( K?iss. '%%(A. REND
", 35!!6E?EN)S R,N+S 3mith <. 3ent1> /ns., $74 ,. 3u00. +4&9, 9 ,ed. R. 3e1<.
- +7C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1570
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

d +'(( KN.D. 9a. +9(7A. R,N'S Baden <. C1aig*2allum, /nc., ++& ,.R.D. &(' KD.
?inn. +9(7A. R,NS 8oods <. !a1ten1eede1ei ?.3. 7anHee Cli00e1, ++' ,.R.D. ++&, $
,ed. R. 3e1<. d +&% KD. ?ass. +9($A. R,N4S DitHo; <. "Bens*/llinois, /nc., ++4
,.R.D. +%4 KE.D. ?ich. +9(7A. R,N&S RanHel <. )oBn o; 91een@u1gh, ++7 ,.R.D. &%,
9 ,ed. R. 3e1<. d +9% K3.D. N.7. +9(7A. As to autho1it> that 01o se status alone is not
good cause, see M M ++$, ++7. R,N$S RuiI Va1ela <. 3ancheI VeleI, (+4 ,.'d ('+, 7
,ed. R. 3e1<. d $'$ K+st Ci1. +9(7A. )alHing a 01ocess se1<e1 out o; lea<ing 0a0e1s
cannot e-actl> @e called a<oiding se1<ice, @ut it is not e-actl> coo0e1ati<e eithe1:
consequentl>, such an occu11ence might @e good cause ;o1 a ;ailu1e to e;;ect timel>
se1<ice. 8illiams*9uice <. Boa1d o; Educ. o; Cit> o; Chicago, 4& ,.d +$+, 97 Ed.
6aB Re0. ++, % ,ed. R. 3e1<. d (4( K7th Ci1. +99&A. R,N7S 6e?aste1 <. Cit> o;
8innemucca, ++ ,.R.D. 7, $ ,ed. R. 3e1<. d 44' KD. Ne<. +9($A. <FN@> *3rd #.
Stone4 6B F.Cd )-=4 C( Fed. R. Ser#. Cd -664 -66( FED A$$. 7)=@P 8(t% Cir.
-66(:. <FN6> +a!/son #. Fo0e34 -.( F.R.D. .B.4 6B Ed. La' Re$. )6( 8E.D. N.Y.
-66B: 8%o0din1 t%at '%ere t%e fai0re to "a/e ti"e03 ser#i!e 'as so0e03 fa0t of
t%e U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e4 t%e $0aintiff s%o0d not &e $ena0iDed for it:. A $ro se
$0aintiff s%o0d not &e $ena0iDed for re0ian!e on a United States "ars%a0 to effe!t
$ersona0 ser#i!e. Terre00 #. *re'er4 6C. F.)d -7-. 86t% Cir. -66-:. Good !ase is
s%o'n '%en t%e de0a3 in ser#i!e is de to a &a!/0o1 at t%e "ars%a05s offi!e. U.S. #.
+a!/ CoDDa4 In!.4 -7( F.R.D. )(B4 ) Fed. R. Ser#. Cd -7=B 8S.D. N.Y. -6@.:.
<FN-7> Antone00i #. S%ea%an4 @- F.Cd -B)) 8=t% Cir. -66(: 8statin1 s!% a fai0re
is ato"ati!a003 1ood !ase reAirin1 extension of ti"e nder Fed. R. Ci#.P.
B8"::E Fa0/er #. S"ner4 -B F.Cd -B-.4 )@ Fed. R. Ser#. Cd 6-( 86t% Cir. -66B:.
F%ere t%e $0aintiff $ro!eedin1 in for"a $a$eris re$eated03 reAested t%e U.S.
Mars%a0 to ser#e t%e defendant4 &t %e fai0ed to do so4 1ood !ase ex!sed %er
fai0re to $ersona003 ser#e t%e U.S. Attorne3. D"a1in #. Se!retar3 of Hea0t%
and H"an Ser#i!es4 )@ F.Cd -)-@4 )6 Fed. R. Ser#. Cd =C= 8D.C. Cir. -66B:. As
to t%e reAire"ent t%at t%e U.S. Mars%a0s Ser#i!e ser#e $ro!ess in !ertain
!ir!"stan!es4 see , , -)=4 -)6. R,N++S Coleman <. C1an@e11> Ba>e Rental Agenc>,
'%' ,.R.D. +%$, &% ,ed. R. 3e1<. d ($% KN.D. N.7. '%%+A. 9ood cause is shoBn
Bhe1e a 0lainti;; attem0ted se1<ice on a de;endant th1ough its autho1iIed agent, then
lea1ned that the de;endant had sto00ed su@sc1i@ing to that se1<ice, then attem0ted to
e;;ect se1<ice at the @anH @1anch Bhe1e the 0lainti;; o0ened the account in dis0ute
Bhen the de;endant and the @anH Be1e @oth 0a1t o; a com0le- co10o1ate st1uctu1e.
2aBtho1ne <. Citico10 Data 3>stems, /nc., '+9 ,.R.D. 47 KE.D. N.7. '%%A. R,N+'S
BanH o; Ca0e Ve1de <. B1onson, +$7 ,.R.D. 7%, $ ,ed. R. 3e1<. d $%& K3.D. N.7.
+99$A. R,N+S De )ie <. "1ange Count>, +&' ,.d ++%9, 4+ ,ed. R. 3e1<. d &'& K9th
Ci1. +99(A.O
)he a@o<e 0assage is ;1om: $'B Am. 4u1. 'd !1ocess M ++&.
N.R.C.!. 4KiA. /n addition, C/3Gs 1equest ;o1 atto1ne>Gs ;ees and costs is denied at this time
@ecause the Cou1t dismissed this action on 01ocedu1al g1ounds Bithout anal>Iing the me1its o;
!lainti;;s case. 3o said this Cou1t. /t seemed 9a1in asHed ;o1 sanctiosn too...@oth o; Bhich amount
- +(C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1571
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

to mo1e than a Os0ecial a00ea1anceO and the1e;o1e these 0a1ties ha<e Bai<ed an> se1<ice o; 01ocess
1equi1ement and a1e noB in this litigation. And a de;ault is a001o01iate to ente1 as the> ha<e ;ailed
to ;ile and AnsBe1 to the Com0laint Bithin '% da>s o; se1<ice.
,ailu1e to maHe legi@le co0> o; com0laint ;o1 se1<ice /n the ;olloBing case the cou1t ;ound
that the ;ailu1e o; cou1t 0e1sonnel to maHe a legi@le co0> o; the com0laint ;o1 se1<ice on a de;endant
su00o1ted its a00a1ent holding that the1e Bas good cause unde1 Rule 4KJA o; the ,ede1al Rules o; Ci<il
!1ocedu1e ;o1 a 0lainti;;Gs ;ailu1e to timel> se1<e 01ocess. 8he1e a com0laint, alleging em0lo>ment
disc1imination, 0hotoco0ied @> cou1t 0e1sonnel ;o1 se1<ice on an em0lo>e1 on @ehal; o; a ;o1me1
em0lo>ee 01oceeding 01o se and in ;o1ma 0au0e1is, 01o<ed too ;aint ;o1 the em0lo>e1 to 1ead, the
cou1t in ?c=enIie < Amt1aH ? o; E K+99%, 3D N7A 777 , 3u00 +++9, ;ound that the ;ailu1e o; cou1t
0e1sonnel to maHe a legi@le co0> o; the com0laint ;o1 se1<ice su00o1ted its im0licit holding that the1e
Bas good cause unde1 Rule 4KJA o; the ,ede1al Rules o; Ci<il !1ocedu1e ;o1 the 0lainti;;Gs ;ailu1e to
timel> se1<e a legi@le co0> o; the com0laint. )he cou1t stated that, although the a1gument that se1<ice
should not @e deemed e;;ecti<e unless the com0laint is legi@le is o1dina1il> a st1ong one, the1e Bas
little Justi;ication ;o1 dismissing the 0lainti;;Gs com0laint on that g1ound, @ecause the de;ect in se1<ice
Bas att1i@uta@le to cou1t 0e1sonnel. )he cou1t also noted that the em0lo>e1, Bho had ad<ised the
em0lo>ee o; the illegi@ilit> o; the com0laint @ut had ;ailed to so ad<ise the 5nited 3tates ma1shal o1
the cou1t, notBithstanding the em0lo>e1Gs HnoBledge that the em0lo>ee Bas 01oceeding 01o se, Bas
0a1tl> to @lame ;o1 the dela> in se1<ice.
/t sim0l> Bould not @e all that ;ai1 to sa> NRC! 4KiA gi<e the !lainti;; +'% da>s to e;;ectuate
se1<ice o; 01ocess Bhen the Com0laint Bas not e<en gi<en a ;iling date in the docHet ;o1 CV++*%+(9$
until August ++ KDe0a1tment 4 tooH ;1om the su@mission o; the /,! on 4ul> '7th, '%++ until August 9,
'%++ to issue the "1de1 91anting /,!, and this occu11ed du1ing a 0e1iod Bhe1e the 8DC Bas
- +9C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1572
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

changing the /,! ;o1m it maHes a<aila@le to the 0u@lic and the ;iling o;;ice actuall> 1e;used to acce0t
an ea1lie1 attem0ted su@mission o; the !etition ;o1 /,! and 01o0osed Com0liant, citing 1ationale @oth
<ague and cont1adicto1> and 1elated to 8DCR +%. )his Cou1t 4anua1> ++th, '%+' "1de1 indicates
that the e-0i1ation o; +'% da>s K;1om the 4une '7th date Bhen the Com0laint Bas stam0ed O1ecei<edO
@> the ;iling o;;ice as the 01o0osed 0leading called ;o1 unde1 NR3 +'.%+&A Bould @e "cto@e1 '&th,
'%++.
Action o; cou1t o1 cle1H o; cou1t as constituting o1 su00o1ting ;inding o; Ogood cause,O unde1 1ule 4KJA
o; ,ede1al Rules o; Ci<il !1ocedu1e, ;o1 ;ailu1e to timel> se1<e 01ocess u0on de;endant. +%( A.6.R.
,ed. ($' K"1iginall> 0u@lished in +99'A.
E;;o1ts o; 0lainti;; o1 0lainti;;Gs agent ;o1 se1<ice o; 01ocess as constituting o1 su00o1ting
;inding o; Ogood cause,O unde1 Rule 4KJA o; ,ede1al Rules o; Ci<il !1ocedu1e, ;o1 ;ailu1e to timel>
se1<e 01ocess u0on de;endant, +++ A.6.R. ,ed. &%
NRC! 4KiA: OKiA 3ummons: )ime 6imit ;o1 3e1<ice. /; a se1<ice o; the summons and com0laint is not
made u0on a de;endant Bithin +'% da>s a;te1 the ;iling o; the com0laint, the action shall @e dismissed
as to that de;endant Bithout 01eJudice u0on the cou1tLs oBn initiati<e Bith notice to such 0a1t> o1
u0on motion, unless the 0a1t> on Bhose @ehal; such se1<ice Bas 1equi1ed ;iles a motion to enla1ge the
time ;o1 se1<ice and shoBs good cause Bh> such se1<ice Bas not made Bithin that 0e1iod. /; the 0a1t>
on Bhose @ehal; such se1<ice Bas 1equi1ed ;ails to ;ile a motion to enla1ge the time ;o1 se1<ice @e;o1e
the +'%*da> se1<ice 0e1iod e-0i1es, the cou1t shall taHe that ;ailu1e into conside1ation in dete1mining
good cause ;o1 an e-tension o; time. 50on a shoBing o; good cause, the cou1t shall e-tend the time
;o1 se1<ice and set a 1easona@le date @> Bhich se1<ice should @e made.O
- '%C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1573
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

NR3 +'.%+& Actions in<ol<ing indigent 0e1sons. +. An> 0e1son Bho desi1es to 01osecute o1 de;end a
ci<il action ma>: KaA ,ile an a;;ida<it Bith the cou1t setting ;o1th Bith 0a1ticula1it> ;acts conce1ning
the 0e1sonLs income, 01o0e1t> and othe1 1esou1ces Bhich esta@lish that the 0e1son is una@le to
01osecute o1 de;end the action @ecause the 0e1son is una@le to 0a> the costs o; so doing: o1 K@A 3u@mit
a statement o1 othe1Bise indicate to the cou1t that the 0e1son is a client o; a 01og1am ;o1 legal aid. '. /;
;o1 legal aid, the cou1t shall o1de1: KaA )he cle1H o; the cou1t: K+A )o alloB the 0e1son to commence o1
de;end the action Bithout costs: and K'A )o ;ile o1 issue an> necessa1> B1it, 01ocess, 0leading o1 0a0e1
Bithout cha1ge. K@A )he she1i;; o1 othe1 a001o01iate 0u@lic o;;ice1 Bithin this 3tate to maHe 0e1sonal
t1ansc1i0tion o; 01oceedings Bould @e hel0;ul to the adJudication o1 a00ellate 1e<ieB o; the case, the
count> in Bhich the action is 0ending @ut at a 1educed 1ate as set @> the count>. ...O
NR3 +'.%+& does not sa> Othis Cou1t shall gi<e the !lainti;;, Bhom Bas g1anted an /,!, the tasH and
e-0ense o; 01e0a1ing Ose1<ice 0acHetsO ;o1 the 3he1i;;, Bhom shall @eha<e in an inc1easingl>
demanding manne1 toBa1d the !lainti;; and act as i; the> a1e doing the !lainti;; a ;a<o1 in e;;ectuating
se1<ice o; 01ocess and as thought the> onl> ha<e to do it i; the !lainti;; asHs 1eall> nicel> and
genu;lects a @unch....O /ndeed, ?c=enIie seems to maHe clea1 that, at least in some Ju1isdictions, the
Cou1t and 3he1i;; handle all the 0hotoco0>ing and deli<e1ing to the 3he1i;; that Bhich is necessa1> to
e;;ectuate se1<ice. ,u1the1, the1e a1e some highl> 0e1sonal, in;lammato1>, and sensiti<e ;acts 1elated
- '+C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1574
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

to the unde1signed 1elationshi0 Bith the 8ashoe Count> 3he1i;;Gs ";;ice that ma> @a1e on the
8C3"Gs ;ailu1e to co11ectl> com0l> Bith the "1de1 91anting /n ,o1ma !au0e1is status to the
unde1signed. 2oBe<e1, these ;acts a1e o; such a natu1e that 01udence dictates onl> going into them
Be1e a@solutel> necessa1>. 3u;;ice to sa>, it is highl> cu1ious that the 8C3"Gs, gi<en the time ;1ame
in Bhich it occu11ed, onl> manged to ;ile ' A;;ida<its o; 3e1<ice in this case, CV++*%+(9$, Bhe1es
some nine 0ages o; A;;ida<its o; 3e1<ice Be1e ;iled in the O1elatedO case K;o1 Bhich the unde1signed
;iled an "cto@e1 &, '%++ ?otion to ConsolidateA, CV++*+%9&&, a case ;o1 Bhich the unde1signed
sc1a0ed togethe1 e<e1> last dime he had in the Bo1ld and 0aid the ;iling ;ee in ;ea1 that the /,! in this
matte1 Bould @e denied and, acco1ding to ;iling o;;ice 0e1sonnel and De0a1tment 4 Administ1ati<e
Assistant, should the /!, @e denied Bhe1e, in the inte1im, the 1unning o; the a00lica@le statute o;
limitations should occu1, as Bould ha<e @een the case he1e should the /,! ha<e @een denied and
should the unde1signed ha<e ;ailed to ;ile in CV++*+%9&& K)itle V// alloBs 9% da>s to ;ile ;1om
O1ecei0tO o; the EE"CGs Right to 3ue 6ette1, a situation made all the mo1e con;using gi<en the
EE"CGs ;ailu1e to 01o0e1l> u0date the unde1signed mailing in;o1mation u0on a B1itten notice o;
Change o; Add1ess @eing con;i1med 1ecei<ed @> the EE"C BeeHs 01io1 to the mailing o; the Right )o
3ue 6ette1, and the 53!3 ceasing to ;o1Ba1d to the unde1signed the o1iginal Right )o 3ue 6ette1, @ut
1athe1 1etu1n it to the EE"C Bith the Ono longe1 at this add1essO >elloB sticHe1 and notice o; the
1eci0ients neB add1ess Kas is the 53!3 custom u0on the e-0i1ation o; +' months ;1om the ;iling o; an
";;icial Change o; Add1ess ;o1m Bith the 53!3A.
!lease set aside all the dismissals and 1ecogniIe 01ocess and se1<ice o; 01ocess as
1uling that the 1equi1ements to ;ile a case Bithin 9% da>s o; O1ecei0tO o; the EE"C Right )o 3ue
- ''C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1575
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

6ette1 is met 1ega1dless o; such an e-tension, and o1 consolidate these cases, and an> othe1 1elie;
this Cou1ts sees as a001o01iate.
AFFIRMATION Prsant to NRS )C6*.7C7
Dated this a!R/6 ', '%+' Kthough / ha<e attem0ted to ;ile this thing nume1ous times
01e<iousl> @ut ha<e had m> ;ilings 1eJected unde1 the most sus0icious o;
ci1cumstances and e<en a00lications o; 8DCR +%A,
CsC Zach Coughlin, signed elect1onicall>
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
!lainti;;
- 'C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1576
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Proof of Ser#i!eG
!.". Bo- 9%7
Atto1ne> ;o1 )ahoe 8omenGs 3e1<ices KCR/3/3 /N)ERVEN)/"N 3ERV/CE3A 82/C2 /3 N") A
6/!3"N, NE/63"N, C"6E, 3E6)ZER V 9AR/N
4"3E!2 !. 9AR/N, E3W.
Ne<ada Ba1 No. $$&
32ANN"ND N"RD3)R"?
Ne<ada Ba1 No. ('++
)E6: K7%'A('*+&%% ,A#: K7%'A ('*+&+'
DA)ED )2/3: Dated this a!R/6 ', '%+'
CsC Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
!lainti;;
- '4C'4 -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1577
F I L E D
Electronically
04-03-2012:12:57:11 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1578
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code 3370
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Case No. CV11-01896
Plaintiff, Dept. No.6
v.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et ai,
Defendants.
~ /
ORDER
Defendant Caryn Sternlicht ("Defendant") filed motion for attorney's fees. N
opposition was filed.
The Court finds that the Defendant is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to NR
18.010(2)(a). (Mot. for Fees, March 8, 2012).
In awarding attorney's fees, the Court has discretion to determine what amount i
reasonable:
[I]n determining the amount of fees to award, the court is not
limited to one specific approach; its analysis may begin with any
method rationally designed to calculate a reasonable amount,
including those based on a 'lodestar' amount or a contingency
fee. We emphasize that, whichever method is chosen as a
starting point, however, the court must continue its analysis by
considering the requested amount in light of the factors
enumerated by this court in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National
Bank, namely the advocate's professional qualities, the nature
of the litigation, the work performed, and the result. In this
manner, whichever method the court ultimately uses, the result
will prove reasonable as long as the court provides sufficient
reasoning and findings in support of its ultimate determination.
-1-
V5.1579
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
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 121 Nev. 837, 864-865, 124 P.3d 530,548-54
(2005) (internal citations omitted).
The Court has carefully weighed the Brunzell factors based upon a lodestar analysi
and finds that an award of $120.00 in attorney's fees is reasonable. See Shuette, 121 Nev.
at 864-865; (Mot. for Fees, at 5, Ex: 1-A, March 8, 2012).
Accordingly, Defendant's motion for attorney's fees is granted.
DATED: This ~ ~ of April, 2012.
l DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
V5.1580
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I certify that I am an employee of THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT;
that on the of April, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
the Court system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ.
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
And, I deposited in the County mailing system for postage and mailing with the
United States Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true and correct copy of the attached
document addressed as follows:
Judicial Assistant
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-03-2012:12:57:11
04-03-2012:12:57:41
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OrdGrantingMtn
HeidiBoe
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1581
F I L E D
Electronically
04-06-2012:01:21:27 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1582
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
.
c;!
r!'"'o .0
12
'--' c
c(!3oo
-.:t
g 13
v'U 0.0

14
c 'J.o...
" 0
v"
...... 00

15

Z2C

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3860
LIPSON} NEILSON
i
COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Marc Ashley, Kathy Breckenridge, and Caryn Sterniicht
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
vs.
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLICHT, )
Individually and in her capacity as WLS
WLS employee. )
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
------------------------------.)
! ! !
DEPT. NO.: 6
V5.1583
cj

c
c:!

c.;
.!::

<!.l'"U If)

Z &:l
o

'" r--.

t:::
t) >
c c.;

"n

1 REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION
2 It is requested that PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM
3 SERVICE OF PROCESS, having been filed and served on March 7, 2012, Oppositions having
4 been filed on March 14, 2012 and March 26, 2012, and no Reply having been filed,1 be
5 submitted to the Court for decision.
6 The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of this request has been served on all
7 parties.
8 Dated this 6
th
day of April, 2012.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
By:

Las Vegas
t
Nevada 89148
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
28
1 The time to Reply expired on March 26) 2012 and April 5, 2012, respectively.
- 2 -
V5.1584
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cJ

11

{'::l
0
12
'-" c

tJ "5
13 Jj g
<:..l '"1:::J ll"l

Z &3.
14
o
U ,,0 <'IN'-
...... rPo

15

.......,

16
c
R

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
(Pursuant to NRS 239B.030)
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, Request for
Submission, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of
any person.
Dated this 6
th
day of April, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Paul Eleano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, Jon
Caryn Sterniicht
- 3 -
V5.1585
th
day of April, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Request
3 as follows:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin
PO Box 60952,
Reno. NV, 89506
Attorney for -Plaintiff, In Pro Per
P.O. Box 907
Defendant for Crisis Intervention Services
Gary Fuller, Esq., for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women.
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
-4-
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-06-2012:13:21:27
04-06-2012:14:39:01
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1586
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-11-2012:11:30:27
04-11-2012:15:25:25
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1587

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

2645
F I L E D
Electronically
04-11-2012:03:44:33 PM
Clerk of the Court
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Case No.: CV11-01896
Plaintiff, Dept. No.: 6
vs.
Defendants
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FILED ON APRIL 3, 2012
Defendant Crisis Intervention Services, incorrectly named as Tahoe Womens Services,
by and through its attorney Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., submits the following opposition to
Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and
Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Order Of March 13
th
, 2012, both of which were filed on
April 3, 2012.
Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis challenges the Courts Order entered on March 8, 2012. The Courts Order points out
that Plaintiff is a licensed attorney and requires that any further motions by Plaintiff seeking in
forma pauperis status must be accompanied by a profit/loss statement, balance sheet and sworn
affidavit showing the financial nature of Plaintiffs business affairs. Plaintiffs motion includes
none of these. Plaintiffs motion should therefore be denied.
- 1 -
V5.1588

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

________________________________________________

Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Order Of March 13
th
, 2012 seeks to alter or
amend an order denying one of Plaintiffs prior motions to alter or amend and denying one of
Plaintiffs motions to set aside. Plaintiff is filing repetitive motions asking the Court to
reconsider things that have long since been decided. Plaintiffs motion is frivolous, baseless and
wasteful. Plaintiffs motion should therefore be denied.
The undersigned does hereby affirm that pursuant to NRS 239B.030, this document does
not contain the social security number of any person.
DATED: April 11, 2012.
By:__________________________________
Services
I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Joseph P. Garin, Esq., for Kathy Breckenridge, Marc Ashley, Paul Elcano, Washoe
Legal Services, Caryn Sternlight, Karen Sabo, John Sasser
and Todd Torvinen.
- 2 -
V5.1589
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-11-2012:15:44:33
04-11-2012:15:55:38
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1590

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

2645
F I L E D
Electronically
04-11-2012:04:08:09 PM
Clerk of the Court
Nevada Bar No. 9815
P.O. Box 907
530-386-6845
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Case No.: CV11-01896
Plaintiff, Dept. No.: 6
vs.
Defendants
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE
Defendant Crisis Intervention Services, incorrectly named as Tahoe Womens Services,
by and through its attorney Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq., submits the following opposition to
Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to Perform Service of Process filed on March 27, 2012.
Mr. Coughlins motion should be denied because it was not properly served to this
Defendant. Counsel for Crisis Intervention Services was not an electronic filer at the time this
motion was filed and therefore did not receive service electronically. Since Mr. Coughlins
motion was not properly served, it should be denied.
Mr. Coughlin is also not entitled to an extension of time to complete service as the time
to complete service ran months ago, this case has already been dismissed, and Mr. Coughlin is
currently pursuing this case on appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. Mr. Coughlins motion
must therefore be denied.
Moreover, Mr. Coughlin previously filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Perform
- 1 -
V5.1591

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

________________________________________________

Service of Process on March 7, 2012, which has not been granted. The subject motion (the one
filed on March 27, 2012, with the same name) should therefore be denied on the grounds that it
is duplicative.
The undersigned does hereby affirm that pursuant to NRS 239B.030, this document does
not contain the social security number of any person.
By:__________________________________
Services
I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
Zachary Coughlin, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Joseph P. Garin, Esq., for Kathy Breckenridge, Marc Ashley, Paul Elcano, Washoe
Legal Services, Caryn Sternlight, Karen Sabo, John Sasser
and Todd Torvinen.
- 2 -
V5.1592
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-11-2012:16:08:09
04-11-2012:16:51:07
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1593
F I L E D
Electronically
04-11-2012:11:30:27 AM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1594
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
W
P-<
11
"

08
12
!;d-

13
!jVlo-.O
___
v"ll

".il '"
8"
14
o N'

g t:>t::..
15

,,:?
16
0
J
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3860
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WLS, DOES 1-100, Individually and in their l
SERVICES, CARYN STERN LICHT, )
WLS employee. )
Defendants.
I
/1/
DEPT. NO.: 6
V5.1595

"
0

"8
<lj-

-
tiV'la- O

(3
cl'A<
o5>t:-
"-'lO<..'l

"i?
0
j-
2 It is requested that DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, having been
3 filed and served on March 22, 2012, no Opposition having been filed, be submitted to the
4 Court for decision.
5 The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of this request has been served on all
6 parties.
7 Dated this 11 th day of April, 2012.
8
9
10
11
By:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
& GARIN.E.:C.

(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
-2-
V5.1596

. Ii:

08
01l-

'-

--' 0

c3"
o N'
ftfo

1 AFFIRMATION
2 (Pursuant to NRS 239B.030)
3 The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, Request for
4 Submission, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of
5 any person.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated this 11th day of April, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 3-
V5.1597
W
p..
.

08

...:: "00 0
"1l

.&
8"
o
d,,) 0

0

2 I certify that on the 11th day of April, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Request
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
lsi Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 4-
F I L E D
Electronically
04-12-2012:03:54:48 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1598
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
oJ
'"
11
Jg
12

13

(/)8>"";'
z &l
14
'0 'ij.
U 0 N'
.. p-. 'if!o
ii >- t:.-
15

"ii
Zo
16
0
&
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2175
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Attomeys for Defendants Washoe Legal Services,
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT, )
attorney, MELISSA MANGIARACINA, )
in his capacity as WLS attomey, ZANDRA )
WLS employee, )
Defendants.
DEPT. NO.: 6
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM
SERVICE OF PROCESS
V5.1599
0
p.;
CO
""
C)g

'"' .- "<t
" '- Lltno.O

r:n8>'"7
Z
c t; "l
U ,,0 00N'
"" 0
g to: ;> t::.

'!J 0 ......
zoo
0

0

-
1
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
2 EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM SERVICE OF PROCESS
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3 Defendants Paul Elcano, individually and in his capacity as Executive DirectorofWLS,
Breckenridge, individually and in her capacity as Board President of WLS, Caryn Stern licht,
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 for
Extension of Time to Perform Service of Process.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 12'h day of April, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
- 2-
V5.1600
2 1. Introduction
6
7
8
9
10
Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Lega/ Services, et. at.
Hon. Brent Adams
and
Zachary Coughlin v Washoe Lega/ Services, et. at.
11 On October 27, 2011, Coughlin began attempts at service of the summons and complaint in
12 the first case, Case No. CV11-01896, against Defendants. Despite Coughlin's varying
13 attempts at service on Defendants, as fully briefed in their respective Motions to Dismiss, all
14 attempts proved improper. Accordingly, Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint
15 pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(3) and/or (4) and NRCP 4. This Court ordered dismissal of the case
16 as to all Defendants on January 11, 2012. On March 13,2012, this Court affirmed its dismissal
17 of the Complaint against Defendants.
18 On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed his first Motion for Extension of Time to Perform
19 Service of Process on Defendants. As argued in our Opposition, Plaintiffs Motion was nothing
20 more than a blatant attempt to get another shot at arguments already thoroughly briefed,
21 argued, and lost - numerous times. He failed to make any cogent argument as to why he
22 failed to properly serve Defendants before the expiration of the 120 day deadline. Importantly,
23 he failed to establish any good cause for failing to file a timely and proper motion to enlarge
24 the 120-day period for effectuating service. This Motion is still pending before this Court.'
25 Despite the pending Motion, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Extension of Time to
26 Perform Service of Process on Defendants, on March 27, 2012. The instant Motion is nearly
27
28 1 Defendants submitted a Request for Submission concerning this Motion on April 6, 2012.
-3-
V5.1601
0
0;
d'

'"' ....
" ,
ljU)c. O

f/Ji3>'7
oJ'P:: Z ("\I
"0
u 0 0:1 N'
"P-. ffJo
"5 :> t::..
",,,3
":ii
Zo

0
if.
0-
;:j
1 identical to the prior motion. As we explained in our Opposition to the same Motion, it is wholly
2 unclear how many times Plaintiff will continue to file the same Motions in hopes of a better
3 result with no factual or legal support. Plaintiffs present Motion is just another example of this.
4 For these reasons, Defendants request this Court deny Plaintiffs second Motion for an
5 Extension of Time to Perform Service of Process and deny any and all additional relief
6 requested by Plaintiff.
7 2.
8
Plaintiff's Motion fails to Establish Good Cause for an Extension of Time to
Perform Service of Process
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRCP 4(i) requires a party who failed to effectuate service of process within the
mandated 120 days from the filing of the complaint to demonstrate good cause for the delay
of service.' The Rule also requires a Plaintiff to move to enlarge the time for service prior to
the expiration of the 120-day service period. If the party fails to do so, "the court shall take that
failure into consideration in determining good cause for an extension of time." NRCP 4(i).
In Saavedra-Sandovafv. Waf-Mart Stores, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 55, 245 P.3d 1198, (Nev.
2010) the Nevada Supreme Court analyzed the effect of filing an untimely motion to enlarge
time for service of process pursuant to NRCP 4(i). The Court concluded "that only upon a
showing of good cause to file an untimely motion to enlarge time for service should the district
court then apply Scrimer's3 good-cause factors for the delay in service. However, in the initial
2 NRCP 4(i) specifically states, " If a service ofthe 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 oftime. 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."
3 The Scrimerfadors are: (1) difficulties in locating the defendant, (2) the defendant's efforts at evading
service or concealment of improper service until after the period has lapsed, (3) the plaintiffs diligence
in attempting to serve the defendant, (4) difficulties encountered by counsel, (5) the running of the applicable
statute of limitations, (6) the parties' good faith attempts to settle the litigation during the period, (7) the
lapse of time between the end of the period and the actual service of process on the defendant, (8) the
prejudice to the defendant caused by the plaintiffs delay in serving process, (9) the defendant's knowledge of the
existence of the lawsuit, and (10) any extensions of time for service granted by the district court. Scrimerv. District
Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190,1195-96 (2000).
- 4 -
V5.1602
u
analysis of an untimely motion, some of Scrimer's factors may be applicable to determine if
2 good cause exists for filing a tardy motion." Id. at 1201. In other words, "[o]nly upon a showing
3 of good cause for the delay in filing the motion to enlarge time should the court then engage
4 in a complete Scrimer analysis to determine whether good cause also supports the request
5 for enlargement of time for service of process under NRCP 4(i)." Id.
6 Here, Plaintiffs Motion is untimely pursuant to NRCP 4(i) and he fails to demonstrate
7 good cause for filing an untimely motion to enlarge time for service of process and fails to
8 demonstrate good cause for granting an extension of time to effectuate service of process.
9 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 11, 2011, as clarified in this Court's March 13, 2012
10 Order. Therefore, he had until December 9,2011 to properly serve Defendants. He failed to
'" 11 do so.
c

l) g 12 Plaintiff waited nearly four months past the service deadline to file the present Motion.

tl -3 ;!:
.jJ 13 In the interim, he has filed various motions to set aside, to alter or amend, and for
Vl
c
>"7
Z
-0 " ,; 14 reconsideration. He has even appealed this Court's dismissal of Defendants from the case.
C'
t:- 15 Plaintiff has offered no explanation why he could not file a motion to extend time for service
Z1l5
I'r
sc
16 before the expiration deadline or why he decided to waste judicial resources and file various
!
17 motions without seeking leave for an extension to effectuate service on Defendants. Most
18 importantly, nothing in Plaintiffs Motion satisfies the Scrimer factors to support good cause
19 in filing the untimely motion or for granting an extension. Plaintiffs blanket heading that an
20 "Extension for Good Cause Good cause for an extension of time to service process has been
21 shown" does not support a showing of good cause. All Plaintiff manages to do in the present
22 Motion is confuse the facts between this case and the second similar action and place
23 unSUbstantiated blame on the Washoe County Sheriff's Office for his failure to properly
24 effectuate service on Defendants and the Washoe County Court Clerk for his defective filings.
25 This should not be tolerated.
26 3.
27
28
Plaintiffs Request for an Advisory Opinion is Improper
Besides failing to show good cause, Plaintiff is requesting an advisory opinion on
- 5 -
V5.1603
u
0;

c38
ci:I':
tl ";
NUJ$.O
-=5 co s:
CI:l2>"7
z
-0 t;
u 0 d N'
if'o
c:: t; ;>- t::-
;
'[j >-<
z:;:
c"g
0
!
1 whether this suit or refiling of this suit would be barred if an extension of time to effectuate
2 service is granted. Plaintiff's seeks an improper advisory opinion which should be denied.
3 As the Nevada Supreme Court recently emphasized, "This court's duty is not to render
4 advisory opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment."
5 Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (Nev. 2010). Plaintiff is improperly asking
6 this Court for its intent to take a particular course of action in the future regarding a matter that
7 is not presently before the Court. This request is improper and should be denied.
8 4. Conclusion
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Extension of Time to Perform Service of Process, and deny any and all additional
relief requested by Plaintiff.
DATED this 12th day of April, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
6"
V5.1604
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
0:
11
c"
0
ct
'-'8
12

t: '::; -.t-

13
v-o
CO
:7;

Z &i
14
"0 tl tr'; t<"l
U 0 6};N'
0
t:..
15

z:;::
c:" g
16
0
"' CL
;:j
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM
SERVICE OF PROCESS, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security
Dated this 12th day of April, 2012
LIPSON NEILSQ.hI COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

By:
(702) 382-1500
-7 -
V5.1605
0
'"
08

:! 8

Z
"0 t; ",""
U 0
<Jj 0
g > t::..
'r.

Zoo
1;::f5::
0
!
2 I certify that on the 12th day of April, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of
3 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
4 PERFORM SERVICE OF PROCESS, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage
5 prepaid, addressed as follows:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 8-
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-12-2012:15:54:48
04-12-2012:16:36:03
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1606
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

F I L E D
Electronically
04-12-2012:11:50:32 PM
Document Code: Clerk of the Court
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV BAR No: 947
!" B"# $%9&'
Reno, NV (9&%$
)ele: 77&*(*(++(
,a-: 949*$$7*74%'
/n 01o 0e1
/N )2E 3EC"ND 45D/C/A6 D/3)R/C) C"5R)
/N AND ,"R )2E C"5N)7 ", 8A32"E
ZAC2 C"5926/N: A
A
!lainti;;. A
<s. A
863 em0lo>ee:
De;endants.
CA3E A!!EA6 3)A)E?EN)
+. Name o; a00ellant ;iling this case a00eal statement: Zach Coughlin.
'. /denti;> the Budge issuing the decision, Budgment, o1 o1de1 a00ealed ;1om: 2on. 4udge B1ent
Adams.
- +C& -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1607
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

. /denti;> each a00ellant and the name and add1ess o; counsel ;o1 each a00ellant:
Zach Coughlin ;o1 himsel;
!" B"# $%9&'
Reno, NV (9&%$
)ele: 77&*(*(++(
,a-: 949*$$7*74%'
4. /denti;> each 1es0ondent and the name and add1ess o; a00ellate counsel, i; DnoEn, ;o1 each
1es0ondent Fi; the name o; a 1es0ondentGs a00ellate counsel is unDnoEn, indicate as much and 01o<ide
the
name and add1ess o; that 1es0ondentGs t1ial counselA:
!.". Bo- 9%7
Atto1ne> ;o1 )ahoe 8omenGs 3e1<ices FCR/3/3 /N)ERVEN)/"N 3ERV/CE3A 82/C2 /3 N") A
6/!3"N, NE/63"N, C"6E, 3E6)ZER H 9AR/N
4"3E!2 !. 9AR/N, E3I.
Ne<ada Ba1 No. $$&
32ANN"ND N"RD3)R"?
Ne<ada Ba1 No. ('++
)E6: F7%'A('*+&%% ,A#: F7%'A ('*+&+'
and in he1 ca0acit> as 863 em0lo>ee: :
&. /ndicate Ehethe1 an> atto1ne> identi;ied a@o<e in 1es0onse to question o1 4 is not licensed to
- 'C& -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1608
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

01actice laE in Ne<ada and, i; so, Ehethe1 the dist1ict cou1t g1anted that atto1ne> 0e1mission to a00ea1
unde1 3CR 4' Fattach a co0> o; an> dist1ict cou1t o1de1 g1anting such 0e1missionA: all atto1ne>s a@o<e
a1e licensed in Ne<ada.
$. /ndicate Ehethe1 a00ellant Eas 1e01esented @> a00ointed o1 1etained counsel in the dist1ict
cou1t: )he Res0ondents Ee1e a00ointed @> 1etained counsel. Coughlin 1ecei<ed no a00ointed
counsel.
7. /ndicate Ehethe1 a00ellant is 1e01esented @> a00ointed o1 1etained counsel on a00eal:
(. /ndicate Ehethe1 a00ellant Eas g1anted lea<e to 01oceed in ;o1ma 0au0e1is, and the date o;
ent1> o; the dist1ict cou1t o1de1 g1anting such lea<e: A00ellantGs ?otion ;o1 6ea<e to ,ile /n ,o1ma
!au0e1is Eas denied.
9. /ndicate the date the 01oceedings commenced in the dist1ict cou1t Fe.g., date com0laint,
indictment, in;o1mation, o1 0etition Eas ;iledA: )he Com0laint Eas ;iled 4une %
th
, '%++.
+%. !1o<ide a @1ie; desc1i0tion o; the natu1e o; the action and 1esult in the dist1ict cou1t, including
the t>0e o; Budgment o1 o1de1 @eing a00ealed and the 1elie; g1anted @> the dist1ict cou1t: )his is a
E1ong;ul te1mination action at hea1t and all the o1de1s ente1ed in this action a1e @eing a00ealed ;1om,
including, @ut not limited to those, @eing ;iled Decem@e1 (, '%++, and 4anua1> +
th
, '%+', and all the
othe1 "1de1s ;iled in this action. )he Dist1ict Cou1t g1anted the De;endants atto1ne>Gs ;ees, g1anted
De;endantGs ?otions to Dismiss @ased on insu;;icienc> o; se1<ice o; 01ocess, etc. 2oEe<e1, the1e is
some lacD o; cla1it> as to Ehethe1 a ;inal a00eala@le o1de1 has @een ;iled.
++. /ndicate Ehethe1 the case has 01e<iousl> @een the su@Bect o; an a00eal to o1 o1iginal E1it
01oceeding in the 3u01eme Cou1t and, i; so, the ca0tion and 3u01eme Cou1t docDet num@e1 o; the
01io1
01oceeding: No, this case has not so @een 01e<iousl>.
- C& -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1609
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

+'. /ndicate Ehethe1 this a00eal in<ol<es child custod> o1 <isitation: /t does not.
+. /; this is a ci<il case, indicate Ehethe1 this a00eal in<ol<es the 0ossi@ilit> o; settlement: /t does.
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
Dated this A01il +'th, '%+' Fthough / ha<e attem0ted to ;ile this thing nume1ous times
01e<iousl> @ut ha<e had m> ;ilings 1eBected unde1 the most sus0icious o; ci1cumstances and
une<en a00lications o; 8DCR +%A,
CsC Zach Coughlin, signed elect1onicall>
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
!lainti;;CA00ellant
- 4C& -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1610
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Proof of Service:
document to all 1egiste1ed e;ile1s, and to those Ehom a1e not / 0laced a t1ue and co11ect co0> o; the
!.". Bo- 9%7
Atto1ne> ;o1 )ahoe 8omenGs 3e1<ices FCR/3/3 /N)ERVEN)/"N 3ERV/CE3A 82/C2 /3 N") A
6/!3"N, NE/63"N, C"6E, 3E6)ZER H 9AR/N
4"3E!2 !. 9AR/N, E3I.
Ne<ada Ba1 No. $$&
32ANN"ND N"RD3)R"?
Ne<ada Ba1 No. ('++
)E6: F7%'A('*+&%% ,A#: F7%'A ('*+&+'
DA)ED )2/3: Dated this a!R/6 ', '%+'
CsC Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
!lainti;;
- &C& -
!A5!ER/3
V5.1611

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

F I L E D
Electronically
04-13-2012:03:52:38 PM
Code 1350 Clerk of the Court
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV11-01896
vs.
Corporation et al,
Dept. No. 6
Defendants.
_____________________________________________/
CERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND TRANSMITTAL NRAP 3(g)(1)(B)
I certify that I am an employee of the Second J udicial District Court of the State of
Nevada, County of Washoe. On the 13th day of April, 2012, I electronically filed to the
Supreme Court the Case Appeal Statement filed April 12, 2012.
The Order is transmitted pursuant to NRAP 3(g)(1)(B).
I further certify that the transmitted record is a copy of the original pleadings on file
with the Second J udicial District Court.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2012.
J OEY ORDUNA HASTINGS
CLERK OF THE COURT
By_/s/ Lori Matheus______
Lori Matheus
Deputy Clerk
V5.1612
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-13-2012:15:52:38
04-13-2012:15:53:40
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
CertificateofClerk
LoriMatheus
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1613
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-12-2012:23:50:32
04-13-2012:09:19:48
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
CaseAppealStatement
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1614
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-20-2012:12:52:24
04-20-2012:13:46:55
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1615
F I L E D
Electronically
04-20-2012:02:20:15 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1616
c.5

t:l'
">=:
'" 08
6d'-<

<l.l ".-<
NVla-.,O
..:::: "'00 0
<l.l"O en

.2 N
(5

...

0

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
2175
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER, GARIN, P.C.
JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNON D. NORDSTROM, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Jon Sasser, Melissa Mangiaracina, Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
vs.
Plaintiff,
WLS employee, )
)

Defendants.

DEPT. NO.: 6
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
28 II II
V5.1617
cJ
p..;
.
'" 08

tl"S
Nc.Jj<J",O

N
"8

0
'"
;3'
2
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Breckenridge, individually and in her capacity as Board President of WLS, Caryn Sternlicht,
Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., hereby submit their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to
Alter or Amend .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 20
th
day of April, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
-2-
V5.1618
2 1. Introduction
3 On February 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal.
4 On March 8, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion. A Notice of Entry of Order was filed
5 March 12,2012 and is attached hereto as Exhibit "1." Specifically, the Court held that Plaintiff
6 "provided insufficient financial information" to grant the motion. The Court also advised him
7 of what documentation to provide in the future were he to re-file the Motion.
8 Plaintiff's modus operandi of filing unsubstantiated motions continues with this Motion.
9 Rather, than filing a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with proper documentation, Plaintiff
10 has decided to needlessly argue with the Court and file an untimely Motion to Alter or Amend.
11 Plaintiff's actions should not be tolerated. This Court should put an end to his continued
12 disregard of time, resources, and procedural requirements and deny Plaintiff's Motion to Alter
13 or Amend, deny any and all additional relief requested by Plaintiff, and issue a restrictive order
14 to curb Plaintiff's repetitive and abusive filings in this case.
15 2.
16
Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend is untimely pursuant to NRCP 59(e)
Plaintiff brings this Motion pursuant to NRCP 59(e).1 NRCP 59(e) provides, "A motion
17 to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after service of written
18 notice of entry of the judgment."
19 In this case, Defendants filed and served a Notice of Entry of Order on March 12, 2012.
20 Pursuantto NRCP 59(e), Plaintiff had until March 29, 2012, to file a Motion to Alter or Amend.
2
21 Plaintiff's present Motion was filed on April 3, 2012, and is therefore untimely with respect to
22 all Defendants pursuant to NRCP 59(e). Accordingly, this Court should dismiss Plaintiff's
23 Motion to Alter or Amend against Defendants on this basis alone.
24 / / /
25
26
1/ Plaintiff contends he is also bringing this Motion pursuant to NRCP 52. The rule specifically makes
27 findings and conclusions unnecessary on motions. See Estate of Williams v. Pacific Silver Corp., 109 Nev. 941,
943,860 P.2d 166 (1993). Therefore, NRCP 59(e) is the proper basis for this Motion.
28
2/ April 2, 2012 was calculated by adding 10 judicial days and 3 days for service. See NRCP 6(e).
- 3 -
V5.1619
3. Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 59(e)
2 To the extent this Court is to consider Plaintiff's present Motion, Plaintiff's Motion fails
3 to meet the standard under NRCP 59(e) and should be denied.
4 "Rule 59(e) provides an opportunity, within severely limited time, to seek correction at
5 the trial court level of an erroneous order or judgment, thereby initially aVOiding the time and
6 expense of appeal." Chiara v. Belaustegui, 86 Nev. 856, 859, 477 P.2d 857 (1970). Among
7 the grounds for this type of motion are correcting manifest errors of law or fact, newly
8 discovered or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice, or a
9 change in controlling law. AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, 245
10 P.3d 1190, 1193 (2010). Notably, the motion must state with particularity its grounds and set
11 forth the relief or order sought. Id.
12 Plaintiff fails to provide any factual or legal argument in support of the Motion and
13 therefore,fails to meet the standard under NRCP 59(e). In the March 8, 2012 Order, this
14 Court held that Plaintiff must provide a profit/loss statement, balance sheet, and sworn affidavit
15 with his 2010 and 2011 tax returns showing the financial nature of his business affairs,
16 because stating Plaintiff is a "jack of all trades" does not reveal the extent of his business
17 affairs in accordance with NRS 12.015(1). Plaintiff's has failed to provide any supporting
18 documentation in compliance with the Court's Order. Instead, Plaintiff brings this Motion
19 arguing that it "may be difficult to access"3 these documents "given all he different evictions,
20 custodial arrests, seizures of cell phones by Judge Nash Holmes, destroying of his dog by the
21 RPD, etc. that the undersigned has faced lately" [SiC].4 If Plaintiff cannot provide
22 documentation evidencing his indigent status, the status cannot be granted. Plaintiff is not
23 excused from making this proof merely because it may be difficult to do so. In any event, his
24 excuses do not explain how the aforesaid circumstances make it difficult for him to attain the
25 financial documents.
26
27
28
3; Motion at 2:8-9.
4; Motion at 2:9-10.
- 4-
V5.1620
(j

cl'
.>=1
'" 08

<1.) _
NCI1o--o

,..:,
"8

...
t:;:>t:::-

0
3
Overall, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any type of manifest error in law or fact, newly
2 discovered evidence or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent manifest injustice,
3 or a change in controlling law justifying the Motion. The bulk of Plaintiff's Motion is dedicated
4 to citing inapplicable case law and lacks any argument in support of amending the Court's
5 Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff does not meet the standard set forth in NRCP 59(e) and his
6 Motion to Alter or Amend should be denied.
7 4. Conclusion
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, deny any and
all additional relief requested by Plaintiff, and issue a restrictive order to curb Plaintiff's
repetitive and abusive filings in this case.
DATED this 20
th
day of April, 2012.
By:
LIPSON t;.E;;ILSON COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
- 5 -
V5.1621
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cj

11
d
c
'" 08
12
i(:l'-<
:'<00
...... v
(l)::l.-<
13

N
8"
14

15

16
0
3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not
contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 20
th
day of April, 2012

By:
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 6 -
V5.1622
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cJ

11
d
'"
'" 08
12
.;6-
2loo

13
NU1Q'\.C>
...:::::: "00 C>
<lJ"O '"

">2 N
8 14
o

15

16
0
'"
.&
....4
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I certify that on the 20
th
day of April, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, upon the following parties, via first
class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
P.O. Box 907
lsi Cecilia M. Schleicher
An Employee of
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P .C.
- 7 -
V5.1623
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
3
No.1 I Notice of Entry of Order I 8 pages
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

p...
11

oj
08
12
c:d"""

13 "'00 0
<l) "1j '"

N
00
14 8
o
...

15

zg

16
0
J
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8 -
F I L E D
Electronically
04-20-2012:02:20:15 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1624
E HIBIT 1
V5.1625
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
11
p..;

'" 12 0g

tl .- ....
13 " .... N v:::; 0- 0
1l

z &l
14
'0
U 0 ioN'
0
g r.:..
15

'0
z1i5
16
0
'" .E-
17 H
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2540
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
snordstrom@lipsonneilson.com
Jon Sasser, and Marc Ashley
FilE D
Electronically
03-12-2012:04:34:28 PM
Clerk of the Court
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,
VS.
l)
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT,
attorney. JON SASSER, Individually and in )
WLS employee, )
Defendants.

1
DEPT. NO.: 6
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
V5.1626
u
p.;
"f
.t1
'" ()g
c($Eco

..!::: 0
","0 '"
rns>t'
z &g
-0 t; ur'l
ur,&
C-:;;:>t::.

;-;:; H
"-'0
Zoo

0
'"
:3"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE is hereby given that an Order Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
was entered on March 8, 2012, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
Dated this 12th day of March, 2012.
By:
& GARI N ,.E; C

(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, Jon Sasser, and Marc Ashley
AFFIRMATION
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, NOTICE OF
ENTRY OF ORDER, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security
By:
&GARINJ;C

(702) 382-1500
- 2-
V5.1627
u
p..;

l?g

OJ "
NUlo-,o
-'5 -d' 00

JP<: Z
'"0 u;tr)
U a
",p.. i!)O
g t>;> t::.-

0
"' 0..
;.:s
2 I certify that on the 12th day of March, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Notice
3 of Entry of Order, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
Attorney for Defendant for Crisis Intervention Services
Gary Fuller, Esq . for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.
- 3 -
V5.1628
1
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
3
No.1 Order Denying Motion to 3 pages
Proceed in Forma Pauperis
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
11
p.;
"5
n
12 08
C<SEco
ti 5 :!
13
:I til "'8
"i3.-r:Jr:JU")
........

14
-rr.I .. tI"'!
U 0 oA-
n"'"' a
\:0 ;;:>t::;,
15
o " '"

ziE
16 c ...
g
5l
.9-
17
.....:I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
V5.1629
HI IT "1"
HI I "1"
V5.1630
FilE D
1 CODE:
Electronically
03-08-2012:04:29:02 PM
Clerk of the Court
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE,
Individually and in her capacity as Board President
of WLS, TODD TORVINEN, Individually and in
his capacity as WLS, Board Member, PAUL
ELCANO, Individually and in his capacity as
Executive Director of WLS, DOES 1-100,
Individually and in their capacity as members of
the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLIGHT, Individually
Case No.
Dept. No.
CVll-01896
6
19 and in her capacity as WLS attorney, JON SASSER,
Individually and in his capacity as WLS agent,
20
KAREN SABO, Individually and in her capacity as
21 WLS attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA LOPEZ;
22 Individually and in her capacity as WLS employee;
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants.
~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /
This Court has reviewed Zach Coughlin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
attached affidavit in support of the motion. II Any person who desires to prosecute or
defend a civil action may file an affidavit with the court setting forth with particular facts
concerning his income, property and other resources which establish that he is unable to
V5.1631
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
prosecute or defend the action because he is unable to pay the costs of so doing." NRS
12.015(1).
This Court finds Mr. Coughlin has provided insufficient financial information to
grant the motion at this time. Mr. Coughlin is a licensed member of the Nevada State Bar.
In his financial declaration, Mr. Coughlin refers to his employment as Ujack of all trades,"
yet he does not reveal the extent of his business affairs. Mr. Coughlin shall support any
future motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a profit/loss statement, balance sheet,
and sworn affidavit showing the financial nature of his business affairs. Mr. Coughlin
shall also supplement his affidavit with his 2010 and 2011 tax returns. Alternatively, Mr.
Coughlin may pay the requisite fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February ZC/,2012.
2
David A. Hardy
Chief District Court J
V5.1632
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2
3
Case No. CVll-01896
4
I certify that I am an employee of the Second Judicial District Court; that on the 8
th
5
day of March, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court system
6 which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSEPH GARIN. ESQ.
Further, I certify that I deposited in the county mailing system for postage and
mailing with the U.S. Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true copy of the foregoing
addressed to:
LIPON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.c.
Shannon Nordstrom, Esq.
9080 West Post Road, #100
-7-( r-. .- I
'j \. \ ' )tr-"' [ .'
, u'-' i '>./.rh" .> ..... ' c .' C Vi' " ,\ ,;:
Department 15 Administrative Assistant
3
F I L E D
Electronically
04-20-2012:04:40:35 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1633
c.5

t:l'
">=:
'" 08
6d'-<

<l.l ".-<
NVla-.,O
..:::: "'00 0
<l.l"O en

.2 N
(5

...

0

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
2175
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER, GARIN, P.C.
JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNON D. NORDSTROM, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
vs.
Plaintiff,
WLS employee, )
)

Defendants.

DEPT. NO.: 6
AMEND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
28 II II
V5.1634
cJ
p..;
.
'" 08

tl"S
Nc.Jj<J",O

N
"8

0
'"
;3'
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Breckenridge, individually and in her capacity as Board President of WLS, Caryn Sternlicht,
Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., hereby submit their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to
Alter or Amend .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 20
th
day of April, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
-2-
V5.1635
2 1. Introduction
3 On February 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal.
4 On March 8, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion. A Notice of Entry of Order was filed
5 March 12,2012 and is attached hereto as Exhibit "1." Specifically, the Court held that Plaintiff
6 "provided insufficient financial information" to grant the motion. The Court also advised him
7 of what documentation to provide in the future were he to re-file the Motion.
8 Plaintiff's modus operandi of filing unsubstantiated motions continues with this Motion.
9 Rather, than filing a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with proper documentation, Plaintiff
10 has decided to needlessly argue with the Court and file an untimely Motion to Alter or Amend.
11 Plaintiff's actions should not be tolerated. This Court should put an end to his continued
12 disregard of time, resources, and procedural requirements and deny Plaintiff's Motion to Alter
13 or Amend, deny any and all additional relief requested by Plaintiff, and issue a restrictive order
14 to curb Plaintiff's repetitive and abusive filings in this case.
15 2.
16
Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend is untimely pursuant to NRCP 59(e)
Plaintiff brings this Motion pursuant to NRCP 59(e).1 NRCP 59(e) provides, "A motion
17 to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after service of written
18 notice of entry of the judgment."
19 In this case, Defendants filed and served a Notice of Entry of Order on March 12, 2012.
20 Pursuantto NRCP 59(e), Plaintiff had until March 29, 2012, to file a Motion to Alter or Amend.
2
24 / / /
25
26
1/ Plaintiff contends he is also bringing this Motion pursuant to NRCP 52. The rule specifically makes
27 findings and conclusions unnecessary on motions. See Estate of Williams v. Pacific Silver Corp., 109 Nev. 941,
943,860 P.2d 166 (1993). Therefore, NRCP 59(e) is the proper basis for this Motion.
28
- 3 -
V5.1636
3. Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 59(e)
5 the trial court level of an erroneous order or judgment, thereby initially aVOiding the time and
6 expense of appeal." Chiara v. Belaustegui, 86 Nev. 856, 859, 477 P.2d 857 (1970). Among
12 Plaintiff fails to provide any factual or legal argument in support of the Motion and
13 therefore,fails to meet the standard under NRCP 59(e). In the March 8, 2012 Order, this
14 Court held that Plaintiff must provide a profit/loss statement, balance sheet, and sworn affidavit
15 with his 2010 and 2011 tax returns showing the financial nature of his business affairs,
16 because stating Plaintiff is a "jack of all trades" does not reveal the extent of his business
17 affairs in accordance with NRS 12.015(1). Plaintiff's has failed to provide any supporting
18 documentation in compliance with the Court's Order. Instead, Plaintiff brings this Motion
19 arguing that it "may be difficult to access"3 these documents "given all he different evictions,
20 custodial arrests, seizures of cell phones by Judge Nash Holmes, destroying of his dog by the
21 RPD, etc. that the undersigned has faced lately" [SiC].4 If Plaintiff cannot provide
22 documentation evidencing his indigent status, the status cannot be granted. Plaintiff is not
23 excused from making this proof merely because it may be difficult to do so. In any event, his
24 excuses do not explain how the aforesaid circumstances make it difficult for him to attain the
25 financial documents.
26
27
28
3; Motion at 2:8-9.
4; Motion at 2:9-10.
- 4-
V5.1637
(j

cl'
.>=1
'" 08

<1.) _
NCI1o--o

,..:,
"8

...
t:;:>t:::-

0
3
Overall, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any type of manifest error in law or fact, newly
3 or a change in controlling law justifying the Motion. The bulk of Plaintiff's Motion is dedicated
4 to citing inapplicable case law and lacks any argument in support of amending the Court's
5 Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff does not meet the standard set forth in NRCP 59(e) and his
6 Motion to Alter or Amend should be denied.
7 4. Conclusion
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, deny any and
all additional relief requested by Plaintiff, and issue a restrictive order to curb Plaintiff's
repetitive and abusive filings in this case.
DATED this 20
th
day of April, 2012.
By:
LIPSON t;.E;;ILSON COLE SELTZER & GARIN P.C

(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
- 5 -
V5.1638
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cj

11
d
c
'" 08
12
i(:l'-<
:'<00
...... v
(l)::l.-<
13

N
8"
14

15

16
0
3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not
contain the Social Security Number of any person.
Dated this 20
th
day of April, 2012

By:
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 6 -
V5.1639
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cJ

11
d
'"
'" 08
12
.;6-
2loo

13
NU1Q'\.C>
...:::::: "00 C>
<lJ"O '"

">2 N
8 14
o

15

16
0
'"
.&
....4
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
th
DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, upon the following parties, via first
class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
P.O. Box 907
lsi Cecilia M. Schleicher
An Employee of
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P .C.
- 7 -
V5.1640
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

p...
11

oj
08
12
c:d"""

13 "'00 0
<l) "1j '"

N
00
14 8
o
...

15

zg

16
0
J
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8 -
F I L E D
Electronically
04-20-2012:04:40:35 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1641
E HIBIT 1
V5.1642
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
11
p..;

'" 12 0g

tl .- ....
13 " .... N v:::; 0- 0
1l

z &l
14
'0
U 0 ioN'
0
g r.:..
15

'0
z1i5
16
0
'" .E-
17 H
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2540
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
FilE D
Electronically
03-12-2012:04:34:28 PM
Clerk of the Court
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,
VS.
l)
attorney. JON SASSER, Individually and in )
WLS employee, )
Defendants.

1
DEPT. NO.: 6
V5.1643
u
p.;
"f
.t1
'" ()g
c($Eco

..!::: 0
","0 '"
rns>t'
z &g
-0 t; ur'l
ur,&
C-:;;:>t::.

;-;:; H
"-'0
Zoo

0
'"
:3"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE is hereby given that an Order Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
was entered on March 8, 2012, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
By:
& GARI N ,.E; C

(702) 382-1500
AFFIRMATION
By:
&GARINJ;C

(702) 382-1500
- 2-
V5.1644
u
p..;

l?g

OJ "
NUlo-,o
-'5 -d' 00

JP<: Z
'"0 u;tr)
U a
",p.. i!)O
g t>;> t::.-

0
"' 0..
;.:s
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
Gary Fuller, Esq . for Defendant Committee to Aid Abused Women
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.
- 3 -
V5.1645
1
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
3
No.1 Order Denying Motion to 3 pages
Proceed in Forma Pauperis
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
11
p.;
"5
n
12 08
C<SEco
ti 5 :!
13
:I til "'8
"i3.-r:Jr:JU")
........

14
-rr.I .. tI"'!
U 0 oA-
n"'"' a
\:0 ;;:>t::;,
15
o " '"

ziE
16 c ...
g
5l
.9-
17
.....:I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
V5.1646
HI IT "1"
HI I "1"
V5.1647
FilE D
1 CODE:
Electronically
03-08-2012:04:29:02 PM
Clerk of the Court
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
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
Case No.
Dept. No.
CVll-01896
6
19 and in her capacity as WLS attorney, JON SASSER,
Individually and in his capacity as WLS agent,
20
KAREN SABO, Individually and in her capacity as
21 WLS attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA LOPEZ;
22 Individually and in her capacity as WLS employee;
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants.
~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /
This Court has reviewed Zach Coughlin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
attached affidavit in support of the motion. II Any person who desires to prosecute or
defend a civil action may file an affidavit with the court setting forth with particular facts
concerning his income, property and other resources which establish that he is unable to
V5.1648
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
prosecute or defend the action because he is unable to pay the costs of so doing." NRS
12.015(1).
This Court finds Mr. Coughlin has provided insufficient financial information to
grant the motion at this time. Mr. Coughlin is a licensed member of the Nevada State Bar.
In his financial declaration, Mr. Coughlin refers to his employment as Ujack of all trades,"
yet he does not reveal the extent of his business affairs. Mr. Coughlin shall support any
future motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a profit/loss statement, balance sheet,
and sworn affidavit showing the financial nature of his business affairs. Mr. Coughlin
shall also supplement his affidavit with his 2010 and 2011 tax returns. Alternatively, Mr.
Coughlin may pay the requisite fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February ZC/,2012.
2
David A. Hardy
Chief District Court J
V5.1649
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2
3
Case No. CVll-01896
4
I certify that I am an employee of the Second Judicial District Court; that on the 8
th
5
day of March, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court system
6 which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSEPH GARIN. ESQ.
Further, I certify that I deposited in the county mailing system for postage and
mailing with the U.S. Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true copy of the foregoing
addressed to:
LIPON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.c.
Shannon Nordstrom, Esq.
9080 West Post Road, #100
-7-( r-. .- I
'j \. \ ' )tr-"' [ .'
, u'-' i '>./.rh" .> ..... ' c .' C Vi' " ,\ ,;:
Department 15 Administrative Assistant
3
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-20-2012:14:20:15
04-20-2012:16:39:54
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1650
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-20-2012:16:40:35
04-20-2012:17:02:56
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
OppositiontoMtn
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1651
F I L E D
Electronically
04-20-2012:12:52:24 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1652
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cj

11
I:::"
.;:::
<:<
08
12

13

VJgy.-"7
Z i;:l
14
-0 t:; v."c<)

15

zit
cf <
16
0
'"
.&

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2175
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
vs. )
SERVICES, CARYN STERN LICHT,
WLS employee, )
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
-----------------------------)
DEPT. NO.: 6
AMEND ORDER OF MARCH 13,2012
V5.1653
cj
p.;
c:f
. q
'" 08

'3 -q-
NCI);;:'O
..:!:::: "00 0
"-' -0 U")

z
o rn"ctl
U 0 gbR
Il) 0

"-'0
Zoo
c::"g
0
.&

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 OF MARCH 13,2012
Defendants Paul Elcano, individually and in his capacity as Executive Director ofWLS,
Todd Torvinen, individually and in his capacity as WLS Board Member, Jon Sasser,
Breckenridge, individually and in her capacity as Board President ofWLS, and Washoe Legal
Services, a Nevada Corporation, (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys
of record, Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C., hereby submit their Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend.
with the pleadings and files herein, and any oral argument this Court permits .
DATED this 20
th
day of April, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
-2-
V5.1654
0
p..;
.gO
o!
l'J8

\-1._ --.::t"
OJ " ......
NCI)o,0
--0"00 S;;

z
<3 cn"c<'l

za::
c"g
0

2 1. Introduction
4 ("WLS"). Coughlin filed two lawsuits against WLS, et a/., attempting to assert claims for
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Zach Coughlin v. Washoe Lega/ Services, et. a/.
Hon. Brent Adams
Filed: June 27,2011
and
Zachary Cough/in v Washoe Lega/ Services, et. a/.
On October 27,2011, Coughlin began attempts at service of the summons and complaint in
the first case, Case No. CV11-01896, 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 January 11, 2012. On March 13, 2012, this Court affirmed its
dismissal of the Complaint against Defendants. A Notice of Entry of Order was filed March
14,2012. Notice of Entry of Order attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
On April 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the March 13,2012 Order.
Overall, Plaintiff's Motion is untimely and makes erroneous arguments. Defendants request
this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Per, deny any and all additional relief
requested by Plaintiff, and issue a restrictive order to curb Plaintiff's repetitive and abusive
filings in this case.
24 /II
25 I I I
26 I I I
27 I I I
28 I I I
- 3 -
V5.1655
2. Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend is untimely pursuant to NRCP 59(e)
2 Plaintiff presumably brings this Motion pursuant to NRCP 59(e).1 NRCP 59(e) provides,
3 "A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after service of
4 written notice of entry of the judgment."
5 In this case, Defendants filed and served a Notice of Entry of Order on March 14,2012.
6 Pursuant to NRCP 59(e), Plaintiff had until April 2, 2012, to file a Motion to Alter or Amend.
2
10 3. Plaintiff does not meet the standard under NRCP 59(e)
14 the trial court level of an erroneous order or judgment, thereby initially avoiding the time and
15 expense of appeal." Chiara v. Belaustegui, 86 Nev. 856, 859,477 P.2d 857 (1970). Among
21 Plaintiff fails to meet the standard under NRCP 59(e) in which this Motion is brought.
22 Specifically, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any type of manifest error in law or fact, newly
24 or a change in controlling law. Indeed, this Court properly held that, with respect to WLS,
25 Plaintiff failed to comply with NRCP 4(g)(2)'s mandate that an affidavit be filed with the court
26
27
1/ Plaintiff fails to state on what grounds he brings the Motion.
28
-4-
V5.1656
to evidence proper services of process. This Court also correctly held that Plaintiff failed to
2 provide Defendant Torvinen a legible copy of the summons and complaint and therefore
3 Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper process on Torvinen. The Court also properly dismissed
4 the remaining Defendants for improper process or service of process.
5 Plaintiff's bare and conclusory arguments, without legal or factual support, are
6 unpersuasive and fail to meet the standard under NRCP 59(e). Plaintiff is a licensed and
7 practicing attorney in the State of Nevada that is or should be well aware of procedural service
8 requirements. His alleged reliance on generic forms and the Washoe County Sheriff's Office
9 does not excuse his obligation to properly serve Defendants in accordance with Nevada Rules
10 of Civil Procedure.
11 Moreover, this Court properly awarded Defendants attorney's fees and costs pursuant
12 to NRS 18.010(2)(b). A review of the record makes clear that Plaintiff's Complaint and
13 numerous subsequent filings show this action was brought and been maintained without
14 reasonable ground and to harass Defendants. Despite Plaintiff's contrary argument, NRS
15 18.010(2)(b) does not require a motion for sanctions.
16 In sum, Plaintiff does not meet the standard set forth in NRCP 59(e) and his Motion to
17 Alter or Amend should be denied.
18 4.
19
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff's
20 Motion to Alter or Amend Order of March 13
th
, 2012, deny any and all additional relief
21 requested by Plaintiff, and issue a restrictive order to curb Plaintiff's repetitive and abusive
22 filings in this case.
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
- 5 -
V5.1657
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
cJ
p.;
11
.g"
'" 08
12

13
N(/)C\O
,.:::: "00 0
C:.) ""'0 t..rl
if.) g >-
Z i(J
14 <3 w"c0.

15

c"g
16

.8-
....<
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 20
th
day of April, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER OF MARCH 13,
2012, filed in Case No. CV11-01896, does not contain the Social Security Number of any
person.
Dated this 20
th
day of April, 2012

By:
(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 6 -
V5.1658
u
p..;
q"
.;:::
'" 08

'<d-

"00 0
1l)"O Lf)

z
o ",,,c<")
U 0 6bN'
Q) 0
t3

zas
t="g
0
R
. ..,
I--<
2
3
4
th
OF MARCH 13, 2012, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
addressed as follows:
P.O. Box 907
-7- .
V5.1659
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0

11
0"

08
12

.- ""'"
<1) os.-<
13
NCf)C\O
.;::: "co 0
<1)"1J >.r)

<1)"r>:: Z &l
14
'0 t) (I)" ('I"')
U 0
nP-t oj) 0
g 11 b
15

<1)0
Zoo

16
0

H
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8 -
F I L E D
Electronically
04-20-2012:12:52:24 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1660
EXHIBIT 1
V5.1661
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
11
p..;
c:"
'C
'" 08 12

13
..!:::. nCO 0.

z
14
'0

.1'-< 'ifo
g
15

"0
Z:g
16
"f'"
0
'" 0..

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2540
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
SHANNOND.NORDSTROM
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Jon Sasser. Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
F I LED
Electronically
03-14-2012:02:03:53 PM
Clerk of the Court
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
vs.
Plaintiff,
j

!
President ofWLS, TODD TORVINEN, )
Board Member. PAUL ELCANO, Individually)
in his capacity as WLS attorney. ZANDRA )
WLS employee, }
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

DEPT. NO.: 6
V5.1662
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
11
p.;
c
-;:1
'" 12 08

'-!.- -q-
13

(/)8:>'"7
,fP:: Z
14
-0 tl
U 0 8hN"
..... v c
gt::>t:,
15
tn

ZOO
16
0

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE is hereby given that an Order, granting Defendant's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, denying Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside the Order entered January 1, 2012, finding
Plaintiff's Motion to Retax Costs moot, and denying Plaintiff Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment, or in the Alternative, a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order, was entered on March 13,
2012, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
By:

(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
By:
& GAR1N..E..C

(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Saba, Kathy
Caryn Sternlicht
-2-
V5.1663
u

cf
"0
c38
o<l'2oo
""' ...... '-:t'
OJ
tl"'''''O

Z &j
a t.: (f.I ...

t:t t:..

"'OH
z""

0
'"
;j
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 3 -
V5.1664
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
No.1 Order 6 pages
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.5
11
ct
"\:1
'" 12
<-'8

t'5
13

-5 .-0 C(l

z
14
-0 U tl'rt)
U a !ll,f:i'
.... ::L IDO
g c
15

Zo
16
8"'"
'"
;j
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
V5.1665
HI
IT "1"
I I
"1 "
Fil ED
Electronically
03-14-2012:02:03:53 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1666
2
3
4
5
6
Code 3370
FilED
Electronically
03-13-2012: 11 :53: 18 AM
Clerk of the Court
7
8
9
10
11
12
J3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
v.
Defendants.
________________________
ORDER
There are currently four motions pending before this Court: (1) Defendants Pau
Elcano ("Elcano"), Todd Torvinen ("Torvinen"), Jon Sasser ("Sasser") , Marc Ashle
("Ashley',), Karen Sabo ("Saba"), Kathy Breckenridge ("Breckenridge"). Washoe Lega
Services ('WLS") and Caryn Stern licht's ("Sternlicht") motion for attorneys' fees; (2) Plainti
Zachary Coughlin's ("Plaintiff') motion to set aside the order entered January 11, 2012; (3
Plaintiff's motion to retax costs; and (4) Plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the judgment, 0
in the alternative, to issue a Nunc Pro Tunc Order.
1
I. Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' fees Is Granted.
Defendants seek an award of $1,473.00 in attorneys' fees. (Mot. for Fees, Jan. 30
2012). Because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint for failure to effectuate prope
28 1 Crisis Intervention Services ("CIS") opposed Plaintiff's motion(s) on the grounds that it did not receive proper service
To that extent, and for the reasons set forth in this order, Plaintiff's motions are either denied and/or rendered moot as t
Defendant CIS.
1
V5.1667
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
service of process, the Court did not address the merits of Plaintiff's complaint in the orde
entered January 11, 2012.
However, after reviewing the record, including the complaint filed August 11, 2011, i
is clear that the complaint was brought or maintained without reasonable grounds or t
harass Defendants. See N.R.S. 18.010(2)(b).
Plaintiff filed a similar but much more detailed complaint in CV11-01955. Bot
complaints include essentially the same Defendants and allege the same causes of actio
against those Defendants. However, the complaint filed in the present action fails t
include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief
See N.R.C.P. 8(a), Instead, Plaintiff's complaint and the majority of his subsequen
pleadings, include citations to irrelevant case law, extended prose and rambling accoun
of how Plaintiff's life seems to be spiraling out of control.
Plaintiff, a disgruntled employee, brought both complaints within days of each other
The complaint filed in this action was brought and/or maintained to harass Defendants.
Consequently, Defenda.nts are entitled to attorneys' fees. See N.R.S. 18.010{2)(b).
The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied N.R.C.P. 54{d)(2)(B) as to thei
motion for attorneys' fees. (Mot. for Fees, Jan. 30,2012).
In awarding attorney fees, the Court has discretion to determine what amount i
reasonable:
[I]n determining the amount of fees to award, the court is not
limited to one specific approach; its analysis may begin with any
method rationally designed to calculate a reasonable amount,
including those based on a 'lodestar' amount or a contingency
fee. We emphasize that, whichever method is chosen as a
starting point, however, the court must continue its analysis by
considering the requested amount in light of the factors
enumerated by this court in Bronzell v. Go/den Gate National
Bank . .. [the advocate's] professional qualities, the nature of
the litigation, the work performed, and the result. In this manner,
whichever method the court ultimately uses, the result will prove
reasonable as long as the court provides sufficient reasoning
and findings in support of its ultimate determination.
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 121 Nev. 837, 864-865, 124 P.3d 530, 548-54
(2005) (internal citations omitted).
-2-
V5.1668
The Court has carefully weighed the BrunzeJl factors based upon a lodestar analysi
2 and finds that an award of $1,473.00 in attorneys' fees is reasonable. See Shuette, 121
3 Nev. at 864-865.
4
5
6
Accordingly, Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees is granted.
II. Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside the Order Entered January 11. 2012 I
Denied.
The evidence advanced by Plaintiff does not meet the standard for setting aside 0
7 vacating the Court's dismissal order entered January 11, 2012. See N.R.C.P. 6 ~
8
Essentially. Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the dismissal order. Plaintiff ha
not demonstrated that the order was clearly erroneous. Masonry and Tile Contracto
9
Ass'n of S. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd . 113 Nev. 737, 741. 941 P.2d 486,489 (1997).
10
Plaintiffs complaint was received on June 27. 2011 and filed on August 11. 2011
11
Pursuant to N.RC.P. 4(i) Plaintiff had 120 days, until December 9, 2011, to serve th
12
summons and complaint on Defendants. Therefore, the Court had to determine whethe
13
Plaintiff served Defendants Elcano. Torvinen, Sasser, Ashley, Sabo, Breckenridge, Wl
14 and CIS within the mandated time period.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court found that Plaintiff had not timely served Defendants. However, becaus
Plaintiff submitted an application for in forma pauperis status, the one-hundred and twen
(120) days began to run on August 11, 2011.
On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Elcano by leavin
process under a mat on Defendant Elcano's front porch. Although timely. Plaintiff
attempted service is insufficient. leaving process under someone's mat is not an approve
method of service of process. See N.R.C.P. 4(d}(6}.
On October 27. 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Torvinen with thirty-fiv
(35) pages worth of documents relating to the instant case.
N.R.C.P. 4(d) provides:
The summons and complaint shall be served together. The
plaintiff shall furnish the person making service with such copies
as are necessary. Service shall be made by delivering a copy
of the summons attached to a copy of the complaint ...
-3-
V5.1669
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Process was insufficient since the "copy" of the summons and the complaint wer
iIIegible.
2
As a result, Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper process on Defendant Torvine
and the complaint against him is dismissed pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).3
On November 16, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Saba with
summons. Once again, Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper process on Defendant Sabo b
failing to serve her with a copy of the summons and complaint. See N.R.C.P. 4(d).
Accordingly. the complaint against her is dismissed pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).
On November is, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Brecken ridge b
serving eighty-nine (89) pages worth of documents, some related to the present lawsuit an
others related to CV11-01955. Although a copy of the summons was attached to th
complaint, once again, the complaint was illegible. As a result, Plaintiff failed to effectuat
proper process on Defendant Breckenridge by failing to serve her with a "copy" of th
complaint. See N.R.C.P. 4(d). The complaint against Defendant Breckenridge is dismisse
pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).
Plaintiff made no attempt to serve Defendants Sasser and Ashley with a copy of th
summons and complaint by December 9, 2011. Plaintiff did not show good cause for hi
failure to serve Defendants Sasser and Ashley. Because Plaintiff failed to serve bot
Defendants within one-hundred and twenty (120) days after filing the complaint. Plaintiff'
complaint against Defendants Sasser and Ashley are dismissed. See N.R.C.P.4(i).
On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant WLS via its registere
agent, Defendant Elcano. Although timely, Plaintiff failed to comply with N.R.C.P. 4(9) b
not filing an affidavit with the Court to evidence proper service of process. Accordingly, th
complaint against WLS is dismissed.
Plaintiffs motion to set aside the order entered January 11, 2012 is denied.
III. Plaintiff's Motion to Retax Costs Is Moot.
21 2 The Nevada Supreme Court has held that notice of a litigation is not a substitute for proper service 0
process. C.H.A. Venture v_ G_C Wallace Consulting Engineers, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707,70
28 &1990). .
The complaint against CIS is also dismissed pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3) for failing to serve a "copy" 0
the summons and complaint.
-4-
V5.1670
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on January 11, 2012.
4
(Or., Jan.
ii, 2012). Defendants filed a notice of entry of order on January 12, 2012. Defendan
filed their verified memorandum of costs on January 23, 2012.
Defendants had five (5) days after the entry of judgment to file a verifie
memorandum of costs. See N.R.S. 18.110(1). Defendants failed to file their memorandu
of costs within the mandated time period.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to retax costs is moot.
IV. Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. Or in the Alternative
a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order is Denied. .
Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to N.R.C.P. 59, or i
the alternative. requested a Nunc Pro Tunc Order.
10
A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than ten (10) day
11
after service of a written notice of entry of judgment. N.R.C.P. 59(e). The ten (10) day tim
12
limit for the service of a motion to alter or amend the judgment is extended by three day
13 where the notice of the entry of judgment is served by mail. N.R.C.P.6(b).
14 Entry of judgment was filed on January 12, 2012. Plaintiff had until January 25,
15 2012 to file a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Plaintiff filed his motion on Februa
1,2012. Plaintiffs and is, therefore, denied.
5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DATED: This lIlt'/' iray of March, 2012. di
/1.

4 Judgment was entered on January 11,2012. (Or., Jan. 11,2012). N.R.C.P. 54(a) defmesjudgment as "a decree an
28 any order from which an appeal lies."
S Although the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, the merits of Plaintiff's arguments ar
addressed in section 11 of this order.
-5-
V5.1671
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that on the ~ d y of March, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
Judicial Assistant
F I L E D
Electronically
04-25-2012:09:48:47 AM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1672
(j

.s

ro
08

:!

..t:: 0

'.ii N
8 8

dil!
0

3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3860
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN, l
vs.
Plaintiff, )1
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada l
WLS, DOES 1-100, and in their )
OF )
WLS employee. )
Defendants. l
l
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
28 II /
V5.1673
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
c..1
0.-
11
"
."
"
''is 12

!-<.- '<T
" "-
13
tlVlo--O

-& N
-'l
14 8
8

at::> r::.-
15
c"li>3

df?
16
0
!
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
It is requested that PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, having been filed and served on April 3,
2012, Oppositions having been filed on April 11 , 2012 and April 12, 2012, and no Reply having
been filed, be submitted to the Court for decision.
parties.
Dated this 25
th
day of April, 2012.
By:
& GARIN.E,C.

(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
-2-
V5.1674
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11

08
12

i-<._ ..r

13

N
8 14
Cl );j---

15

16
3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
any person.
Dated this 25
th
day of April, 2012.
By:

(702) 382-1500
Caryn Sternlicht
- 3 -
V5.1675
c..?
P-<
c
"C
1.38

N<no-.O
...:: 0
0-0

ail F
<u 8
E;>
C!l"3

a
g
0
3
th
day of April, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Request
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Brian A. Gonsalves, Attomey at Law
P.O. Box 907
lsi Nancv Cooper
An Employee of
- 4 -
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-25-2012:09:48:47
04-25-2012:11:21:11
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1676
F I L E D
Electronically
04-26-2012:01:39:50 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1677
Code 3370
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
v.
Defendants.
__________________________
AMENDED ORDER
There are currently three motions pending before this Court: (1) Plaintiffs motion t
extend time for service of process; (2) Defendants' motion for reconsideration; and (3)
Plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the order denying his motion to proceed in form
pauperis.
I. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process Is Denied.
Plaintiff filed a motion to enlarge time for service of process. Defendants opposed
22 the motion.
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRCP 4(i) provides in relevant part:
"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."
-1-
V5.1678
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiffs complaint was received on June 27, 2011 and filed on August 11, 2011.
Pursuant to NRCP 4(i} Plaintiff had 120 days, or until December 9, 2011, to serve th
summons and complaint on Defendants or petition the Court for an extension of time.
Plaintiff failed to file a motion to enlarge the time for service and did not show good caus
for his failure to do so.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to enlarge time for service is denied.
II. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Is Denied.
Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order entered on Marc
13, 2012 with respect to Plaintiffs motion to retax costs being rendered moot. N
The Court finds that Defendants failed to either introduce substantially differen
evidence or demonstrate that the Court's qrder was clearly erroneous. See Masonry an
Tile Contractors Ass'n of S. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd., 113 Nev. 737, 741, 941 P.2d
486,489 (1997).
The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on January 11, 2012.1 (Or., Jan.
11,2012). Defendants filed their verified memorandum of costs on January 23,2012.
memorandum of costs. See NRS 18.110(1}. Defendants failed to file their memorandu
2
See NRCP 6(a}("When the
prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and
nonjudicial days shall be excluded in the computation except for those proceedings filed
under Titles 12 or 13 of the Nevada Revised Statutes."}
Defendants had until Thursday, January 19, 2012, to file their verified memorandu
of costs. Because Defendants filed their memorandum of costs on January 23, 2012, thei
memorandum was untimely.
Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied.
I Judgment was entered on January 11, 2012. (Or., Jan. 11, 2012). NRCP 54(a) defines judgment as "
26 decree and any order from which an appeal lies."
27 2 NRCP 6(e) speaks to service not to entry of a judgment. NRS 18.110(1) specifically states that a party ha
five days after the entry of judgment, not after the service of entry of judgment, to file a verified memorandu
28 of costs.
-2-
V5.1679
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Order Denying His Motion t
Proceed In Forma Pauperis Is Denied.
Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the Court's Order entered on March 8, 2012.
Defendants opposed the motion.
Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any documentation to support his motion t
alter or amend the Court's Order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff's motion was denied because Plaintiff failed to include a profit/loss statement,
balance sheet, a sworn affidavit showing the financial nature of Plaintiffs business affair
and Plaintiff's 2010 and 2011 tax returns. (Or., at 2, March 8, 2012). None of which wer
attached to Plaintiff's present motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to alter or amend is denied.
/"
DATED: This 1-'2 day of April, 2012.
"
DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
V5.1680
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that on the.& day of April, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
Judicial Assistant
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-26-2012:13:39:50
04-26-2012:13:40:11
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
AmendedOrdand/orJudgment
HeidiBoe
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1681
F I L E D
Electronically
04-30-2012:04:08:47 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1682
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
W
11 P-<
cl
c

12
Cjg

'S1;
13 tjrJ'l 0-. 0
--<
v"ll

'"
14
"8"
15

t;;>G
15

16
0

;3<
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2540
JOSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO, l
attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Incfividually and )
WLS employee, )
Defendants. l
l
DEPT. NO.: 6
V5.1683
1 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
2 NOTICE is hereby given that an Amended Order was entered on April 26, 2012, a copy
3 of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~ 11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated this 30
th
day of April, 2012.
By:
& GARIN.E.C
~ / ~ ~
(702) 382-1500
AFFIRMATION
Dated this 30
th
day of April, 2012.
By:
& GARIN.E.C
~ / ~ ~
(702) 382-1500
- 2-
V5.1684

P-<
c
c

08
<>l-
..... *

0

,iJ N
(3 B

o G
eg,.3

0

th
day of April, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Notice
4 as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C .
- 3 -
V5.1685
1
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
No.1 Amended Order 4 pages
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
li
11 "-<
0'
c

12
(jg

......... -o:t"
13

14
ag
a .... >R
15
o;l'J ----
c'S!i<3

16
0
CO-
o

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
EXHI BI T 1
EXHI BI T 1
V5.1686
F I L E D
Electronically
04-26-2012:01:39:50 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1687
Code 3370
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
v.
Defendants.
__________________________
AMENDED ORDER
There are currently three motions pending before this Court: (1) Plaintiffs motion t
extend time for service of process; (2) Defendants' motion for reconsideration; and (3)
Plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the order denying his motion to proceed in form
pauperis.
I. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process Is Denied.
Plaintiff filed a motion to enlarge time for service of process. Defendants opposed
22 the motion.
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRCP 4(i) provides in relevant part:
"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."
-1-
V5.1688
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiffs complaint was received on June 27, 2011 and filed on August 11, 2011.
Pursuant to NRCP 4(i} Plaintiff had 120 days, or until December 9, 2011, to serve th
summons and complaint on Defendants or petition the Court for an extension of time.
Plaintiff failed to file a motion to enlarge the time for service and did not show good caus
for his failure to do so.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to enlarge time for service is denied.
II. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Is Denied.
Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order entered on Marc
13, 2012 with respect to Plaintiffs motion to retax costs being rendered moot. N
The Court finds that Defendants failed to either introduce substantially differen
evidence or demonstrate that the Court's qrder was clearly erroneous. See Masonry an
Tile Contractors Ass'n of S. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd., 113 Nev. 737, 741, 941 P.2d
486,489 (1997).
The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on January 11, 2012.1 (Or., Jan.
11,2012). Defendants filed their verified memorandum of costs on January 23,2012.
memorandum of costs. See NRS 18.110(1}. Defendants failed to file their memorandu
2
See NRCP 6(a}("When the
prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and
nonjudicial days shall be excluded in the computation except for those proceedings filed
under Titles 12 or 13 of the Nevada Revised Statutes."}
Defendants had until Thursday, January 19, 2012, to file their verified memorandu
of costs. Because Defendants filed their memorandum of costs on January 23, 2012, thei
memorandum was untimely.
Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied.
I Judgment was entered on January 11, 2012. (Or., Jan. 11, 2012). NRCP 54(a) defines judgment as "
26 decree and any order from which an appeal lies."
27 2 NRCP 6(e) speaks to service not to entry of a judgment. NRS 18.110(1) specifically states that a party ha
five days after the entry of judgment, not after the service of entry of judgment, to file a verified memorandu
28 of costs.
-2-
V5.1689
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Order Denying His Motion t
Proceed In Forma Pauperis Is Denied.
Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the Court's Order entered on March 8, 2012.
Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any documentation to support his motion t
alter or amend the Court's Order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff's motion was denied because Plaintiff failed to include a profit/loss statement,
balance sheet, a sworn affidavit showing the financial nature of Plaintiffs business affair
and Plaintiff's 2010 and 2011 tax returns. (Or., at 2, March 8, 2012). None of which wer
attached to Plaintiff's present motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to alter or amend is denied.
/"
DATED: This 1-'2 day of April, 2012.
"
DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
V5.1690
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that on the.& day of April, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
Judicial Assistant
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
04-30-2012:16:08:47
04-30-2012:16:10:23
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
NoticeofEntryofOrd
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1691
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

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
05-02-2012:09:19:55 AM
3860
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, J on Sasser,
IN THE SECOND J UDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
ZACH COUGHLIN, CASE NO.: CV11-01896
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs. REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION
)
)
)
)
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
)
)
)
)
SERVICES, CARYN STERNLICHT,
)
)
attorney, J ON SASSER, Individually and in
)
his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO,
)
)
attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and
)
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA
)
LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as
)
WLS employee.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
/ / /
V5.1692
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

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
It is requested that PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER OF MARCH
13, 2012, having been filed and served on April 3, 2012, Oppositions having been filed on April
11, 2012 and April 20, 2012, and no Reply having been filed, be submitted to the Court for
decision.
parties.
Dated this 2
nd
day of May, 2012.
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
J oseph P. Garin (Bar No. 6653)
(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, J on
Caryn Sternlicht
- 2 -
V5.1693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AFFIRMATION
any person.
Dated this 2
nd
day of May, 2012.
& GARIN P.C.
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen, Karen Sabo, J on
Caryn Sternlicht

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
- 3 -
V5.1694

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

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
nd
day of May, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Request
for Submission, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of
- 4 -
V5.1695
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
05-02-2012:09:19:55
05-02-2012:10:05:01
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1696
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

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
F I L E D
Electronically
05-07-2012:02:38:03 PM
2540
Clerk of the Court
J OSEPH P. GARIN
Nevada Bar No. 6653
Nevada Bar No. 8211
(702) 382-1500
(702) 382-1512 - fax
J on Sasser, Marc Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
IN THE SECOND J UDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
ZACH COUGHLIN, CASE NO.: CV11-01896
)
DEPT. NO.: 6
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
)
)
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
)
)
)
)
)
)
attorney, J ON SASSER, Individually and in
)
his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO,
)
)
attorney, MARC ASHLEY, Individually and
)
in his capacity as WLS attorney, ZANDRA
)
LOPEZ, Individually and in her capacity as
)
WLS employee,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
V5.1697
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

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
NOTICE is hereby given that an Amended Order was entered on May 7, 2012, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Dated this 7
th
day of May, 2012.
& GARIN P.C
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, J on Sasser, Marc Ashley and Caryn
Sternlicht
AFFIRMATION
Dated this 7
th
day of May, 2012.
& GARIN P.C
G
By: __________________________________
(702) 382-1500
Breckenridge, J on Sasser, Marc Ashley, and
Caryn Sternlicht
- 2 -
V5.1698
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_______________________________________
th
day of May, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of Notice of
Entry of Order, upon the following parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
P.O. Box 907
/s/ Nancy Cooper
An Employee of

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
- 3 -
V5.1699
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

L
i
p
s
o
n
,

N
e
i
l
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
e
,

S
e
l
t
z
e
r

&

G
a
r
i
n
,

P
.
C
.

9
0
8
0

W
e
s
t

P
o
s
t

R
o
a
d
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
0

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s
,

N
V

8
9
1
4
8

3
8
2
-
1
5
0
0

(
7
0
2
)
EXHIBIT INDEX
No. 1 Amended Order 2 pages
- 4 -
V5.1700
EXHI BI T 1
EXHI BI T 1
V5.1701
F I L E D
Electronically
05-07-2012:10:45:57 AM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1702
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Code 3370
9 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Case No. CV11-01896
10
Plaintiff, Dept. NO.6
11
12
v.
13 WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et ai,
14
Defendants.
15
--------------------------,
AMENDED ORDER
16
Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the Order entered on March 13, 2012.
17
18
Plaintiff is filing repetitive motions asking the Court to reconsider things that hav
19
already been decided. Plaintiff's motion is frivolous. If Plaintiff continues to file suc
20 baseless motions, he will be sanctioned by the Court pursuant to NRCP 11(c)(1)(8).
21 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend is denied.
22 DATED: This 1 ~ of May, 2012.
23 ~ t 1
24 7 DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
-1-
V5.1703
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that on the day of May, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
BRIAN GONSALVES. ESQ.
Judicial Assistant
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
05-07-2012:14:38:03
05-07-2012:14:39:18
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
NoticeofEntry...
- **Continuation
JOSEPHGARIN,ESQ.
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1704
F I L E D
Electronically
05-07-2012:10:45:57 AM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1705
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Code 3370
9 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, Case No. CV11-01896
10
Plaintiff, Dept. NO.6
11
12
v.
13 WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et ai,
14
Defendants.
15
--------------------------,
AMENDED ORDER
16
Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the Order entered on March 13, 2012.
17
18
Plaintiff is filing repetitive motions asking the Court to reconsider things that hav
19
already been decided. Plaintiff's motion is frivolous. If Plaintiff continues to file suc
20 baseless motions, he will be sanctioned by the Court pursuant to NRCP 11(c)(1)(8).
21 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend is denied.
22 DATED: This 1 ~ of May, 2012.
23 ~ t 1
24 7 DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
-1-
V5.1706
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that on the day of May, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ.
BRIAN GONSALVES. ESQ.
Judicial Assistant
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
05-07-2012:10:45:57
05-07-2012:10:46:48
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
AmendedOrdand/orJudgment
HeidiBoe
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1707
F I L E D
Electronically
06-04-2012:04:30:24 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1708
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, A
NEVADA CORPORATION; KATHY
BRECKENRIDGE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HER CAPACITY AS BOARD
PRESIDENT OF WLS; TODD
TORVINEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND HIS
CAPACITY AS WLS, BOARD MEMBER;
PAUL ELCANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF WLS; CARYN R.
STERNLICHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND
HER CAPACITY AS WLS ATTORNEY;
JON L. SASSER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
IN HIS CAPACITY AS WLS AGENT;
KAREN L. SABO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
IN HER CAPACITY AS WLS
ATTORNEY; MARC ASHLEY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
CAPACITY AS WLS ATTORNEY; AND
ZANDRA LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
IN HER CAPACITY AS WLS
EMPLOYEE,
Res ondents.
No. 60302

FILED
MAY 3 f 2012

CLE;t(F RT
IY .
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL IN PART
This is a proper person appeal from a district court order
dismissing appellant's wrongful termination complaint.
Crisis Intervention Services (CIS), which apparently was
served with, but not named in, the complaint below, has moved to dismiss
this appeal on three grounds: (1) appellant's failure to properly complete
and file the case appeal statement; (2) appellant's failure to serve on CIS
V5.1709
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ...,
the notice of appeal and case appeal statement; and (3) the appeal's
frivolous nature. Appellant filed a 47 -page document entitled "opposition
to motion to dismiss and request for extension of time to pay filing fee and
comply with other appellate rules," but in it, appellant neither opposes the
motion to dismiss (except, perhaps, as to the third basis) nor requests an
extension of time. He then untimely filed a proper case appeal statement.
CIS has filed a reply to the opposition.
Having considered the parties' filings, we grant the motion to
dismiss as to CIS on the second ground alleged. Specifically, it appears
that appellant failed to properly serve CIS with the notice of appeal, and
appellant has not demonstrated otherwise; indeed, appellant's case appeal
statement indicates that CIS is a named party and has not interpled
or filed as a real party in interest." Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as
to CIS, only.
Further, appellant's transcript request form and docketing
statement are more than two months overdue. Appellant shall have 11
days from the date of this order to file and serve his (1) transcript request
form or certificate that no transcript will be requested, NRAP 9; and (2)
docketing statement, NRAP 14. Failure to comply with this order may
result in the imposition of sanctions.
It is so ORDERED.

, J.
*,UCl Cl m
rIo
Parraguirre
2
V5.1710
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ....
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Zachary B. Coughlin
Brian A. Gonsalves
Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin, P.C.
Washoe District Court Clerk ./
3
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
06-04-2012:16:30:24
06-04-2012:16:33:27
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
SupremeCtOrdDismisAppeal
LoriMatheus
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1711
F I L E D
Electronically
08-29-2012:03:38:21 PM
Clerk of the Court
V5.1712
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVAOA
(0) 1947A ...
--------------------------.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, A NEVADA
CORPORATION; KATHY
BRECKENRIDGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
IN HER CAPACITY AS BOARD
PRESIDENT OF WLS; TODD TORVINEN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND HIS CAPACITY AS
WLS, BOARD MEMBER; PAUL ELCANO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY
AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF WLS;
CARYN R. STERNLICHT,
INDIVIDUALLY AND HER CAPACITY AS
WLS ATTORNEY; JON L. SASSER,
AS WLS AGENT; KAREN L. SABO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY
AS WLS ATTORNEY; MARC ASHLEY,
AS WLS ATTORNEY; AND ZANDRA
LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER
CAPACITY AS WLS EMPLOYEE,
Res ondents.
No. 60302
FILED
<0
AUG 28 2012
TRACIE K. LINDEMAN

DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS,
DIRECTING TRANSMISSION OF RECORD,
AND SETTING REVISED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a
wrongful termination action.
Respondents have moved to dismiss this appeal for appellant's
failure to timely file an opening brief and appendix. Appellant opposes the
motion and seeks an extension of time to file the brief and appendix. On
June 7, 2012, however, appellant was temporarily suspended from the
V5.1713
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ...
practice of law. See In re: Discipline of Zachary Coughlin, Docket No.
60838 (Order of Temporary Suspension and Referral to Disciplinary
Board, June 7, 2012). Accordingly, as appellant is now proceeding as a
proper person appellant without an attorney, we vacate the original
briefing schedule and deny the motion to dismiss and the motion for an
extension of time.
Having reviewed the documents on file in this proper person
appeal, we conclude that our review of the complete record is warranted.
See NRAP 10(a)(1). Accordingly, within 30 days from the date of this
order, the clerk of the district court shall transmit to the clerk of this court
a certified copy of the trial court record in District Court Case No. CV11-
01896. See NRAP 11(a)(2) (providing that the complete record shall
contain each and every paper, pleading and other document filed, or
submitted for filing, in the district court, as well as any previously
prepared transcripts of the district court proceedings). The record shall
not include any exhibits filed in the district court.
Further, we construe appellant's August 23, 2012, motion for
leave to file a surreply consisting of appellant's proposed opening brief as a
motion seeking leave to file briefs in proper person. NRAP 46(b).
Accordingly, we grant the motion and decline to place this appeal in the
pilot program for civil appellants proceeding in proper person. See ADKT
No. 385 (Order Establishing Pilot Program in Civil Appeals, June 10,
2005), Exhibit A (Instructions for Civil Litigants Without Attorneys). See
also ADKT No. 385 (Order Extending Pilot Program for Civil Proper
Person Appeals, May 10, 2006) (extending the pilot program for civil
appeals, which was scheduled to conclude on June 13, 2006, until further
order of this court). .The clerk of this court is directed to file appellant's
2
V5.1714
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ...,
proposed opening brief, provisionally received by this court on August 23,
2012. Respondents shall have 45 days from the date of this order to file
and serve an answering brief. The answering brief may cite to either the
record on appeal or any appendix filed with the answering brief.
Appellant shall have 15 days from the date that respondents' answering
brief is served to file and serve a reply brief. As our consideration of the
merits of this appeal has already been delayed by appellant's failure to
timely file briefs, no late reply brief will be accepted.
It is so ORDERED.
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Zachary B. Coughlin
-, J.
24 ,J.

Parra uirre
Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin, P. C.
Washoe District C.ourt Clerk
3
4
Judge:
OfficialFileStamp:
ClerkAccepted:
Court:
CaseTitle:
FiledBy:
CV11-01896
BRENTADAMS
08-29-2012:15:38:21
08-29-2012:15:38:43
SERVICESETAL.(D6)
SupremeCourtOrderDenying
LoriMatheus
BRIANGONSALVES,ESQ
COUGHLIN
ZANDRALOPEZ
V5.1715

9 18 12 Vol 5 of 5 ROA WLS 60302 Coughlin V WLS Appeal of CV11-01896

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

9 18 12 Vol 5 of 5 ROA WLS 60302 Coughlin V WLS Appeal of CV11-01896

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen