F I L E D

Electronically
01-13-2012:10:14:06 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2699027
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
***
10 ZACH COUGHLIN,
11
12
13
vs.
Plaintiff, Case No.: CV11-01955
Dept. No.: 10
14 WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et al;
15
16
17
18
19
20
Defendants.
________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL; MOTION TO TAX
COSTS; MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; AND ADDITIONAL MOTIONS
Presently before the Court are several motions filed by Plaintiff ZACH COUGHLIN
21 (hereafter "Plaintiff''). First, on December 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document titled
22 "Opposition to all Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and all Defendant's Motions to Quash
23 Service, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond/Continuance; Opposition to Motion to
24 Tax Costs Simultaneously Seeking Extensions of Time or Continuance to Respond"
25 (hereafter "Plaintiff's Initial Motions"). The following day, December 16, 2011, Plaintiff file
26 a document titled "Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside
27 NRCP 59, 60 Dismissal and Supplement to Opposition to all Defendant's Motions to Dismiss
28 and all Defendant's Motions to Quash Service, Motion for Extension of Time to
-1-
I
1 Respond/Continuance; Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs Simultaneously Seeking
2 Extensions of Time or Continuance to Respond" (hereafter "Plaintiff's First Set of
3 Supplemental Motions''). That same day, Plaintiff also filed a document titled "Opposition
4 to all Defendant's Motions to Dismiss; Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Order Granting
5 Dismissal NRCP 59, NRCP 50; Motion for Reconsideration" (hereafter "Plaintiff's Second Set
6 of Supplemental Motions',).!
7
8
9
10
11
Subsequently, on December 27, 2011, Defendants WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES and
PAUL ELCANO (hereafter "Defendants") filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Order Granting Dismissal.
Contemporaneously therewith, Defendants filed an Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs.
12 Finally, on January 10. 2011, Defendants filed Requests for SubmisSion of Plaintiff's
13
14
Motions, thereby submitting the matters for the Court's consideration.
Although Plaintiff's arguments are unclear, he appears to argue-in his First Set of
15 Supplemental Motions-that his service of Defendants was sufficient based on his
16 production of an application for a driver's license by the server, video evidence of the
17 service, an edited proof of service with typewritten additions by Plaintiff, and vague
18 reference to additional attempts at service. However, this evidence is not substantially
19 different from the evidence submitted by Plaintiff in his initial opposition to Defendants'
20
21
22
23
motion to dismiss, and the evidence does not cure the defects in service noted by the
Court in its Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Process and Other Relief.
Likewise, the evidence does not show that the Court's conclusion was clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking reconSideration through his motions,
24 the Court concludes that Plaintiff's motions must be denied. See NRCP 59; Masonry and
25
Title Contractors Assn of So. Nev. v. Jolly Urga & Wirth/ Ltd, 113 Nev. 737, 741, 941 P.2d
26
486, 489 (1997) (holding that a court "may reconsider a previously decided issue if
27
28 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff's filings do not conform to District Court rules for such filings. Nonetheless, in
the interest of fairness, the Court will consider the merits of Plaintiff's arguments.
-2-
1 substantially different evidence is subsequently introduced or the decision is clearly
2 erroneous''). For the same reasons, the evidence advanced by Plaintiff does not meet the
3 standard for setting aSide or vacating the Court's dismissal of his Complaint pursuant to
4 NRCP 60.
5 Although Plaintiff lists additional motions in the titles of his documents, he does not
6 actually provide any argument to support those motions. Further, Plaintiff does not
7
8
9
10
support any of his arguments with citation to relevant law. Accordingly, the Court must
dismiss the additional Motions brought by Plaintiff in the pleadings at issue. See NRCP 7(b)
(requiring that all pleadings must "state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall
set forth the relief or order sought''). Therefore, the Court will issue the following orders:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Order Granting Dismissal is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Initial Motions are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Set of Supplemental Motions is
19 DENIED.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Set of Supplemental Motions is
DENIED.
DATED this I'd.. day of January, 2012.
-3-
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by
3 using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
4
5 JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. for MELISSA MANGIARACINA, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, BOARD PRES.
OF WLS, MARC ASHLEY, TODD TORVINEN, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, TODD TORVINEN,
6 WLS BOARD MEMBER, PAUL ELCANO, PAUL ELCANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WLS
BOARD, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES
7
8 GARY FULLER, ESQ. for COMMmEE TO AIDE ABUSED WOMAN
9 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACH COUGHLIN
10
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ for TAHOE WOMEN'S SERVICES
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this ICh
day of .
=-_ _

Judicial Assistant
-4-