SIXTH JUDICIAL COURT LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA

Transcription

1 SIXTH JUDICIAL COURT LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA DALTON WILSON ) Case No. C.V Plaintiff ) Judge Michael Montero ) v. ) ATLAS TOWING Inc. ) NICKY Q. AYERS ) LLOYD W. AYERS ) HY FORGERON ) PLAINTIFF S OBJECTION TO SADIE SULLIVAN ) DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUE TILLER ) ATTORNEYS FEES AND NOTICE BRIAN GARNER ) OF MOTION TO STRIKE IDONNA TREVINO ) RON UNGER ) LANDER COUNTY ) DOES 8-20 ) Defendants ) ) COMES NOW, Plaintiff Dalton Wilson pursuant to Rule 7 of the District Court Practice Rules of the State of Nevada and objects to Defendant s Motion for attorney s fees and moves this Court to Strike said motion for the following reasons: MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE 1. Defendant s Motion for Attorney s Fees is fatally flawed for at least four reasons, any one of which dooms it to failure. REASON ONE 1. First, the Motion is based on a conclusion that the Complaint was made without ground or to harass. The court has made no such conclusion. In fact, the court has concluded that an additional party needs to be added to what is clearly a justiciable claim, but the issue of whether it would deprive the Nevada Court of jurisdiction over the subject matter has not been address. See Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 19(a) 1

2 2. Furthermore, movant has provided no evidence that the purpose of the claim was to harass, or that it was made without grounds. The mere number of pleadings and parties is no evidence of harassment; if that were true, then Mr Forgeron would have us believe that many cases against, say, organized criminal organizations would have been filed merely for purposes of harassment. Mr Forgeron also repeats, without any citations to authorities, the propaganda that Plaintiff has no rights, disregarding the violation of due process available even to convicted felons. Perhaps Mr Forgeron needs to return to law school for a refresher course, including a quick brush up on ethics, and another on logic. A court is a place to argue according to reason, a place for proper debate of issues, and not a place to market and sell positions. REASON TWO 3. Second, the matter is not final, since not all issues have been decided, and attorney s fees may be awarded only after final judgment. Indeed, no claims have yet been decided. Clearly, there are issues remaining to be decided, as this court has determined that the matter belongs in Federal court. (Plaintiff reiterates his position that state court is proper, as there is no federal issues, but with respect to the validity of the claims this court apparently does not disagree with Plaintiff.) Furthermore, this court has failed to rule on many of the motions before it, so it has not made a final decision even in its own venue. REASON THREE 4. Third, not all of Defendant s motions were in compliance with the law. For example, the proposed orders submitted prior to the court s decisions, the improper affidavits, and the hearsay evidence, all were improper according to binding rules, statutes, opinions, and other authorities. Mr Forgeron is not entitled to be paid for unethical activity. 2

3 5. Conviction of a crime or acts or omissions by an attorney [...] which violate the rules of this court are misconduct and constitute grounds for discipline. SCR 101. SCR 102 enumerates a variety of discipline which courts may impose for attorney misconduct and includes, among others, disbarment, suspension, reprimand and fine. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Crawford, 109 Nev. 616 at 621, 855 P.2d 1024 (1993) When discipline is appropriate, then reward is obviously inappropriate. 6. [W]hen this court perceives a lack of regard for its rules or decisions, we may well impose sanctions such as striking a brief, dismissing an appeal, or finding a confession of error. Additionally, the attorneys involved may be referred to the bar for discipline. Nevada Employment Security Dept. v. Weber, 100 Nev. 121 at 124, 676 P.2d 1318 (1984). 7. It is more appropriate, given the unethical conduct of Mr Forgeron, that his cost and fee motion be denied in toto. If, as appellant argues, the court were required to award a reasonable fee when an outrageously unreasonable one has been asked for, claimants would be encouraged to make unreasonable demands, knowing that the only unfavorable consequence of such conduct would be reduction of their fee to what they should have asked for in the first place. To discourage such greed a severe reaction is needful... Fair Housing Council v. Landor, 999 F.2d 92, at 96, quoting the Seventh Circuit in Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057). In Fair Housing Council, supra, the Fourth Circuit remanded with instructions to deny fees entirely. FOURTH REASON 8. Fourth, no proper basis has been provided for the billing amount. There are no details provided with the claim. We require that lawyers keep meticulous time records that reveal [...] all hours for which compensation is requested and how those hours were 3

4 allotted to specific tasks Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1510 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 553 (10th Cir. 1983)) Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet, 74 F.3d 980, at 989. No such details have been provided. 9. Without adequate records, there is no way to determine if the time was spent properly, and if it was allowable. Not all time is allowable. Therefore, more detailed records are needed. [T]he party who seeks payment must keep records in sufficient detail that a neutral judge can make a fair evaluation of the time expended, the nature and need for the service, and the reasonable fees to be allowed. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 at 441, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983). 10. In summary, there are many reasons to deny the attorneys fee request, and no just ones to allow it. CONCLUSION Based on all of the quoted authorities Defendant s Motion for Attorney s fees should be stricken or denied as there has been no final resolution of Plaintiff s claims and the issues of discretionary conduct in violation of the due process requirements of the Constitutional, and statutory mandates of the laws of Nevada. Court s are not vested with any authority to violate the rules of the court as these are the people s courts and any disregard for those rules would lead to an appearance of injustice and prejudice towards the Citizens of Nevada. The laws of Nevada in regards to domestication of judgments, enforcement of judgments and the Due Process protections of the people go to the heart of our American Jurisprudence. VERIFICATION 4

5 As the Undersigned, I, Dalton Wilson, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See the Supremacy Clause for Constitutional authority. Date: December 2, 2011 Dalton Wilson P.O. Box 74 Austin, Nevada (775) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dalton Wilson certify that on this day December 2, 2011, I served copies of the attached, PLAINTIFF S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT S AND NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE Hereinafter, documents, by depositing in the United States Postal Service in Austin, Nevada and personally serving the Clerk of the Court: Clerk of the Court 6 th Judicial District Court of Nevada 315 South Humboldt St. Nick Ayers Service of Agent for Atlas Towing Service Inc Clydesdale Road Hy Forgeron 168 South Reese P.O. Box 1179 Angie Elquist Lander County Attorney P.O. Box 187 5

6 Rebecca Brunch Esq. Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston, LTD 99 West Arroyo Street Reno, Nevada (775) DATE: December 2, 2011 Dalton Wilson P.O Box 74 Austin, Nevada