7 25 12 To 8 22 13 760 Pages Bates 02045 62237 61901 26405 CR12-1262 All Filings in 2JDC Appeal From RMC Ocr Final A9

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Code 1180
FilED
2012 JUL 25 AMI!: 3,
ORIGtNAL
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO,
Respondent.
~ /
Case No. CA\l-lllo
Dept. No. La
APPEAL PROCEEDINGS FROM MUNICIPAL'S COURT
http://www.scribd.com/doc/166573818/CR12-1262-3049796-Appeal-From-
Municipal-s-Court-Copy
Note by Coughlin: the first 242 pages represents the ROA filed by the RMC in
the 2JDC on 7/25/12, Coughlin digitized filings where possible in this
repdocution
reproduction, though nothing has been made legible that was not previously
legible. Such digitization was done to reduce pdf file size.
The exact 242 page eFlex file is available for comparison here:
00001
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
iO
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RENO
MUNICIPAL COURT
PO &':1900
Rcr.o,lwmOS
(115) ll4.12900

Document Code 1375
Reno Municipal Court
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, Nevada 89505
775 334-2290

ORIGINAL
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLm,
Case No. ___________ _
Appellant,
Dept. No. _______ _
vs.
CITY OF RENO,
Respondent.
---------------------1
CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET
13 November 2011: Criminal Complaint issued upon the oath of Reno Police
Department Officer Carter.
Charge 1: Trespass, a violation ofR.M.C 08.10.010.
14 November 2011: Defendant appeared while in custody before Judge William Gardner
for arraignment. 1be defendant was represented by Keith Loomis Esq. and on behalf of the City
was Christopher Hazlett-Stevens. The defendant was advised of his Constitutional rights. The
Defendant entered a plea of Not Guilty and a trial date was set for December 13,2011. Lewis
Taitel Esq. was appointed to represent defendant. Defendant's request for release on O.R. was
denied.
15 November 2011: Cash bail in the amount of$310.00 wa.s posted and the defendant was
released from the Washoe County Jail.
Approved October 11, 2004
RMC33
--=[ I J=--
00002
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
RENO
MtJ)llClPAL COlJllT
PO aox l900

(175) J3o/..l2900

23 November 20ll: Motion To Continue With Supporting Declaration flIed by
Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens.
28 November 2011: Order Continuing Trial signed by Judge William Gardner.
30 November 2011: Trial date of January 10,2012 set by the court. Legal Defender
Roberto Puentes was appointed as Attorney for defendant for new trial date.
14 December 2011: Motion To Proceed lnfonna Pauperis filed by defendant.
03 January 2012: Motion for New Trial Date filed by Legal Defender Roberto
Puentes.
04 January 2012: Motion for New Trial Date granted by Judge William Gardner.
18 January 2012: Motion For Withdrawal Of Attorney filed by Legal Defender
Roberto Puentes. A motion hearing was set for February 2,2012.
02 February 2012: Motion hearing held before Judge William Gardner. Present at
the hearing on behalf of the City was Deputy City Attorney Jill Drake, for the defense Roberto
Puentes and defendant Zachary Couglin. Motion To Withdraw was granted. Legal Defender
Keith Loomis was appointed to represent defendant.
Approved October 11,2004 RMC33
--=[ 2]=--
00003

2
13 February 2012: Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59,
3
JCRCP 60, Motion for Reconsideration: Motion for Recusal: Motion For Publication Of
4
5
Transcript at Public Expense. Petition for In Fonna Pauperis Status filed by defendant.
6
7
16 February 2012: Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59,
8
JCRCP 60, Motion for Reconsideration: Motion for Recusal: Motion For Publication Of
9
Transcript at Public Expense. Petition for In Fonna Pauperis Status filed by defendant.
10
II
12
22 February 2012: Opposition to Defendant's Motion filed February 13,2012, filed
13
by Deputy City Attorney Jill Drake.
14
15
05 March 2012: Trial date set for April 10, 2012 by Court.
16
17
18
05 March 2012: Notice Of Appearace As Co-Counsel And Motion To Dismiss filed
19
defendant.
20
21
20 March 2012: Order #1 denying defendant's motion filed 13, February 2012 signed
by
22
Judge William Gardner.
23
24
25
21 March 2012: Order#2 denying defendant's motion filed 5, March 2012 signed by
26
Judge William Gardner.
27
28
RENO
MtINlCll'AL curRY
PO Box 1900
Reoo. !-IV 8\lSO:S
Approved October Ii. 2004 RMC33
(775) 314..22900
--=[ 3 ]=--
00004
I
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
"""
MUNI CIPAL (,Ou ltT
POBotc l900
R .... NV89S0S
am3JH19OCl

21 March 2012: Motion To Strike Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Complaint filed by
Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazletl- Stevens.
10 April 2012: Defendant appeared for trial with counsel Keith Loomis, Judge William
Gardner presiding. Present on behalf of the City was Christopher Hazlett-Stevens. Several
pre-trial motions were heard. An Order Suspending Proceedings was signed. All
proceedings suspended until the question of competence is determined. Case Status Hearing
scheduled for 8, May 20 12.
08 May 2012: Case Status hearing held before Judge William Gardner. Present on
behalf of the City was Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, for the defense
Keith Loomis and defendant Zachary Coughlin. Defendant was found to be competent.
Defendant's motion to remove Keith Loomis as counsel granted. Trial date set by the court
for June 18, 2012.
OS June 2012: Notice Of Appearance As Counsel ; Motion To Dismiss; Motion To
Suppress; Motion For A Continuance Of Trial And Transfer To Mental Health Court filed by
defendant.
18 June 2012: Defendant appeared for trial pro-per, Judge William Gardner presiding.
Present on behalf of the City was Christopher Hazlett-Stevens. Several pre-trial motions
were heard. Motion to Continue filed by defendant denied. Motion to Dismiss filed by
defendant denied. Motion to Suppress denied. Motion to Recuse denied. Motion to Transfer
to Mental Health Court denied. Case tried on its merits and the Defendant was found guilty of the
charge of Trespass, a violation of R.M.C 08.10.01 O.
Approved October 11. 2004 RMC33
--=[ 4 ]=--
00005

The Defendant was sentenced as follows:
2
3
Trespass, a violation of RM.C 08.1 om D. : Time Served and a $310.00 fine.
4
26 June 2012: Motion for New Trial filed by defendant.
5
6
11 July 2012: Order Denying Motion For New Trial & For Other Relief signed by Judge
7
William Gardner.
8
9
18 July 2012: Notice Of Appeal filed by defendant.
IO
II
12
I3
14
25 July 2012: Notice 0 f Appeal, motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
15
16
Motion for Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Publication Of Transcript at
17
Public Expense, Petition for In Forma Pauperis Status filed by defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Municipal Judge.

25
Department Two
26
27
28
RENO
MUNlClPAt.COURT
PO Bn>IIPOO
Reoo.NVII'.I505
Approved October 11. 2004 RMC33

--=[ 5]=--
00006
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
O<ENO
MtJN)C(J>Al, COURT
PO Bo!( 1900
l\I!:I:IO,.N.... lMM
(77'}334.22900

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMITTAL OF COMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL
I, Cassandra Jackson, Court Administrator of the Reno Municipal Court, do hereby
certity that the attached documents include full, true and correct copies of all papers relating
to Case Number 11 CR 2640521, including a Certified Copy of Docket, Plaintiff's exhibits 1-
3. Further, said documents have been transmitted to and filed with the clerk of the Washoe
County District Court. Transcript to follow.
Court Administrator
SUBSCRIBED AND BEFORE ME
this day of--"'J=:.....!LO().:..!\'f+-______ , 2012.

\ k Wa L(
NOr Y PUBLIC
STATE OF NEVADA - COUNTY OF WASHOE
Approved October 11. 2004
LISA WAGNER
-.y Public St8Ie 01 Nowada

--=[ 6 ]=--
RMC33
00007
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
RENO
MlINfCIPALCOURf

Itmo, NV 89SOS

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), 1 hereby certify that I am an employee of the Reno Municipal
Court and that on this date I deposited for mailing at Reno, Nevada a true copy of the
foregoing document addressed to:
CHRISTOPHER HAZLETT -STEVENS
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 1900
RENO, NEVADA 89505
and
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
P.O. Box 3961
RENO, NV 89505
DATED this t316
day OfJU."'I
LISA WAGNER
Judicial Assistant
Department Two
--=[ 7 ]=--
,2012.
RMC33
00008
ij
7
n

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
AFFIRMATION
Pursuant to NRS 2398.030
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document, __ _
ern:., 1/ tRJ.lP4D5
!J filed in case number: ______ . _____________ _
10
12
14
IH
21
;>4
21i
111
Document does nol contain Ihe social security number of any person
OR ,
D Document contains the social security number of a person as required by:
o A specific state or federal law, to wit:
(State specific state or federal law)
\
or
o For the administration of a public program
or-
o For an application for a federal or state grant
-or-
O Confidential Family Court Information Sheet
(NRS 125.130, NRS 125.230 and NRS 1258.055)
Dale:
(AUO/ lIey tor)
AIIr,rmtflCJfI
I.lur:flln/Jfu 1-5. ,?on6
00009

IN TIm MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO'
CITY OF RENO,
S:PAFI.ATE DISPOSITION
CRlMINAL COMPLAINT
(GENERAL)
V(lQj ';:il/G.it I q
___ _
DOB 'I JUDGE __
ttl I&.It- Sr. I ._1
/J J 17S'
1, hr4"tP hereby complain aDd say !hat
i4J.N
,
4. hascommittedthecrimeof '7)JS/Usr
- ____________ to wit:
That said defendant on or about Nov 13
StateofNevada,l. Ave# eac. ' :Yf. TH-tF
AI7 IJ ,_ }
-ntf;= f&f'f'!J t;l/ILg.:-i::.
20.lL. in the Ci!)' of Reno,
Del tAlkS fOtW(J d1I
0,..1 II-I-II.
__ All of wbich is in violation of NRS _____ as adopted by section
1.04.015 of the Reno Municipal Code.
All of which is in violation of 8' 10' Q / ()
Code.
of the Reno Municipal
J therefore request that said Defendant be dealt with according to law.
. I hm:by declare upon infonnation and belief under penal!)' of peljury pursuant to NRS
171.)02. that the foregoing is true and correct to the be&t of my I .
(Dared)'
)100
00010
IN THE emICIPAL COURT OF THE CI. OF RENO
ONE SOUTH SIERRA STREET, RENO, NY 89505
Mailing: P.O. Box 1900, Reno, NY 89505 PHONE (775)3342290
V8.
DEFENDANT: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY
Court Case#: 11 CR 26405 21
Agency#: RPD 1122185
DOB: 09/2711976
Accident#: Booking#: 19876
Status: OPEN
ENGLISH
Attorney: TAITEI. LEWIS
1111312011 FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE COURT
11I14/l011 LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: LEW TAITEL; 475 S. ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUiTE lA RENO, NEVADA 89501
PHONE (775) 322.2272
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONT ACfING YOUR ATTORNEY SO THAT HEISHE
WILL HAVE ALL OF THE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM THE COURT TO ASSIST YOU WITH YOUR CASE.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOINTED A LEGAL DEFENDER TO
REPRESENT HlMIHER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON 11flS MATTER IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED TIIAT TIlE DEFENDANT COMPLETE A FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION AND
MAYBE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTATION BY THE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY'S DATE. IN THE EVENT THAT THIS ORDER EXPIRES,
THE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT AN UPDATED FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
[F THE DEFENDANT liAS WITNESSES THAT HFJSHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OF HlSIHER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT HIS/HER
ATTORNEY.
1111412011 THE DEFENDANT APPEARED, WAS EXPLAINED HlSIHER RIGHTS BY THE JUDGE AND INDICATED THAT
HFJSHE UNDERSTOOD THEM COMPLETELY.
Offense Dl: 1111312011
Arrest Dt: 1111312011
Plea: 1111412011 NOT GUiLTY
)EFENDANT: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY BARKER
Alon<y#: 1122185
____________ Print Date: 1111412011
)eCendant Initial.:
Jail Days: 0
Suspended Days: 0
COURT CASE #: 11 CR 26405 21
Data Dale: 11/1412011
Page I of2
00011

Complete t:
FAILURE TO COMPLY WIlli THE CONDITIONS OF BAIL AS DESCRlBED IN THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN 1HE ISSUANCE OF A
FAILURE TO COMPLY WARRANT OR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND INCARCERATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND/OR BAIL
REVOCATION. FOR FURTHER TION, CONTACT THE SENTENCE COMPLIANCE WINDOW LOCATED ON THE FIRST
FLOOR OF THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT, ONE SOlTnf SIERRA ST, RENO, NV (715) 334-2290.
THE DEFENDANr SHALL APPEAR AS ORDERED FOR ALL REVIEWS AND SHALL COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE
BAlLIFFSIMARSHALS AND ALL COURT STAFF.
THE DEFENDANT SHALL ATTEND ALL REVIEWS, COURT APPEARANCES AND COURT -ORDERED PROGRAMS ON TIME AND
ALCOHOL AND DRUG FREE.
THE DEFENDANT SHALL KNOW HISIHER COURT DATE AND MAINTAIN CONTACT W1TI1 HIS/HER ATTORNEY.
PRIOR TO CHANGING HIS/HER ADDRESS OR PHONE NUMBER, THE DEFENDANT SHALL NOTlFIY THE COURT OF SUCH
CHANGE.
OBEY ALL LAWS.
THE HONORABLE
JUDGE'S SIGNATURE:
A A J
DATE:
As a condition of release from custody (bail, bond or own recognizance) and pursuant to NRS 178.4 84, the defendant must sign this
document before being released from custody. By signing below, the defendant promises to appear at all times and places ordered by
the Court, by way cf this document. The defendant is ordered by the Court to appear in Court alcohol and drug free or will be subject
to arrest for contempt of court. Failure to appear in court will result in forfeiture of bail and a warrant will be issued for the defendanfs
arrest.
Any violation of this instant order may result in contempt proceedings and the filing ofadditional criminal charges. In accordance with
NRS 22.010, it is a misdemeanor for any person to fail, refuse or neglect to comply with the tenns of any order issued by the
. Municipal Court Judge. This order will remain in effect until the Court issues another order superseding it.
This order is to accompany a receipt of bail posted, which shall be used to satisfY any fine or cost imposed by the Court. Upon
adjudication of this case, any cash bail posted will be applied to outstanding fines and/or fees and ooy surety bonds will be exonerated
unless the judge orders otherwise.
Any law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the defendant has violated any condition of this order is ordered to
arrest him/her.
UNDERSTAND AND PROMISE TO OBEY THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT: _____________ -::-______ Ii
DATE: ______ TIME: ____ _
I, THE SWORN INTPRETER HAVE FULLY INTERPRETED THIS ORDER TO THE
DEFENDANT: = DATE: ______ TIME: ____ _
RECEIVED BY DEPUTY: ___________________ ,DATE: ______ TIME: ____ _
ISSUED BY MARSHAL: DATE: TIME:
DEFENDANT: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY BARKER Aatneyll: 11-21185 COURT CASE II: II CR 26405 21
Derendant InitialS: Print nate: \1/1412011 Data Date: 11/1411011
Page 2 ofl
00012
2
3
4
5
6
'I
8
9
10
11
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
:enoOryAttomey
P.O. Box 1900
1 NV89S0S

CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I certify that I am an employee of the Reno City Attorney. Reno. Nevada, and that on the
day of November. 20 II, I deposited for mailing at Reno, Nevada, first class postage
(
prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document addressed to:
Lewis Taitel, Esq.
475 S. Arlington Ave., Ste. lA
Reno, Nevada 89501
-5-

Legal Secretary, Criminal Division 4:;
Office of the Reno City Attorney
00013

1 Case No. 11 CR 26405
2 Dept. No.2
3
4
5
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO
6

7
8 nffi CITY OF RENO,
Plaintiff.
9
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
v.
10 ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant.
______________________
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING. and there being no objection from Defense, the Motion to Continue
Trial filed by the City Attorney is granted.
It is so ORDERED.
Dol<d <hi, 28 d>, ",No_I>. 2011rl/;$

Department Two
00014
IN THE .NICIPAL COURT OF THE Cre OF RENO
COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEV
ONE SOUTH SIERRA STREET, RENO, NV 89505
Mailing: P.O. Box 1900, Reno, NY 89505 PHONE (775)334-2290 F (77!j3:3#-'18Z.4::'
va.
DEFENDANT: COUGHLm, ZACHARY
Court Case#: 11 CR 26405 21 DOB: 0912711976
Accident#:
Status: OPEN
Language: ENGLISH
Agency#: RI'D 11-22185 Booking#: 19876
Attorney: PUENTES, ROBERTO
11/1412011 LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: LEWTAITEL; 7 ~ S. ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE lA RENO, NEVADA 89501
PHONE (775) 322-2272
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ATTORNEY SO THAT HEISHE
REPRESENT HIMIHER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT COMPLETE A FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION AND
MAYBE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTATION BY THE LEGAL DEFENDER. TIllS ORDER WILL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR SIX MONTHS FROM TODA Y'S DATE. IN THE EVENT THAT THIS ORDER EXPIRES,
TIlE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT AN UPDATED FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
IF THE DEFENDANT HAS WITNESSES THAT HElSHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OF HIS/HER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT HIS/HER
ATTORNEY.
1111412011 THE DEFENDANT APPEARED, WAS EXPLAINED HISIllER RIGHTS BY THE JUDGE AND INDICATED THAT
HFJSHE UNDERSTOOD THEM COMPLETELY.
1113012011 LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: ROBERTO PUENTES; 416 RIDGE STREET (p.O. BOX 2421) RENO, NEVADA
89505 PHONE (775) 786-7676
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ATTORNEY SO THAT HElSHE
REPRESENT HlMIHER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT COMPLETE A FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLlCA TlON AND
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTATION BY THE LEGAL DEFENDER. TIllS ORDER WILL
TIlE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT AN UPDATED FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION FOR RECONSlDERA TION.
IF THE DEFENDANT HAS WITNESSES THAT HEISHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OF HISIllER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT HlSlllER
ATTORNEY.
JEFENDANT: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY BARKER
AIIODCyII: 11-221B5 COURT CASE II: II CR 26405 2I
)efendant Initials:
__ _ ________ Print Date: 11130/2011
Data Dat.: 11/3011011
Pagelof3
00015
1I1301l011
LEGA L D E ~ E N D E R RE.:.ii .eD: LEWIS TAITEL .. .
IT IS HEREBY ORDER.-RA T THE LEGAL DEFENDER BE RELlEV..-ROM HISlltER ASSIGNMENT TO THIS
CASE.
Offense Dt:
Arrest Dt
111l31l01\
11113120 I J
Plea: 1lI141l01l - NOT GUILTY
Next ProofD!:
BaJance:
Completed Dt:
Jail Days: 0
Suspended Days: 0
FAILURE TOCOMPl.Y Wml THECONDmONS OF BAil AS DESCRIBED IN THIS ORDER WILL RESUlT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A
FAILURE TO COMPLY WARRANT OR IMMEDJATE ARReST AND INCARCERATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT ANDiORBAIL
REVOCATION. fOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT TIlE SENTENCE COMPLIANCE WINDOW LOCATED ON THE FIRST
FLOOR OfTH'E RENO MUNICIPAL COURT, ONE soum StERRA ST, RENO, NY (775) 334-2290.
THE DEFENDANT SHALL APPEAR. AS ORDERED FOR ALL REVIEWS AND SHALL COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE
BAlLIFFSlMARSHALS AND ALL COUR T STAFF.
TIlE DEFENDANT SHALL ATTEND ALL REVIEWS. COURT APPEARANCES AND COURT -ORDERED PROGRAMS ON TIMe AND
TIlE DEFENDANT SHALL KNOW HlSJlIER COURT DATE AND MAfNTAIN CONTACT wmllllSIHER A TTORNF.Y.
PRJOR TO CHANGING HJSlHr.R ADDRESS OR PHONE NUMBER. THE DEFENDANT SHALL NOn?IY TII COURT OF SUCH
CIIANGE.
OBEY ALL LAWS.
TilE HONORABLE
JUDGE'S SfGNATURE:_
TE:
DEFENDANT: COUGHLIN, 7.ACHARY BARKER
Defendant Inlliab:
Aac"eyN. II-HIBS
Print Date, 1113012011
COURT CASE #: II CR26405 21
nata Date: 11/30/2011
Page 1 of3
00016
,
You are ordered by the Court to arrive ., .. Icohol fi"ee and m time for all Court hearin .. " Court related progams. Failure to
appear in Court will result in the issuan" a warrant for your arrest. Any violation order may result in contempt
proceedings aIXI the filing of additional criminal charges. In accordance with NRS 22.010, it is a misdemeanor for any person to fail,
refuse or neglecl to comply with the tenns of any order issued by the Municipal Court Judge. This order will remain in effect until the
Court issues another order superseding it. I
I UNDERSTAND AND PROMISE TO OBEY TlUS ORDER. DEFENDANT;6:: ]2 oJ
DATEF-- TIME: '
I, THE SWORN INTPRETER HAVE FULLY INTERPRETED TIllS ORDER TO THE
DEFENDANT: DATE: TIME: ____ _
RECEIVED BY DEPUTY: __________________ DATE:._---::::-___ TIME: ___ -,-_
ISSUED BY MARSHAL: -- DATE: TIME:
JEFENDANT: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY BARKER
Ageney#: 11-22185 COURT CASE N: Il CR 2640/121
).rendant Inllials:
_ __________ Print Date: 11/300011
Data Date: 1113012011
Pag.30ra
00017
.,. ".
'. ,. .
] .
:2, .:
d ,' "
4 '.
' . ,Y. " . _
.. ..
;
' . ;
" .' . ,-,

'. ;
. .
2011 DEC 14 AM B: 55
() "
! _ __ .,t..,..tr.
r
.
. ' .
':1 ." RENO MUNICIPAL

rt :; ;. CIIT' OF RENO
::fO: .: .. : . " .:. ';.
,
. '"

; . . ZACH" COUGHLIN .
", "
... . W ','
CR 26405 .21
JUDGE GARDNER
: '
," ', :1A
':
' ..
. ,
.'
';0-; . . .' 0. ... !j', ' ----.>;-'"
. ME-kid-: .
. J4:,; '.",.; .... .. ...... ,. C' "' ... : ,. " i . .. '. ' FINANcIAi. INQuiRY AND :' :'
,U,'; .. ' . . ' 1'"
: : l"jI'irb . ,: ..
:'; t;
. . ..
.' ...... .
' ..
... . : .
j )': . .
:0" , .. ' :
:24: ; .'
:2$ :.
:. 26' .
21 : . ,-

. ." '
00018
. . '
_ .. _-
....... ' .

, .;..,
"
2011 DEC 14 Ali 8: 55
" j
:'.
;.2 : ' Uf-:
.... '.' --'c' _ H'
::5 .' . :J; . Co. . .. ..
5 . ..; . ...... ,. '. , .'
,'6
'1
;;i": . r tt. ... ..
: 2. powitj.tO':piYtho.1:OIIfIDd'Jceii':/:Jf.'Wj . .
HI::' ,.
n . :3. 1 : :
'12: ' .". .'
r) : . :it"
;: .
15 : .... , ...... .. ,..... ./", tf .. -.. ' .... :
., .: .. 'ii" : ... ..., ... _ .. ',' .. I .,... .. ... ' .. . '; '.'
16 .. , : .a;:LU"'!Il '''' liI .. Gi' ' ::"ie4i.kfft!: .", >:
.. OJ .. 1fitIoWWlfili!)1QIii(* ... " .' -- .. , .. , ... -. ... ,
ii .,
.
..
i9 :: .
.... . .
20 :. ,
':it: :
'::22 :, :
23 "
24
1$
U
'/.1
ij.
. .. .
... .. . , ......
. i't(j(q{iJ ..
. .... 0 .: .. , ..
. .... 1) ,. ,.
. tJ'. ..
..... . _
..
$ .. .<;
'. .. . .... ' . . " " ' ...
'.' ':: .. .. .......... ..
. . . '" .... '.' '.... ....... ,"
00019

..
.
:7

, .
' 11):

, "' .
:.if :
',12-' :FllilJ.M!liil.I_iU_II!I.Id;)" &..r'i
:)3'
:.14:
:i-S .
:'16'
,:i'i '
''11: .'
i tt .'
. ,
:.20
::n:
.. .
,

.
2011 DEC 14 AM 8: 55'
;.
.", .,:'
; . ,'. .. ...
.: !
. ,
:; .
:: ;0,
.P'" ... ': .. '
. ::;v
;.. ., :p : :0 " r-d '
. "
:-.1- . .... .'
'. '
.. .
. .
. :, '. -. ..... '.' ... ; .. ... .
00020
'0. vo't?
r. 1/;
INeE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CIT. RENO
COUNTY OF WASHOE. STATE OF NEVADA
CITY OF RENO (Plaintiff I Demandante) VS.
Zachary Barker Coughlin
NI .... (FlrII. Middlo, (Nambte Comp/elo)
;;;91;j;;h;;,.:' S:;.;;t;..::#c..:2:..-. _________ Dept. #1
Add' .... (1J/roocIoI!)
o
Cept. #2
OIly. stili. ZIP (CIUdiiI. E.IBiki. cod/iio An/iii)
OflPt. #3 0
Home PIlon. Hum .... (T.telOno Ctso)
Del'l. #4 o
MorlON / PETIC/ON A LA CORTE
F ,asr1E2
0
5
J
2012
Aerlffl.LlUL '

Deputy Clerk
Com .. ,.,.. I/le undersigned ."'1111 mI m ..... !he coorlCO granl "'" foUO'oI1tIG (eJ .US<:ri1O 80 Ie rom que /0 ,",,<Mill, _ oIotpodo):

J'1tM to Ny E<foI>,/on (fiX/o(lSfoopM8 p_JO"""..., &1/ (Con/llf/w It I:!N-w IIfttllgr>mooI DIIt. (NU .,., Fe"". Lec/uro do
, NoW Trill 0.,. (Nt-. F/lclll do.Mao) [JChang& of AlcltfllO/OOJ[JOIsmIu WIJIWi. (Dercllflrorriflll do

SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A'
NOTE by Coughlin , not ice t hat there i s not "Exhi bi t A" a t tached heret o in
ROA the RMC transmitted t o the 2JDC, owing t o t h e fact that t h i s Mot i o n
For New Trial Date was necessita t ed by RMC court appoint ed de f ender
Puentes ' professiona l misconduct a nd the attendant failure t o a ffo rd
Coughlin his right t o speedy t r i a l , pa rticularly where a continua n c e
was a lrea dy grant e d to the City on 11/3 0/ 11 for an arrest o f 11/13/ 11.
Whi l e the RMC r emoved the f ax head (whi c h i ndi cates ther e i s 3 pages t o
this f ax fili ng to the RMC by Puen tes) o n page 1 , the f ax cover sheet,
a nd comp l e t e l y r e moved page 3 (whic h would by the "Exh i b it A" r e f e r e nced
herein, the RMC f a iled t o exci se the f ax header on t hi s page. Can
you say s mo king gun?
AFFIRMATION / ATESTACION
I. (n""'lnM1M!) ftOII'''fo 1'VC!iHT8 j((. I herebY IDiemnly .Mm1 and docbro
\l\al .... . \......,,, ... 11\1. \4 bii 6 .. ( 01 my bev.I, .na m.a.1ii oQOd laIIh and me,oIy lOr delay. (Yo. po,
om media saIomnel/llnl 1Irmo yd.clbIO quo I ,."t/Q'H TO" /0 d. mS I, Cfodblfldall,
y _ .. do a. y no P'" """., mI co"",)
COURT USE ONLY I NO ESCRIBA NADA ABAJO
Co!l1lnuld Flom: ConUnued T"' _____ _
o ... IIM.D) 0 Dotondonl(Hand) 0 DIIJendanl'&AUjI 0 CIIy
Cf9r1< IlIGnlll/fo: ______________ _
____________________ __
ORDER/ORDEN
GOOO CASE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDEReD Ihillho _00 bo:
(HMJiando Ats/. IOlon. .. OIIIenodo Is soIIc/tvd _)

DATEoTrlls'h".dayO! :J.-1,JJ1Iy .2 O{;;--
_ CO"" _""1_ e. __ /
00021
3
of Roberto pu!tes Jr.
416 RIDGE STREET
RENO, NV 89501
Telephone (175)7667676
FAX (775)7815-8720
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DATE:
ATTN.:
January 17, 2012
Department Two
FI.O. BOX 2421
RENO, NV89505
TO:
Hon. WIlliam Gardner, Dept #2. JDI Drake, Deputy City Attorney &
Motions
Roberto Puentes Jr., Esq.
FAX NO.: 334--3859 , 334-3859 & 334-4226
The following pages,L. Including this FAX page. are being telecopied
from the Law Offices of Roberto Puentos Jr .. Reno, Nevada. Please call
(775)786-7676 If you do not receive th8 number of pages noted above.
Message/ RE:
Motion to Wlthd/llwal
City of Reno va. Zachary Barker Coughlin Case No, 11 CR 26405
Too In/ormatlon 'n \1I1a FAX, and tl!a\ aeoampanylng Ihls page, Is aHomtly-cHenl prhlfl6god,
conndenlial and work prMlelled. 'fyou ,oco/va this In ert<lr, phoase call us t1ght away. We will pay your
tolopl1Ql1e expense or accept a coRoet caU.tf you a.a not \he Inlooded recipIent. please do nol read IhJs
malenal and be aware that any db ItlbuUon. dlsCl/ssllln or oopylno of litis malsrtalls 81!1c1\y prohibited.
1/ you have received thIs communlcaUon In error, ",oalill Immediately noUIy us by telephone and return (he
o.lglnal message to us at the above address lila U.S. PoB/af SeNlce, .
Thank you.
00023
IN THE M._ dCIPAL COURT OF THE CI.l.l' _F RENO
C(AHY OF WASHOE, STATE OF ADA
ONE SOUTH SIERRA STREET, RENO, NV 89505
Mailing: 1'.0. Box 1900, Reno, NV 89505 PHONE (775)334-2290 FAX (775)334-3824
YS.
DEFENDANT: COUGHLIN,
Ce iyClerk
Court Case#: 11 CR 26405 11 DaB: 0912711976
Acciden(#:
Status: OPEN
Language: ENGLISH
Agcncy#: RPD 11-22185
Booking#: 19876
Attorney: PUENTES, ROBERTO
rN-CUSTODY VlDEO
ARRAIGNMENTS
IUDGE GARDNER E Mon. Nov 14. 2011 &:30 am ARRAlGNMENT HF.ARrNG HELD
BENCHTItiAL JUDGE GARDNER C Til<. Dec 13, 8:00 lUI! CONn); UED BY REQUEST OF CITY
BENCHTRJAL JUDGE GARDNER B Tuc, Jan 10,2012 1:00 pm BY RF.QUEST OF DEFENSE
11/13/2011 FORMAL COMPLAINT F1U:D WITH THE COURT
1111412011. LEGAL DEFE:-tDER APPOINTED: LEWTAITEL; 475 S. ARLINGTON A VENUE, SmTE IA RENO, NEVADA 89501
PHOl>'E (775) 322-2272
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR A TTORNEY SO THAT liE/SHE
WILL HAVE ALL OF TilE NECESSARY Th'FORMATION FROM THE COURT TO ASSIST YOU WITH YOUR CASE,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOLVTED A LEGAL DEFEIVDER TO
REPRESENT IIlMtnER lJII ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER Ir-; THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT.
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTATION BY TIlE LEGAL DEFENDER_ THIS ORDER WILL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR SIX MONTHS FROM TODA Y'S DATE_ IN THE EVENT TlIA T THIS ORDER EXPIRES,
THE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT AN UPDATED FL"'ANC[AL INQUIRY APPLICA nON FOR RECONSIDERATION,
l!' THE DEFENDANT HAS WITNESSES THAT HE/SHE WOULD LIKE TO HA VE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OF H1SIllER CASE, TIlE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT IUSIHER
ATTORNEY.
1111412011 TIlE DEFENDANT APPEARED, WAS EXPLAINED HISIHER RIGHTS BY TilE JUDGE AND INDICATED TIlAT
IIF..!SHE UNDERSTOOD THEM COMPLETELY.
1113012011 LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: ROBERTO PUENTES; 416 RIDGE STREET (p,0. BOX 2421) RENO, NEVADA
89505 PHONE (775) 786-7676
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ATTORNEY SO THAT HEISHE
WILL HAVE ALL OF THE NECESSARY [NFORMATIONFROM THE COURT TO ASSIST YOU WITH YOUR CASE,
IT IS HEREllY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOL"TED A LEGAL DEFENDER TO
REPRESENT HIM/HER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER IN TilE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THA T THE DEFENDANT COMPLETE A F[NANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICA nON AND
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRP..5ENTA nON BY TilE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
THE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT AN UPDA TED FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION "'OR RECONSIDERATION,
IF TIfE DEFENDANT HAS WITNESSES THAT HEISHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WIT8ESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS TilE DEFENSE OF HIS/HER CASE, THE DEFEi'iDANT MUST CONTACT HIS/HER
ATTORNEY.
IEFENDANT: COUGHLIN. ZACHARY BARKR
Ie fend ant Initials:
Agency#: 11-22185
Print Dote: 1118120 I 2
COURT CASE N: 11 CR 26405 2[
Data Date: 1118120[2
Pogelof3
00024
Next l'roofDt:

Cornrlcled Dl.
l' AfLlJl{E TO COMPI. Y WlTll THE CONDITIONS OF BAli. AS DESCRlBm IN n ilS ORDE)( wrLI. RESULT IN TilE ISSUANCE OF A
FAIUJRE TO COMPl.Y WARll.k"r OR IMMEDIATE ARRI-".ST AND f NCARCERAT10:-: FOR CON"TE:vtPT 01' COliin A:>: 1l/0R BAIL
REVOCATIOi" . FOR FURT! IEIl 1:\'l'ORMATION, CONTACT THE SE"'fENCE COMPLIANCE WII\'OOW LOCAll,O ON FI)(ST
1'1.0011. OF TIlE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT, ONE SOl<T1l SIERRA ST, RENO, NY (775) 1)42290.
I I IE DEFEXJ),WT 51 IALL APPEAR AS ORDERED FOR AI.L REVIEWS AND SHALl. COO/,ERATe: FULI.Y WITII THE
BAILlFFSIMAII.SfW.S ANn ALL COURT STAFF.
THE IlFFENI)ANT SHAI.L ATTEND ALL REVIEWS, COURT APPEARANCES AND COURTORDERED PROGRAMS ON TIME AKD
Al. CDIIOL ANIl DRUG fREE.
THE. IlEFENf)ANT SHAI.L KNOW fllS/HER COURT DATE AND MAINTAIN CONTACT WITlllllSlHF.R ATroRNEY.
, I'HIOR n) elM "GIN[; HISIJII.R ADDlIESS OR PHO]\;I'; TI IE DI'YEND""T SHAI.L NO liJW 1 J II: COURT OF SUCH
CHANGe.
THE Jl O-;ORAIlLE
Jt;\)GE'S SIGNA TlfRI!: _ _ . __ ___ ._ .. __ . ___ _
. . -
'tfl.:ndnnll nitiDls:
Print Dat e: 111812012 Da ta Dutc: 1/1 8/ 2012
Pagc2of3
00025
=.=================
You art ordered by the Court to arrive drugtaleohal tree and on time for all Co UrI hearinean<l Cow1 reiated programs. Failure to
appw in COlL1 will resuit in the issun&f a warrant for you arrest. Any violation of instant order may resuit in contempt
proceedings and Ihe fil ing of nddition.Jl!rminnl charges. In accordance with NRS 22.01 0, it is a misdemeanor for any person to fail,
refuse or neglect to comply with the terms of nny order issued by the Municipal Court Judge. This order wiil remain in effect until the
Cow11ssues another order superseding it.

I UNDERSTAlI'D AND PROM1SJo: TO OBEY TIllS OllDER. \-0 S. <,f) - Q 5<
DATE: _ _ _ _ __ "rli>IE: _____ ""J
I, TilE SWORN INTPRETER IIAY" FULLY fNTERI'RETED TillS ORDER TO TilE
DF.FENDANT: DATE: ______ TrME: _ _ __ _
RECEIVED BY DEPUTY, __ ..,.""""::-:-:::-____ _ ________ DATE: Tl1IlE: _ _ __ _
ISSUED BY MARS"AL: DATE: I - : "1 - lcl- TIME: _
IEFENDANT, COUGHLIN. ZACHARY BARKER
lefendant Inltlats:
Agene),N. 11-21185
Prillt Vate: II1SnD]2
COURT CASE N: II CR 26405 21
Data Date: lI]8!20 12
Poge 3 of3
00026
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
""'"

,.0 1bt1900

(701J])4-o22'IQ

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certifY that I am an employee of the Reno Municipal Court,
Reno, Nevada, and that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document,
NOTICE OF SETTING on the party(ies) set forth below:
__ Placing said document in a sealed envelope placed fel" collecting and mailing
in the United States mail, at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary
_X_
business practices.
Facsimile (FAX).
Reno/Carson Messenger Service.
Federal Express or other overnight delivery.
Inner-offlcemail following ordinary business practices.
Personal Delivery at Reoo Municipal Court
Electronic mail to City Attorney
Electronic mail to Legal Defender
1422 E. 9
th
Street #2
Reno, NV 89501
DATED this 19th day of January 2012

00027
r, lED
FEB a V'IlIl')

1 Case No. 11 CR 26405 21
Reno
By , ourt
2 Dept. No.2
eputyCferk
IN mE MUNICIPAL COURT OF mE CITY OF RENO
3
4
5
6
COUNTY OF WASHOE,STATEOF NEVADA

7 TIffi CITY OF RENO,
8
Plaintiff,
ORDER
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v.
ZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLm,
Defendant
____________________
On February 2, 2012, this matter came before the Court for hearing on the Motion To
Withdraw filed by Defendant's counsel Roberto Puentes. Present at the hearing were Deputy City
Attorney Jill Drake, Roberto PUet1tes and Defendant Zachary Coughlin.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARlNO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defense Counsel's
MOTION TO WITHDRAW is hereby GRANTED.
this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Keith Loomis is appointed to represent Defendant in
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2012.
ILLlAM L. GARDNER, JUDGE
Department Two
00028
.....
......,..,.<XllOIT
PO.8al9(r;l
_>IV"'"
(XI2))J4.219I'J
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

Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certifY that I am an employee of the Reno Municipal Court,
Reno, Nevada, and that on this date I served a true and COlTeCt copy of the foregoing document,
ORDER on the party(ies) set forth below:
_x_
Placing said OOcument in a sealed envelope placed fIX collecting and mailing
business practices.
Facsimile F A X ~
Reno/Carson Me&!enger Service.
Inner-office mail following ordinary business practices.
Personal Delivery.
Electronic mail to City A ttome),
Electronic mail to Keith Loomis Esq.
Reno City Attorney's office
Keith Loomis Esq.
1422 E. rjll Street #2
Reno, NY 89501
00029
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Document Code:
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
Nevada B:u- No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St., #2
tel: 775 229 6737
fax: 949 6677402
Reno, NV 89512
Co-counsel for Defendant Coughlin
LED

Municl Dept. 2
IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWNSHIP Deputy Clerk
IN AND FOR mE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
STATE OF NEVADA;
Plaintiff.
)
)
) Case No: 11 CR 26405
)
12 VS.
) Dept No: Judge Gardner
)
13 ZACHARY COUGHLIN; )
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
Def endllnt. )

Notice of AlIpeaJ M<!tion to Vacate and or Set Aside . JCRCP 59. JCRCP 6O ... .Mmion fro:.
Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motton For Publication Qf Transcript at PUbHc E!J!ense.
Petition for In Fonna Pauperis Status
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
FACTS
Bobby Puentes threw me under the bus, rather than reveal the fact that he had a conflict. He whined
about how the case was "h:u-d" rather than do some lawyering. The man doesn't know how to bum a .
cd. He attempted to shift the job ofbuming a cd for discovery onto me, yet he is the onetaking home
the money to do the job. Jill Drake talked in court about how Puentes is beloved by all throughout
the RJC, especially the prosecutors for the Reno City Attorney, as he is just a teddy bear 10
- 1 -
Notice of AppeaL Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside. JCRCP 59. JCRCP 60. Motion for
Reconsideration; MotiOIl for Recusal: Motion For Publication Of Transcript at Pub", Expense.
PectUon for In Fonna Pauperis Status
00030
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

prosecutors like Drake (who reminded the undersigned that she was the #1 player on the Reno High
Girls Tennis Team in high school after the Hearing on February 2, 2012) ... Being a teddy bear is fine,
I guess, but not exactly the frrst thing I look for in defense counsel. Moral of the story, don't throw
client under the bus instead of disclosing impermissible conflict that your conflict checks should have
revealed prior to entering the sanctity of the attorney client relationship, something that should be
sacred, not just something Puentes enteres to get a paycheck and dumps once it becomes
inconvenient
Defendant/Appellant, Zach Coughlin, hereby files this Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and
or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion for Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For
Publication Of Transcript at Public Expense, Petition for In Fonna Pauperis Status.
FUl1her no one has explained Taitels mysterious ability to Withdraw as Counsel without
complying with RMC Rule 5 or explaining why he withdrew. Not sure there is an Order allowing
Taiters withdraw. Puentes Motion to Withdra argued:
"The instant matter was set for trial on January 10, 2012, However, a defense
motion to continue was filed on January 3,2012, not opposed, and g1anted. A new
trial date is pending. Under Supreme Court Rule 46, the attorney in an action may
be changed at any time before judgment upon the consent of the attorney,
approved by the client, or upon order of the court or judge thereof on the
application of the attorney or client SCR 46. Further, under NRPC 1, 16(b), a
lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if the same can be accomplished
without material adverse effect on the interests of the client; a client insists upon
taking action the lawyer considers repugnant, or with which the lawyer has
fundamental disagreement; the representation has been rendered unreasonably
difficult by the client; or other good cause for withdrawal exists. See NRPC 1,
16(b)(I), (4), (6), (7). The undersigned regretfully makes this motion as continued
representation of the defendant in this matter has been rendered unreasonably
difficult and the defendant will be better selVed by having an alternative legal
defender appointed to represent him."
Actually Puentes does not state with sufficient particularity why or how his withdraw "can
be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client". Indeed, having his
- 2 -
NQ.tlce of ApPf3' Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside. JCRCP 59 . .JCRCP 60. M.!ili.on f ...
Reconsideration; Motion for Recnsal; Motion For Publication Of Tnmscript at public Expense.
Petition for In Fonna Pauperis Status
00031
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2?
28

DECLARATION OF ZAeH COUGLIN IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT
1. lois Declaration is made pursuant to the provisions of NRS 53.045, I am presently in the State of
Nevada and I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
2 Declarant is the Plaintiff in the above title action.
3. Declarant avers that the factual statements set for above in the foregoing document are, to the
best of his knowledge and understanding, accurate.
4. I, Zach Coughlin, am available to testify, if necessary, as to these matters. I declare under penalty
of peIjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on February 13th, 2012
151 Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
PLAINTIFF
- 6 -
Notice of Appeal. Motion to Vacate ond or Set Aside. JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60. Motion for
Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Publication or Transcript at. Public Expense.
Petition Cor In Fonna PllUperis Status
00032
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)223 23 "E)*-CE
-, Zach Coughlin, declare:
2n 3e=ruar> 3th, !(!, -, Er. Zach Coughlin served the &oregoing Notice o& 6<<eal,
Eotion to *acate and or "et 6side, 0C)C5 $9, 0C)C5 %(, Eotion &or )econsideration8 Eotion &or
)ecusal => emailing and &a'ing and or <lacing in the mail a true co<> thereo& to:
0ill DraBe
Com<an>: )eno Cit> 6ttorne>As 2&&ice , Criminal Divison 6ddress: 5.2. Bo' 9(( )eno , N*
+9$($ 5hone Num=er: 77$,334,!($( 3a' num=er: 77$,334,!4!(
DraBe0Lreno.gov
D6.ED ./-" 3th da> o& 3e=ruar>
B7:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Zach Coughlin
De&endant
- 7 -
Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion for
Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Pulication !f "ranscript at Pulic #$pense,
Petition for %n For&a Pauperis Status
00033
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
-nde' to E'hi=its
. E'hi=it : .?ent>,si' D!%; <age collection o& attorne> client corres<ondence =et?een Coughlin
and 5uentes in su<<ort o& the undersigned contnetions herein.
- 8 -
00034
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
EH/-B-.
EH/-B-.
- 9 -
00035
continuance and my files

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 12/09/11 1:11 AM
To: puenteslaw@aol.com

Dear Mr. Puentes,

I would like for you to subpoena both Officers present at the arrest of November 13, 2011 to testify at the trial. I would like for you to subpoena (by
subpoena duces tecum, I suppose) all recordings, dispatch reports, written documentation, reports in any way connected to, or other materials, whether
admissible or not, in any way connected to the arrest of November 13, 2011 or the charges against which I am defending in conjunction with your
representation. I wish for you to email me these materials to the extent possible, and where that is not possible, please mail them to me at my address
of record at www.nvbar.org, and found below at the end of this letter. Email is better for me than fax, as it is free whereas I have to pay for faxes by the
page, whether local or not. I prefer email too over having to take time out of what is an extremely busy and trying schedule of mine currently.

RPD Officer Carter made a statement at the scene of the arrest that Mr. Richard Hill paid him a lot of money and therefore he does what Mr. Hill says to
do and arrest who Mr. Hill says to arrest. This has been reported to several RPD Officers, including Sargent Tarter, who responded by retaliating against
me with several traffic citations and made incorrect assertions about whether one would be turning into oncoming one way traffic to get to Mr. Hills
652 Forest St. address from the intersection of Forest and St. Laurence in justifying his retalitatory citation (for which he apparently called in another
officer to write out, curiously). I DO NOT WANT YOU TO DISCUSS MY CASE WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OF MY PRESENCE, INCLUDING VERBAL
AND OR WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. THIS INCLUDES ANY COMMUNICATIONS, VERBAL OR WRITTEN WITH THE RENO MUNICIPAL
COURT AND ANYONE IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT OR RENO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS
LEW TAITEL.

Please email or fax meacompletecopy of my file, including all pleadings, correspondences, and any other documentation or mediaat all connected with my case.
Please further discloseany conflicts of interest you might havein representing me. I did not agreeto acontinuance, and I believeit is my right as aclient to control
themeans and objectives of thelitigation and or defense, and that, to me, does not includewaiving my right to contest any motion for acontinuanceor making things
nice and easy for Richard G. Hill, Esq. Further, I would liketo know who agreed to thecontinuanceand why it is Mr. Taitel is no longer attorney of record (nothing
against you, pleasebelievethat).

Further, if Mr. Taitel is no longer attorney of record in this matter, pleaseexplain why, in detail, in writing. If he has withdrawn, and if you did so based on some
conflict of interest, how is it that that conflict of interest did not precludehim fromapparently agreeing to acontinuanceor failing to filean opposition or alerting me
to the situation at all? Pleasenotemy new address and contact information below. Additionally, pleaseindicate, in writing, theextent to which you havean
established procedureto check for conflicts prior to taking on cases and prior to obtaining confidential client files and information. Pleaseindicatein writing any
deviation fromsuch aprocedureor failing of your office's practices to prevent such prejudiceto my casein your taking on my representation. Pleasecopy meon any
and all correspondences and or documentation or discovery in any way related to this matter.

Sincerely,
/S/ ZACH COUGHLIN, SIGNED ELECTRONICALLY

Zach Coughlin
817 N. Virginia St. #2
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402

Sent: Fri 12/09/11 3:53 AM
1 attachment
12 8 11 fax to Puentes.pdf (63.6 KB)
Mr. Puentes, please find attached my signed written request for you to file certain motions. I want to
review the final drafts prior to your filing them and have tried hard to do most of the work for you.
Further, you might find the following documentary that someone posted on youtube.com helpful in
understanding this case:
http://www.youtube.com/user/25teddyjames?feature=watch

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
Tel: please only communicate in writing
Page 1of 26 Hotmail Print Message
2/2/2012 http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=cc595d46-b764-4d56-...
00036
Fax: 949 667 7402

Dear Mr. Puentes,

I would also like for you to subpoena Dr. Matt Merliss, the owner of the property who was present at the scene of arrest. Further, I would like for you to
depose both RPD Officers (Carter and the female Officer). I would like a copy of the probable cause sheet and all witness statements and Officer's
Supplemental Declarations as soon as possible, please, in addition to all the other materials I set forth in my previous written correspondence to you.

I would like a Motion in Limine to be filed to exclude anything discovered upon the RPD illegal search of the property, including any videos by Richard
Hill or anyone else that the Reno City Attorney seeks to have admitted. I want a Motion to Dismiss filed seeking to dismiss this case based upon a
number of arguments, including the fact that any underlying Summary Eviction Order was void for lack of jurisdiction (please see my recent filing,
attached, in Reno Justice Court case rev2011-001708, in that this was noticed as a No Cause Eviction against a commercial lessee. As such, any
Summary Eviction Order is void for lack of jurisdiction given the express prohibition in both NRS 40.253 and the Nevada Supreme Court's explanation in
the Landlord Tenant Handbook found on the Supreme Court's website and elsewhere where it is made explicitly clear that landlord's may not use
Summary Eviction Proceedings to evict commercial lessees or tenants where non payment of rent is not alleged or where the Notice of Eviction or
Unlawful detainer is a No Cause notice, as was the case in Rev2011-001708. As such, no trespassing could have occurred.
Beyond that, I am requesting you file a Motion to Dismiss based upon the fact that any lockout occurring on November 1, 2011 necessarily occurred
too early and prior to any lawful notice or service of any Summary Eviction Order only signed on October 27
th
, 2011, especially where no personal
service of such an ordered was alleged or shown. I detailed this in the email pasted below.
Further, a Motion to Dismiss I request you file due to Casey Baker's November 11, 2011 letter to me wherein he sends me a bill for the full rental value
of the property where the commercial lease was located for the entire month of November 2011, a period after the alleged illegal lockout. As such, no
trespass could have occurred because such a bill for rent is tantamount to rescinding any void eviction order or otherwise indicative of an invitation,
entrapment, or assent to the addressee of such a letter or bill being able to go onto the property, allegedly. In his letter mailed to Coughlin of
November 10, 2011, Casey Baker, Esq wrote In addition to the sums identified by Dr. Merliss in his affidavit, your debt now also includes fees for
storage of your personal possessions left at the property, which accrue daily at the fair rental value of the property. Your debt further includes actual
costs for inventorying and moving your possessions from the property. See NRS 118A.460. Those sums will be provided to you once they have been
fixed. Enclosed you will also find a notice of entry of the court's order awarding costs and attorney's fees against you. The court's award of cost in the
amount of $421.75, and attorney's fees in the amount of $1,500.00, has now been reduced to judgment. You are responsible for those sums. Further, as
you know, in his Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements filed on October 27,2011, Dr. Merliss actually sought $607.24 in costs and $17,938.75 in
attorney's fees against you. We believe you are responsible for those amounts, plus any and all fees and costs that have accrued, and continue to
accrue, since Letter to Zachary Coughlin Re: Verification of Debt November 10, 2011 Page 20f2 that date, in the matters currently pending before the
courts as an item of damages. Dr. Merliss win seek recovery of those sums, and an future fees and costs incurred, through the appropriate channels...

As such, Baker and Hill sent Coughlin a bill for the full rent of the property. $900 a month was the rent for the property under the commercial lease.
Baker and Hill wrote telling Coughlin they were continuing to charge him that even after the alleged illegal lockout of November 1, 2011. Further, Baker
and Hill flagrantly wrote to Coughlin in the same letter that the impermissible $1,500 in attorney's fees ordered by Judge Sferrazza was not enough for
them, and that they fully intended to continue to pursue recovery of the nearly $20,000 in attorney's fees they sought in their Memorandum of Fees and
Costs of October 27
th
, 2011, despite the res judicata effect of Judge Sferrazza's November 9, 2011 Order granting them $1,500 in attorney's fees, and
despite the fact that NRS 69.030 only allows for prevailing party attorney's fees in civil actions, while JCRCP 3 specifically provides that there are three
types of matters in Nevada's Justice Court, and expressly separates landlord tenant matters from civil actions, and, as such, the prevailing party
attorney's provisions of NRS 69.030 do not apply and there exists no other basis for an attorney's fees award under any of the arguments Baker or Hill
put forth. There conduct is tantamount to extortion while leveraging their law licenses and degrees.

Further, I would like for you to seek a continuance of the trial in this matter as this case is going to require extensive discovery, settlement negotiations,
and other complex legal work and there is not enough time for that as the schedule is currently set. I am attaching a collection of written materials the
landlord/property owner at 121 River Rock St 89501 (where the trespass arrest occurred sent me), including some letters that inform me they were
charging me the full rent of the property for the entire month of November 2011 (the illegal lockout allegedly occurred on November 1, 2011, though
there has been no proof of service or "receipt" pursuant to NRS 40, and given that the lockout was apparently signed by Judge Sferrazza on October
27th, 2011, that day does not count for service of the Order, the Reno Justice Court is closed on Fridays, non judicial weekend days don't count for the 3
days for service under NRCP 4-6, etc. As such, the earliest service by mail could have been affected for the Order for Summary Eviction would have been
November 2, 2011. It is alleged the lockout occurred prior to that time, and further, no emails were received from Richard Hill's email address,
rhill@richardhillaw.com at any point between August 17th, 2011 and November 18th, 2011, period. Whether any emails from Hills
rhill@richardhillaw.com address were "bounced back" to him or whether that address was added to my "blocked sender" list is a matter for Mr. Hill to
sludge his way through, but I can attest under penalty of perjury that I did not receive any emails from that rhill@richardhillaw.com email address
between that time period. I can further attest that I made calls and written correspondences to both Hill's rhill@richardhillaw.com email and his
associate Casey Baker, Esq.'s email, electroencephalographic addresses that went unresponded to with regard to my numerous requests to be allowed
access to remove my property commercial and otherwise
00037

These included, but were not limited to, the following:

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com

Sent: Wed 11/09/11 12:43 PM

To: Casey Baker (cdbaker@richardhillaw.com)

Don't ignore my calls about my possessions. You potentially conducted an illegal lockout of a law office an inspection outside my presence. The lease
requires my presence. It also makes your guy responsible for the electric bill, read it carefully. Show your proof of any "receipt" of any lockout order 24
hours prior to your actions. My possessions better be safe and afforded all legal protections and I want updates one whatf is being done with them and
an opportunity to clean or otherwise put the premises in the condition I intended to leave it in prior to the illegal lockout. I want my possessions that
are in the house and all privacy rights respected. There is a motion for stay in district court right now.

Re: Verification of Your Debt? 11/10/11
To Casey Baker
(Sent: Thu 11/10/11 12:24 PM
You guys are way over the days for providing verification under the FDCPA. Can you say treble damages? I habe not received a single email such as
those you refer to from richard hill. I dont consent to service of anything via email from your shop. I know you want everything to be at warp speed, but
you have to serve me through the mail or some non electronic means. Make sure rich isnt getting "unnsuccessful email transmission" messages....i can
certainly prove i have not received any such emails from Dick. I want my stuff its important client materials etc. You guys have not returned my
messages about that, its wrong to try to charge me rent when you are ducking me.

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com Sent: Fri 11/11/11 12:49 AM To: Casey Baker (cdbaker@richardhillaw.com); rhill@richardhillaw.com
(rhill@richardhillaw.com) Hi Guys, I have been having some technical difficulties, some emails appear blank or black, kind of like your client described in
response to some of my emails. Hey, ever heard of a litigation hold notice? That is what this is ,please retain and failure messages you recieve in your
own email which might prove that an email you sent me just didn't quite make it. You know just producing a copy of some email you sent me (even
though i have repeatedly told you i dont consent to service electronically in any form and am not a registered efiler like you two legal eagles) is not
going to be good enough when i break out the old litigation hold notice and anything elese that might tend to show any emails you sent could not
have made it to me....why such a rush, Boys? You are doing your patented and typical bang up milking job on thos headstrong rich client of yours...smell
the flowers a little. For instance, you don't want to do an illegal lockout and illegal inspection, particularly where the lease calls for my presence at any
inspection and then if you did not make sure the "receipt" requirement was met for any lockout order then went ahead and violated someone's
00038
constitutional rights to boot. Plus you are way late on the FDCPA stuff, and the prevailing party atty fee statute is for cicil actons, which jcrcp 3 separates
justice court matters into 3 types, and the civil actions mentioned in seller's prevailing party fee statute is mentioned as different from landord tenant
cases and small claims cases..So where is your good faith basis for moving for atty fees, much less for $20k worth of them. Why did you cite the
controlled substances manufacture statute to support your atty fee motion? I pulled every eviction y'all ever done... RJC has been like swinging the bat
in the on deck circle with 5 donuts on the bat for me, gentlemen. For you, its been the polar opposite. But we gettin' called up to the show! You never
know when you are on tape or film guys. And my bat speed is lookin' tremendous. I have tried again and again to get some response from you guys
about accesing my important files and keeping my very valuable possesions safe but have yet to here back feom you, in the event you have done a
lockout. Mr. Baker said he did some filmmaking or something when he broke in to any attorneys office, it was hard to hear through all the cooing.
Anyways, I aren't that smart, but dontcha have to like store my possessions after movin' them somewhere safe, the make a reasonably diligent attempt
to rent the place out to mitigate and damages or lost rent, plus provide me my deposit within like 10 days or something? I know mighty Casey likes to
give me lil research projects, but I am busy fleshing out some motion work right now, so maybe you get on that and let me know when and where I can
get my things and valuable client files, hopefully you two points of light haven't done nuthhin' to 'em. Now, I dont want to come between you and
Casey...I know he is probably getting a little tired of you keeping most of the profit while he gets dirty doing the gutters, but you guys have a nice lil
batman robin thing going and it would be a shame to see it end, so let's just try and make this work."

From the alleged date of the illegal lockout of November 1, 2011 until Casey Baker's November 10, 2011 written bill to me for full rent for the month of
November 2011 (ie, after the alleged illegal lockout and therefore extinguishing the eviction and creating a new lease or rescinding the eviction order
and, perhaps making extortionate threats to apply an unlawful rent distraint in contravention of NRS 40.460, and NRS 40. 520, etc.) I received two
written correspondences of any sort from anyone connected with the landlord Matt Merliss (a neurosurgeon graduate of Beverly Hills HS) and the law
office of Richard G. Hill, Esq. (including Hill and Baker, etc.). These two written correspondences from Casey Baker are attached and pasted below:

subject: Verification of Your Debt
11/10/11
Casey Baker
To zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
From: Casey Baker (cdbaker@richardhillaw.com)
Sent: Thu 11/10/11 11:13 AM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
1 attachment
LT Coughlin (verif of debt)(11-10-11).pdf (146.0 KB)
Mr. Coughlin:
Attached please find my letter to you dated November 10, 2011.
Sincerely,
Casey D. Baker, Esq.
Richard G. Hill, Chartered
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858

Email: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT; ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
This e-mail may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use, or disclose
this communication to anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the
email message from your system. Thank you.
Circular 230 Notice.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
RE: request for 30 days additional to stay in possession disability

11/04/11
Casey Baker
Sent: Fri 11/04/11 12:36 PM

00039

Mr. Coughlin:

We have never been served with any paper entitled Motion to Continue in Possession. If you have proof to the contrary, please provide it.
With respect to your request for another 30 days, please identify the legal and factual basis for your request, including any specific statute you are
purporting to invoke.
Casey Baker

Below for your convenience is a copy of the email I recently sent you as my, Zach Coughlin's, counsel of record, Mr. Puentes:

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Subject: continuance and my files
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 01:11:35 -0800

Dear Mr. Puentes,


officer to write out, curiously). I DO NOT WANT YOU TO DISCUSS MY CASE WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OF MY PRESENCE, INCLUDING VERBAL AND OR
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. THIS INCLUDES ANY COMMUNICATIONS, VERBAL OR WRITTEN WITH THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT AND ANYONE IN
ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT OR RENO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS LEW TAITEL.

Please email or fax me a complete copy of my file, including all pleadings, correspondences, and any other documentation or media at all connected
with my case. Please further disclose any conflicts of interest you might have in representing me. I did not agree to a continuance, and I believe it is my
right as a client to control the means and objectives of the litigation and or defense, and that, to me, does not include waiving my right to contest any
motion for a continuance or making things nice and easy for Richard G. Hill, Esq. Further, I would like to know who agreed to the continuance and why
it is Mr. Taitel is no longer attorney of record (nothing against you, please believe that).

Further, if Mr. Taitel is no longer attorney of record in this matter, please explain why, in detail, in writing. If he has withdrawn, and if you did so based
on some conflict of interest, how is it that that conflict of interest did not preclude him from apparently agreeing to a continuance or failing to file an
opposition or alerting me to the situation at all? Please note my new address and contact information below. Additionally, please indicate, in writing,
the extent to which you have an established procedure to check for conflicts prior to taking on cases and prior to obtaining confidential client files and
information. Please indicate in writing any deviation from such a procedure or failing of your office's practices to prevent such prejudice to my case in
your taking on my representation. Please copy me on any and all correspondences and or documentation or discovery in any way related to this matter.

Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402

00040

faxed signed letter attached
Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:35 AM
2 attachments
12 14 11 faxed letter to Puentes 11 CR 26405 2I.pdf (55.0 KB) , Coughlin IFP and Financial Inquiry Application RMC 11222011 11 CR 26405
2I.pdf (381.9 KB)
Mr. Puentes,
Please find my faxed signed letter attached. Also, if I am supposed to file an updated Financial Status
Application, please find that attached.

December 13th, 2011
Dear Mr. Puentes,
Hello, I received a package from you in the mail today. It did not contain a letter from you or any
indication of whether you will subpoena Dr. Merliss to attend the January Trial date, which is fast
approaching, whether you will depose him or Richard Hill, etc. Please respond in writing regard the
various written requests and questions I posed to you in my recent written correspondences, including,
but not limited to, whether you will comply with my requests to file a Motion in Limine, Motion to
Dismiss, Depose Dr. Merliss and Richard Hill, file a Motion to Set Aside the Continuance, for which I
was never appropriately provided a chance to contest, or served the Original Motion for Continuance.
I want to be copied, in writing, on every single thing related in any way to this case. RMC Rules
require the attorney, such as you and Lew Taitel to file a Notice of Appearance and to file a Motion to
Withdraw. Please provide a copy of the docket in this case. I do not see where Mr. Taitel ever filed a
Motion to Withdraw or where an Order Granting such a withdrawal was granted. It is my
understanding, though, that an Order Granting a Motion to Dismiss was likely entered. I want for you
to file a Motion To Set Aside that Order if it was based on Richard Hill citing some lame reason, like he
was going to be Porsche shopping in Florida or otherwise on vacation for some extended stretch or that
Richard Hill was the only person able to testify about whatever it is Richard Hill may want to testify
about. Dr. Merliss can take time out of raking in millions of dollars being a Beverly Hills HS graduate
neurosurgeon. I want him subpoenaed and deposed for the upcoming trial. I want a subpoena duces
tecum served on Richard Hill for any evidence related to this case, including any videos. Further, I
want you to make an inquiry and take appropriate action to discern whether I was appropriately served
any Notice Setting Hearing documents in this case, ascertaining exactly who (including which Marshal)
may have served me anything, the manner and place in which is was served, whose signature is there,
etc., whether the signature bears a date that is PRIOR in time to the Print Date on the Notice Setting
Hearing, etc.
Further, I want you to subpoena or obtain a copy of (and provide one to me) of the video of the
November 14th, 2011 arraignment, the entire video, start to finish (not just my appearance), I will pay
any charge if I have to, but I believe an IFP was granted that would cover such a charge in this matter.
I do not believe it would be accurate for the Reno Municipal Court to state or write, with respect to my
and the November 14, 2011 arraignment, that DEFENDANT APPEARED, WAS EXPLAINED
HIS/HER RIGHTS BY THE JUDGE AND INDICATED THAT HE/SHE UNDERSTOOD THEM
COMPLETELY... If the RMC has made that assertion in writing I want you to file something in
writing contesting that assertion. I do not believe I have been told that there is any possibility that I will
be required to pay you or the RMC any fees in connection with your representation. If that is not the
case, please explain in writing.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
00041

client controls means and objectives of litigation under Rules of Professional
Conduct
Nevada Bar No: 9473

** Notice** This messageand accompanying documents arecovered by theelectronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain
confidential information intended for thespecified individual (s) only. If you arenot theintended recipient or an agent responsiblefor delivering it to theintended
recipient, you arehereby notified that you havereceived this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or thetaking of any action based on the
contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is
privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and
destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or
other applicable privilege.

Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:52 AM
Dear Mr. Puentes,

Please let me know when we can discuss my case, the trial is very soon. I received a mailing from you, but it did not have a signed letter
from you stating what was in the package. Please email me or fax me any document production in the future and redact my personally
identifiable information from all documentions coming in or out of your office.
In the mailing I received from you was:
1. WCSO Mugshot Profile booking no: 1119876, one page
2. Criminal Complaint 11-22185, one page, signed by Richard Hill, not filestamped
3. ARrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause rpd 1101921 C r650225 , Declarant RPD Officer Carter, no Magistrate signature
(please find out why), one page
4. RPD, 3 pages 11-22185 Adminstrative Information, etc. (please subpoena and depose both RPD Officer's Lopez and Carter, asking them
whether they verbally identified themselves prior to, according to Hill, kicking the door down, and further questions them concerning the
accuracy of Hill's written statement and whether Officer Carter said to the accused that Richard Hill pays him, Officer Carter, a lot of
money and therefore Carter arrests who Hills says to arrest and does what Hill says to do. Further, please depose both officers, asking
whether the accused requested they take any action or ask Hill any questions and whether the Officers did so. Please subpoena the RPD for
any recordings, calls, documentation relating to this matter, or RPD Sargent Tarter's alleged retaliation against me and the traffic citations
he called in another RPD officer to write against me on or around November 15th, 2011. Please file a counterclaimalleged 42 USC 1983
violations againt the City of Reno and the RPD, in addition to other appropriate counterclaims. Please depose Hill to verify his written
account that he actually walked into the Basement, that Merliss himself kicked the door down, whether the RPD Officers verbally
identified themselves prior to the door being kicked down, whether the accused hesitated at all upon the RPD identifying themselves, etc....

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00042

CORRECTION FW: client controls means and objectives of litigation under Rules
of Professional Conduct
confidential information intended for thespecified individual (s) only. If you arenot theintended recipient or anagent responsiblefor delivering it to theintended

Sent: Wed 12/14/11 1:19 AM
Dear Mr. Puentes,

Please amend the list below to include the following:
5. RPD Statement by Richard Hill 11-22185

Further, please note I mistakenly noted in paragraph 4 below, that Hill was attributed as making a
written stament about entering the basement. Please, instead, ask the same questions of Officer Carter,
as to whether he "entered the doorway of the basement and found..." and what exactly he means by "He
was hesitant to come out and eventually did so". IE, what exactly does "eventually" mean? Like, one
second, ten minutes? What? Whether Officer Carter ever actually stepped foot in the basement, or
whether by writing that he "entered the doorway" Officer Carter is actually stating that he peeked his
head in or otherwise peered in. Please inquire as to whether the RPD refused to kick the door down or
whether someone else did, etc. PLEASE ASK OFFICER CARTER WHETHER HIS WRITTEN
STATMENT IS ENTIRELY ACCURATE WHERE IT ATTRIBUTES A QUOTE TO THE
ACCUSED THAT CARTER IS OR WAS "ON RICHARD HILL'S PAYROLL..." and further what
exactly was allegedly said about "working a deal". Please ask Carter and Lopez whether the accused
asked why they didn't just issue a citation and whether one would be arrested for getting their mail after
an eviction and why exactly an incarceration was necessary compared to a citation. Please further
inquire as to whether these Officers refused to make any arrests or investigation requested by the
accused and whether Carter indicated that he would never arrest anyone based on anything said by the
person he is arresting at the time such accusations, or counter accusations, are made. Please further
send Merliss and Hill subpoena duces tecum/interrogatories/request for production/ and request for
admission seeking specific, written indication and evidence supporting all contentions in any of the
materials upon which this arrest or this case is based, including, but not limited to Hill's written
statement that "We have observed evidence that he was coming and going."

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin

Subject: client controls means and objectives of litigation under Rules of Professional Conduct
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:52:25 -0800

Dear Mr. Puentes,

00043

THIS COULD WIN THE CASE IN 11 CR 26405 2I

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 5:02 AM
5 attachments
11 1 2011 Affidavit of Service, Notice of Entry of Order, and Order for Summary Eviction Rev2011-001708.pdf (7.8 MB) , Affidavit of Service
Sheriff's Machen 4 30 pm 11 1 2011.pdf (555.1 KB) , 12 14 11 fax to Puentes ISSUES THAT CAN WIN THE CASE.pdf (144.2 KB) , 11 21 11
Declaration of Richard Hill attach to his M for OSC (11-21-11) Compare to Police Reports and deposition of RPD's Carter and Lopez and
Merliss.pdf (791.4 KB) , 11 21 2011 REV2011-00178 RICHARD HILL'S M for OSC (11-21-11).pdf (711.7 KB)
ZachCoughlin, Esq.
817N. VirginiaSt. #2
Reno, NV89501
Tel: pleaseonlycommunicateinwriting
Fax: 9496677402
00044
LicensedinNevada, NV Bar No: 9473

December 14
th
, 2011

Dear Mr. Puentes,

Mr. Puentes,

Please find attached the Affidavit of Service, filed November 7th, 2011 in the eviction case in RJ C (REV2011-0017808) from which the
trespass case you are Attorney of Record for (RMC 11 CR 26405 2I) stems. TURNS OUT, THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FILED BY
THE WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF'S AUTHORIZED AGENT, J OHN MACHEN ADMITS, IN WRITING, THAT THE EVICTION
ORDER AND LOCKOUT WERE SERVED AND CONDUCTED PRIOR TO THE TIME AND DATE CALLED FOR BY THE
EVICTION ORDER (WHICH WAS NOT EVEN PUT INTO THE MAIL WITH A PROOF OF SERVICE UNTIL NOVEMBER 1,
2011...AND NRCP 4-6 APPLY TO STATUTORY UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS, THEREFORE, THE RJ C IS CLOSED
FRIDAYS AND OTHER NON JUDICIAL DAYS DO NOT COUNT, NOR DOES THE DAY THE ORDER IS SIGNED COUNT).
PLEASE ALSO FIND ATTACHED RICHARD HILL, ESQ'S DECLARATION ATTACHED TO A MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE HE
FILED IN REV2011-001708, WHICH I BELIEVE MAY PROVIDE FERTILE GROUND FOR IMPEACHING THE WRITTEN
STATEMENTS AND FUTURE TESTIMONY OF RPD OFFICER'S CARTER, LOPEZ, LANDLORD MERLISS, HILL HIMSELF,
ETC. PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS THIS VERBALLY OR IN WRITING WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN MYSELF ABSENT MY
EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT PRIOR TO DOING SO.

I prefer to discuss this with you prior to your taking any action in relation to this illegal lockout or insufficient service of process or early
lockout or however it is described. The Sheriff's server, Machen, might try to argue that he served the Eviction Order at 4:30 pm, then
waited around until after 5 pm (as required by the Eviction Order) to perform the actual lockout. I think it would be best to get Machen
admitting, by tricking him into admitting, if necessary, that he performed the lockout within minutes of serving the Eviction Order.
Further, the law in our State does not seemexceptionally clear with regard to the service and process requirements and timelines, and
manner of calculating time with respect to the "receipt" of Lockout Orders. The Affidavit of Service by Machen states that he "personally
served the described documents upon" my, Zach Coughlin...However, I can attest by Affidavit that I was not "personally served" to the
extent that "personally served" means or implies that I was there, that Machen saw me or identified me, or any of the other indicators of
something, such as a Complaint, being "personally served" such as I understand the phrase to me. NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii). Further, as
Baker and Hill have so often pointed out, I cannot, according to them, receive any attorney's fee award for appearing as pro se attorney, as
such, NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii), should apply to me only as a party, and not as a party's attorney, and, therefore, according to NRCP 5,
Service: "(2) Service under this rule is made by: (A) Delivering a copy to the attorney or the party by: (i) handing it to the attorney or to the
party; (ii) leaving it at the attorneys or partys office with a clerk or other person in charge, or if there is no one in charge, leaving it in a
conspicuous place in the office; or (iii) if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the persons dwelling
house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion residing there..." So, either it was my office, in which
case a No Cause Eviction Notice makes impermissible a Summary Eviction Proceeding under NRS 40.253, and therefore, the Order of
Summary Eviction is void for lack of jurisdiction, or, the Affidavit of Service was on my home, and was not "handed" to me, or
"personally served" (despite the Affidavit attesting to having "personally served" me), nor was the Order of Summary Eviction served in
accordance with NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(iii), which requires: "if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the
persons dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion residing there.."

Further, I believe posting an Order on one's residence door, particularly in the context of serving a No Cause Notice of Eviction or
Unlawful Detainer, is only valid if the document being served is also placed in the mail and 3 non judicial days are accorded for service to
be complete. See NRCP 6(e). I do not believe they can prove that at all, not even close. NRCP applies to Summary Eviction Actions,
according to the following:
"NRS 40.380 Provisions governing appeals. Either party may, within 10 days, appeal from the judgment rendered. But an appeal by the
defendant shall not stay the execution of the judgment, unless, within the 10 days, the defendant shall execute and file with the court or
justice the defendants undertaking to the plaintiff, with two or more sureties, in an amount to be fixed by the court or justice, but which
shall not be less than twice the amount of the judgment and costs, to the effect that, if the judgment appealed frombe affirmed or the
appeal be dismissed, the appellant will pay the judgment and the cost of appeal, the value of the use and occupation of the property, and
damages justly accruing to the plaintiff during the pendency of the appeal. Upon taking the appeal and filing the undertaking, all further
proceedings in the case shall be stayed.
Actually, a lot of people seemed confused regarding the 24 hours lockout thing. The only appearance in either NRS 118A or NRS 40, in the provisions
applicable to Summary Eviction Proceedings of anything related to 24 hours is in NRS 40.253(5), which only speaks to a situation where the Tenant
does not file a Tenant's Answer or Tenant's Affidavit, which is clearly inapplicable here, as the Tenant did file such a Opposition to the No Cause Eviction
Notice: 5. Upon noncompliance with the notice:
(a) The landlord or the landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court of the township in which the dwelling,
apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in which the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or
commercial premises are located, whichever has jurisdiction over the matter. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or
constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order. The affidavit must state or contain...
So, absent some statutory provision allowing the Order of Summary Eviction to result in a lockout by the Washoe County Sheriff's Office prior to the 3
days for mailing where personal service of the Order of Summary Eviction was not effectuated, despite what WCSO employee may have incorrectly (or
falsely) asserted in the WCSO's John Machem's Affidavit of Service from, file stamped November 7, 2011 (especially where it is timestamped 4:30 pm,
00045
November 1, 2011, especially where the Order of Summary Eviction explicitly reads that no such lockout shall occur prior to 5:00 pm on November 1,
2011). See, NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii), NRCP 6(e).
Interestingly, Richard Hill knows his case is toast under NRCP 5(b)(2)(A)(i-iii), NRCP 6(e), in addition to NRCP 11. That is why in
Richard Hill's November 21, 2011 Motion for Order To Show Cause, on page 2, Hills resorts to literally grasping at straws, imagining that
what the Washoe County Sheriff's Office customarily does is somehow automatically codified into mandatory precedent black letter law.
To wit, Richard Hill wrote in his Motion For Order To Show Cause that: FACTS SHOWING CONTEMPT OF COURT 6. EXHIBIT
1 was served on Coughlin on November " 2011 by the Washoe County Sheriffs Department, by posting same on the front door of the
property in the manner customary for evictions in Washoe County. The locks to the premises were changed at that time, thereby ejecting
and dispossessing Coughlin of possession of the Property. Further, therein Richard Hill admits that the lockout occurred at 4:30 pm, as
indicated in writing in the WCSO's Machem's Affidavit of Service, contra to the mandate of J udge Sferrazza's Order of Summary Eviction
requiring any lockout to occur after 5:00 pm, November 1, 2011.
NRS 40.385 Stay of execution upon appeal; duty of tenant who retains possession of premises to pay rent during stay. Upon an
appeal from an order entered pursuant to NRS 40.253:
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a stay of execution may be obtained by filing with the trial court a bond in
the amount of $250 to cover the expected costs on appeal. In an action concerning a lease of commercial property or any other
property for which the monthly rent exceeds $1,000, the court may, upon its own motion or that of a party, and upon a showing of
good cause, order an additional bond to be posted to cover the expected costs on appeal. A surety upon the bond submits to the
jurisdiction of the appellate court and irrevocably appoints the clerk of that court as the suretys agent upon whom papers
affecting the suretys liability upon the bond may be served. Liability of a surety may be enforced, or the bond may be released, on
motion in the appellate court without independent action.
2. A tenant who retains possession of the premises that are the subject of the appeal during the pendency of the appeal shall pay to the
landlord rent in the amount provided in the underlying contract between the tenant and the landlord as it becomes due. If the tenant fails to
pay such rent, the landlord may initiate new proceedings for a summary eviction by serving the tenant with a new notice pursuant to NRS
40.253.
NRS 40.390 Appellate court not to dismiss or quash proceedings for want of form. In all cases of appeal under NRS 40.220 to 40.420,
inclusive, the appellate court shall not dismiss or quash the proceedings for want of form, provided the proceedings have been conducted
substantially according to the provisions of NRS 40.220 to 40.420, inclusive; and amendments to the complaint, answer or summons, in
matters of form only, may be allowed by the court at any time before final judgment upon such terms as may be just; and all matters of
excuse, justification or avoidance of the allegations in the complaint may be given in evidence under the answer.
NRS 40.400 Rules of practice. The provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and Nevada Rules of Appellate
Procedure relative to civil actions, appeals and new trials, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NRS 40.220 to
40.420, inclusive, apply to the proceedings mentioned in those sections.
So, considering that NRS 40.400 requires that NRCP apply to Summary Eviction Proceedings under NRS 40.253, then service, process,
and time calculations of such must comport with the dictates of NRCP 5-6: " RULE 5. SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS AND
OTHER PAPERS
(a) Service: When Required. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every order required by its terms to be served, every
pleading subsequent to the original complaint unless the court otherwise orders because of numerous defendants, every paper relating to
discovery required to be served upon a party unless the court otherwiseorders, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex
parte, and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, designation of record on appeal, and similar paper shall be served
upon each of the parties. No service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except that pleadings asserting new or
additional claims for relief against them shall be served upon themin the manner provided for service of summons in Rule 4.
(b) Same: How Made.
(1) Whenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney, the service
shall be made upon the attorney unless the court orders that service be made upon the party.
(2) Service under this rule is made by:
(A) Delivering a copy to the attorney or the party by:
(i) handing it to the attorney or to the party;
(ii) leaving it at the attorneys or partys office with a clerk or other person in charge, or if there is no one in charge,
leaving it in a conspicuous place in the office; or
(iii) if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the persons dwelling house or usual place
of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion residing there.
(B) Mailing a copy to the attorney or the party at his or her last known address. Service by mail is complete on mailing;
provided, however, a motion, answer or other document constituting the initial appearance of a party must also, if served by mail,
be filed within the time allowed for service; and provided further, that after such initial appearance, service by mail be made only
by mailing from a point within the State of Nevada.
(C) If the attorney or the party has no known address, leaving a copy with the clerk of the court.
(D) Delivering a copy by electronic means if the attorney or the party served has consented to service by electronic
means. Service by electronic means is complete on transmission provided, however, a motion, answer or other document
constituting the initial appearance of a party must also, if served by electronic means, be filed within the time allowed for service.
The served attorneys or partys consent to service by electronic means shall be expressly stated and filed in writing with the clerk
of the court and served on the other parties to the action. The written consent shall identify:
(i) the persons upon whom service must be made;
(ii) the appropriate address or location for such service, such as the electronic-mail address or facsimile number;
(iii) the format to be used for attachments; and
(iv) any other limits on the scope or duration of the consent.
An attorneys or partys consent shall remain effective until expressly revoked or until the representation of a party changes
through entry, withdrawal, or substitution of counsel. An attorney or party who has consented to service by electronic means shall,
within 10 days after any change of electronic-mail address or facsimile number, serve and file notice of the new electronic-mail address or
facsimile number.
(3) Service by electronic means under Rule 5(b)(2)(D) is not effective if the party making service learns that the attempted
00046
service did not reach the person to be served.
(4) Proof of service may be made by certificate of an attorney or of the attorneys employee, or by written admission, or by
affidavit, or other proof satisfactory to the court. Failure to make proof of service shall not affect the validity of service...
RULE 6. TIME
(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, by
order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run
shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a nonjudicial day, in
which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a nonjudicial day, or, when the act to be
done is the filing of a paper in court, a day on which weather or other conditions have made the office of the clerk of the district court
inaccessible, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period of
time 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...
(e) Additional Time After Service by Mail or Electronic Means. 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.
Subdivision (a) is revised to extend the exclusion of intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and nonjudicial days to the computation of time
periods less than 11 days consistent with the 1985 amendments to the federal rule. Additionally, the inaccessibility of the court
provision found in subdivision (a) of the federal rule is added to Rule 6(a). Subdivision (a) is further amended, by adding language
referring to proceedings filed under Titles 12 or 13 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, to avoid any changes to current procedures in
probate, guardianship and trust proceedings....
Subdivision (e) is amended to provide an additional 3 days to act in response to a paper that is served by electronic means under
new paragraph (2)(D) added to Rule 5(b)."
NRS 40.253 Unlawful detainer: Supplemental remedy of summary eviction and exclusion of tenant for default in payment of rent.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 10, in addition to the remedy provided in NRS 40.2512 and 40.290 to 40.420, inclusive,
when the tenant of any dwelling, apartment, mobile home, recreational vehicle or commercial premises with periodic rent reserved
by the month or any shorter period is in default in payment of the rent, the landlord or the landlordsagent, unless otherwise agreed in
writing, may serve or have served a notice in writing, requiring in the alternative the payment of the rent or the surrender of the premises...
4. If the tenant files such an affidavit at or before the time stated in the notice, the landlord or the landlords agent, after receipt of a
file-stamped copy of the affidavit which was filed, shall not provide for the nonadmittance of the tenant to the premises by locking or
otherwise.
5. Upon noncompliance with the notice:
(a) The landlord or the landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court of the township in which
the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located or to the district court of the county in which the dwelling,
apartment, mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever has jurisdiction over the matter. The court may thereupon issue an
order directing the sheriff or constable of the county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order..
6. Upon the filing by the tenant of the affidavit permitted in subsection 3, regardless of the information contained in the affidavit, and
the filing by the landlord of the affidavit permitted by subsection 5, the justice court or the district court shall hold a hearing, after service
of notice of the hearing upon the parties, to determine the truthfulness and sufficiency of any affidavit or notice provided for in this section.
If the court determines that there is no legal defense as to the alleged unlawful detainer and the tenant is guilty of an unlawful
detainer, the court may issue a summary order for removal of the tenant or an order providing for the nonadmittance of the
tenant. If the court determines that there is a legal defense as to the alleged unlawful detainer, the court shall refuse to grant either
party any relief, and, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, shall require that any further proceedings be conducted
pursuant to NRS 40.290 to 40.420, inclusive. The issuance of a summary order for removal of the tenant does not preclude an action
by the tenant for any damages or other relief to which the tenant may be entitled....
7. The tenant may, upon payment of the appropriate fees relating to the filing and service of a motion, file a motion with the court, on a
form provided by the clerk of the court, to dispute the amount of the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant to NRS 118.207 or
118A.460 for the inventory, moving and storage of personal property left on the premises. The motion must be filed within 20 days after the
summary order for removal of the tenant or the abandonment of the premises by the tenant, or within 20 days after:
(a) The tenant has vacated or been removed fromthe premises; and
(b) A copy of those charges has been requested by or provided to the tenant,
whichever is later.
8. Upon the filing of a motion pursuant to subsection 7, the court shall schedule a hearing on the motion. The hearing must be
held within 10 days after the filing of the motion. The court shall affix the date of the hearing to the motion and order a copy
served upon the landlord by the sheriff, constable or other process server. At the hearing, the court may:
(a) Determine the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord pursuant to NRS 118.207 or 118A.460 and any accumulating daily costs; and
(b) Order the release of the tenants property upon the payment of the charges determined to be due or if no charges are determined to
be due.
Landlord Merliss filed only a No Cause Notice of Eviction in REV2011-001708 on Commercial Tenant Zach Coughlin, Esq.'s law office.
As such, a Summary Eviction Proceeding is impermissible given the requirement of NRS 40.253 that the Notice alleged non-payment of
rent to allow the landlord to proceed under the Summary Eviction Proceeding section, NRS 40.253. Further, Judge Sferrazza was
precluded from ruling on anything other than possession of the premises pursuant to NRS 40.253(6), Anvui, and Glazier. Further, the
tenancy did not terminate under the Lease Agreement, it ws renewed.
NRS 40.254 Unlawful detainer: Supplemental remedy of summary eviction and exclusion of tenant from certain types of property.
Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, in addition to the remedy provided in NRS 40.251 and in NRS 40.290 to 40.420, inclusive,
when the tenant of a dwelling unit which is subject to the provisions of chapter 118A of NRS, part of a low-rent housing program operated
by a public housing authority, a mobile home or a recreational vehicle is guilty of an unlawful detainer, the landlord is entitled to the
summary procedures provided in NRS 40.253 except that:
1. Written notice to surrender the premises must:...(e) A statement that the claim for relief was authorized by law.
As such, the too early lockout brings into play the following:
NRS 118A.390 Unlawful removal or exclusion of tenant or willful interruption of essential services; procedure for expedited relief.
1. If the landlord unlawfully removes the tenant from the premises or excludes the tenant by blocking or attempting to block the
tenants entry upon the premises or willfully interrupts or causes or permits the interruption of any essential service required by
00047
the rental agreement or this chapter, the tenant may recover immediate possession pursuant to subsection 4, proceed under NRS
118A.380 or terminate the rental agreement and, in addition to any other remedy, recover the tenants actual damages, receive an
amount not greater than $1,000 to be fixed by the court, or both.
2. In determining the amount, if any, to be awarded under subsection 1, the court shall consider:
(a) Whether the landlord acted in good faith;
(b) The course of conduct between the landlord and the tenant; and
(c) The degree of harmto the tenant caused by the landlords conduct.
3. If the rental agreement is terminated pursuant to subsection 1, the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security recoverable under
this chapter.
4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, the tenant may recover immediatepossession of the premises from the landlord by filing a
verified complaint for expedited relief for the unlawful removal or exclusion of the tenant fromthe premises or the willful interruption of
essential services.
5. A verified complaint for expedited relief:
(a) Must be filed with the court within 5 judicial days after the date of the unlawful act by the landlord, and the verified complaint must be
dismissed if it is not timely filed. If the verified complaint for expedited relief is dismissed pursuant to this paragraph, the tenant retains the
right to pursue all other available remedies against the landlord.
(b) May not be filed with the court if an action for summary eviction or unlawful detainer is already pending between the landlord and
tenant, but the tenant may seek similar relief before the judge presiding over the pending action.
6. The court shall conduct a hearing on the verified complaint for expedited relief within 3 judicial days after the filing of the verified
complaint for expedited relief. Before or at the scheduled hearing, the tenant must provide proof that the landlord has been properly served
with a copy of the verified complaint for expedited relief. Upon the hearing, if it is determined that the landlord has violated any of the
provisions of subsection 1, the court may:
(a) Order the landlord to restore to the tenant the premises or essential services, or both;
(b) Award damages pursuant to subsection 1; and
(c) Enjoin the landlord fromviolating the provisions of subsection 1 and, if the circumstances so warrant, hold the landlord in contempt of
court.
7. The payment of all costs and official fees must be deferred for any tenant who files a verified complaint for expedited relief. After any
hearing and not later than final disposition of the filing or order, the court shall assess the costs and fees against the party that does not
prevail, except that the court may reduce themor waive them, as justice may require.

NRS 118A.090 Exclude defined. Exclude means to evict or to prohibit entry by locking doors or by otherwise blocking or attempting to block entry,
or to make a dwelling unit uninhabitable by interrupting or causing the interruption of electric, gas, water or other essential services.
ALL PAPERS AND PLEADINGS AND CORRESPONDENCS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE RENO JUSTICE COURT AND OR ITS EMPLOYEES IS HEREBY
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THIS FILING.
NRS 118A.190: Notice: Definition; service.
1. A person has notice of a fact if:
(a) The person has actual knowledge of it;
(b) The person has received a notice or notification of it; or
(c) From all the facts and circumstances the person reasonably should know that it exists.
2. Written notices to the tenant prescribed by this chapter shall be served in the manner provided by NRS 40.280.
3. Written notices to the landlord prescribed by this chapter may be delivered or mailed to the place of business of the landlord designated in the rental
agreement or to any place held out by the landlord as the place for the receipt of rental payments from the tenant and are effective from the date of
delivery or mailing.
NRS 40.280 Service of notices to quit; proof required before issuance of order to remove.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 40.253, the notices required by NRS 40.251 to 40.260, inclusive, may be served:
(a) By delivering a copy to the tenant personally, in the presence of a witness;
(b) If the tenant is absent from the tenants place of residence or from the tenants usual place of business, by leaving a copy with a person of suitable
age and discretion at either place and mailing a copy to the tenant at the tenants place of residence or place of business; or
(c) If the place of residence or business cannot be ascertained, or a person of suitable age or discretion cannot be found there, by posting a copy in a
conspicuous place on the leased property, delivering a copy to a person there residing, if the person can be found, and mailing a copy to the tenant at
the place where the leased property is situated.
I did not receive any of the emails allegedly sent to my from Richard Hill's email address, rhill@richardhillaw.com between August 18
th
, 2011 to
November 17
th
, 2011, and certainly none from rhill@richardhillaw.com during the period between the illegal lockout at 4:30 pm November 1, 2011 and
the trespass arrest of November 13
th
, 2011 which allegedly spoke to my being provided access to the property for the purpose of my removing my
belongings, despite my numerous calls and written requests, which outlined the exigencies inherent to my being precluded access to my client files
incident to an unlawful and improperly notice and too early occurring lockout by the WCSO. I and my business have been damaged greatly by these
acts. Further, I had repeatedly sent both Baker and Hill notice, in writing, that I did not consent to service or notice of anything via electronic means.
Further NRS 118A.190 does not speak to notice of a legal finding, but rather to notice of a fact. As such, I was not appropriately served notice of the
Order of Summary Eviction, and an illegal lockout occurred, as such no criminal trespass charge can stand.
NRS 118A.260 Disclosure of names and addresses of managers and owners; emergency telephone number; service of process.
1. The landlord, or any person authorized to enter into a rental agreement on his or her behalf, shall disclose to the tenant in writing at or before the
commencement of the tenancy:
(a) The name and address of:
(1) The persons authorized to manage the premises;
(2) A person within this State authorized to act for and on behalf of the landlord for the purpose of service of process and receiving notices and
demands; and
(3) The principal or corporate owner.
(b) A telephone number at which a responsible person who resides in the county or within 60 miles of where the premises are located may be called in
case of emergency.
2 The information required to be furnished by this section must be kept current and this section is enforceable against any successor landlord or
00048

FW: THIS COULD WIN THE CASE IN 11 CR 26405 2I
manager of the premises.
3. A party who enters into a rental agreement on behalf of the landlord and fails to comply with this section is an agent of the landlord for purposes of:
(a) Service of process and receiving notices and demands; and
(b) Performing the obligations of the landlord under law and under the rental agreement.
4. In any action against a landlord which involves his or her rental property, service of process upon the manager of the property or a person described
in paragraph (a) of subsection 1 shall be deemed to be service upon the landlord. The obligations of the landlord devolve upon the persons authorized
to enter into a rental agreement on his or her behalf.
5. This section does not limit or remove the liability of an undisclosed landlord.
NRS 40.310 Issue of fact to be tried by jury if proper demand made. Whenever an issue of fact is presented by the pleadings, it shall be tried by a jury, if
proper demand is made pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure or the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.


00049
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 5:39 AM
5 attachments
Hi Mr. Puentes,

What is inconsistent in the discovery you provided me and Hill's Motion to Show Cause? I am
interested to see what you come up with and who you would want to ask what questions. I went to the
University of Washington too, for awhile at least, year round from 9/95 to 12/96.

Hill's Declaration in his 11 21, 2011 Motion to Show Cause indicates that:
"DECLARATION OF RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.
RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ., being first duly sworn, deposes and under penalty
of perjury avers:
1. I am a resident of the City of Reno, County of Washoe, State of Nevada,
and over 18 years of age. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, exceptthose
matters stated on information and belief, and as to those items I believe them to be true.
This declaration is made in support of plaintiffs Motion for Contempt Citation, and
represents my testimony if called on to present same in court.
2. I am an attorney duly licensed as such by the State of Nevada to practice
before all courts of this State and maintain my office at 652 Forest Street, Reno, Nevada.
I am also licensed to practice before the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.
III
3. My office represents the plaintiff, Dr. Matthew Merliss, in this matter.
4. On October 27, 2011, this court signed a summary eviction order, and on
November 1, 2011, the Washoe County Sheriff's Department served that order. The notice
was posted on the door of the home by the Washoe County Sheriff's Department in the
manner customary in Washoe County for evictions. The locks on the front door and back
door were changed, and we retained all keys to the home.
5. After that date, I began to notice that it looked like somebody had been
getting into the home. On approximately November 4, 2011, I became concerned about the
home and its contents. I entered it and was able to confirm that "somebody" had been
getting in. I thought I had secured the means of entry being used by whoever it was that
was getting in. However, on later visits to the home, it was clear that the home was still
being surreptitiously accessed.
6. On November 13, 2011, Dr. Merliss came to Reno because he wanted to
inspect the home. Upon entry, it was clear that somebody had again accessed the home.
7. We tried to enter the basement and found the door was barricaded, not
locked, from the inside. We were concerned that whoever had been accessing the home was
inside, so we called the police.
8. When the police arrived, they agreed with us that it was very likely that
somebody was barricaded in the basement. The police tried to coax the personto come out,
but without success.
9. When the police declined to break down the door, Dr. Merliss did so. The
police looked inside and discovered the defendant, Zachary Coughlin, and his dog.
10. Coughlin came out peacefully, went upstairs and was placed under arrest
by the police for trespassing.
11. After Coughlin was taken to jail, Dr. Merliss and I tried to videotape the
contents ofthe basement where Coughlin had been hiding. It was too dark to effectively
videotape, but we were able to ascertain that Coughlin and his dog have been living. in the
00050
III
basement of the home for quite some time, likely even before the lockout. Iobserved that
Coughlin had a bed set up. He had several computer monitors. He had a store of both food
and water. He had electric space heaters.
12. Since the eviction order was served, my associate, Mr. Baker, and I had
sent numerous emails to Coughlin, in which we both repeatedly made it clear to him that
he was not to be at the home without our prior permission. No such permission was given.
Mr. Coughlin had no reason to possibly think he was permitted on the property. We had
tried to coax him to cooperate on getting his possessions out, without success, or even a
response.
13. As a result of Mr. Coughlin's break-ins, Dr. Merliss has incurred a bill of
$1,060 with a licensed contractor to secure the premises. That does not include the cost of
the door that was broken in order to get Coughlin out. That does not include the numerous
hours of me and my staff to deal with Mr. Coughlin's repeated break-ins at the home.
14. I am no expert, but I believe Mr. Coughlin is what is called a "hoarder."
He has many car seats throughout the house. He has many dead televisions. He has a box
of car window servo motors. The attic, which can only be accessed through a very narrow
opening, is full of items, including dead electronic devices.
15. We have found drugs at the home. We found a bag of what looks like
marijuana on the kitchen counter. I found a crack pipe. The contractor found what he said
was a large quantity of pills.
16. Mr. Coughlin has been harassing and stalking me, and possibly, my staff.
On November 15, 2011, he burst intomy office and created a scene. Then, he was parading
up and down the sidewalk across the street with a video camera screaming obscenities at
me and my staff.
III
II I
III
17. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct..."
But RPD Officer Carter wrote in his Supplemental Declaration: "On November 13, 2011 at
approximately 1200 hours I responded to 121 River Rock St, Reno, on a report of an
unwanted subject in the home. I arrived on scene with Sgt Lopez and we met with the RIP. Richard Hill,
who told
us the following:Richard is a local attorney who is representing the home owner, Matthew Merliss.
Matthew filed eviction papers on
his tenant, Zachary Coughlin, at 121 River Rock St last month and they were served at the home by
leaving them
on the door. The eviction papers stated that Zachary was to vacate the property on November 1, 2011 .
Matthew has been to the house several times over the past week and has observed evidence of someone
coming
and going. Today he was at the house and found the basement door to be locked from inside.
Matthew contacted Richard who responded and called the police.
Sgt Lopez and I knocked on the basement door and announced loudly "Reno Police" and called out for
Zachary to
open the door. We were met with no response. Matthew decided he would kick the door open, and did
so.
I entered the doorway of the basement and found Zachary standing at the rear of the room holding a
small dog.
He was hesitant to come out and eventually did so.
Zachary came upstairs and instantly started arguing his legal standing in the house, asking me
"hypothetically
speaking" type questions. He then told me I was making a false arrest due to the fact that I am on
Richard Hill's
payroll and he was going to sue me.
00051
I tried to explain to Zachary that he was seNed eviction papers and he asked me what I could do about it
if he
hypothetically didn't get them . He then told me that he had worked a deal with Matthew to continue
paying rent
and that the legal eviction was no longer val id.
I again tried to explain to Zachary that a judge had signed anorder forcing him to leave the property and
all he did
was cite civil case law to me (l'm unsure if any of the cases he was rambling on about even exist) and
tell me that
I was making a bad arrest.
Due to Zachary not believing he has done anything wrong that the fact he believes he still has standing
there is
reasonable grounds to believe Zachary will return to the house. Therefore he did not qualify for a
misdemeanor
citation.
Richard completed a statement on Matthews' behalf and signed a criminal complaint.
Zachary was transported and booked into the Washoe County Jail without incident for
Trespassing...."Further, Richard Hill's own Written Statment of 11 13, 2011, provided to the RPD writes
that "We evicted Coughlin. The papers were posted by WCSO on 11/1/11 We have observed evidence
that he was coming and going...."

Why didn't Merliss make a Written Statement. Was Merliss really in Reno during the time frame to
observe what Hill asserts Merliss observed in Hill's Declaration of 11 21, 2011? What other holes do
you see?

Hills 11 21, 2011 Declaration states that: "6. OnNovember 13, 2011, Dr. Merliss came to Reno because
he wanted to
somebody was barricaded in the basement. The police tried to coax the person to come out,
by the police for trespassing."

However, RPD Officer Carter's Narrative, on page 3 of 3 from his November 14th, 2011 Report
writes that: "Matthew has been to the house several times over the past week and has
observed evidence of someone coming and going. Today he was at the house and found the
basement door to be locked from inside.
Sgt Lopez and I knocked on the basement door and announced loudly "Reno Police" and
called out for Zachary to open the door. We were met with no response. Matthew decided he
would kick the door open, and did so.
I entered the doorway of the basement and found Zachary standing at the rear of the room
holding a small dog.
He was hesitant to come out and eventually did so."

Hill's Declaration contains nothing about this "reluctance" RPD Officer Carter mentions
00052

FW: 121 River Rock
Further, Hill's Declaration makes no mention of Merliss's noticing anything at the property or
any trips by Merliss to the property, in marked contrast to RPD Officer's Carter writing that
"Matthew has been to the house several times over the past week and has observed evidence
of someone coming and going." Additionally, Merliss picked up my dog and held it in his
hands close to his body and demanded that I let him have it, and the RPD Officers did nothing
about it, further, Merliss was taunting me during the arrest demanding I give him "some more
eye contact", accusing me of costing him $20,000 for the informed consent wrong site legal
surgery that was Hill's billing of $20K in a Summary Eviction Proceeding where JCRCP 3 and
NRS 69.030 preclude an award of fees, etc. Notice Hill's Declaration only writes that "the police
tried to coax the person out" but clearly does not corroborate RPD's Carter's assertion that the
RPD announced itself as police prior to the door being kicked down. Hills Written Statement
that the eviction papers were "served" by the WCSO "leaving them on the door" is a violation
of NRCP 11 and leaves him and his client liable for the wrongful arrest and defamation that
occurred incident to RPD's actions.

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Sat 12/17/11 12:15 AM
To: ballardd@reno.gov; howardk@reno.gov; robertsp@reno.gov; renomunirecords@reno.gov; hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; puenteslaw@aol.com

Unbelievable. The idea that exculpating evidence is being withheld under some "lien" is transmitted into the universe, next thing I know, my law office
is broken in to and the Richard B. Hill gang is stil asserting a lien on property that was stolen, in my opinion,as a result of their own negligence, leaving
a window air conditioner unit in a window, without even putting a window jam between the top of the sill and lower pain, facing a sidewalk a block
from the Lakemill Lodge and across from City Center Apartments, great. Great. And I still have not been faxed or appropriately served the Order and
Contempt OrderI was told would be faxed to me.

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
00053
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


To: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com; knielsen@richardhillaw.com; sgallagher@richardhillaw.com
Subject: RE: 121 River Rock
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:43:38 -0800

Dear Mr. Baker,

I drove by the property recently and saw you had added boarding up the front door on very, very recently. Unfortunately, your client and your firm,
despite billing up some $1,060 for "securing" the property on top of charging $900 for storage for what could fit inside a 10x20 foot storage shed,
never once providing an inventory, and contributing to a wrongful arrest and defamation causing me and my clients great damage, failed to take even
basic steps to secure the property, despite my making numerous written requests that you do so, including, but not limited to, taking the damn window
unit air conditioner out of the window facing the sidewalk on the side of the house very close to the damn Lakemill Lodge, or even putting a strong
stick in between the bottom sliding window pain and the top of the sill to prevent someone from simply pushing in the window unit air conditioner and
pushing the window up to gain access. Further, a blanket that was on the orange circular couch is clearly in the flower bed in front of the house.
Additionally, there are reports that someone with your office gave someone a mattress from the inventory of Coughlin Memory Foam (a Nevada
licensed business located at the property) and an expensive mattress platform has clearly been damaged and placed in the flower bed as well, in
addition to one of the wooden porch shades being removed from the front porch. You and your client are, of course, liable for all of this.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

** Notice** This messageand accompanying documents arecovered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain
recipient, you arehereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or thetaking of any action based on the

From: cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
CC: rhill@richardhillaw.com
Subject: 121 River Rock
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:50:02 -0800

00054

need to communicate with you regarding my requests
Mr. Coughlin:

The River Rock property has been broken into. We believe the break-in occurred sometime on Monday, December 12, 2011. There appear to be items
missing, including the TV in the living room, perhaps a computer monitor, and perhaps some stereo equipment. I cant tell what else. The contents of
the residence appear to have been rifled through.

I am providing you with this information as a courtesy. This email does NOT constitute permission for you to go to the River Rock property.

652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858

This e-mail may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use, or disclose this communication to anyone other than the
intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email message from your system. Thank you.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein.

Sent: Mon 12/26/11 3:52 PM

Dear Mr. Puentes,
I called you just now and left a message. I have received nothing from you in regard to my written requests for action on your part and for information
in connection with the matter for which you are attorney of record RMC 11 CR 22185 2I.

Please respond in writing.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00055

scope of representation

new address for me

Sent: Fri 12/30/11 10:36 PM
Dear Mr. Puentes,
Please move for a continuance immediately in this matter, set for trial on J anuary 10th, 2011. You
assured me in person at our meeting at your office that you would be able to get one, and I definitely
want and need one, and RMCR indicates there are certain deadlines for moving for one, which I have
already asked you to do in writing.

I am upset that you slammed down the telephone ended our telephone conversation abruptly when we
spoke yesterday, immediately after I asked you to provide something in writing outlining the scope of
your representation of me. I wish for you to prepare and file (after receiving express prior written
authorization from me upon review of your drafts) the Motion to Supress and Motions in Limine I
previously request that you file, in addition to subpoening Dr. Merliss, Richard Hill, both RPD Officers
at the scene of the trespassing arrest, and a subpoena duces tecume to the Law Office of Richard Hill,
the RPD, and Dr. Merliss demanding any and all documentation and or media at all connected with this
matter in any way. Further you indicated that you had not even attempted to view the discovery
produced by the Reno City Attorney, nor did you have any interest in seeing anything I might have to
show you. That was enormously upsetting to me, as any sentient human being might reasonably be
expected to anticipate. Please note my new address. Please file a conflict motion seeking to make the
Reno City Atty recuse itself in light of the conflicts of interest incident to the various arrests and torts
against me committed by the RPD and Reno City Attorney.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


00056

Pendency of Criminal Prosecution as Ground for Continuance or Postponement
of Civil Action Involving Facts or Transactions upon which Prosecution Is
PredicatedState CasesPendency of Criminal Prosecution as Ground for
Continuance or Postponement of Civil
Sent: Sat 12/31/11 1:32 AM

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

** Notice** This messageand accompanying documentsarecovered by theelectronic CommunicationsPrivacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, andmay contain confidential information intended for the
specifiedindividual (s) only. If you arenot theintendedrecipient or an agent responsiblefor delivering it to theintended recipient, you areherebynotifiedthat you havereceived thisdocument in error andthat
any review, dissemination, copying, or thetaking of any action based on thecontentsof thisinformation isstrictly prohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient
(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt fromdisclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in
any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.

Sent: Sat 12/31/11 8:14 PM
2 attachments
jail time counsel sixth amendment possibility misdemeanor.pdf (3.1 MB) , fifth amendment right civil proceeding parallel.pdf (2.6 MB)
Pendency of Criminal Prosecution as Ground for Continuance or Postponement of Civil
Action Involving Facts or Transactions upon which Prosecution Is PredicatedState
Cases...37 A.L.R.6th 511 (Originally published in 2008)
;please find that ALR attached, perhaps it speaks to the res gestae and or stay during the pendency of the
civil appeal we discussed vis a vis the criminal trespass charge

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00057

Is Roberto Puentes on Youtube.com? also more motivation for you in this case

Zach Coughlin has shared a folder with you.

Sent: Sat 12/31/11 9:19 PM
10 attachments
Legal malpractice in defense of criminal prosecution.pdf (6.7 MB) , Public Defender's Immunity from Liability for Malpractice.pdf (4.0 MB) ,
process server fraud harass trespass.pdf (3.1 MB) , f_Circumstances giving rise to prejudicial conflict of interests between criminal defendant.pdf
(2.7 MB) , public defender liability.pdf (2.2 MB) , conflicts with PUBLIC DEFENDER EMPLOYEES.pdf (2.0 MB) , Civil liability of attorney for abuse
of process process server trespass fraud.pdf (1925.1 KB) , process server abuse harass trespass.pdf (1816.6 KB) , Trespass state prosecution for
unauthorized entry or occupation, for public demonstration purposes, of business, industrial, or utility premises.pdf (339.6 KB) , SUBPOENA TO
TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE.pdf (281.9 KB)
Hi Mr. Puentes,
I know you have repeatedly told me you could care less to watch any youtube.com videos, regardless of
whether they prove my innocence or whatever, however, I think you might need to watch some of these:
http://www.youtube.com/results?
search_query=nevada+court+services&oq=nevada+court+services&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=18l3308l0l3556l19l15l0l9l0l1l311l1375l0.1.4.1l6l0

It seems Nevada Court Services, which shares an office and a receptionist with the former appointed public defender for this case representing me, Lew
Taitel, Esq, who departed from RMC Rules by failing to file a Motion to Withdraw when he sought to and failed to disclose the conflict of interest that
he failed to prevent his taking on my case and reviewing ultra personal information, that is directly connected to the subject matter of the litigation
from which the conflict arises as well as the defense of the suit you and he have both appeared as attorney of record in, this trespass case. I don't think
you are on any of the videos, but there are so many ultra zealous documentary filmmakers these days that I cannot be sure.

Anyways, Lew Taitel, as I have indicated to you in writing, is listed as "associated with" Nevada Court Services, on their website, with his picture. They
share and office and a receptionist, and perhaps others staff, in the office across from the former Chocolate Bar. PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY OF
ALL, AND SOMETHING I WANT YOU TO LITIGATE AGGREsSIVELY (CLIENT CONTROLS MEANS AND OBJECTIVES OF A LITIGATION, WHETHER
APPOINTED ATTORNEY LIKES IT OR NOT) IS THAT NEVADA COURT SERVICES, INCLUDE ITS PROCESS SERVER JOEL DURDEN, CAN BE SEEN
TRESPASSING ONTO MY PROPERTY AND OTHERWISE ASSAULTING, HARASSING, AND VEXING ME, BEHIND MY BACK GATE, NO LESS IN THE VIDEOS
FOUND AT THE LINK ABOVE.

PLEASE DISCLOSE ANY CONFLICTS OR PREVIOUS WORKING RELATIONSHIPS YOU HAVE WITH ANY OF THE RENO CITY ATTORNEY, RPD, RENO
MUNICIPAL COURT STAFF, RICHARD HILL, OR ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS WITH WHOM YOU HAVE HAD PRIOR DEALINGS AND THEREFOR MAY
PRESENT A SITUATION WHERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ARISES.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

specifiedindividual (s) only. If you arenot theintendedrecipient or an agent responsiblefor delivering it to theintended recipient, you arehereby notifiedthat you havereceived thisdocument in error andthat

Sent: Thu 1/05/12 8:22 AM
00058

video of trespass arrest
Dear Mr. Puentes, Please let me know, in writing, the status of the Motion For Continuance you indicated you would both file and which you felt sure
would be obtained, either through written stipulation with opposing counsel of by Order of the RMC
Zach has 14 files to share with you on SkyDrive. To view them, click the links below.
zach's arrest 001.avi
Download all
Share your files with
Sent: Thu 1/05/12 8:43 AM
1 attachment
zach's arrest 009.flv (10.4 MB)
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=43084638f32f5f28&resid=43084638F32F5F28!1050&parid=43084638F32F5F28!117&authkey=!ACPUJSqi94trtcY

Dear Mr. Puentes,

Please provide an indication, in writing, as to the status of the continuance of the upcoming trespass trial, which you indicated would be obtained.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00059

another video of the arrest which lacks anyone telling Coughlin to leave or
seeking to issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest

ARRESTED FOR JAYWALKING BY RENO PD

Sent: Thu 1/05/12 3:26 PM
1 attachment

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Fri 1/13/12 7:49 AM
To: peteeastman@gmail.com; tcoughlinmd@hotmail.com; marybarkbark@yahoo.com; carcoughster@gmail.com; melissa.l.ulloa@gmail.com;
tjhlaw@eschelon.com; geofgiles@hotmail.com; teddyjames25@gmail.com; jgoodnight@washoecounty.us; puenteslaw@aol.com
1 attachment
SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO OPPOSITION CV08-01709 1 13 12.pdf (162.9 KB)
Nevada Courts Services CEO Jeff Chandler drove by the scene while I was in the patrol car. I am suing
Nevada Court Services incident to their trespassing into my backyard and banging on windows and
ringing doorbells in teams for 40 minutes at a clip three times a day on Richard HIlls behalf. Mr.
Puentes, as my court appointed defender in the trespass action against me (arrested at Richard Hill's
behest by an RPD Officer would said Hill pays him money) you recently informed me you have ties to
Nevada Court Services and Lew Taitel, the court appointed defender whom mysteriously was able to
withdraw from my representation prior to your involvement despite not filing a motion in compliance
with Reno Municipal Court Rules, nor any Order granting such a withdrawal being filed. Can you
clarify your, in your words "extremely close relationship with Lew Taitel" and your "business
relationship" with Nevada Court Services?

Sincerely

00060

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


00061
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Document Code:
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St., #2
tel: 775 229 6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Reno, NV 89512
Co-counsel for Defendant Coughlin
" ,:-...
' .. ! . .
- ." 1', :' '
2012 FEB 15 AM 9: 53
",' .
IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWNSHIP
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
STATE OF NEVADA;
Plaintiff,
)
)
) Case No: 11 CR 26405
)
12 VS.
)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-25
26
21
28
)
Defendant.
)
)
Notice of ADD""! Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside. JCRCP 59. JCRCP 60. Motion for
Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Publlcadon Of Transcript at Publlc Expense.
Petition for In Foona Pauperis Status
FACTS
Bobby Puentes threw me under the bus, than reveal the fact that he had a conflict. He whined
about how the case was "hard" rather than do some lawyering. The man doesn't know how to bum a
cd. He attempted to shift the job ofbuming a cd fex discovery onto me, yet he is the one taking home
the RIC, especialIy the prosecutors for the Reno City Attorney, as he is just a teddy bear to
- 1 -
NQti!;'lLD'[AJUll'.ru.Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside. JCRcp 59. JCRCP 60. Motion M _
Reconsideration; Motion for Recusa!; Motion For Publication Qf Transcript at Public Expense.
for In FOnDa PauDeris Statu.$.
00062
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
<rosecutors liBe DraBe D?ho reminded the undersigned that she ?as the # <la>er on the )eno /igh
9irls .ennis .eam in high school a&ter the /earing on 3e=ruar> !, !(!;...Being a tedd> =ear is &ine,
- guess, =ut not e'actl> the &irst thing - looB &or in de&ense counsel. Eoral o& the stor>, donAt thro?
client under the =us instead o& disclosing im<ermissi=le con&lict that >our con&lict checBs should have
revealed <rior to entering the sanctit> o& the attorne> client relationshi<, something that should =e
sacred, not Cust something 5uentes enteres to get a <a>checB and dum<s once it =ecomes
inconvenient.
De&endantF6<<ellant, Zach Coughlin, here=> &iles this Notice o& 6<<eal, Eotion to *acate and
or "et 6side, 0C)C5 $9, 0C)C5 %(, Eotion &or )econsideration8 Eotion &or )ecusal8 Eotion 3or
5u=lication 2& .ranscri<t at 5u=lic E'<ense, 5etition &or -n 3orma 5au<eris "tatus.
3urther no one has e'<lained .aitels m>sterious a=ilit> to 4ithdra? as Counsel ?ithout
com<l>ing ?ith )EC )ule $ or e'<laining ?h> he ?ithdre?. Not sure there is an 2rder allo?ing
.aitelAs ?ithdra?. 5uentes Eotion to 4ithdra argued:
@.he instant matter ?as set &or trial on 0anuar> (, !(!, /o?ever, a de&ense
motion to continue ?as &iled on 0anuar> 3,!(!, not o<<osed, and granted. 6 ne?
trial date is <ending. 1nder "u<reme Court )ule 4%, the attorne> in an action ma>
=e changed at an> time =e&ore Cudgment u<on the consent o& the attorne>,
a<<roved => the client, or u<on order o& the court or Cudge thereo& on the
a<<lication o& the attorne> or client. "C) 4%. 3urther, under N)5C , %D=;, a
la?>er ma> ?ithdra? &rom re<resenting a client i& the same can =e accom<lished
?ithout material adverse e&&ect on the interests o& the client8 a client insists u<on
taBing action the la?>er considers re<ugnant, or ?ith ?hich the la?>er has
&undamental disagreement8 the re<resentation has =een rendered unreasona=l>
di&&icult => the client8 or other good cause &or ?ithdra?al e'ists. "ee N)5C ,
%D=;D;, D4;, D%;, D7;. .he undersigned regret&ull> maBes this motion as continued
re<resentation o& the de&endant in this matter has =een rendered unreasona=l>
di&&icult and the de&endant ?ill =e =etter served => having an alternative legal
de&ender a<<ointed to re<resent him.@
6ctuall> 5uentes does not state ?ith su&&icient <articularit> ?h> or ho? his ?ithdra? @can
=e accom<lished ?ithout material adverse e&&ect on the interests o& the client@. -ndeed, having his
- 2 -
00063
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
<rivate and con&idential case &ile <assed around liBe a hot <otato => )EC @&ormer <rosecutor@
de&enders is not in clientAs =est interest. 5uentes is required to detail Cust ho? @the re<resentation
has =een rendered unreasona=l> di&&icult => the client@ and this rule is su=Cect to a good &aith
requirement. .hat is, la?>ers canAt invoBe it to get out o& di&&icult or com<le' cases or to insure
the> onl> receive eas> cases. Can some=od> e'<lain to me ?h> DicB /ill going on vacation is a
su&&icient Custi&ication &or continuing a criminal trial, =ut m> =eing evicted and ?rong&ull> arrested
Ddue to DicB /illAs alleged =ri=er> o& the )5D and the )5DAs ?rong&ull arrest o& me, etc., and DicB
/illAs a<<l>ing a ?rong&ul and outla?ed rent distraint u<on =oth m> clientAs &iles and e'cul<ator>
evidence in C) !!7%; does not <resent a valid =asis &or a continuanceG 6nd - told .aitle -
?anted an o<<osition &iled to the motion &or continuance, >et it ?as not. "ee attached E'hi=it &or
su<<ort &or the contention that 5uentes ?ithdra? here is ina<<ro<riate as has =een most o& his
actions in this matter.
52-N." 6ND 61./2)-.-E"
6N6:7"-"
-NC2)52)6.E B7 )E3E)ENCE 6:: :64 6ND 6""E).-2N" -N 6..6C/ED
565E)" 6ND 5:E6D-N9" 6ND 4)-.-N9" -N EH/-B-. :
)econsideration 4DC) !D9;, DC) 3...
)1:E $9. NE4 .)-6:"8 6EENDEEN. 23 01D9EEN."
'a( )rounds* 6 ne? trial ma> =e granted to all or an> o& the <arties and on all or <art o& the issues &or an> o& the
&ollo?ing causes or grounds materiall> a&&ecting the su=stantial rights o& an aggrieved <art>: D; -rregularit> in the
<roceedings o& the court, Cur>, master, or adverse <art>, or an> order o& the court, or master, or a=use o& discretion =>
?hich either <art> ?as <revented &rom having a &air trial8 D!; Eisconduct o& the Cur> or <revailing <art>8 D3; 6ccident or
sur<rise ?hich ordinar> <rudence could not have guarded against8 D4; Ne?l> discovered evidence material &or the <art>
maBing the motion ?hich the <art> could not, ?ith reasona=le diligence, have discovered and <roduced at the trial8 D$;
Eani&est disregard => the Cur> o& the instructions o& the court8 D%; E'cessive damages a<<earing to have =een given under
the in&luence o& <assion or <reCudice8 or, D7; Error in la? occurring at the trial and o=Cected to => the <art> maBing the
motion. 2n a motion &or a ne? trial in an action tried ?ithout a Cur>, the court ma> o<en the Cudgment i& one has =een
entered, taBe additional testimon>, amend &indings o& &act and conclusions o& la? or maBe ne? &indings and conclusions,
and direct the entr> o& a ne? Cudgment.
'( "i&e for Motion* 6 motion &or a ne? trial shall =e &iled no later than ( da>s a&ter service o& ?ritten notice o& the
entr> o& the Cudgment.
- 3 -
00064
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
'c( "i&e for Ser+in, Affida+its* 4hen a motion &or ne? trial is =ased u<on a&&idavits the> shall =e &iled ?ith the motion.
.he o<<osing <art> has ( da>s a&ter service ?ithin ?hich to &ile o<<osing a&&idavits, ?hich <eriod ma> =e e'tended &or
an additional <eriod not e'ceeding !( da>s either => the court &or good cause sho?n or => the <arties => ?ritten
sti<ulation. .he court ma> <ermit re<l> a&&idavits.
'd( !n Court-s %nitiati+e; Notice; Specif.in, )rounds* No later than ( da>s a&ter entr> o& Cudgment the court, on its
o?n, ma> order a ne? trial &or an> reason that ?ould Custi&> granting one on a <art>Is motion. 6&ter giving the <arties
notice and an o<<ortunit> to =e heard, the court ma> grant a timel> motion &or a ne? trial &or a reason not stated in the
motion. 4hen granting a ne? trial on its o?n initiative or &or a reason not stated in a motion, the court shall s<eci&> the
grounds in its order.
'e( Motion to Alter or A&end a Jud,&ent* 6 motion to alter or amend the Cudgment shall =e &iled no later than ( da>s
a&ter service o& ?ritten notice o& entr> o& the Cudgment.
.he 2rder allo?ing 5uentes ?ithdr?as &its under @ -rregularit> in the <roceedings o& the court, Cur>, master, or
adverse <art>, or an> order o& the court, or master, or a=use o& discretion => ?hich either <art> ?as <revented &rom having
a &air trial@ as 5uentes ?as at least ommitting Be> in&ormation to the court, i& not misleading it as to his rationale &or
?ithdra?ing. 5lus 0udge 9ardnerAs 2rder, res<ect&ull> contains @Error in la? occurring at the trial and o=Cected to => the
<art> maBing the motion. 2n a motion &or a ne? trial in an action tried ?ithout a Cur>, the court ma> o<en the Cudgment i&
one has =een entered, taBe additional testimon>, amend &indings o& &act and conclusions o& la? or maBe ne? &indings and
conclusions, and direct the entr> o& a ne? Cudgment.@ .he la? sim<l> does not allo? &or such an unsu<<orted => &acts or
s<eci&ics Eotion to 4ithdra? to =e granted.
)1:E %(. )E:-E3 3)2E 01D9EEN. 2) 2)DE)
'a( Clerical Mista/es* Clerical mistaBes in Cudgments, orders or other <arts o& the record and errors therein arising &rom
oversight or omission ma> =e corrected => the court at an> time o& its o?n initiative or on the motion o& an> <art> and
a&ter such notice, i& an>, as the court orders. During the <endenc> o& an a<<eal, such mistaBes ma> =e so corrected =e&ore
the a<<eal is docBeted in the a<<ellate court, and therea&ter ?hile the a<<eal is <ending ma> =e so corrected ?ith leave o&
the a<<ellate court.
'( Mista/es; %nad+ertence; #$cusale Ne,lect; Ne0l. 1isco+ered #+idence; Fraud, #tc* 2n motion and u<on such
terms as are Cust, the court ma> relieve a <art> or <art>Is legal re<resentative &rom a &inal Cudgment, order, or <roceeding
&or the &ollo?ing reasons: D; mistaBe, inadvertence, sur<rise, or e'cusa=le neglect8 D!; ne?l> discovered evidence ?hich
=> due diligence could not have =een discovered in time to move &or a ne? trial under )ule $9D=;8 D3; &raud D?hether
hereto&ore denominated intrinsic or e'trinsic;, misre<resentation or other misconduct o& an adverse <art>8 D4; the
Cudgment is void8 or, D$; the Cudgment has =een satis&ied, released, or discharged, or a <rior Cudgment u<on ?hich it is
=ased has =een reversed or other?ise vacated, or it is no longer equita=le that an inCunction should have <ros<ective
a<<lication. .he motion shall =e made ?ithin a reasona=le time, and &or reasons D;, D!;, and D3; not more than % months
a&ter the <roceeding ?as taBen or the date that ?ritten notice o& entr> o& the Cudgment or order ?as served. 6 motion
under this su=division D=; does not a&&ect the &inalit> o& a Cudgment or sus<end its o<eration. .his rule does not limit the
<o?er o& a court to entertain an inde<endent action to relieve a <art> &rom a Cudgment, order, or <roceeding, or to set
aside a Cudgment &or &raud u<on the court. 4rits o& coram no=is, coram vo=is, audita querela, and =ills o& revie? and =ills
in the nature o& a =ill o& revie?, are a=olished, and the <rocedure &or o=taining an> relie& &rom a Cudgment shall =e =>
motion as <rescri=ed in these rules or => an inde<endent action.
.he 2rder or 0udgment is void as it e'tends to matters &or ?hich the Court cannot rule, ie, an 2rder allo?ing
?ithdra? ?here not good &aith =asis &or requesting a ?ithdra?al e'ists.
- 4 -
00065
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
<rosecutorial misconduct Dsuch as the D.6. ?ithholding @e'cul<ator>@ evidence that couldIve hel<ed >our de&ense;
Cudicial errors Dsuch as the Cudge <ermitting evidence that shouldIve =een e'cluded or vice versa;
erroneous a<<lication o& a la? or regulation im<ro<er Cur> instructions
ine&&ective assistance o& counsel or other mal<ractice the evidence did not <rove >our guilt =e>ond a reasona=le dou=t
36-:1)E .2 6332)D "-H./ 6EENDEEN. )-9/. .2 C21N"E: 2) 9)6N. DEE6ND 32) 01)7 .)-6:8
another DEE6ND 32) 01)7 .)-6: /E)EB7 E6DE -N E*EN. 23 NE4 .)-6:, "-E-:6):7 )EJ1E". 32)
-N 32)E6 5615E)-" ".6.1" /E)EB7 E6DE 6ND "1552).ED B7 6..6C/ED -35 5E.-.-2N
C2NC:1"-2N
De&endantF6<<elant Coughlin here=> res<ect&ull> requests all 2rders, Convictions,
0udgments, Contem<t 3indings, ?hatever, stemming &rom 3e=ruar> !nd ,!(! /earing on 5uentes
Eotion to 4ithdra? =e *acated or "et 6side or )econsidered and are here=> a<<eal ?ith an -35
request to ?aive the &iling &ee &or the notice o& a<<eal or allo? a relation =acB &or the &iling date u<on
an> denial o& the &ee ?aiver. 3urther, a co<> o& the audio o& the !F!F! /earing is here=> requested..
633-)E6.-2N 5ursuant to N)" !39B.(3(
.he undersigned does here=> a&&irm that the <receding document does not contain
the social securit> num=er o& an> <erson.
D6.ED this 3th Da> o& 3e=ruar>, !(
KFsF Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
De&endant
- 5 -
00066
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
DEC:6)6.-2N 23 Z6C/ C219:-N -N "1552). 23 ./E 32)E92-N9 D2C1EEN.
. .his Declaration is made <ursuant to the <rovisions o& N)" $3.(4$, - am <resentl> in the "tate o&
Nevada and - declare under <enalt> o& <erCur> that the &oregoing is true and correct.
!. Declarant is the 5lainti&& in the a=ove title action.
3. Declarant avers that the &actual statements set &or a=ove in the &oregoing document are, to the
=est o& his Bno?ledge and understanding, accurate.
4. -, Zach Coughlin, am availa=le to testi&>, i& necessar>, as to these matters. - declare under <enalt>
o& <erCur> that the &oregoing is true and correct.
E'ecuted on 3e=ruar> 3th, !(!
FsF Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
5:6-N.-33
- 6 -
00067
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)223 23 "E)*-CE
0ill DraBe
DraBe0Lreno.gov
B7:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Zach Coughlin
De&endant
- 7 -
00068
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
-nde' to E'hi=its
- 8 -
00069
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
EH/-B-.
EH/-B-.
- 9 -
00070

Sent: Fri 12/09/11 1:11 AM

Dear Mr. Puentes,


LEW TAITEL.



Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402

Sent: Fri 12/09/11 3:53 AM
1 attachment

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
00071
Fax: 949 667 7402

Dear Mr. Puentes,


th

Costs of October 27
th

00072



Sent: Wed 11/09/11 12:43 PM



To Casey Baker
(Sent: Thu 11/10/11 12:24 PM

00073


11/10/11
Casey Baker
Sent: Thu 11/10/11 11:13 AM
1 attachment
Mr. Coughlin:
Sincerely,
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858


11/04/11
Casey Baker
Sent: Fri 11/04/11 12:36 PM

00074

Mr. Coughlin:

Casey Baker


Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 01:11:35 -0800

Dear Mr. Puentes,





Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402

00075

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:35 AM
2 attachments
2I.pdf (381.9 KB)
Mr. Puentes,

December 13th, 2011
Dear Mr. Puentes,
Hearing, etc.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
00076

Conduct
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:52 AM
Dear Mr. Puentes,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00077


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 1:19 AM
Dear Mr. Puentes,



Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:52:25 -0800

Dear Mr. Puentes,

00078


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 5:02 AM
5 attachments
ZachCoughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV89501
Fax: 9496677402
00079

December 14
th
, 2011

Dear Mr. Puentes,

Mr. Puentes,



00080
40.253.
OTHER PAPERS
(b) Same: How Made.
facsimile number.
00081
RULE 6. TIME
otherwise.
whichever is later.
be due.
00082
this chapter.
essential services.
court.

th
, 2011 to
November 17
th
th
demands; and
case of emergency.
00083


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.


00084
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 5:39 AM
5 attachments
Hi Mr. Puentes,


of perjury avers:
III
00085
III
response.
me and my staff.
III
II I
III
who told
leaving them
coming
Zachary to
so.
small dog.
"hypothetically
Richard Hill's
00086
if he
paying rent
all he did
tell me that
there is
misdemeanor
citation.

you see?

he wanted to


00087

FW: 121 River Rock

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Sat 12/17/11 12:15 AM


Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
00088
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:43:38 -0800

Dear Mr. Baker,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:50:02 -0800

00089

Mr. Coughlin:



652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858

herein.

Sent: Mon 12/26/11 3:52 PM

Dear Mr. Puentes,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00090


new address for me

Sent: Fri 12/30/11 10:36 PM
Dear Mr. Puentes,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


00091

Sent: Sat 12/31/11 1:32 AM

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Sat 12/31/11 8:14 PM
2 attachments

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00092



Sent: Sat 12/31/11 9:19 PM
10 attachments
Hi Mr. Puentes,




Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Thu 1/05/12 8:22 AM
00093

Download all
Sent: Thu 1/05/12 8:43 AM
1 attachment

Dear Mr. Puentes,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00094



Sent: Thu 1/05/12 3:26 PM
1 attachment

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Fri 1/13/12 7:49 AM
1 attachment

Sincerely

00095

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


00096
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L ......... ' ................ ........ ..
Document Code:
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St., #2
tel: 7752296737
fax: 949 667 7402
Reno, NY 89512

Co-counsel far Defendant Coughlin
':f .
.. - .
- : , . t '. , '
2012 FEB 16 AM 9: 53
- ' ' , "
IN AND FOR ruE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
STATE OF NEVADA;
Plaintiff;
)
)
) Case No: 11 CR 26405
)
12 VS.
)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant.
) "
)
--------------------------)
Notice o(Appeal Motion to or S@tAslde. JCRCP 59. JCRCP 60. Motion (or
Reconsideration; Motion for ReC1!l!aJ: Motion For PubUcation Of Transcript at Public Expense.
Petition for In FOnDa Panpeds Statu.
FACTS
Bobby Puentes threw me under the bus, rather than reveal the fact that he had a conflict. He whined
about how the case was "hard" rather than do some lawyering. The man doesn't know how to bum a
cd. He attempted to shift the job ofbuming a cd for discovery onto me, yet he is the one taking home
the RJC, especially the prosecutors for the Reno City Attomey, as he is just a teddy bear to
- 1 -
Notice of Appeal. Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside. JCRcp 59. JCRCP 60. Motion for
Reconsideration: Motion for Recular: Motion For Publication Of Transcript at Public Expense.
PetltionJ2I:' In Fonna PmmeriaStatus
00097
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26

prosecutors like Drake (who reminded the undersigned that she was the #1 player on the Reno High
Girls Tennis Team in high school after the Hearing on February 2, 2012) ... Being a teddy bear is :fme,
I guess, but not exactly the first thing I look for in defense counsel. Moral of the story, don't throw
client under the bus instead of disclosing impermissible conflict that your conflict checks should have
revealed prior to entering the sanctity of the attorney client relationship, something that should be
sacred, not just something Puentes enteres to get a paycheck and dumps once it becomes
inconvenient.
Defendant/Appellant, Zach COUghlin, hereby flIes this Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and
or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion for Reconsideration; Motion fa- Recusal; Motion For
Publication Of Transcript at Public Expense, Petition for In Forma Pauperis Status.
Further no one has explained Taite1s m)'lltorious ability to Withdraw as Counsel without
complying with RMC Rule 5 or explaining why he withdrew. Not sure there is an Order allowing
Taitel's withdraw. Puentes Motion to Withdra argued:
"The instant matter was set fer trial on January 10, 2012, However, a defense
motion to continue was filed on January 3,2012, not opposed, and granted A new
trial date is pending. Under Supreme Court Rule 46, the attorney in an action may
be changed at any time before judgment upon the consent of the attorney,
approved by the client, or upon order of the court or judge thereof on the
application of the attorney or client. SCR 46. Further, under NRPC I, 16(b), a
lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if the same can be accomplished
without material adverse effect on the interests of the client; a client insists upon
taking action the lawyer considers repugnant, or with which the lawyer has
fundamental dis agreement; the representation has been rendered unreasonably
difficult by the client; or other good cause fa- withdrawal exists. See NRPC 1,
16(b)(1), (4), (6), (7). 1he undersigned regretfully makes this motion as continued
representation of the defend8llt in this matter has been rendered unreasonably
difficult and the defendant will be better served by having an alternative legal
defender appointed to represent him."
Actually Puentes does not state with sufficient particularity why or how his withdraw "can
be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client". Indeed, having his
- 2 -
&l,Uce of Appeal. Motion to Vacate and Of Set Aside. JCRCP 59. JCRCP 60. Motion f.m:.
Reconsideration: Motion for Recusal: Modon For publication Of Transcript at Public Expense.
Petition for In Fanna Pauperis Status
00098

1 prosewwrial misconduct (such as the D.A. withholding "cxculpatocy" evidence that could've helped your defense)
2
judicial errors (such as the judge pennitting evidence that should've been excluded or vice versa)
3
4 erroneous application 0 f a law or regulation improper jury inslluctions
5
inelf ective assistance of counselor other malpractice the evidence did not prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
6
1 FAILURE TO AFFORD SlXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL OR GRANT DEMAND FOR JURy TRIAL;
anoth..- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL HEREBY MADE IN EVENT OFNEW TRIAL, SIMILARLY REQUEST FOR
8 INFORMAPAUPERlS STATUS HEREBY MAPEAND SUPPORTED BY ATTACHED IFP PBTITION
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
CONCWSION
DefendantiAppelant Coughlin hereby respectfully requests all Orders, Convictions,
Judgments, Contempt Findings, whatever, stemming from February 2nd ,2012 Hearing on Puentes
Motion to Withdraw be Vacated or Set Aside or Reconsidered and are hereby appeal with an IFP
request to waive the filing fee forthe notice of appeal or allow a relation back for the filing date upon
any denial of the fee waiver. Further, a copy of the audio of the 2/2112 Hearing is hereby requested ..
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS .1J.21i.1UJl.
The undenigned does hereby affinn that the preceding document does not contain
the social security number of any person.
DATED this 13th Day of February, 20 II

Zach Coughlin
Defendant
- 5 -
NoUce of Appeal. MoUon to Vacate and or Set Aside. JCRCP 59. JCRCP 60. Motion for
Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Publication Of Transcript @t Public Expense.
Petition for In Forma Pauperis Status
00099
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
DEC:6)6.-2N 23 Z6C/ C219:-N -N "1552). 23 ./E 32)E92-N9 D2C1EEN.
. .his Declaration is made <ursuant to the <rovisions o& N)" $3.(4$, - am <resentl> in the "tate o&
Nevada and - declare under <enalt> o& <erCur> that the &oregoing is true and correct.
!. Declarant is the 5lainti&& in the a=ove title action.
3. Declarant avers that the &actual statements set &or a=ove in the &oregoing document are, to the
=est o& his Bno?ledge and understanding, accurate.
4. -, Zach Coughlin, am availa=le to testi&>, i& necessar>, as to these matters. - declare under <enalt>
o& <erCur> that the &oregoing is true and correct.
E'ecuted on 3e=ruar> 3th, !(!
FsF Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
5:6-N.-33
- 6 -
00100
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)223 23 "E)*-CE
0ill DraBe
DraBe0Lreno.gov
B7:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Zach Coughlin
De&endant
- 7 -
00101
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
-nde' to E'hi=its
- 8 -
00102
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
EH/-B-.
EH/-B-.
- 9 -
00103

Sent: Fri 12/09/11 1:11 AM

Dear Mr. Puentes,


LEW TAITEL.



Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402

Sent: Fri 12/09/11 3:53 AM
1 attachment

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
00104
Fax: 949 667 7402

Dear Mr. Puentes,


th

Costs of October 27
th

00105



Sent: Wed 11/09/11 12:43 PM



To Casey Baker
(Sent: Thu 11/10/11 12:24 PM

00106


11/10/11
Casey Baker
Sent: Thu 11/10/11 11:13 AM
1 attachment
Mr. Coughlin:
Sincerely,
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858


11/04/11
Casey Baker
Sent: Fri 11/04/11 12:36 PM

00107

Mr. Coughlin:

Casey Baker


Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 01:11:35 -0800

Dear Mr. Puentes,





Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402

00108

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:35 AM
2 attachments
2I.pdf (381.9 KB)
Mr. Puentes,

December 13th, 2011
Dear Mr. Puentes,
Hearing, etc.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
00109

Conduct
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 12:52 AM
Dear Mr. Puentes,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00110


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 1:19 AM
Dear Mr. Puentes,



Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:52:25 -0800

Dear Mr. Puentes,

00111


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Wed 12/14/11 5:02 AM
5 attachments
ZachCoughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV89501
Fax: 9496677402
00112

December 14
th
, 2011

Dear Mr. Puentes,

Mr. Puentes,



00113
40.253.
OTHER PAPERS
(b) Same: How Made.
facsimile number.
00114
RULE 6. TIME
otherwise.
whichever is later.
be due.
00115
this chapter.
essential services.
court.

th
, 2011 to
November 17
th
th
demands; and
case of emergency.
00116


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.


00117
Sent: Wed 12/14/11 5:39 AM
5 attachments
Hi Mr. Puentes,


of perjury avers:
III
00118
III
response.
me and my staff.
III
II I
III
who told
leaving them
coming
Zachary to
so.
small dog.
"hypothetically
Richard Hill's
00119
if he
paying rent
all he did
tell me that
there is
misdemeanor
citation.

you see?

he wanted to


00120

FW: 121 River Rock

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Sat 12/17/11 12:15 AM


Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
00121
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:43:38 -0800

Dear Mr. Baker,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:50:02 -0800

00122

Mr. Coughlin:



652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858

herein.

Sent: Mon 12/26/11 3:52 PM

Dear Mr. Puentes,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 229-6737
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00123


new address for me

Sent: Fri 12/30/11 10:36 PM
Dear Mr. Puentes,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89501
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


00124

Sent: Sat 12/31/11 1:32 AM

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Sat 12/31/11 8:14 PM
2 attachments

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00125



Sent: Sat 12/31/11 9:19 PM
10 attachments
Hi Mr. Puentes,




Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Thu 1/05/12 8:22 AM
00126

Download all
Sent: Thu 1/05/12 8:43 AM
1 attachment

Dear Mr. Puentes,


Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473

00127



Sent: Thu 1/05/12 3:26 PM
1 attachment

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


Sent: Fri 1/13/12 7:49 AM
1 attachment

Sincerely

00128

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473


00129
I LED

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF ,2012
COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEV ADJiY_-.l
1
...... '-LJ
CI1Y OF RENO, Plaintiff
Case No. 11 CR26405
vs.
Dept. No.2
______ 1
Reno .
By Court - 0""" '
.... L
. MOTION I",
.
Comes now the Reno City Attorney's Office and moves the court to grant the following: &f..P.::t:L
o Dismiss without Prejudice . B Dismiss with Prejudice
o Continue Increase Bail with Conditions
[8J Other. Opposition to Defendant's Motion filed 2113112
This motion is made and based on the following:
Defendant filed a Motion on his own behalf, in the above::entitled matter. on 2/13/12.
Upon review. the City Loomis. ESQ . was appointed by the Court to
Defendant. on 2/},/12. Accordingly. the City believes Defendant's pro per motion should not be
considered. Moreover. the City believes Defendant's request to vacate or set aside. or reconsider
tbis Court's 212/12. is without merit. .

I, Jill E. Drake. affirm and declare that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief and made in good faith.
Date
Reno City Attorney's Office
ORDER
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY O.J..
ERED
that the motion be:
o Granted 0 Denied
o Other: _______________________ _
Dated this _ day 0[ ______ -'. 20_
MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE
00130
IN THEi;mHCIPAL COURT OF THE ~ I F RENO
cd TY OF WASHOE, STATE OF ."ADA
ONE SOUTH SIERRA STREET, RENO, NY 89505
Mailing: P.O. Box 1900, Reno, NV 89505 PHONE (775)334-2290 FAX (775)334-3824
CITY OF RENO, PLAINTIFF
vo.
DEFENDANT: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY BARKER
Courl Case#: 11 CR 26405 21
Agency#: RPD 11-22185
DOB: 09127/1976
Accident#: Booking#: 19876
Status: OPEN
Language: ENGLISH
Attorney: LOOMIS, KEITH
BENCH TIliAL JUDGE GARDNER
BENCH1RIAL JUDGE GARDNER
c
B
8;00 am CONT\J\'UEl) BY REQUEST OF CITY
AITORNEY
rue, Jon 10,2012 1:00 pm BY REQUEST OF DEFENSE
llI13n011 FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE COURT
11/14n0l1 LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: LEW TAITEL; 475 S. ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE IA RENO, NEVADA 89501
PHONE (775) 322-2272
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ATTORNEY SO THAT HElSHE
WILL HAVE ALL 0 F THE NECESSARY INFORMA nON FROM THE COURT TO ASSIST YOU WITH YOUR CASE.
REPRESENT RIMIHER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON TIllS MAITER IN THE RENO MlINICll'AL COURT.
MAYBE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTATION BY THE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY'S DATE. IN TUE EVENT THAT TIllS ORDER EXPIRES,
IF THE DEFENDANT HAS WITNESSES THAT HEISHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, 0 R
WOUJ,D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE 0 F HISIHER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT HISIHER
A ITOR,'iEY.
11114/2011 TilE DEFENDANT APPEARED, WAS EXpLAINED IlISIHER RIGHTS BY THE JUDGE AND INDICATED THAT
HEiSHE UNDERSTOOD THEM COMPLETELY.
1l!30nOll LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: ROBERTO PUENTES; 416 RIDGE STREET (p.O. BOX 2421) RENO, NEVADA
89505 PHONE (775) 786-7676
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR A ITORNEY SO THAT HEISHE
WILL HAVE ALL OF nlE NECESSAR Y INFORMATION FROM THE COURT TO ASSIST YOU WITH YOUR CASE.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT TIlE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOINTED A LEGAL DEFENDER TO
REPRESENT I\lMiHER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDlNGS ON THIS MATTER IN THE RENO MUNICll'AL COURT.
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENT A TlON BY THE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
REMAJNIN EFFECT FOR SIX MONTHS FROM TODA Y'S DATE. IN THE EVENT THAT THIS ORDER EXPIRES,
IF THE DEFENDANT HAS WITJ\'ESSES THAT HEISHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OF HlSIlIER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT IDSiliER
ATTORNEY.
'EFgNDANT: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY BARKER
lefendant Initials:
Agency#i 11-22185
Print Dalll: 311312012
COURT CASE#: 11 CR2640S 21
Data Date: 3/1312012
Page I of3
00131
" d/30/201 I
Ii
.. 212/2012
iI
[, 21212012
" 21212012
---C:_
BE
CASE.
U:CAL APPOINTED; KUru 9468 DOt:BLF. n BLVD SUITE A, RENO, -'EYADA 89521
PIlO!\E (775) 8537222
ALLOW TI,LY 3 BEFORE CO'lT ACTI liG YUJ;R A TTOR\ LY SU TIIA T HE!5HE
\lII.L HA VI. ALL OF Tm: NEO:SSARY INFOR,\IATION FROM TI11-: COliRT TO ASSIST YOli WITH YOUR CASE.
!TIS
HERCBY OIWF,RF:D 1'11.\1" THL A BOVENA \lED DEFE]\1JANT BC APPOI\'TED A LEG,\L DLI- ENDLR TO
RKI'HESEYr 111M/HER IN ANY AND ALL PHOCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER IN THE RENO MIINICIPAL COIJRT.
rr IS FTRTIlICR ORDERI':D THAT THF. DEFENDA;\T '\ FINA '<CIAL INQUIRY API'LICATIOIi AND
MA \' BE REQURf.D 10 PAY FELS FOR REI'I{ESI:liTATION BY THE LEGAL DEFf.;-iDER. THIS ORDER WILL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR SIX MOm'IIS FROM TODAY'S DATE. 1-:11 THE EVENT THAT THIS ORDER
THE DEFI';liDA \'1' :l-ILST SLBMIT Ali L'PDATED FI \,-,liCL\L []\'QURY APPL!( A TION FOR RECONSIDERA
IF TilE DEFt:NDANT HAS THAT liE/Sill:: WOeLD Lilm TO IIAVE W IT],;ESSES I'RJ>:SENT, OR
\\'OLlL.D J.I KE TO DfSCl SS Til J: DEFE'ISE OF HIS/HER Till-: IlEFLliDAliT COI"TACT IIISIHER
ATTORNEY,
U:CAL m:FE:"iDI{ RI:LJEVEIJ, PER GI(Al"lTD :\oraTiON IIARIN(;
IT IS IICREBY ORDERED THAT THE LI:GAL DEFf::-;DER BE RELIEVE!) f RO\l IIlsnll:R ASSIGNl\USr TO TIllS
CASE.
PRESENT IN COlIRT FOR TilE CITY OF RENO; JILL DRAKE FOR TIlE DEFE;';SI::: ROHERTO PIJENTES
CHARGE ANlfsENTENCit INFORMATION
,
-,
Charge I: 08,10.010 TRESPASSING
d
1101921
Jaililays:
WRT#:
o
! O!1 Dt:
/ An-CSL Dt:
"
lIIU120 II
11113/2011
, Plea.
11/H/201l - NOT GJ;ILTY
- --_ ... -... - - --
ii -:----,,,,,' 'i"
"
"
Additional Fees
-- "
"'ii"
.' -
Suspatded Days: 0
FINES
," ' Original AmI
,"".:
.
'J; "'iV"
Amt Paid
$40,00 $40,00 $0_00
$40,00 $40.00 $0.00
:'
i'
"
"
J;
,
-=-,
!
... CUSTODYIDOrw INF()RM4TION
= ..
I.
'Arrest Dare,
11/1512011
D1rtc
II /1512011
. '--Currefit Status-? ' '!",' . ' :", : ,-: -

S 310,00
. . . .-'" J!
Type ofBaiF
ACnVJ-: BO:'>'D
CASHO:'>'LY
B121473
. .=-:-"--_:.:.:: .. - - -;;;,. - - - - ---
--==---
...,,, .,:'. ; .'.,"'-.:
11113/2011 ARRLST BAIL A $310,00 "
. . - ._. - .0_- - -------- - - --- -.-- - ------------- . t,
U ______ j:
. _.- --;::- =--=----=---=:-: ---- - -.. -:--
CONDlTJONS
z4.::",.
<,<,'
:.
t" I -::-,., .. "i : ::1
,: IlA Ii-.:-co Ii 01 iiu;,;, m" I,U::I:f:A;,I':VROM'C-CSTOOY, ---.----------- - Ofrlcn:lfDt. - -- :\ovi4."""imt - -
Next Proof IJt:
"
----- -- --------- -;:
-,.--==-------\::':.:;.-
D 1,,'mO;\Nl',"(-6Cc; HLlN, j)':C-H'\R'V BA I(KER
Dcr endlmt I nithds;
Balance'
Compkted Dt: J'
!
--.
Print Dute: 3113/2012
- - -- ------c6uld C:M;t: #, II CR 26405 21
DoW OMc: 3113/2012
Page 2 of3
00132
d' ; 1\IIHf. "Vri H 1' 1 IE cO:, ta BAli . N-n11S owe. L RESlI LTlN l'II E1SSUAl'c'f:: of A-
,I fAlU1R1-: TO COW' LY WARRANT OR ARREST AND I1\CARCERATION FOR Of COIIRT BATL
-, REVOt'ATIOI\', FOR r-t;R THr-R INI-OR \ (, \ "1'10:\, ('O:-'-T ACT nfl, SE:-1Tr-:-ICF. (,O\II' I.I I11\CI,_ \\ '1:\00\\' LOCArUl U:-; THF. F II< 51'
( FLOOR OF THSl<I -- "O MlI'I I1' IPAL CCll:Ii.T, O,:E SOIJll I SIr: RRA ST, "V (775) 334-2290,
,
ji THE SHALL API'EAR AS OROEREO !'OR All REVIEWS ANO SUALL COOPERATE FI!I.I .Y Wn:I ' IlIE
BAIUI+S'\'I(\I{:;IIALS ANIl ,ILL COLK I STAFF
THE DFI-'h NDAI\ r SHAI.L ATr END ALL COURT APPEARANCES ANO ON TIME A.'oID
'i AI.COlIlll.ANll DRI1G FREL.
!'HE or:n.XDA:>I 1 , I tALL K 1\0\1' HIS ' III.R coeR'1 IJ,IT!; AND MAI)l1 .III, CO'lTACT WITIllllSiHER An'OR"I:\'.
" .1 !'IUDR TO CHA'J (i1 NG HISfI II-R ADDRESS OR PHONE KU:v1BER, nil': IJEFENDANT SHALL NOTIFIY '1'1 11; COLIRT OF SUD I
"
.i OBEY I\J .LI.AWS,
1
(
Ii
"
(I.. ___ --__ . ___
.. --= __ :.. ... . :'.::= .. : ':;:- ...=,'t:. . '-- -",-..::;= - _ ."
ir ..
-, .-.=;::;':";- ; ." 7-:-===- - " :;:" 7
ADDITIONAL CASE INFORMATION
! 03/0512012 :-:0'1'1:5: SENDI'IG MOTlm: UP TO D, VIA BLACK rOLDER, Ti llS 15 HIS 2'10 FOR SAME MOTION
ii TODAY_
'l o3/0sno12 MIse 1'01'E5: 0-2 HAS FILE SE:\JlINU MOTlO'J UP TO DEPT VIA I\I,ACK FOLDER.
-.- .-.-:"."=.-:=:': _. _-- - - -- - - --.--- :--. - ---
= = = -.. ---==--
I I. THE S\\' Oll \ I:'iTI' IU:rER FUL L" I:HU{('I-lF. TED THIS OROF.R TO T ill.
ii Il EFE:'iDANT: IlATI:: _ ____ _ _
,I
'I RICCJ<:IVIW BV = ___ _ DATE: '1'111-1 [: _ _ _ _ _
,
:i
;!
I
B y IJI.L:_.=" ...... _=. :. .-==-.:.. ' .. :_:i,""_;;::;;::: .. ;;:;: . _,, _;:;;;; .. :;:. 0=0"-:: ' ;;::;::; -- '-.. :- .-.. --, , : -= , ,=. _=_ ",,::- .= ... ::- _ ",_=_ :c-. .--_- .. ';_
Iml' E:NDANT: COUGIII.I N. ZACIIARY SA Agency#, 1.1 22185 COURT CASf'. N: I I Cit 26405 21
Dl' f cndant I niLial s:
Pri nt Date: 3113/2012 D.1ll Date: 3113/20 12
Pag.3 of 3
00133
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
.".,
..,..,. .... """"
,008CIIIIIO
_HY ....
C1D2) 3)1.mo

Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the Reno Municipal Court,
Notice Setting Hearing on the party(ies) set forth below:
__ Placing said document in a sealed envelope placed foc collecting and mailing
in the United States mail. at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary
_x_
business practices.
Facsimile (FAX).
Inner-officemail following ordinary business practices.
Personal Delivery.
Electronic mail to City Attorney and Keith Loomis Esq.
Daniel Wong
Cbief Criminal Deputy City Attorney
Reno City Anorney's office
Electronic mail
Keith Loomis Esq.
Electronic mail
00134

FILED
ilENtl MUNICIPAL COURT
1 Document Code:
2012 MAR -5 AM 7: 36
Zach Coughlin
2 Nevada Bar No: 9473
3 1422 E. 9'" st. #2
Reno, NV 89512
4 Tele: 775-338-8 II 8
Fax: 949-667-7402
5
Attorney for Pro Se Attorney Plaintiff Denied Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
6
7 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
CIlY OF RENO;
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
)
)
)
) CaseNo:llCR26405
)
)
13 ZACR COUGHLIN; ) Dept No: 2
)
14
)
)
)
15
DEFENDANT.
16 1--------------------------------
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS CO-COUNSEL AND MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW, Defendant, Zach Coughlin, by and through himself as co-counsel to
Defendant and files the above title dooument on his own behalf.
lEGAL ARGUMENT
Memorandum of Law In fuppgrt of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
Introduction
The defendant, Zach Coughlin ("Coughlin") is charged with criminal trespass under
the Reno Municipal Code (RMC) .1 The factual allegations in the complaint are to the effect
- 1 -
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS CQ-COUNSEL AND MOTION TO DISMISS
00135
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 both counts occurred on the same date, at about the same time, and in the same
general icinit!. "ach count, though, inoled a separate incident.
#ana $rec%enridge was operating a ehicle that had been traeling each on &est 'treet,
approaching the intersection of $la%e (enue and had the right of wa!. Coughlin)s ehicle failed to
stop fo the stop sign and entered the intersection. $rec%enridge)s ehicle was forced to ta%e easie
action and steerred to the right, causing the ehicle to sideswipe a fire h!drant . . . . Coughlin failed
to stop for the accident . . . .#ana $rec%enridge complaint of pain to her legs and was transported to
(ll 'aints *ospital b! Rescue.
&ith regard to the second incident, the complaint alleges+
Coughlin)s ehicle continued east and went through the red light at the intersection of north
Memorial ,rie and &est street, 'tratman, who had been operating a ehicle owned b! Mic%)s (uto
-arts southbound on .orth Memorial ,rie, was struc% b! Coughlin)s ehicle . . . . "rnesto
(Coughlin) then ran from the ehicle leaing the secene of the accident. . . ( passenger in
Coughlin)s ehicle, /.*. . . . complained of pain to his nec% and bac% and was transported to (ll
'aints *ospital b! Rescue.
0inall!, the complaint alleges that "rnesto Coughlin was interiewed b! police and said that
he ran from the ehicle because, ""rnesto stated that his brother, /.*., did not want him
arrested for an accident and told him to run."
Argument
I. The compl!nt mu"t llege "u##!c!ent #ct" $!th!n the #our corner"% $hen &!e$e' !n common
"en"e mnner% to e"t(l!"h pro((le cu"e to (el!e&e tht the 'e#en'nt comm!tte' the o##en"e
llege'. )ere% the compl!nt !" 'e#!c!ent the tre"p"" chrge RMC *.+,.,+,.
, criminal com<laint mu0t meet <ro>a>le cau0e re@uirement0 to con.er <er0onal Auri0diction. State v.
White" 97 8i0. 2d 193" 197" 29% N.8.2d 34*" 347 B19$+;. , criminal com<laint i0 a 0el.'contained
charge that mu0t 0et .orth .act0 ?ithin it0 .our corner0 that are 0u..icient" in them0elve0 or together
?ith rea0ona>le in.erence0 derived there.rom" to allo? a rea0ona>le <er0on to conclude that a crime
?a0 <ro>a>l- committed and that the de.endant i0 <ro>a>l- cul<a>le. State v. Haugen" %2 8i0. 2d
791" 793" 191 N.8.2d 12" 13 B1971;. 1. the criminal com<laint .ail0 to e0ta>li0h <ro>a>le cau0e" the
court doe0 not o>tain <er0onal Auri0diction" and the charge mu0t >e di0mi00ed. &he criminal
com<laint" ho?ever" i0 not to >e read in a h-<ertechnical 0en0e >ut" rather" i0 to >e revie?ed on a
rea0ona>le >a0i0 a<<l-ing ordinar- common 0en0e. State v. Gaudesi" 112 8i0. 2d 213" 219" 332
N.8.2d 3+2" 3+% B19$3;. &here.ore" the .act0 alleged and the in.erence0 that ma- >e dra?n .rom
them mu0t >e 0u..icient to e0ta>li0h in a common 0en0e ?a- that there i0 <ro>a>le cau0e to >elieve the
de.endant committed the o..en0e charged. See id.
2ere" the com<laint <ur<ort0 to allege that Coughlin violated !=CC0 tre0<a00 0tatute $.1+.+1+ &he
element0 o. that o..en0e are: Element" o# the Cr!me Tht the Stte Mu"t Pro&e
' 2 '
00136
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
Reno Mun!c!pl Co'e "ect!on *.+,.,+,% pro&!'e" !n rele&nt prt- E&er. per"on $ho . . .
$!ll#ull. goe" or rem!n" upon n. ln' or !n n. (u!l'!ng #ter h&!ng (een $rne' (. the
o$ner or occupnt thereo# not to tre"p"" !" gu!lt. o# m!"'emenor.
A. The cr!m!nl tre"p"" compl!nt #!l" to e"t(l!"h pro((le cu"e (ecu"e !t #!l" to "ho$
n. not!ce or "er&!ce o# the $r!tten OR'er #or Summr. E&!ct!on $" con'ucte' !n l$#ul
mnner n' not too "oon n' thu" &o!'..
(or the0e rea0on0" the criminal com<laint mu0t >e di0mi00ed.
1 realiDe -ou ?ill liEel- not read all o. thi0. &he main thing i0 1 am re0<ect.ull- re@ue0ting that
-ou con.irm ?ith De<ut- =achem that he did" in .act" F<er0onall- 0erveF the Summar- Eviction
3rder on me at 121 !iver !ocE St." !eno $9%+1 on Novem>er 1" 2+11 at 4:3+ <m" in connection ?ith
<er.orming the locEout. 1t i0 m- <o0ition that 1 ?a0 not F<er0onall- 0ervedF and 1 am tr-ing to .igure
out ?hether De<ut- =achem i0 l-ing or ?hether the <hra0e F<er0onall- 0ervedF mean0 0omething
other than ?hat 1 >elieve it mean0" etc." etc. 1 a<<reciate -our attention to thi0.
1 am ?riting to in@uire a>out and com<lain ?ith regard to an ,..idavit o. Service .iled >- or .or 8CS3 De<ut- =achem
?ith re0<ect to the 0ervice o. a 3rder :ranting Summar- Eviction again0t me Bin m- la? o..ice ?here non'<a-ment o.
rent ?a0 not alleged" no le00 in violation o. N!S 4+.2%3 and ?here a G2"27% rent e0cro? de<o0it ?a0 .oi0ted u<on me in
violation o. 4+.2%3B*;" e0<eciall- ?here a 0ta- o. eviction ?a0 not granted even ?hile the !4C held on to mo0t all m-
mone-...;.
=- i00ue ?ith the 8CS3 i0 that =achemC0 ,..idavit o. Service indicate0 that he F<er0onall- 0ervedF me" ?hich Eind o.
remind0 me o. all that ro>o'0igning and =E!S .raud 1 come acro00 in m- da- Ao> Band do -ou ?onder ho? man-
attorne-0 in the .oreclo0ure de.en0e game 1 am in con0tant contact ?ith ?ho are ?atching and ?itne00 the <otential !1C3
violation0 thi0 ?riting mention0H;" ?hich include0 >eing a .oreclo0ure de.en0e attorne-. So ?hich i0 itH Did =achem
F<er0onall- 0erveF me the Summar- Eviction 3rderH !ichard :. 2ill" E0@. liEe0 to argue that 1 ?a0 F0ervedF in
com<liance ?ith all time related rule0 >ecau0e it ?a0 done in the Fu0ual cu0tom and <ractice o. the 8CS3. 8hat" e)actl-"
' 3 '
00137
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
i0 the Fu0ual cu0tom and <ractice o. the 8CS3H 1 hear a lot a>out thi0 F?ithin 24 hour0F 0tu... So" 1 go hunting .or 0ome
>lacE letter la? to 0u<<ort ?hat tho0e at the !4C and in the cluele00 communit- at large B?hich o.ten include0 Nevada
6egal Service0 and 8a0hoe 6egal Service0" the <eo<le -ou gu-0 had 0uch trou>le actuall- 0erving in the la?0uit0 1 .iled"
?hich ma- have actuall- hel<ed im<roved legal 0ervice0 in thi0 communit-" i. the- ?ere not di0mi00ed due to
in0u..icienc- o. 0ervice o. <roce00" even ?here the 1(/ re@uired the 8CS3 to 0erved the de.endant0....;. ,n-?a-" >acE to
the F?ithin 24 hour0F <hra0eolog-: F
&hi0 ?hole >u0ine00 a>out I&he court ma- thereu<on i00ue an order directing the 0heri.. or con0ta>le o. the count- to
remove the tenant ?ithin 24 hour0 a.ter recei<t o. the order...J i0 ina<<lica>le to thi0 0ituation" ?here an 3rder :ranting
Summar- Eviction ?a0 0igned >- 3cto>er 27th" 2+11. &hat language i0 onl- .ound in 0ituation0 ina<<lica>le to the
current one. N!S 4+.2%3B3;B>;B2;" and N!S 4+.2%3B%;Ba; are the onl- 0ection0 o. N!S 4+ ?here thi0 I?ithin 24 hour0J
language occur0" and tho0e 0ituation0 onl- a<<l- ?here" in:
4+.2%3B3;B>;B2;: I 3. , notice 0erved <ur0uant to 0u>0ection 1 or 2 mu0t: ...B>; ,dvi0e the tenant: K. B2; &hat i. the court
determine0 that the tenant i0 guilt- o. an unla?.ul detainer" the court ma- i00ue a 0ummar- order .or removal o. the tenant
or an order <roviding .or the nonadmittance o. the tenant" directing the 0heri.. or con0ta>le o. the count- to remove the
tenant ?ithin 24 hour0 a.ter recei<t o. the orderJ
and"
4+.2%3B%;Ba;: I%. 5<on noncom<liance ?ith the notice: Ba; &he landlord or the landlordL0 agent ma- a<<l- >- a..idavit o.
com<laint .or eviction to the Au0tice court o. the to?n0hi< in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or commercial
<remi0e0 are located or to the di0trict court o. the count- in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or commercial
<remi0e0 are located" ?hichever ha0 Auri0diction over the matter. &he court ma- thereu<on i00ue an order directing the
0heri.. or con0ta>le o. the count- to remove the tenant ?ithin 24 hour0 a.ter recei<t o. the order.J &he ?a- the0e 0ummar-
eviction <roceeding0 are >eing carried out in !eno 4u0tice Court <re0entl- 0hocE0 the con0cience and violate0 Nevada
la?. &here i0 not >a0i0 .or e..ectuating a locEout the ?a- 8CS3C0 De<ut- =achem did in thi0 ca0e. &he a>ove t?o
0ection0 containing the I?ithin 24 hour0 o. recei<tJ language are ina<<lica>le" a0 tho0e 0ituation0 do not invoEe the
' 4 '
00138
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
<re0ent circum0tance0" ?here the &enant did .ile an ,..idavit and did conte0t thi0 matter to a degree not o.ten 0een. &o
re@uire NevadaC0 tenant0 to get u< and get out I?ithin 24 hour0J o. Irecei<t o. the orderJ B?hat doe0 that even meanH &he
u0e o. term0 liEe IrenditionJ" IrenderedJ" Inotice o. entr-J" I<ronouncedJ" i0 a>0ent here" and thi0 Irecei<t o. the orderJ
language i0 0omething rarel- .ound el0e?here in Nevada la?'0ee attached D=# 0tatutor- citation0" and in em<lo-ment
la? litigation0 ?here one mu0t .ile a Com<laint ?ithin 9+ da-0 o. Irecei<tJ o. a !ight &o Sue 6etter" a 0ituation ?hich
.ollo?0 N!C/ %B>;" and N!C/ *Be; in im<uting recei<t o. 0uch a letter" ?hen actual recei<t i0 not 0ho?n" >- a<<l-ing a
Icon0tructive noticeJ 0tandard that relie0 u<on the da-0 .or mailing e)ten0ion o. time .or item0 0erved in the mailing"
etc.;. 1n ,>raham v. 8ood0 2ole 3ceanogra<hic 1n0titute" %%3 (.3d 114 B10t Cir. 2++9;" the record did not re.lect ?hen
the <lainti.. received hi0 right'to'0ue letter. &he letter ?a0 i00ued on Novem>er 24" 2++*. &he court calculated that the 9+'
da- <eriod commenced on Novem>er 3+" 2++*" >a0ed on three da-0 .or mailing a.ter e)cluding Saturda-0 and Sunda-0.
1n order to >ring a claim under either &itle #11 or the ,D," a <lainti.. mu0t e)hau0t admini0trative remedie0 and 0ue
?ithin 9+ da-0 o. recei<t o. a right to 0ue letter. See 42 5.S.C. M 2+++e'%B.;B1;. See Bald?in Count- 8elcome Center v.
Bro?n" 4** 5.S. 147" 14$ n.1" 1+4 S.Ct. 1723" $+ 6.Ed.2d 19* B19$4;Bgranting <lainti.. an additional three da-0 .or
mailing <ur0uant to !ule *;....J ...
Dear 8a0hoe Count- Sheri..C0 3..ice"
htt<:NNen.?iEi<edia.orgN?iEiNServiceOo.O<roce00
FSu>0tituted 0ervice
8hen an individual <art- to >e 0erved i0 unavaila>le .or <er0onal 0ervice" man- Auri0diction0 allo? .or 0u>0tituted 0ervice.
Su>0tituted 0ervice allo?0 the <roce00 0erver to leave 0ervice document0 ?ith another re0<on0i>le individual" called a
' % '
00139
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
<er0on o. 0uita>le age and di0cretion" 0uch a0 a coha>iting adult or a teenager. 5nder the (ederal !ule0" 0u>0tituted
0ervice ma- onl- >e made at the a>ode or d?elling o. the de.endant.P4Q Cali.ornia" Ne? 7orE"P%Q 1llinoi0" and man- other
5nited State0 Auri0diction0 re@uire that in addition to 0u>0tituted 0ervice" the document0 >e mailed to the reci<ient.P%Q
Su>0tituted 0ervice o.ten re@uire0 a 0erving <art- 0ho? that ordinar- 0ervice i0 im<ractica>le" that due diligence ha0 >een
made to attem<t to maEe <er0onal 0ervice >- deliver-" and that 0u>0tituted 0ervice ?ill reach the <art- and e..ect notice.
P%QF
1 am <rett- 0ure F<er0onall- 0ervedF mean0 -ou 0erved the <er0on in <er0on" not that a <er0on named =achem ?ent and
<o0ted a notice on a door" <er0onall- him0el.. See" 1 thinE -ou gu-0 are thinEing o. the F<er0onF in the ?ord <er0onall- a0
a<<l-ing to the 0erver" ?hen in all in0tance0 1 have ever 0een it u0ed in the la?" the F<er0onF <art o. F<er0onall-F a<<lie0
to the <er0on >eing 0erved. 2el< me out here" =ar-.
htt<0:NN0E-drive.live.comNredir.a0<)HcidR43+$4*3$.32.%.2$Sre0idR43+$4*3$(32(%(2$T1$97S<aridRroot
,l0o" doe0 the 8CS3 have a <o0ition on ?hat t-<e o. 0ervice i0 re@uired o. eviction order0 <rior to the 8CS3 or
?hoever doe0 it" >eing a>le to conduct a locEoutH
htt<:NN???.leg.0tate.nv.u0Ncourtrule0Nnrc<.html
N!C/ !56E *+. !E61E( (!3= 45D:=EN& 3! 3!DE!... Bc; De.ault 4udgment0: De.endant Not /er0onall- Served.
8hen a de.ault Audgment 0hall have >een taEen again0t an- <art- ?ho ?a0 not <er0onall- 0erved ?ith 0ummon0 and
com<laint" either in the State o. Nevada or in another Auri0diction" and ?ho ha0 not entered a general a<<earance in the
action" the court" a.ter notice to the adver0e <art-" u<on motion made ?ithin * month0 a.ter the date o. 0ervice o. ?ritten
' * '
00140
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 o. entr- o. 0uch Audgment" ma- vacate 0uch Audgment and allo? the <art- or the <art-L0 legal re<re0entative0 to
an0?er to the merit0 o. the original action. 8hen" ho?ever" a <art- ha0 >een <er0onall- 0erved ?ith 0ummon0 and
com<laint" either in the State o. Nevada or in another Auri0diction" the <art- mu0t maEe a<<lication to >e relieved .rom a
de.ault" a Audgment" an order" or other <roceeding taEen again0t the <art-" or .or <ermi00ion to .ile an an0?er" in
accordance ?ith the <rovi0ion0 o. 0u>divi0ion B>; o. thi0 rule.
3Ea-" 0o" reall-" -ou gu-0 do thi0 .or a living" right...-ou 0erve <eo<le thing0....and 0ign ,..idavit0 under <enalt- o.
<erAur- and 0tu.." and -ou are telling me -ou >elieve F<er0onall- 0ervedF can included 0ituation0 ?here the <er0on ?a0 not
thereH 3Ea-.....7ou do Eno? that" liEe" a Summon0 and Com<laint need to >e F<er0onall- 0ervedF in the 0en0e that" 0a-
=achem" ?ould need to 0ee that <er0on and 0erve it on them B1 donCt thinE the- have to taEe the <a<er" the- donCt need to
agree to acce<t 0ervice" >ut =achem doe0 need to 0ee that <er0on" in <er0on" <er0onall- ?hen he i0 0?earing under
<enalt- o. <erAur- that he F<er0onall- 0ervedF 0ome>od-. 50uall- F<er0onall- 0ervedF i0 onl- done in the ca0e o. the .ir0t
thing .iled Bunle00 there i0 an 1(/; in a ca0e" the Summon0 and Com<laint. &herea.ter" t-<icall-" <eo<le Au0t e..ect
F0u>0tituted 0erviceF >ecau0e it0 chea<er" le00 o. a ha00le" and F<er0onal 0erviceF i0 onl- re@uired .or 0erving the <leading0
that 0tart a ca0e" the Summon0 and Com<laint. 8o?....3Ea-" 0o thi0 i0 m- ?hole <oint" the0e 0tate 0<on0ored locEout0
under color o. 0tate la? 0hould not >e >eing done 0o .a0t" unle00 -ou gu-0 F<er0onall- 0erveF the tenant" 1 .eel the la? i0
@uite clear" -ou have to e..ect F0u>0tituted 0erviceF ?hich" under N!C/ *Ba; and N!C/ *Be; and N!C/ %B>;B2; Band
N!C/" not 4C!C/ i0 a<<lica>le to eviction matter0 according to N!S 11$,; the tenant cannot >e deemed to have
received or con0tructivel- received the 3rder until the 3 da-0 .or mailing ha0 <a00ed.
/er0onal 0ervice >- <roce00 0erver
' 7 '
00141
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
/er0onal 0ervice i0 0ervice o. <roce00 directl- to the Bor a; <art- named on the 0ummon0" com<laint or <etition. 1n mo0t
la?0uit0 in the 5nited State0" <er0onal 0ervice i0 re@uired to <rove 0ervice. =o0t 0tate0 allo? 0u>0tituted 0ervice in almo0t
all la?0uit0 unle00 -ou are 0erving a cor<oration" 66C" 66/" or other >u0ine00 entit-9 in tho0e ca0e0" <er0onal 0ervice mu0t
>e achieved >- 0erving Bin hand; the document0 to the F!egi0tered ,gentF o. a >u0ine00 entit-. Some 0tate0 B(lorida; do
not re@uire that the document0 actuall- >e handed to the individual. 1n Cali.ornia and mo0t other 0tate0" the document0
mu0t >e vi0i>le to the <er0on >eing 0erved" i.e." not in a 0ealed envelo<e. 1. the individual re.u0e0 to acce<t 0ervice" .lee0"
clo0e0 the door" etc." and the individual ha0 >een <o0itivel- identi.ied a0 the <er0on to >e 0erved" document0 ma- >e
Fdro<F 0erved" and it i0 con0idered a valid 0ervice. /er0onal 0ervice o. <roce00 ha0 >een the hallmarE .or initialing
litigation .or nearl- 1++ -ear0" <rimaril- >ecau0e it guarantee0 actual notice to a de.endant o. a legal action again0t him or
her. /er0onal 0ervice o. <roce00 remain0 the mo0t relia>le and e..icaciou0 ?a- to >oth en0ure com<liance ?ith
con0titutionall- im<o0ed due <roce00 re@uirement0 o. notice to a de.endant and the o<<ortunit- to >e heard. P2QU &he
National 6a? !evie?: &he Continuing !elevance o. /er0onal Service o. /roce00
,nd even i. 0omething indicate0 Coughlin FEne?F a>out the 3rder" much liEe in the ca0e o. CoughlinC0 that ?a0
di0mi00ed ?here the 8a0hoe Count- Sheri..C0 didnCt manage to get the F<er0onal 0erviceF o. the Summon0 and Com<laint
done in time" or F0u..icientl-F" o<<o0ing coun0el in that matter could tell -ou that Factual noticeF i0 not a 0u>0titute .or
com<liance ?ith the 0ervice re@uirement0.
8hich i0 nice >ecau0e .olE0 liEe !ichard :. 2ill" E0@. have le00 o. an o<<ortunit- to game the 0-0tem and 0?oo< in ?ith
locEout then a00ert a >unch o. hooe- a>out N!S 11$,.4*+ Frea0ona>le 0torage" moving" and inventor-ing e)<en0e0F
0u>Aecting the tenantC0 <er0onal <ro<ert- to a lien. !ichard :. 2ill in0i0ted on thro?ing a?a- the la0t thing m- >eloved
grandmother gave me >e.ore 0he died 2 -ear0 ago in the to?n dum<. 2e and hi0 contractor lied a>out 0o man- thing0"
including the .act that the- u0ed m- o?n damn <l-?ood to >oard u< the >acE <orch o. the <ro<ert-" then 0u>mitted a >ill
to the court in an e)hi>it .or G1"+*+ .or F0ecuringF the <ro<ert- B?hich doe0nCt reall- a<<l- to N!S 11$,.4*+C0
' $ '
00142
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
Frea0ona>le 0torage moving and inventor-ing e)<en0e0F liEe it i0 re@uired to....urther" the charged me G9++ a month .or
0torage and 0ent me a >ill .or 0uch <rior to m- arre0t .or tre0<a00ing at the 121 !iver !ocE location"...?ell i. the- charged
me G9++ to have a home la? o..ice there" then ho? i0 it 0omeone could >e tre0<a00ing i. the- are >eing charged the .ull
rental value .or Fu0e and occu<anc- o. the <remi0e0FH (urther" even i. it ?a0 a 0torage 0ituation0" there are 0ection0 o.
N!S 11$, devoted to evicting 0omeone .rom a 0torage .acilit-" not arre0ting them .or tre0<a00" and certainl- not a
cu0todial arre0t ?here the !/D 3..icer Carter and Sargent 6o<eD admit the- never i00ued a ?arning to me or a0Eed me to
leave <rior to conducting a cu0todial arre0t B?hich re@uired G$++ o. >ail" greatT" and 3 da-0 in Aail" no le00;. &hi0 i0
e0<eciall- <oor .orm ?here 3..icer Carter admitted to me that he taEe0 >ri>e0 .rom !ichard 2ill. 2e-" i. 3..icer Carter
did not 0a- that to me" go ahead and 0ue me" m- man....1Cm ?aiting.....thatC0 ?hat 1 thought.
2e can 0a- he ?a0 AoEing all he ?ant0" >ut it ainCt no AoEing a00 0ituation to me ?hen -ou are arre0ting me and cau0ing a
google 0earch re0ult .or m- name to 0ho? an arre0t....thatC0 damaging the onl- thing 1 have o. monetar- value Bm-
<ro.e00ional re<utation and name;. 1t ainCt no 0tand u< hour ?hen -ou are <utting me in cu..0" >ro. ,nd 3..icer Carter and
Sargent 6o<eD re.u0ed to <ro<erl- @uer- 2ill a0 to ?hether he had 0ent me" <rior to the tre0<a00ing arre0t" a >ill .or the
F.ull rental valueF o. the <ro<ert-" a value that" at G9++" ?a0 the 0ame charge .or the .ull Fu0e and occu<anc-F o. the
<remi0e0. ,nd !ichard :. 21ll" E0@. ?a0 too >u0- chortling and .illing out the Criminal Com<laint to >other 0etting them
0traight" de0<ite m- cue0" 1 gue00.
No?" add to that mal.ea0ance the .act that 4udge S.erraDDa let Ca0e- BaEer" E0@. <re<are the 3rder" ?hich mean0
.aith.ull- <ut to ?riting ?hat the 4udge announced" not attem<t to 0teal G2"27% .or -our Cali.ornian Beverl- 2ill0 2igh
School graduate neuro0urgeon client >- 0li<<ing in 0omething the Audge never 0aid" ie" that the neuro0urgeon get0 to Eee<
the G2"27% that 4udge S.erraDDa order the tenant to <a- into the !eno 4u0tice Court a0 a Frent e0cro?F de<o0it re@uired to
<re0erve the right to litigate ha>ita>ilit- i00ue0. No?" nevermind the .act that 4udge S.erraDDa actuall- did not have the
Auri0diction to re@uire that Bthere i0 not 4C!6# 44 in !eno" thatC0 a #ega0 rule" and i. !eno ?ant0 a rule liEe that o. it0
' 9 '
00143
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
o?n 4C!C/ $3 re@uire0 the !4C to li0h it and get it a<<roved >- the Nevada Su<reme Court .ir0t....<eriod.;. 3Ea-" 0o"
to taEe it a 0te< even .urther" BaEerC0 order goe0 on to 0a- F>ut the G2"27% ?onCt >e relea0ed to the neuro0urgeon -et"
Fin0tead that 0um 0hall 0erve a0 0ecurit- .or CoughlinC0 co0t on a<<eal" <ur0uant to Nevada 4C!C/ 73...F. But ?ait" doe0nCt
that mean Coughlin then get0 a Sta- o. Eviction during the <endenc- o. the ,<<ealH 10ntC that ?a0 a 0ecurit- that large
mu0t >e .orH Becau0e the F,<<eal BondF i0 0et >- 0tatute at onl- a mere G2%+....0o holding on to 1+ time0 that much o.
CoughlinC0 ca0h mu0t have >een .or the FSu<er0edea0 BondF mentioned a -ielding one a Sta- o. Eviction in N!S 4+.3$+
and 4+.3$%.
1 Eno?" 1 Eno?" it0 con.u0ing >ecau0e actuall- tho0e 0ection0 .orce the landlord" hi0 attorne-0 and the !4C to choo0e
>et?een vie?ing Coughlin a0 a re0idential tenant ?ho0e rent i0 le00 than G1"+++" and ?hom there.ore i0 onl- re@uired to
<o0t a mea0l- 0u<er0edea0 >ond o. G2%+ Band remem>er" a 0u<er0edea0 >ond e@ual0 a 0ta- o. eviction e@ual0 not
tre0<a00ing; or the the other choice i0 to vie? Coughlin a0 a commercial tenant" ?hich ?ould allo? charging a higher
0u<er0edea0 >ond Be)ce<t .or that <e0E- <art a>out hi0 rent >eing under the G1"+++ re@uired >- the 0tatute to do 0o" hi0
rent >eing onl- G9++;" e)ce<t" darn it" old !ichard :. 2ill" E0@. and Ca0e- BaEer" E0@. elected to <ur0ue thi0 0ummar-
eviction <roceeding under a No Cau0e Eviction Notice" ?hich i0 not allo?ed again0t a commercial tenant Bie" -ou canCt
evict a commercial tenant u0ing the 0ummar- eviction <rocedure0 0et .orth in N!S 4+.2%3 unle00 -ou alllege non <a-ment
o. rent and 0erve a 3+ Da- Non /a-ment o. !ent Notice &o Vuit" ?hich the- didnCt >ecau0e the- Fare Au0t taEing the <ath
o. lea0t re0i0tance here" 7our 2onor Bin0ert their 0mug chucEling and o>no)iou0N<retentiou0 Fcan -ou >elieve thi0 gu-HF
laughter and head 0haEing...;.
N!S 4+.3$+ /rovi0ion0 governing a<<eal0. Either <art- ma-" ?ithin 1+ da-0" a<<eal .rom the Audgment rendered. But an
a<<eal >- the de.endant 0hall not 0ta- the e)ecution o. the Audgment" unle00" ?ithin the 1+ da-0" the de.endant 0hall
e)ecute and .ile ?ith the court or Au0tice the de.endantL0 undertaEing to the <lainti.." ?ith t?o or more 0uretie0" in an
amount to >e .i)ed >- the court or Au0tice" >ut ?hich 0hall not >e le00 than t?ice the amount o. the Audgment and co0t0" to
the e..ect that" i. the Audgment a<<ealed .rom >e a..irmed or the a<<eal >e di0mi00ed" the a<<ellant ?ill <a- the Audgment
and the co0t o. a<<eal" the value o. the u0e and occu<ation o. the <ro<ert-" and damage0 Au0tl- accruing to the <lainti..
' 1+ '
00144
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
during the <endenc- o. the a<<eal. 5<on taEing the a<<eal and .iling the undertaEing" all .urther <roceeding0 in the ca0e
0hall >e 0ta-ed.
So" ?h- on earth i0 the Cit- ,ttorne-C0 3..ice 0till tr-ing to tr- Coughlin on the tre0<a00 charge .or ?hich he endured a
cu0todial arre0t and .or ?hich old !ichard 2ill i0 0till .iling =otionC0 to Sho? Cau0e on in the a<<eal o. the 0ummar-
eviction matter in C#11'+3*2$H 8h-" oh ?h-H Doe0 the !eno Cit- ,ttorne-C0 3..ice have 0ome 0ort o. ve0ted intere0t in
Eee<ing Coughlin do?n" >u0-" >e0otted" encum>ered" or other?i0eH 1t" ?h-" it couldnCt >e >ecau0e Coughlin ha0 a reall-
good ?rong.ul arre0t cau0e o. action again0t the !eno /olice De<artment" could itH htt<:NN???.-outu>e.comN?atchH
vR%/!7@431%>+
,nd" ?ell" -eah the 8a0hoe Count- Sheri..C0 3..ice didnCt @uite get tho0e Summon0 and Com<laint0 0erved in that one
ca0e Coughlin ?a0 0uing hi0 .ormer em<lo-er in" the one ?here Coughlin ?a0 granted an 3rder to /roceed 1n (orma
/au<eri0" ?hich re@uired the 8a0hoe Count- Sheri..C0 3..ice to 0erve the Summon0 and Com<laint0....But ?hat doe0 that
have to to ?ith the * da-0 Coughlin 0<ent in Aail on the arre0t 0ho?n in the -outu>e video a>oveH 1t0 not liEe the 8a0hoe
Count- Aailed videota<ed a 0cene ?here the- ?ere .orcing Coughlin to get naEed and <ut on a green dre00. 8hatC0 thatH 1t
i0H &he- did do thatH !eall-H No...8hatH &he- al0o .orced him to 0imulate oral and anal 0e) ?ith de<utie0" in the gui0e o.
0ome ridiculou0 F<rocedureF nece00ar- to in0ure De<ut- 0a.et-H 3h" ?o?. ,nd the- retaliated again0t him .or .ailing to
an0?er their religiou0 <re.erence interrogation @ue0tion0 >- <lacing him in an ic- cold cell .or hour0 at a time" re.u0ing
him medical care de0<ite hi0 <laintive crie0 .or hel<" ?hile ?earing a thin t'0hirtH 8o?. &he- didnCt Aam a ta0er needle in
hi0 0<ine .or e)tended <eriod0 o. time" though" did the-H 7our EiddingT 8hat0 ne)t" -our going tell me Sargent Sig.ree o.
the !eno /D ordered a cu0todial arre0t on Coughlin .or FAa-?alEingF ?hile Coughlin ?a0 <eace.ull- .ilming" .rom a
lic 0<ot" !ichard :. 2illC0 .raudulent contractor /hil 2o?ard de0tro-ing and taEing to the to?n dum< item0 o.
enormou0 0entimental value to Coughlin that he ?a0 <revented .rom retrieving .rom the <ro<ert- during the 0cant time he
?a0 allo?ed to Ba.ter he <aid G4$+ ?orth o. a lien .or ?hat he Ene? not" >ecau0e" de0<ite" olC Contractor /hilC0 .raudulent
G1"+*+ >ill .or F0ecuringF the >acE <orch B?ith 0cre?0 .acing the out0ide" ine)<lica>l-" and a ?indo? unit aNc le.t in the
?indo? .acing the 0ide?alE near the 6aEemill 6odge" 0ecured >- nothing >ut duct ta<e
1t i0 Eind o. a com>o neon 0ign that 0a-0 FBurglariDe thi0 /lace" Ever->od-TF;" CoughlinC0 .ormer home la? o..ice ?a0
>urglariDed on Decem>er 12" 2+11 ?hile !ichard :. 2ill ?a0 holding it0 content0 Bincluding" tacEil-" CoughlinC0 clientC0
.ile0" liEe the one0 .or the .oreclo0ure de.en0e action0" etc.;" a00erting hi0 FlienF. , lien .or F0torageF ?here the charge .or
0torage" G9++" ?a0 the 0ame a0 the charge .or F.ull u0e and occu<an-F ?a0. 2o?ever" that G9++ a month .or F0torageF al0o
' 11 '
00145
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
included another G1"+*+ charge .or F0ecuringF Band that >ill actuall- li0ted F.i)ing a leaE in the >a0ement...neither o.
?hich 0eem to have much to do ?ith the Frea0ona>le 0torage" moving" and inventor-ingF e)<en0e0 0uch a lien i0 <rovided
.or under N!S 11$,.4*+....;. 4eeD" -our <ro>a>l- going to tell me Sargent Sig.ree ordered another cu0todial arre0t on
Coughlin Au0t t?o da-0 a.ter the Aa-?alEing arre0t" .or the 0ame .act <attern that =a0ter Edmond0on granted CoughlinC0
a<<lication0 .or /rotection0 3rder0 again0t >a0ed u<on the >atter- and a00ault0 that hi0 .ormer hou0emate0 committed.
Becau0e" Sargent Sig.ree thinE0 it0 Fmi0u0e o. 911F .or Coughlin to call ?hen he return0 home at night and hi0 dog ha0
m-0teriou0l- di0a<<eared" and hi0 hou0emate0 maEe menacing commentar- a>out it. Surel-" Coughlin" a .ormer dome0tic
violence attorne- ?ould have nothing hel<.ul to add to Sargnet Sig.reeC0 e)<ert o<inion that Fanimal a>u0e i0 not
dome0tic violenceF Btell that to N!S 33.+1+" Sarge; and that it0" rather" Fa matter .or animal controlF and that Sargent
Sig.ree ?a0 Ftr-ing to hel<F Coughlin >- arre0ting him" again" and nece00itating the G1"%++ >ail a00ociated ?ith the gro00
mi0demeanor charge" F=i0u0e o. 911F >ecau0e" a0 Sargent Sig.ree told Coughlin F-ou Eee< <utting -our0el. in 0ituation0
?here -ou are victimiDedF 0o it ?a0 nece00ar- to arre0t Coughlin in that regard.
But he-" at lea0t N# Energ- ha0nCt re.u0ed to let Coughlin get an- electrical 0ervice .or the <a0t ?eeE 0ince tho0e
?ith the /rotection 3rder0 again0t them cancelled the 0ervice and N# Energ- 0hut it o.." ?ithout <roviding an- notice to
Coughlin" right. Nevermind. But...>ut 0urel- ?hen N# Energ- 0hut o. the <o?er to CoughlinC0 home la? o..ice on
3cto>er 4th" 2+11" Au0t hour0 <rior to the >ad .aith Fin0<ectionF ?ith videogra<her o. CoughlinC 0 home la? o..ice that
Ca0e- BaEer" E0@. thought 0o ver- nece00ar- one da- >e.ore CoughlinC0 &enant ,n0?er ?a0 due...0urel- N# Energ- did
not leave the >acE gate to CoughlinC0 home la? o..ice o<en and 0<eed o.." CoughlinC0 >eloved mountain >iEe 0uddenl-
mi00ing Bthe one the <arent0 o. hi0 girl.riend o. % -ear0 gave him;H 8ell" N# Energ- i0 <ro>a>l- not retaliating again0t
Coughlin .or com<laining a>out that >- re.u0ing him electric 0ervice .or the <a0t 0even da-0" -ou ?ould have to a00ume....
N!S 4+.3$% Sta- o. e)ecution u<on a<<eal9 dut- o. tenant ?ho retain0 <o00e00ion o. <remi0e0 to <a- rent during 0ta-.
5<on an a<<eal .rom an order entered <ur0uant to N!S 4+.2%3:
1.E)ce<t a0 other?i0e <rovided in thi0 0u>0ection" a 0ta- o. e)ecution ma- >e o>tained >- .iling ?ith the trial
court a >ond in the amount o. G2%+ to cover the e)<ected co0t0 on a<<eal. , 0uret- u<on the >ond 0u>mit0 to the
Auri0diction o. the a<<ellate court and irrevoca>l- a<<oint0 the clerE o. that court a0 the 0uret-L0 agent u<on ?hom <a<er0
a..ecting the 0uret-L0 lia>ilit- u<on the >ond ma- >e 0erved. 6ia>ilit- o. a 0uret- ma- >e en.orced" or the >ond ma- >e
relea0ed" on motion in the a<<ellate court ?ithout inde<endent action. , tenant o. commercial <ro<ert- ma- o>tain a 0ta-
' 12 '
00146
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
o. e)ecution onl- u<on the i00uance o. a 0ta- <ur0uant to !ule $ o. the Nevada !ule0 o. ,<<ellate /rocedure and the
<o0ting o. a 0u<er0edea0 >ond in the amount o. 1++ <ercent o. the un<aid rent claim o. the landlord.
2. , tenant ?ho retain0 <o00e00ion o. the <remi0e0 that are the 0u>Aect o. the a<<eal during the <endenc- o. the a<<eal
0hall <a- to the landlord rent in the amount <rovided in the underl-ing contract >et?een the tenant and the landlord a0 it
>ecome0 due. 1. the tenant .ail0 to <a- 0uch rent" the landlord ma- initiate ne? <roceeding0 .or a 0ummar- eviction >-
0erving the tenant ?ith a ne? notice <ur0uant to N!S 4+.2%3.
N!S 4+.39+ ,<<ellate court not to di0mi00 or @ua0h <roceeding0 .or ?ant o. .orm. 1n all ca0e0 o. a<<eal under N!S
4+.22+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive" the a<<ellate court 0hall not di0mi00 or @ua0h the <roceeding0 .or ?ant o. .orm" <rovided the
<roceeding0 have >een conducted 0u>0tantiall- according to the <rovi0ion0 o. N!S 4+.22+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive9 and
amendment0 to the com<laint" an0?er or 0ummon0" in matter0 o. .orm onl-" ma- >e allo?ed >- the court at an- time
>e.ore .inal Audgment u<on 0uch term0 a0 ma- >e Au0t9 and all matter0 o. e)cu0e" Au0ti.ication or avoidance o. the
allegation0 in the com<laint ma- >e given in evidence under the an0?er.
N!S 4+.4++ !ule0 o. <ractice. &he <rovi0ion0 o. N!S" Nevada !ule0 o. Civil /rocedure and Nevada !ule0 o. ,<<ellate
/rocedure relative to civil action0" a<<eal0 and ne? trial0" 0o .ar a0 the- are not incon0i0tent ?ith the <rovi0ion0 o. N!S
4+.22+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive" a<<l- to the <roceeding0 mentioned in tho0e 0ection0.
But" >acE to the Sheri..C0 3..ice. ,nd" 1 am not reall- >u-ing the idea that -ou gu-0 donCt Eno? N!C/ 4 through * liEe
the >acE o. -our hand" >ut....hell" ma->e -ou donCt. But" clearl- the language in N!S 4+ a>out ho? the Sheri.. ma-
Fremove tenant .rom the <ro<ert- ?ithin 24 hour0 o. recei<t o. the 3rderF do not a<<l- ?here the &enant .iled a &enantC0
,n0?er and 0ho?ed u< to the 2earing and litigated the matter. E0<eciall- ?here" a0 here the lea0e had not terminated" >-
it0 term0" >ut ?a0 rather rene?ed. &hi0 i0 <articularl- true ?here N!S 11$, <revent0 0o terminating a holdover tenantC0
lea0e .or a retaliator- or di0criminator- <ur<o0e.
N!C/ 4: FBd; Summon0: /er0onal Service. &he 0ummon0 and com<laint 0hall >e 0erved together. &he <lainti..
0hall .urni0h the <er0on maEing 0ervice ?ith 0uch co<ie0 a0 are nece00ar-. Service 0hall >e made >- delivering a co<- o.
the 0umon0 attached to a co<- o. the com<laint a0 .ollo?0:...B*; Service 5<on 1ndividual0. 1n all other ca0e0 to the
de.endant <er0onall-" or >- leaving co<ie0 thereo. at the de.endantL0 d?elling hou0e or u0ual <lace o. a>ode ?ith 0ome
<er0on o. 0uita>le age and di0cretion then re0iding therein" or >- delivering a co<- o. the 0ummon0 and com<laint to an
agent authoriDed >- a<<ointment or >- la? to receive 0ervice o. <roce00. P,0 amended9 e..ective 4anuar- 1" 2++%.Q Be;
Same: 3ther Service. B1; Service >- /u>lication. Bi; :eneral. 1n addition to method0 o. <er0onal 0ervice" ?hen the <er0on
' 13 '
00147
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
on ?hom 0ervice i0 to >e made re0ide0 out o. the 0tate" or ha0 de<arted .rom the 0tate" or cannot" a.ter due diligence" >e
.ound ?ithin the 0tate" or >- concealment 0eeE0 to avoid the 0ervice o. 0ummon0" and the .act 0hall a<<ear" >- a..idavit" to
the 0ati0.action o. the court or Audge thereo." and it 0hall a<<ear" either >- a..idavit or >- a veri.ied com<laint on .ile" that
a cau0e o. action e)i0t0 again0t the de.endant in re0<ect to ?hom the 0ervice i0 to >e made" and that the de.endant i0 a
nece00ar- or <ro<er <art- to the action" 0uch court or Audge ma- grant an order that the 0ervice >e made >- the lication
o. 0ummon0. /rovided" ?hen 0aid a..idavit i0 >a0ed on the .act that the <art- on ?hom 0ervice i0 to >e made re0ide0 out o.
the 0tate" and the <re0ent addre00 o. the <art- i0 unEno?n" it 0hall >e a 0u..icient 0ho?ing o. 0uch .act i. the a..iant 0hall
0tate generall- in 0uch a..idavit that at a <reviou0 time 0uch <er0on re0ided out o. thi0 0tate in a certain <lace Bnaming the
<lace and 0tating the late0t date Eno?n to a..iant ?hen 0uch <art- 0o re0ided there;9 that 0uch <lace i0 the la0t <lace in
?hich 0uch <art- re0ided to the Eno?ledge o. a..iant9 that 0uch <art- no longer re0ide0 at 0uch <lace9 that a..iant doe0 not
Eno? the <re0ent <lace o. re0idence o. 0uch <art- or ?here 0uch <art- can >e .ound9 and that a..iant doe0 not Eno? and
ha0 never >een in.ormed and ha0 no rea0on to >elieve that 0uch <art- no? re0ide0 in thi0 0tate9 and" in 0uch ca0e" it 0hall
>e <re0umed that 0uch <art- 0till re0ide0 and remain0 out o. the 0tate" and 0uch a..idavit 0hall >e deemed to >e a 0u..icient
0ho?ing o. due diligence to .ind the de.endant. &hi0 rule 0hall a<<l- to all manner o. civil action0" including tho0e .or
divorceF
Su>Aect: !E: 8CS3 De<ut- =achemC0 F<er0onall- 0ervedF ,..idavit o. 11N1N2+11
Date: &ue" 7 (e> 2+12 11:4+:39 '+$++
(rom: 6StuchellW?a0hoecount-.u0
&o: DachcoughlinWhotmail.com
CC: mEandara0Wda.?a0hoecount-.u0
=r. Coughlin"
3ur record0 indicate that the eviction conducted on that da- ?a0 <er0onall- 0erved >- De<ut- =achen >- <o0ting a co<-
o. the 3rder to the re0idence. &he re0idence ?a0 unoccu<ied at the time.
6iD Stuchell" Su<ervi0or
8CS3 Civil Section
(rom: Zach Coughlin Pmailto:DachcoughlinWhotmail.comQ
Sent: =onda-" (e>ruar- +*" 2+12 2:%$ ,=
' 14 '
00148
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
&o: Stuchell" 6iD9 Xandara0" =ar-9 nvreno<dWco<logic.com9 Silva" !o)anna9 EadlicAWreno.gov9
.ourthe0tateWgmail.com9 Aame0andre>ole0Wm0n.com
Su>Aect: 8CS3 De<ut- =achemC0 F<er0onall- 0ervedF ,..idavit o. 11N1N2+11
Dear 1, Su<ervi0or Stuchell and DD, Xandara0"
1 realiDe -ou ?ill liEel- not read all o. thi0. &he main thing i0 1 am re0<ect.ull- re@ue0ting that -ou con.irm ?ith De<ut-
=achem that he did" in .act" F<er0onall- 0erveF the Summar- Eviction 3rder on me at 121 !iver !ocE St." !eno $9%+1 on
Novem>er 1" 2+11 at 4:3+ <m" in connection ?ith <er.orming the locEout. 1t i0 m- <o0ition that 1 ?a0 not F<er0onall-
0ervedF and 1 am tr-ing to .igure out ?hether De<ut- =achem i0 l-ing or ?hether the <hra0e F<er0onall- 0ervedF mean0
0omething other than ?hat 1 >elieve it mean0" etc." etc. 1 a<<reciate -our attention to thi0.
1 am ?riting to in@uire a>out and com<lain ?ith regard to an ,..idavit o. Service .iled >- or .or 8CS3 De<ut- =achem
?ith re0<ect to the 0ervice o. a 3rder :ranting Summar- Eviction again0t me Bin m- la? o..ice ?here non'<a-ment o.
rent ?a0 not alleged" no le00 in violation o. N!S 4+.2%3 and ?here a G2"27% rent e0cro? de<o0it ?a0 .oi0ted u<on me in
violation o. 4+.2%3B*;" e0<eciall- ?here a 0ta- o. eviction ?a0 not granted even ?hile the !4C held on to mo0t all m-
mone-...;.
=- i00ue ?ith the 8CS3 i0 that =achemC0 ,..idavit o. Service indicate0 that he F<er0onall- 0ervedF me" ?hich Eind o.
remind0 me o. all that ro>o'0igning and =E!S .raud 1 come acro00 in m- da- Ao> Band do -ou ?onder ho? man-
attorne-0 in the .oreclo0ure de.en0e game 1 am in con0tant contact ?ith ?ho are ?atching and ?itne00 the <otential !1C3
violation0 thi0 ?riting mention0H;" ?hich include0 >eing a .oreclo0ure de.en0e attorne-. So ?hich i0 itH Did =achem
F<er0onall- 0erveF me the Summar- Eviction 3rderH !ichard :. 2ill" E0@. liEe0 to argue that 1 ?a0 F0ervedF in
com<liance ?ith all time related rule0 >ecau0e it ?a0 done in the Fu0ual cu0tom and <ractice o. the 8CS3. 8hat" e)actl-"
i0 the Fu0ual cu0tom and <ractice o. the 8CS3H 1 hear a lot a>out thi0 F?ithin 24 hour0F 0tu... So" 1 go hunting .or 0ome
>lacE letter la? to 0u<<ort ?hat tho0e at the !4C and in the cluele00 communit- at large B?hich o.ten include0 Nevada
6egal Service0 and 8a0hoe 6egal Service0" the <eo<le -ou gu-0 had 0uch trou>le actuall- 0erving in the la?0uit0 1 .iled"
?hich ma- have actuall- hel<ed im<roved legal 0ervice0 in thi0 communit-" i. the- ?ere not di0mi00ed due to
in0u..icienc- o. 0ervice o. <roce00" even ?here the 1(/ re@uired the 8CS3 to 0erved the de.endant0....;. ,n-?a-" >acE to
the F?ithin 24 hour0F <hra0eolog-: F
' 1% '
00149
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
&hi0 ?hole >u0ine00 a>out I&he court ma- thereu<on i00ue an order directing the 0heri.. or con0ta>le o. the count- to
remove the tenant ?ithin 24 hour0 a.ter recei<t o. the order...J i0 ina<<lica>le to thi0 0ituation" ?here an 3rder :ranting
Summar- Eviction ?a0 0igned >- 3cto>er 27th" 2+11. &hat language i0 onl- .ound in 0ituation0 ina<<lica>le to the
current one. N!S 4+.2%3B3;B>;B2;" and N!S 4+.2%3B%;Ba; are the onl- 0ection0 o. N!S 4+ ?here thi0 I?ithin 24 hour0J
language occur0" and tho0e 0ituation0 onl- a<<l- ?here" in:
4+.2%3B3;B>;B2;: I 3. , notice 0erved <ur0uant to 0u>0ection 1 or 2 mu0t: ...B>; ,dvi0e the tenant: K. B2; &hat i. the court
determine0 that the tenant i0 guilt- o. an unla?.ul detainer" the court ma- i00ue a 0ummar- order .or removal o. the tenant
or an order <roviding .or the nonadmittance o. the tenant" directing the 0heri.. or con0ta>le o. the count- to remove the
tenant ?ithin 24 hour0 a.ter recei<t o. the orderJ
and"
4+.2%3B%;Ba;: I%. 5<on noncom<liance ?ith the notice: Ba; &he landlord or the landlordL0 agent ma- a<<l- >- a..idavit o.
com<laint .or eviction to the Au0tice court o. the to?n0hi< in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or commercial
<remi0e0 are located or to the di0trict court o. the count- in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or commercial
<remi0e0 are located" ?hichever ha0 Auri0diction over the matter. &he court ma- thereu<on i00ue an order directing the
0heri.. or con0ta>le o. the count- to remove the tenant ?ithin 24 hour0 a.ter recei<t o. the order.J &he ?a- the0e 0ummar-
eviction <roceeding0 are >eing carried out in !eno 4u0tice Court <re0entl- 0hocE0 the con0cience and violate0 Nevada
la?. &here i0 not >a0i0 .or e..ectuating a locEout the ?a- 8CS3C0 De<ut- =achem did in thi0 ca0e. &he a>ove t?o
0ection0 containing the I?ithin 24 hour0 o. recei<tJ language are ina<<lica>le" a0 tho0e 0ituation0 do not invoEe the
<re0ent circum0tance0" ?here the &enant did .ile an ,..idavit and did conte0t thi0 matter to a degree not o.ten 0een. &o
re@uire NevadaC0 tenant0 to get u< and get out I?ithin 24 hour0J o. Irecei<t o. the orderJ B?hat doe0 that even meanH &he
u0e o. term0 liEe IrenditionJ" IrenderedJ" Inotice o. entr-J" I<ronouncedJ" i0 a>0ent here" and thi0 Irecei<t o. the orderJ
language i0 0omething rarel- .ound el0e?here in Nevada la?'0ee attached D=# 0tatutor- citation0" and in em<lo-ment
la? litigation0 ?here one mu0t .ile a Com<laint ?ithin 9+ da-0 o. Irecei<tJ o. a !ight &o Sue 6etter" a 0ituation ?hich
.ollo?0 N!C/ %B>;" and N!C/ *Be; in im<uting recei<t o. 0uch a letter" ?hen actual recei<t i0 not 0ho?n" >- a<<l-ing a
Icon0tructive noticeJ 0tandard that relie0 u<on the da-0 .or mailing e)ten0ion o. time .or item0 0erved in the mailing"
etc.;. 1n ,>raham v. 8ood0 2ole 3ceanogra<hic 1n0titute" %%3 (.3d 114 B10t Cir. 2++9;" the record did not re.lect ?hen
the <lainti.. received hi0 right'to'0ue letter. &he letter ?a0 i00ued on Novem>er 24" 2++*. &he court calculated that the 9+'
da- <eriod commenced on Novem>er 3+" 2++*" >a0ed on three da-0 .or mailing a.ter e)cluding Saturda-0 and Sunda-0.
' 1* '
00150
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
1n order to >ring a claim under either &itle #11 or the ,D," a <lainti.. mu0t e)hau0t admini0trative remedie0 and 0ue
?ithin 9+ da-0 o. recei<t o. a right to 0ue letter. See 42 5.S.C. M 2+++e'%B.;B1;. See Bald?in Count- 8elcome Center v.
Bro?n" 4** 5.S. 147" 14$ n.1" 1+4 S.Ct. 1723" $+ 6.Ed.2d 19* B19$4;Bgranting <lainti.. an additional three da-0 .or
mailing <ur0uant to !ule *;.
(urther" de0<ite ?hat the inaccurate handout0 o. Nevada 6egal Service0 ma- 0a- a>out thi0 I24 hour0J and the
a<<lica>ilit- o. the 4C!C/ to ca0e0 liEe the0e" N!S 4+.4++ !ule0 o. <ractice" hold0 that :J&he <rovi0ion0 o. N!S" Nevada
!ule0 o. Civil /rocedure and Nevada !ule0 o. ,<<ellate /rocedure relative to civil action0" a<<eal0 and ne? trial0" 0o .ar
a0 the- are not incon0i0tent ?ith the <rovi0ion0 o. N!S 4+.22+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive" a<<l- to the <roceeding0 mentioned
in tho0e 0ection0. ,0 0uch N!C/ *Ba;"Be; a<<lie0 to the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction that 8CS3 De<ut- =achem alleged"
under <enalt- o. <erAur-" that he F<er0onall- 0ervedF u<on me on Novem>er 1" 2+11. &hat i0 a lie >- =r. =achem" unle00
F<er0onall- 0ervedF i0 de.ined in a rather im<er0onal ?a- and or =achem and 1 have totall- di..erent under0tanding o. the
de.inition o. F<er0onall- 0ervedF" ?hich ma- >e the ca0e. 3r" <erha<0 the Sheri..C0 3..ice i0 >u0- and doe0nCt ?ant to ?ait
around to F<er0onall- 0erveF ever- tenant it ?i0he0 to evict. (ine" then Au0t u0e the Fmail it and allo? three da-0F rule in
N!C/ *Be;...the landlordC0 might not liEe it" >ut the- can u0e that .ru0tration a0 an incentive not to Aum< to litigating ever-
di0agreement a>out ha>ita>ilit- that a tenant >ring0 to them. 7ou ma- not realiDe ho? ridiculou0 0ome landlordC0 get. 1n
m- ca0e" 1 o..ered to .i) >a0ic thing0 that clearl- im<licated the ha>ita>ilit- rule0 in N!S 11$,.29+ and the Cali.ornian
neuro0urgeon" Beverl- 2ill 2igh School graduate landlord >alEed and com<lained then hired and attorne- .our da-0 into
a di0<ute.....at ?hich <oint the rule0 again0t contacting re<re0ented <artie0 <revented much in the ?a- o. real 0ettlement
di0cu00ion" <articularl- ?here o<<o0ing coun0el ha0 continuou0l- demon0trated a com<lete indi..erence to <ur0uing
0ettlement B?h- ?ould he at the rate0 he >ill0 hour0 atH;. 1 Au0t donCt thinE the Sheri..C0 3..ice need0 to 0ull- it0 image or
damage the citiDen tenant0 o. 8a0hoe Count- in the name o. <lea0ing <eo<le liEe Dr. =att =erli00 or !ichard :. 2ill"
E0@.
1 ,= !EV5ES&1N:" 1N 8!1&1N:" &2,& B3&2 3( 735! 3((1CES 1N#ES&1:,&E &21S ,ND
/!3#1DE , S83!N ,((1D,#1& (!3= =!. =,C2E= &2,& ,D=1&S &2,& 1 8,S N3& /E!S3N,667
/!ESEN& 82EN 2E SE!#ED &2E 3!DE! (3! S5==,!7 E#1C&13N 1N !4C !E#2+11'++17+$ 3N 11N1N12
,& 4:3+ /= B,CC3!D1N: &3 21S ,((1D,#1& 3( SE!#1CE;. 735 NE#E! XN38" 1 =1:2& 2,#E
1!!E(5&,B6E /!33( &2,& 1 8,S S3=E82E!E E6SE ,& &2,& &1=E" S3" BE C,!E(56. &here 0im<l- i0
' 17 '
00151
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
not an-thing 0<eci.ic in Nevada la? addre00ing ho? 0uch Summar- Eviction 3rder0 are to >e 0erved and carried out. &he
0ection0 dealing ?ith
N!S 4+.2%3 5nla?.ul detainer: Su<<lemental remed- o. 0ummar- eviction and e)clu0ion o. tenant .or de.ault in
<a-ment o. rent....
*. 5<on the .iling >- the tenant o. the a..idavit <ermitted in 0u>0ection 3" regardle00 o. the in.ormation contained in the
a..idavit" and the .iling >- the landlord o. the a..idavit <ermitted >- 0u>0ection %" the Au0tice court or the di0trict court
0hall hold a hearing" a.ter 0ervice o. notice o. the hearing u<on the <artie0" to determine the truth.ulne00 and 0u..icienc- o.
an- a..idavit or notice <rovided .or in thi0 0ection. 1. the court determine0 that there i0 no legal de.en0e a0 to the alleged
unla?.ul detainer and the tenant i0 guilt- o. an unla?.ul detainer" the court ma- i00ue a 0ummar- order .or removal o. the
tenant or an order <roviding .or the nonadmittance o. the tenant....
7. &he tenant ma-" u<on <a-ment o. the a<<ro<riate .ee0 relating to the .iling and 0ervice o. a motion" .ile a motion ?ith
the court" on a .orm <rovided >- the clerE o. the court" to di0<ute the amount o. the co0t0" i. an-" claimed >- the landlord
<ur0uant to N!S 11$,.4*+ or 11$C.23+ .or the inventor-" moving and 0torage o. <er0onal <ro<ert- le.t on the <remi0e0.
&he motion mu0t >e .iled ?ithin 2+ da-0 a.ter the 0ummar- order .or removal o. the tenant or the a>andonment o. the
<remi0e0 >- the tenant" or ?ithin 2+ da-0 a.ter:
Ba; &he tenant ha0 vacated or >een removed .rom the <remi0e09 and
B>; , co<- o. tho0e charge0 ha0 >een re@ue0ted >- or <rovided to the tenant"
Y ?hichever i0 later.
$. 5<on the .iling o. a motion <ur0uant to 0u>0ection 7" the court 0hall 0chedule a hearing on the motion. &he hearing
mu0t >e held ?ithin 1+ da-0 a.ter the .iling o. the motion. &he court 0hall a..i) the date o. the hearing to the motion and
order a co<- 0erved u<on the landlord >- the 0heri.." con0ta>le or other <roce00 0erver. ,t the hearing" the court ma-:
Ba; Determine the co0t0" i. an-" claimed >- the landlord <ur0uant to N!S 11$,.4*+ or 11$C.23+ and an- accumulating
dail- co0t09 and
B>; 3rder the relea0e o. the tenantL0 <ro<ert- u<on the <a-ment o. the charge0 determined to >e due or i. no charge0 are
determined to >e due....F
1 al0o ?ant to Eno? ?h- N!S 4+. 2%3B$; ?a0 not .ollo?ed ?ith re0<ect to m- Novem>er 17th" 2+11 .iling o. a
=otion to Conte0t /er0onal /ro<ert- 6ien. 8h- didnCt the 8CS3 0erve notice" a0 re@uired >- N!S 4+.2%3B$; u<on the
landlordC0 attorne- !ichard 2illH 8h- didnCt 1 get a hearing ?ithin the 1+ da-0 called called .or >- that 0ection Bto get
' 1$ '
00152
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
>acE m- clientC0 .ile0 no le00;" >ut rather" 1 had to ?ait a .ull 33 da-0 to get a hearing" and 0ervice o. notice o. the hearing
?a0 not e..ectuated" a0 re@uired >- N!S 4+.23%B$;" >- the 8CS3. 8h-H
/lea0e <rovide an indication" in ?riting" o. the name0 and ca0e num>er0 .or the la0t 2+ incidence0 ?hen the
8CS3 ha0 0erved notice o. a hearing 0et <ur0uant to N!S 4+.2%3B$;. 8hatC0 thatH &he 8CS3 ha0 NE#E! 0erved 0uch
noticeH 7et the 8CS3 i0 there ?ith >ell0 on Bor =achem i0; to lie in ,..idavit0 o. Service to locE out the citiDen tenant0
o. 8a0hoe Count- im<ermi00il>- earl- vi0 a vi0 N!C/ %B>;B2; and N!C/ *Be;H 8h- i0 thatH 10 it a con0<irac-H Doe0
mone- talEH 8hen 1 ?a0 arre0ted .or tre0<a00ing on Novem>er 12th" 2+11 >- !/D 3..icer Chri0 Carter and Sargent
6o<eD" Carter admitted to me that F!ichard 2ill <a-0 him a lot o. mone- and there.ore he arre0t0 ?hom !ichard 2ill 0a-0
to and doe0 ?hat !ichard 2ill 0a-0 to do....F Both Carter and Sargent 6o<eD re.u0ed to inve0tigate" de0<ite <rom<ting"
?hether !ichard 2ill ha0 0ent the tenantNarre0tee a >ill or demand letter in >ill .or the .ull rental value o. the <ro<ert-"
G9++ <er month" under 0ome inter<retation o. the Frea0ona>le 0torage" moving" and inventor-ing e)<en0e0F collecta>le >-
a landlord under a <er0onal <ro<ert- line 0et .orth in N!S 11$,.4*+ Bone could al0o inter<ret 0uch a >ill a0 2illC0
?ithdra?ing or eradicating the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction it0el." ?hich ?a0 not F<er0onall- 0ervedF >- the 8a0hoe
Count- Sheri.. Bde0<ite ?hat their ,..idavit o. Service 0a-0...1 ?a0nCt even there at the time the- changed the locE0...and
0o the Summar- Eviction 3rder ?a0 not <ro<erl- 0erved under N!C/ *" and de0<ite the !eno 4u0tice Court
im<ermi00i>l- converting G23++ o. m- mone- under a Frent e0cro?F 3rder it0 re@uired 1 com<l- ?ith in order to litigate
ha>ita>ilit- i00ue0 in a 0ummar- eviction <roceeding under N!S 4+.2%3" de0<ite N!S 4+.2%3B*;C0 e)<re00 dicate again0t
0uch an 3rder Bunle00" <ur0uant to 4C!C/ $3" a Au0tice court get0 0uch a rule" liEe 4u0tice Court !ule o. 6a0 #ega0
B4C!6#; !ule 44" li0hed and a<<roved >- the Nevada Su<reme Court" ?hich the !4C ha0 not" rather" the !4C a<<lie0
all the0e in0idiou0 0ecret Fhou0e rule0F BliEe .orcing tenant0 to deliver them0elve0 to the .iling o..ice to 0u>mit to <er0onal
0ervice notice o. a 0ummar- eviction hearing ?ithin" liEe" 12 hour0 o. the &enant .iling a &enantC0 ,n0?er or ,..idavit in
re0<on0e to an eviction Notice" rather than the 0ervice re@uirement0 o. 0uch notice .ollo?ing N!C/ * Bda-0 .or mailing"
etc." etc." in other ?ord0" in the !4C ever-thing i0 0<ed u< im<eri00il>- to hel< landlordC0 out" and the N#. S. Ct ruling in
:laDier and 6i<<i0 clearl- contem<late <er0onal lia>ilit- again0t the Court and or 4udge0 them0elve0 .or 0o doing;....,
Vui &am action or 0omething a la =au0ertC0 in Solano Count-" 1 >elieve" in Cali.ornia" ?ould >e ver- intere0ting...Still
havenCt heard an-thing .rom the !eno /D a>out the variou0 com<laint0 1 have .iled ?ith them in ?riting related to the
?rong.ul arre0t0" e)ce00ive .orce and other mi0conduct committed again0t me" though the- did arre0t me the other da- .or
calling 911incident to 0ome dome0tic violence .or ?hich 1 ?a0 granted to E)tended /rotection 3rder0 again0t m- .ormer
' 19 '
00153
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
hou0emate0....old Sargent Sig.ree ordered that arre0t" a0 he did t?o da-0 <rior ?hen he ordered a cu0todial arre0t o. me .or
FAa-?alEingF.
(unn- thing" 1 never heard an-thing >acE .rom the !/D a>out com<laint0 liEe the .ollo?ing one:
I(rom:
Nv!eno/dWco<logic.com
Sent:
8ed 9N+7N11 1+:%1 /=
&o: DachcoughlinWhotmail.com
ZZZZD3 N3& !ES/3ND &3 &21S E'=,16ZZZZ
8eCre 0orr- the .ollo?ing <ro>lem ?a0 .ound during revie?
o. -our 0u>mitted re<ort &11++%9%*:
&21S 1S N3& &2E (3!5= (3! &21S &7/E 3( C3=/6,1N& 238E#E! &21S !E/3!& 8,S /!1N&ED ,ND
/,SSED 3N &3 &2E 3((1CE!CS S5/E!#1S3! ,ND 1& 8166 BE ,DD!ESSED.
&hanE -ou"
3..icer 83ZN1,X"
!eno /olice De<artmentJ
8hat i0 intere0ting there i0 that at lea0t 1 ?a0 <rovided the name o. an o..icer" a F8oDniaEF Bthough 1 have >een una>le to
con.irm the e)i0tence o.
0uch an !/D 3..icer... or ?hether F &21S 1S N3& &2E (3!5= (3! &21S &7/E 3( C3=/6,1N& 238E#E!
&21S !E/3!& 8,S /!1N&ED ,ND /,SSED 3N &3 &2E 3((1CE!CS S5/E!#1S3! ,ND 1& 8166 BE
,DD!ESSED.F
8hat i0 more 0trange i0 that 1 0u>mitted 0everal online <olice re<ort0 to the !eno /D Ba cou<le o. ?hich a00erted
com<laint0 again0t variou0 !eno /D o..icer0" or a0Eed ?h- !D/ 3..icer Carter" ?hom admitted taEing >ri>e0 .rom
!ichard :. 2ill" E0@. at the time o. m- cu0todial arre0t .or tre0<a00ing Bthe one ?here !ichard 2ill 0igned a Criminal
Com<laint .or tre0<a00" then 3..icer Carter and Sargent 6o<eD re.u0ed to .ollo? u< on m- im<loring them to a0E 2ill
?hether he ha0 recentl- 0ent me a >ill .or the F.ull rental valueF o. the <ro<ert-" the 0ame amount that had >een charged
.or the Fu0e and enAo-mentF o. the <remi0e0" G9++" in com<ari0ion to ?hat N!S 11$,.4*+ ma- deem Frea0ona>le
0torageF e)<en0e0 .or ?hich a lien i0 availa>le to a landlord" though N!S 11$,.%2+ ha0 outla?ed rent di0traint0 u<on
' 2+ '
00154
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
tenantC0 <er0onal <ro<ert-....!egardle00" >et?een 4anuar- $ ' 12th" 2+12" and ?a0 arre0ted t?ice >- the !eno /D 0hortl-
a.ter 0u>mitting the0e ?ritten com<laint0 to the !eno /D.
,ctuall-" u<on >eing relea0ed .rom Aail on Novem>er 1%th" 2+11" incident to the cu0todial tre0<a00 arre0t" 1 ?ent
to !ichard 21llC0 o..ice to get m- ?allet and driverC0 licen0e. 2e re.u0ed to <rovide it to me until late Novem>er 22nd"
2+11. 2ill called the !eno /D on the 1%th Bor ma->e 1 did >ecau0e he ?a0 ?ithholding m- 0tate i00ued 1D" the one 1
?ould need to rent a room" drive m- car" and m- ?allet" ?hich i0 Eind o. u0e.ul in 0uch 0ituation0....;. ,n-?a-0" Sargent
&arter o. the !eno /D 0ho?ed u<" he ?ent in0ide 2illC0 o..ice ?ith 2ill .or @uite 0ome time and the re0ult ?a0 &arter
telling me to leave. 1 did" >ut ?hile driving do?n St. 6aurence to?ard0 S. #irginia B2illC0 o..ice i0 at *%2 (orre0t St.
$9%+3 and ?ould have re@uired turning do?n the ?rong ?a- o. a one ?a- 0treet" (orre0t" to go >acE to 2illC0 3..ice B0o
clearl- 1 ?a0 not headed to 2illC0 o..ice; Sargent &arter >egan tailing me" then he <ulled me over" then he gave me a
ticEet" in retaliation i. -ou a0E me .or re<orting !/D 3..icer Carter admitting that he taEe0 >ri>e0 .rom 2ill to Sargent
&arter minute0 earlier. 5h" ?ell" an-?a-0" another Sargent call0 me later that night" taEing the Fgood co<F role. But u<on
in.orming him o. ?hat !/D 3..icer Carter told me a>out 2ill <a-ing him mone- to arre0t <eo<le during the 11N12N11
tre0<a00ing arre0t" that Sargent immediatel- in.ormed me that" de0<ite thi0 >eing the .ir0t he heard o. that" he ?a0 0ure that
?a0 not ha<<ening....1 gue00 !/D 3..icer Carter i0 tr-ing to e)<lain a?a- hi0 comment0 a>out !ichard 2ill <a-ing him
mone- to arre0t <eo<le >- di0mi00ing them a0 0arca0m" a AoEe" 0aid in Ae0t" ?hatever....>ut 1 donCt 0ee ho? that 0ituation Ba
licen0e attorne- getting arre0ted .or a crime" a conviction .or ?hich ?ould re0ult in that attorne- >eing re@uired to re<ort
0aid conviction to the State Bar o. Nevada under SC! 111" etc." and <o00i>l- re0ulting in a 0u0<en0ion o. that attorne-C0
licen0e to <ractice la?" or ?or0e...; i0 all that Aocular o. a 0ituation. Com>ine that ?ith the too @uicE to di0mi00 m- re<ort0
o. >ri>er- >- !ichard 2ill to o..icer Carter to the !/D Sargent ?ho called me on 11N1%N11 regarding the retaliation >-
Sargent &arter that 1 com<lained o." and 1 donCt thinE it i0 all that unrea0ona>le .or an-one to taEe !/D 3..icer Carter at
hi0 ?ord regarding !ichard :. 2ill" E0@. <a-ing him mone- to arre0t ?hom 2ill 0a-0 to arre0t. ,dd to that Sargent
Sig.ree ordering m- arre0t .or Aa-?alEing B>- a trainee !/D 3..icer; on 4anuar- 12th" 2+11 Bcu0todial arre0t" >ail o. G1*+
em<tied m- >anE account out" or <rett- clo0e to it; ?hile 1 ?a0 <eace.ull- .ilming .rom a lic 0<ot !ichard :. 2ill"
E0@C0 contractor /hil 2o?ard" ?hom had 0u>mitted >ill0 in court0 record0 and .iling0 under the lien .or Frea0ona>le
0torage moving and inventor-ingF .ound in N!S 11$,.4*+" even ?here old /hil u0ed m- o?n <l-?ood at the <ro<ert- to
>oard u< the >acE <orch Bcuriou0l- leaving the 0cre?0 holding u< the <l-?ood e)<o0ed to e)terior o. the <ro<ert- ?here
an-one could ea0il- un0cre? them" and al0o leaving in a ?indo? unit ac 0ecured onl- >- ductta<e in a ?indo? .acing a
' 21 '
00155
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
0ide?alE >- the 6aEe=ill 6odge....?hich re0ulted in G$"+++ at lea0t o. m- <er0onal <ro<ert- >eing >urglariDed .rom m-
.ormer home la? o..ice on Decme>er 12th" 2+11 ?hile 2ill ?a0 a00erting a lien on all m- <er0onal <ro<ert- .ound therein
Band m- clientC0 .ile0" ?hich argua>l- are not even m- <ro<ert-" >ut rather" the clientC0 <ro<ert-;. 2ill ?ent on to <lace
?hat he >elieve0 to >e m- 0ocial 0ecurit- num>er in court record0" on <ur<o0e" de0<ite hi0 0igning an ,..irmation
<ur0uant to N!S 239B.+3+ that that ?a0 not the ca0e Battaching a t?o <age re<ort to the !/D a0 an E)hi>it;. &hen 2ill
and hi0 contractor /hil 2o?ard >oth committed <erAur- ?hen the 0igned Declaration0 atte0ting that 1 had clim>ed on the
contractor0 trucE or ever touched 2ill. 2ill lie0 con0tantl-" ?hether under <enalt- o. <erAur- or no?" 0o 1 donCt have time
to re>ut ever- little lie he maEe0 Bhe maEe0 me out to come0 acro00 a0 a 7o0emite Sam caricature o. a human >eing in hi0
.iling0 ?hen he de0cri>e0 me...;.
(urther" ?h- am 1 arre0ted .or tre0<a00ing and not tho0e .rom Nevada Court Service0 ?here the- ?ent >ehind
clo0ed gate the the >acE-ard o. m- home la? o..ice and >anged on ?indo? e)tremel- loudl- .or 4+ minute0 at a time 3
time0 a da-" one gu- ringing the door>ell" one gu- moving around all other 0ide0 o. the <ro<ert- >anging on the ?indo?0"
<eering in clo0ed >lind0" and a..ecting a <hon- Fcolor o. la?F tone" re0em>lance" and ver>al communication0"
mi0leadingl- announcing that the- ?ere FCourt Service0" come out no?TF" ?earing their <retend Sheri.. out.it0" >ig
e@ui<ment 0addled >elt0 Bincluding .irearm0" 1 >elieve" and radio0;" etc. "etc.
htt<:NN???.-outu>e.comN?atchHvRAV132@237D7
,dd to that that Nevada Court Service0 4e.. Chandler drive0 >- in hi0 =on0ter &rucE >aring hi0 <er0onaliDed FNCSF
licen0e <late ?hile 1 am in the !/D 0@uad car" handcu..ed" out0ide m- .ormer la? o..ice at 121 !iver !ocE" at the time o.
the 1N12N12 Aa-?alEing arre0t and the a<<earance0 are trou>ling. No?" add to that that 6e? &aitel" E0@. ?a0 m- court
a<<ointed lic de.ender in the !eno =unici<al Court in the tre0<a00 ca0e" and that 4udge :ardner had re.u0ed to
<rovide me the name0 o. <ro0<ective a<<ointed de.en0e coun0el B1 ?anted to run a con.lict0 checE; at m- arraignment
B?here =ar0hal =entDel >arEed at me in a threatening tone" u0ing menacing language;" ?hereu<on &aitel ?a0 a<<ointed
a0 m- de.en0e attorne- and .iled a notice o. a<<earance" and received m- con.idential .ile" <c 0heet" arre0t re<ort0" 00n"
etc....onl- it0 turn0 out that &aitel 0hare0 and o..ice and a rece<tioni0t ?ith Nevada Court Service0 and the- li0t him and
hi0 <icture on their ?e>0ite a0 Fa00ociated ?ithF their /roce00 Server cor<oration" de0<ite the <rohi>ition la?-er0 .ace
again0t .ee 0haring ?ith non'la?-er0. &hen" &aitel 0omeho? manage0 to get out o. de.ending m- ca0e ?ithout .iling a
=otion to 8ithdra? a0 Coun0el" de0<ite that >eing re@uired >- the !eno =unici<al Court !ule 3BB;:
' 22 '
00156
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
!=C! !ule 3BB;: ,uthoriDation to !e<re0ent BB;: ,n attorne- de0iring to ?ithdra? .rom a ca0e 0hall .ile a
motion ?ith the court and 0erve the Cit- ,ttorne- ?ith the 0ame. &he court ma- rule on the motion or 0et a hearing.
But" <erha<0 mo0t trou>ling o. all i0 the im<lication that the !eno Cit- ,ttorne-C0 3..ice" ?hich de.end0 action0
again0t the Cit- o. !eno /olice De<artment and it0 3..icer0" ha0 a ve0ted intere0t in di0crediting me in advance o. the
?rong.ul arre0t la?0uit that the !eno Cit- ,ttorne-C0 o..ice Ene? ?a0 imminent at the time o. all o. the a>ove incident0"
relating to the .ollo?ing ,ugu0t 2+th" 2+11 ?rong.ul arre0t >- !/D 3..icerC0 Duralde and !o0a.
htt<:NN???.-outu>e.comN?atchHvR%/!7@431%>+ So" thatC0 ?hat attem<ting to coerce a 0u0<ectC0 con0ent to an
im<ermi00i>le 0earch 0ound0 liEeH ,dd to that that the tre0<a00ing ca0e i0 >e.ore 4udge :ardner" ?hom mo0t recentl- ?a0
em<lo-ed ?ith the !eno Cit- ,ttorne-C0 3..ice.
,nd" -ou Eno? ?hat i0 .unn-H 3..icer Del #ecchio cu..ed me and <laced me in hi0 0@uad car la0t 0ummer a.ter
he terri.ied me and another gentleman ?ho had >ic-cle0. 2e veered acro00 the road and 0creeched hi0 0@uad car to a halt"
Aum<ed out" and did 0ome other 0tu.." then demanded m- name and 1D...and the la?-er in me didnCt liEe that that much"
and he didnCt liEe me not ?anting to give it to him. &hi0 occurred right in .ront o. m- home la? o..ice in the 0ummer o.
2+11. 2e cu..ed me and told me 1 ?a0 going to Aail .or 0omething a>out a light on the .ront o. m- >ic-cle Bthe one N#
Energ- liEel- 0tole ?hen the 0hut o.. m- <o?er" unnoticed" on 3cto>er 4" 2+11; de0<ite m- >iEe actuall- having 0uch a
light....>ut then Del #ecchioC0 <artner did him a 0olid and talEed 0ome 0en0e into him" and 1 hum>led it u< .or Del
#ecchio and ?e >oth let it go" and 1 didnCt go to Aail....5ntil Del #ecchio ?a0 <re0ent 0u<ervi0ing 0ome 3..icerC0 training
at the 0cene o. m- cu0todial B9 hour; Aa-?alEing arre0t; on 1N12N12. But Del #ecchio" 1 gue00 either didnCt ?ant to or
?a0nCt a>le to talE 0ome 0en0e into Sargent Sig.ree.....and then Sargent Sig.ree Bthe 0<elling i0 liEel- o..; had me arre0ted
and charged ?ith a gro00 mi0demeanor" F=i0u0e o. 911F Au0t t?o da-0 later" on 4anuar- 14th" 2+11 ?hen 1 called 911 to
re<ort that m- roommate0 ?ere laughing menacingl- ?hen 1 a0Eed them ?h- m- dog ?a0 mi00ing B1 had al0o >een
cha0ed u< to m- room numerou0 time0 0ince moving in ?ith the0e <eo<le" 0omething 1 had to do >ecau0e 0o much o. m-
mone- had >een taEen u< ?ith >ail or lo0t earning0 due to all the0e ?rong.ul arre0t0 and a>u0e o. <roce00e0 mentioned
a>ove...al0o the0e hou0emate0 had cha0ed me ?ith a ten inch >utcher Eni.e" t?o o. m- tire0 ?ere 0la0hed" 1 ?a0 locEed out
all night on Ne? 7ear0 Even ?hen the0e changed the locE0 at around midnight" had m- .urniture thro?n in the 0treet"
<ro<ert- 0tolen" co..ee thro?n on me" de0tro-ing m- 0mart <hone in the <roce00" etc." etc...,nd de0<ite the hou0emate
having an out0tanding arre0t ?arrant" and animal a>u0e >eing li0ted among0t the element0 o. dome0tic violence" Sargent
Sig.ree told me he ?a0 arre0ting me >ecau0e 1 FEee< <utting -our0el. in the0e 0ituation0F" liEe" ?here 1 am a victim" and
' 23 '
00157
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 he ?a0 Ftr-ing to hel< -ouF" he 0aid ?ith a 0mirE and a laugh to hi0 .ello? !/D 3..icer0" ?hom then <roceeded to
u0e e)ce00ive .orce again0t me. 1 gue00 he ?a0 hel<ing me >- 0addling me ?ith a gro00 mi0demeanor ?ith a G1"%++ >ail"
e0<eciall- ?here it0 >een arranged .or Court Service0" or <re'&rial Service0 to .orever den- me an 3!" de0<ite m-
meeting the .actor0 .or 0uch 0et .orth in 0tatute B3+ -ear re0ident" entire immediate .amil- live0 here" licen0ed to <ractice
la? in Nevada" etc." etc;...1 gue00 it 0hould not >e too much o. a 0ur<ri0e to me that !eno Cit- ,ttorne- /am !o>ert0
.ailed to addre00 the <erAur- o. all three o. her ?itne00e0 or that her .ello? !eno Cit- ,ttorne- Chri0to<her 2aDlett'
Steven0 lied to me a>out ?hether or not the !eno Cit- ,ttorne-C0 3..ice even had an- documentation related to m- arre0t
or ?hether it ?ould in the month >e.ore m- arraignment" de0<ite that .act that 0u>0e@uent <roduction0 o. di0cover- tend
to indicate that the !eno Cit- ,ttorne-C0 3..ice did have tho0e material0 at the time. 1 could >e ?rong a>out 0ome o.
thi0...But that ?ould re@uire and a?.ul lot o. coincidence0.
(urther" the la? in our State doe0 not 0eem e)ce<tionall- clear ?ith regard to the 0ervice and
<roce00 re@uirement0 and timeline0" and manner o. calculating time ?ith re0<ect to the Frecei<tF o.
6ocEout 3rder0. &he ,..idavit o. Service >- =achen 0tate0 that he F<er0onall- 0erved the de0cri>ed
document0 u<onF m-" Zach Coughlin...2o?ever" 1 can atte0t >- ,..idavit that 1 ?a0 not F<er0onall-
0ervedF to the e)tent that F<er0onall- 0ervedF mean0 or im<lie0 that 1 ?a0 there" that =achen 0a? me
or identi.ied me" or an- o. the other indicator0 o. 0omething" 0uch a0 a Com<laint" >eing F<er0onall-
0ervedF 0uch a0 1 under0tand the <hra0e to me. N!C/ %B>;B2;B,;Bi'iii;. (urther" a0 BaEer and 2ill
have 0o o.ten <ointed out" 1 cannot" according to them" receive an- attorne-C0 .ee a?ard .or a<<earing
a0 <ro 0e attorne-" a0 0uch" N!C/ %B>;B2;B,;Bi'iii;" 0hould a<<l- to me onl- a0 a <art-" and not a0 a
<art-C0 attorne-" and" there.ore" according to N!C/ %" Service: FB2; Service under thi0 rule i0 made
>-: B,; Delivering a co<- to the attorne- or the <art- >-: Bi; handing it to the attorne- or to the <art-9
Bii; leaving it at the attorne-L0 or <art-L0 o..ice ?ith a clerE or other <er0on in charge" or i. there i0 no
one in charge" leaving it in a con0<icuou0 <lace in the o..ice9 or Biii; i. the o..ice i0 clo0ed or the
<er0on to >e 0erved ha0 no o..ice" leaving it at the per"on/" '$ell!ng hou"e or u"ul plce o# (o'e
$!th "ome per"on o# "u!t(le ge n' '!"cret!on re"!'!ng there...F So" either it ?a0 m- o..ice" in
' 24 '
00158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
?hich ca0e a No Cau0e Eviction Notice maEe0 im<ermi00i>le a Summar- Eviction /roceeding under
N!S 4+.2%3" and there.ore" the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction i0 void .or lacE o. Auri0diction" or" the
,..idavit o. Service ?a0 on m- home" and ?a0 not FhandedF to me" or F<er0onall- 0ervedF Bde0<ite
the ,..idavit atte0ting to having F<er0onall- 0ervedF me;" nor ?a0 the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction
0erved in accordance ?ith N!C/ %B>;B2;B,;Biii;" ?hich re@uire0: Fi. the o..ice i0 clo0ed or the <er0on
to >e 0erved ha0 no o..ice" leaving it at the per"on/" '$ell!ng hou"e or u"ul plce o# (o'e $!th
"ome per"on o# "u!t(le ge n' '!"cret!on re"!'!ng there..F
(urther" 1 >elieve <o0ting an 3rder on oneC0 re0idence door" <articularl- in the conte)t o. 0erving a No
Cau0e Notice o. Eviction or 5nla?.ul Detainer" i0 onl- valid i. the document >eing 0erved i0 al0o
<laced in the mail and 3 non Audicial da-0 are accorded .or 0ervice to >e com<lete. See N!C/ *Be;. 1
do not >elieve the- can <rove that at all" not even clo0e. N!C/ a<<lie0 to Summar- Eviction
,ction0" according to the .ollo?ing:
FN!S 4+.3$+ /rovi0ion0 governing a<<eal0. Either <art- ma-" ?ithin 1+ da-0" a<<eal .rom the
Audgment rendered. But an a<<eal >- the de.endant 0hall not 0ta- the e)ecution o. the Audgment"
unle00" ?ithin the 1+ da-0" the de.endant 0hall e)ecute and .ile ?ith the court or Au0tice the
de.endantL0 undertaEing to the <lainti.." ?ith t?o or more 0uretie0" in an amount to >e .i)ed >- the
court or Au0tice" >ut ?hich 0hall not >e le00 than t?ice the amount o. the Audgment and co0t0" to the
e..ect that" i. the Audgment a<<ealed .rom >e a..irmed or the a<<eal >e di0mi00ed" the a<<ellant ?ill
<a- the Audgment and the co0t o. a<<eal" the value o. the u0e and occu<ation o. the <ro<ert-" and
damage0 Au0tl- accruing to the <lainti.. during the <endenc- o. the a<<eal. 5<on taEing the a<<eal
and .iling the undertaEing" all .urther <roceeding0 in the ca0e 0hall >e 0ta-ed.J
,ctuall-" a lot o. <eo<le 0eemed con.u0ed regarding the I24 hour0J locEout thing. &he onl- a<<earance in either N!S
11$, or N!S 4+" in the <rovi0ion0 a<<lica>le to Summar- Eviction /roceeding0 o. an-thing related to I24 hour0J i0 in
' 2% '
00159
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
N!S 4+.2%3B%;" ?hich onl- 0<eaE0 to a 0ituation ?here the &enant doe0 not .ile a &enantC0 ,n0?er or &enantC0 ,..idavit"
?hich i0 clearl- ina<<lica>le here" a0 the &enant did .ile 0uch a 3<<o0ition to the No Cau0e Eviction Notice: I%. 5<on
noncom<liance ?ith the notice:
Ba; &he landlord or the landlordL0 agent ma- a<<l- >- a..idavit o. com<laint .or eviction to the Au0tice court o. the
to?n0hi< in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or commercial <remi0e0 are located or to the di0trict court o. the
count- in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or commercial <remi0e0 are located" ?hichever ha0 Auri0diction
over the matter. The court m. thereupon !""ue n or'er '!rect!ng the "her!## or con"t(le o# the count. to remo&e
the tennt $!th!n 01 hour" #ter rece!pt o# the or'er. &he a..idavit mu0t 0tate or contain...J
So" a>0ent 0ome 0tatutor- <rovi0ion allo?ing the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction to re0ult in a locEout >- the 8a0hoe
Count- Sheri..C0 3..ice <rior to the 3 da-0 .or mailing ?here <er0onal 0ervice o. the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction ?a0 not
e..ectuated" de0<ite ?hat 8CS3 em<lo-ee ma- have incorrectl- Bor .al0el-; a00erted in the 8CS3C0 4ohn =achemC0
,..idavit o. Service .rom" .ile 0tam<ed Novem>er 7" 2+11 Be0<eciall- ?here it i0 time0tam<ed 4:3+ <m" Novem>er 1"
2+11" e0<eciall- ?here the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction e)<licitl- read0 that no 0uch locEout 0hall occur <rior to %:++ <m
on Novem>er 1" 2+11;. See" N!C/ %B>;B2;B,;Bi'iii;" N!C/ *Be;.
Intere"t!ngl.% R!chr' )!ll 2no$" h!" c"e !" to"t un'er NRCP 34(54054A54!-!!!5% NRCP
64e5% !n ''!t!on to NRCP ++. Tht !" $h. !n R!chr' )!ll7" No&em(er 0+% 0,++ Mot!on #or
Or'er To Sho$ Cu"e% on pge 0% )!ll" re"ort" to l!terll. gr"p!ng t "tr$"% !mg!n!ng tht
$ht the 8"hoe Count. Sher!##7" O##!ce cu"tomr!l. 'oe" !" "omeho$ utomt!cll. co'!#!e'
!nto mn'tor. prece'ent (lc2 letter l$. To $!t% R!chr' )!ll $rote !n h!" Mot!on For Or'er
To Sho$ Cu"e tht- 9FACTS S)O8ING CONTEMPT OF COURT 6. E:)I;IT + $"
"er&e' on Coughl!n on No&em(er < 0,++ (. the 8"hoe Count. Sher!##" Deprtment% (.
po"t!ng "me on the #ront 'oor o# the propert. !n the mnner cu"tomr. #or e&!ct!on" !n
8"hoe Count.. The loc2" to the prem!"e" $ere chnge' t tht t!me% there(. e=ect!ng n'
'!"po""e""!ng Coughl!n o# po""e""!on o# the Propert..> Further% there!n R!chr' )!ll 'm!t"
tht the loc2out occurre' t 1-?, pm% " !n'!cte' !n $r!t!ng !n the 8CSO7" Mchem7"
A##!'&!t o# Ser&!ce% contr to the mn'te o# @u'ge S#errAA7" Or'er o# Summr. E&!ct!on
reBu!r!ng n. loc2out to occur after 3-,, pm% No&em(er +% 0,++.
NRS 1,.?*3 St. o# eCecut!on upon ppelD 'ut. o# tennt $ho ret!n" po""e""!on o#
prem!"e" to p. rent 'ur!ng "t.. Upon n ppel #rom n or'er entere' pur"unt to NRS
1,.03? -
+. ECcept " other$!"e pro&!'e' !n th!" "u("ect!on% "t. o# eCecut!on m. (e o(t!ne' (.
#!l!ng $!th the tr!l court (on' !n the mount o# E03, to co&er the eCpecte' co"t" on ppel. In
n ct!on concern!ng le"e o# commerc!l propert. or n. other propert. #or $h!ch the
monthl. rent eCcee'" E+%,,,% the court m.% upon !t" o$n mot!on or tht o# prt.% n' upon
' 2* '
00160
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
"ho$!ng o# goo' cu"e% or'er n ''!t!onl (on' to (e po"te' to co&er the eCpecte' co"t" on
ppel. A "uret. upon the (on' "u(m!t" to the =ur!"'!ct!on o# the ppellte court n'
!rre&oc(l. ppo!nt" the cler2 o# tht court " the "uret./" gent upon $hom pper" ##ect!ng
the "uret./" l!(!l!t. upon the (on' m. (e "er&e'. L!(!l!t. o# "uret. m. (e en#orce'% or the
(on' m. (e rele"e'% on mot!on !n the ppellte court $!thout !n'epen'ent ct!on.
2. , tenant ?ho retain0 <o00e00ion o. the <remi0e0 that are the 0u>Aect o. the a<<eal during the
<endenc- o. the a<<eal 0hall <a- to the landlord rent in the amount <rovided in the underl-ing
contract >et?een the tenant and the landlord a0 it >ecome0 due. 1. the tenant .ail0 to <a- 0uch rent" the
landlord ma- initiate ne? <roceeding0 .or a 0ummar- eviction >- 0erving the tenant ?ith a ne?
notice <ur0uant to N!S 4+.2%3.
N!S 4+.39+ ,<<ellate court not to di0mi00 or @ua0h <roceeding0 .or ?ant o. .orm. 1n all ca0e0
o. a<<eal under N!S 4+.22+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive" the a<<ellate court 0hall not di0mi00 or @ua0h the
<roceeding0 .or ?ant o. .orm" <rovided the <roceeding0 have >een conducted 0u>0tantiall- according
to the <rovi0ion0 o. N!S 4+.22+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive9 and amendment0 to the com<laint" an0?er or
0ummon0" in matter0 o. .orm onl-" ma- >e allo?ed >- the court at an- time >e.ore .inal Audgment
u<on 0uch term0 a0 ma- >e Au0t9 and all matter0 o. e)cu0e" Au0ti.ication or avoidance o. the allegation0
in the com<laint ma- >e given in evidence under the an0?er.
NRS 1,.1,, Rule" o# prct!ce. The pro&!"!on" o# NRS% Ne&' Rule" o# C!&!l Proce'ure
n' Ne&' Rule" o# Appellte Proce'ure relt!&e to c!&!l ct!on"% ppel" n' ne$ tr!l"% "o #r
" the. re not !ncon"!"tent $!th the pro&!"!on" o# NRS 1,.00, to 1,.10, % !nclu"!&e% ppl. to the
procee'!ng" ment!one' !n tho"e "ect!on".>
So" con0idering that N!S 4+.4++ re@uire0 that N!C/ a<<l- to Summar- Eviction /roceeding0 under
N!S 4+.2%3" then 0ervice" <roce00" and time calculation0 o. 0uch mu0t com<ort ?ith the dictate0 o.
N!C/ %'*: F !56E %. SE!#1CE ,ND (161N: 3( /6E,D1N:S ,ND 3&2E! /,/E!S
45 Ser&!ce- 8hen ReBu!re'. E)ce<t a0 other?i0e <rovided in the0e rule0" ever- order re@uired
>- it0 term0 to >e 0erved" ever- <leading 0u>0e@uent to the original com<laint unle00 the court
other?i0e order0 >ecau0e o. numerou0 de.endant0" ever- <a<er relating to di0cover- re@uired to >e
0erved u<on a <art- unle00 the court other?i0e order0" ever- ?ritten motion other than one ?hich ma-
>e heard e) <arte" and ever- ?ritten notice" a<<earance" demand" o..er o. Audgment" de0ignation o.
record on a<<eal" and 0imilar <a<er 0hall >e 0erved u<on each o. the <artie0. No 0ervice need >e made
on <artie0 in de.ault .or .ailure to a<<ear e)ce<t that <leading0 a00erting ne? or additional claim0 .or
relie. again0t them 0hall >e 0erved u<on them in the manner <rovided .or 0ervice o. 0ummon0 in !ule
4.
4(5 Sme- )o$ M'e.
B1; 8henever under the0e rule0 0ervice i0 re@uired or <ermitted to >e made u<on a <art-
re<re0ented >- an attorne-" the 0ervice 0hall >e made u<on the attorne- unle00 the court order0 that
0ervice >e made u<on the <art-.
B2; Service under thi0 rule i0 made >-:
B,; Delivering a co<- to the attorne- or the <art- >-:
Bi; handing it to the attorne- or to the <art-9
Bii; leaving it at the attorne-L0 or <art-L0 o..ice ?ith a clerE or other <er0on in
charge" or i. there i0 no one in charge" leaving it in a con0<icuou0 <lace in the o..ice9 or
' 27 '
00161
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
Biii; i. the o..ice i0 clo0ed or the <er0on to >e 0erved ha0 no o..ice" leaving it at the
<er0onL0 d?elling hou0e or u0ual <lace o. a>ode ?ith 0ome <er0on o. 0uita>le age and di0cretion
re0iding there.
4;5 M!l!ng cop. to the ttorne. or the prt. t h!" or her l"t 2no$n ''re"".
Ser&!ce (. m!l !" complete on m!l!ngD pro&!'e'% ho$e&er% mot!on% n"$er or other
'ocument con"t!tut!ng the !n!t!l ppernce o# prt. mu"t l"o% !# "er&e' (. m!l% (e #!le'
$!th!n the t!me llo$e' #or "er&!ceD n' pro&!'e' #urther% tht #ter "uch !n!t!l ppernce%
"er&!ce (. m!l (e m'e onl. (. m!l!ng #rom po!nt $!th!n the Stte o# Ne&'.
BC; 1. the attorne- or the <art- ha0 no Eno?n addre00" leaving a co<- ?ith the clerE o. the
court.
4D5 Del!&er!ng cop. (. electron!c men" !# the ttorne. or the prt. "er&e' h"
con"ente' to "er&!ce (. electron!c men". Ser&!ce (. electron!c men" !" complete on
trn"m!""!on pro&!'e'% ho$e&er% mot!on% n"$er or other 'ocument con"t!tut!ng the !n!t!l
ppernce o# prt. mu"t l"o% !# "er&e' (. electron!c men"% (e #!le' $!th!n the t!me llo$e'
#or "er&!ce. The "er&e' ttorne./" or prt./" con"ent to "er&!ce (. electron!c men" "hll (e
eCpre""l. "tte' n' #!le' !n $r!t!ng $!th the cler2 o# the court n' "er&e' on the other prt!e"
to the ct!on. The $r!tten con"ent "hll !'ent!#.-
4!5 the per"on" upon $hom "er&!ce mu"t (e m'eD
4!!5 the ppropr!te ''re"" or loct!on #or "uch "er&!ce% "uch " the
electron!c-m!l ''re"" or #c"!m!le num(erD
4!!!5 the #ormt to (e u"e' #or ttchment"D n'
4!&5 n. other l!m!t" on the "cope or 'urt!on o# the con"ent.
An ttorne./" or prt./" con"ent "hll rem!n e##ect!&e unt!l eCpre""l. re&o2e' or unt!l the
repre"entt!on o# prt. chnge" through entr.% $!th'r$l% or "u("t!tut!on o# coun"el. ,n
attorne- or <art- ?ho ha0 con0ented to 0ervice >- electronic mean0 0hall" ?ithin 1+ da-0 a.ter an-
change o. electronic'mail addre00 or .ac0imile num>er" 0erve and .ile notice o. the ne? electronic'
mail addre00 or .ac0imile num>er.
4?5 Ser&!ce (. electron!c men" un'er Rule 34(54054D5 !" not e##ect!&e !# the prt.
m2!ng "er&!ce lern" tht the ttempte' "er&!ce '!' not rech the per"on to (e "er&e'.
B4; /roo. o. 0ervice ma- >e made >- certi.icate o. an attorne- or o. the attorne-L0 em<lo-ee"
or >- ?ritten admi00ion" or >- a..idavit" or other <roo. 0ati0.actor- to the court. (ailure to maEe <roo.
o. 0ervice 0hall not a..ect the validit- o. 0ervice...
RULE 6. 9TIME
45 Computt!on. 1n com<uting an- <eriod o. time <re0cri>ed or allo?ed >- the0e rule0" >- the
local rule0 o. an- di0trict court" >- order o. court" or >- an- a<<lica>le 0tatute" the da- o. the act"
event" or de.ault .rom ?hich the de0ignated <eriod o. time >egin0 to run 0hall not >e included. &he
la0t da- o. the <eriod 0o com<uted 0hall >e included" unle00 it i0 a Saturda-" a Sunda-" or a
nonAudicial da-" in ?hich event the <eriod run0 until the end o. the ne)t da- ?hich i0 not a Saturda-"
a Sunda-" or a nonAudicial da-" or" ?hen the act to >e done i0 the .iling o. a <a<er in court" a da- on
?hich ?eather or other condition0 have made the o..ice o. the clerE o. the di0trict court inacce00i>le"
in ?hich event the <eriod run0 until the end o. the ne)t da- ?hich i0 not one o. the a.orementioned
' 2$ '
00162
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
da-0. 8hen the <eriod o. time <re0cri>ed or allo?ed i0 le00 than 11 da-0" intermediate Saturda-0"
Sunda-0" and nonAudicial da-0 0hall >e e)cluded in the com<utation e)ce<t .or tho0e <roceeding0
.iled under &itle0 12 or 13 o. the Nevada !evi0ed Statute0...
4e5 A''!t!onl T!me A#ter Ser&!ce (. M!l or Electron!c Men". 8hene&er prt. h" the
r!ght or !" reBu!re' to 'o "ome ct or t2e "ome procee'!ng" $!th!n pre"cr!(e' per!o' #ter
the "er&!ce o# not!ce or other pper% other thn proce""% upon the prt. n' the not!ce or
pper !" "er&e' upon the prt. (. m!l or (. electron!c men"% ? '." "hll (e ''e' to the
pre"cr!(e' per!o'.
Su>divi0ion Ba; i0 revi0ed to e)tend the e)clu0ion o. intermediate Saturda-0" Sunda-0" and
nonAudicial da-0 to the com<utation o. time <eriod0 le00 than 11 da-0 con0i0tent ?ith the 19$%
amendment0 to the .ederal rule. ,dditionall-" the [[inacce00i>ilit- o. the courtLL <rovi0ion .ound in
0u>divi0ion Ba; o. the .ederal rule i0 added to !ule *Ba;. Su>divi0ion Ba; i0 .urther amended" >- adding
language re.erring to [[<roceeding0 .iled under &itle0 12 or 13 o. the Nevada !evi0ed Statute0"LL to
avoid an- change0 to current <rocedure0 in <ro>ate" guardian0hi< and tru0t <roceeding0....
Su>divi0ion Be; i0 amended to <rovide an additional 3 da-0 to act in re0<on0e to a <a<er that i0
0erved >- electronic mean0 under ne? <aragra<h B2;BD; added to !ule %B>;.F
N!S 4+.2%3 5nla?.ul detainer: Su<<lemental remed- o. 0ummar- eviction and e)clu0ion o. tenant
.or de.ault in <a-ment o. rent.
1. E)ce<t a0 other?i0e <rovided in 0u>0ection 1+" in addition to the remed- <rovided in N!S 4+.2%12 and
4+.29+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive" ?hen the tennt o# n. '$ell!ng% prtment% mo(!le home% recret!onl
&eh!cle or commerc!l prem!"e" $!th per!o'!c rent re"er&e' (. the month or n. "horter per!o'
!" !n 'e#ult !n p.ment o# the rent" the landlord or the landlordL0 agent" unle00 other?i0e agreed in
?riting" ma- 0erve or have 0erved a notice in ?riting" re@uiring in the alternative the <a-ment o. the
rent or the 0urrender o. the <remi0e0...
4. 1. the tenant .ile0 0uch an a..idavit at or >e.ore the time 0tated in the notice" the landlord or
the landlordL0 agent" a.ter recei<t o. a .ile'0tam<ed co<- o. the a..idavit ?hich ?a0 .iled" 0hall not
<rovide .or the nonadmittance o. the tenant to the <remi0e0 >- locEing or other?i0e.
%. 5<on noncom<liance ?ith the notice:
Ba; &he landlord or the landlordL0 agent ma- a<<l- >- a..idavit o. com<laint .or eviction to the
Au0tice court o. the to?n0hi< in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or commercial <remi0e0
are located or to the di0trict court o. the count- in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or
commercial <remi0e0 are located" ?hichever ha0 Auri0diction over the matter. &he court ma-
thereu<on i00ue an order directing the 0heri.. or con0ta>le o. the count- to remove the tenant ?ithin
24 hour0 a.ter recei<t o. the order..
*. 5<on the .iling >- the tenant o. the a..idavit <ermitted in 0u>0ection 3" regardle00 o. the
in.ormation contained in the a..idavit" and the .iling >- the landlord o. the a..idavit <ermitted >-
0u>0ection %" the Au0tice court or the di0trict court 0hall hold a hearing" a.ter 0ervice o. notice o. the
hearing u<on the <artie0" to determine the truth.ulne00 and 0u..icienc- o. an- a..idavit or notice
<rovided .or in thi0 0ection. I# the court 'eterm!ne" tht there !" no legl 'e#en"e " to the llege'
unl$#ul 'et!ner n' the tennt !" gu!lt. o# n unl$#ul 'et!ner% the court m. !""ue
"ummr. or'er #or remo&l o# the tennt or n or'er pro&!'!ng #or the non'm!ttnce o# the
tennt. I# the court 'eterm!ne" tht there !" legl 'e#en"e " to the llege' unl$#ul 'et!ner%
the court "hll re#u"e to grnt e!ther prt. n. rel!e#% n'% eCcept " other$!"e pro&!'e' !n th!"
' 29 '
00163
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
"u("ect!on% "hll reBu!re tht n. #urther procee'!ng" (e con'ucte' pur"unt to NRS 1,.0F, to
1,.10, % !nclu"!&e. The !""unce o# "ummr. or'er #or remo&l o# the tennt 'oe" not preclu'e
n ct!on (. the tennt #or n. 'mge" or other rel!e# to $h!ch the tennt m. (e ent!tle'....
7. &he tenant ma-" u<on <a-ment o. the a<<ro<riate .ee0 relating to the .iling and 0ervice o. a
motion" .ile a motion ?ith the court" on a .orm <rovided >- the clerE o. the court" to di0<ute the
amount o. the co0t0" i. an-" claimed >- the landlord <ur0uant to N!S 11$.2+7 or 11$,.4*+ .or the
inventor-" moving and 0torage o. <er0onal <ro<ert- le.t on the <remi0e0. &he motion mu0t >e .iled
?ithin 2+ da-0 a.ter the 0ummar- order .or removal o. the tenant or the a>andonment o. the <remi0e0
>- the tenant" or ?ithin 2+ da-0 a.ter:
Ba; &he tenant ha0 vacated or >een removed .rom the <remi0e09 and
B>; , co<- o. tho0e charge0 ha0 >een re@ue0ted >- or <rovided to the tenant"
Y ?hichever i0 later.
$. 5pon the #!l!ng o# mot!on pur"unt to "u("ect!on G% the court "hll "che'ule her!ng
on the mot!on. The her!ng mu"t (e hel' $!th!n +, '." #ter the #!l!ng o# the mot!on. The court
"hll ##!C the 'te o# the her!ng to the mot!on n' or'er cop. "er&e' upon the ln'lor' (.
the "her!##% con"t(le or other proce"" "er&er. At the her!ng% the court m.:
Ba; Determine the co0t0" i. an-" claimed >- the landlord <ur0uant to N!S 11$.2+7 or 11$,.4*+
and an- accumulating dail- co0t09 and
B>; 3rder the relea0e o. the tenantL0 <ro<ert- u<on the <a-ment o. the charge0 determined to >e
due or i. no charge0 are determined to >e due.J
6andlord =erli00 .iled onl- a No Cau0e Notice o. Eviction in !E#2+11'++17+$ on Commercial
&enant Zach Coughlin" E0@.C0 la? o..ice. ,0 0uch" a Summar- Eviction /roceeding i0 im<ermi00i>le
given the re@uirement o. N!S 4+.2%3 that the Notice alleged non'<a-ment o. rent to allo? the
landlord to <roceed under the Summar- Eviction /roceeding 0ection" N!S 4+.2%3. (urther" 4udge
S.erraDDa ?a0 <recluded .rom ruling on an-thing other than <o00e00ion o. the <remi0e0 <ur0uant to
N!S 4+.2%3B*;" ,nvui" and :laDier. (urther" the tenanc- did not terminate under the 6ea0e
,greement" it ?0 rene?ed.
N!S 4+.2%4 5nla?.ul detainer: Su<<lemental remed- o. 0ummar- eviction and e)clu0ion o.
tenant .rom certain t-<e0 o. <ro<ert-. E)ce<t a0 other?i0e <rovided >- 0<eci.ic 0tatute" in addition to
the remed- <rovided in N!S 4+.2%1 and in N!S 4+.29+ to 4+.42+" inclu0ive" ?hen the tenant o. a
d?elling unit ?hich i0 0u>Aect to the <rovi0ion0 o. cha<ter 11$, o. N!S" <art o. a lo?'rent hou0ing
<rogram o<erated >- a lic hou0ing authorit-" a mo>ile home or a recreational vehicle i0 guilt- o.
an unla?.ul detainer" the landlord i0 entitled to the 0ummar- <rocedure0 <rovided in N!S 4+.2%3
e)ce<t that:
1. 8ritten notice to 0urrender the <remi0e0 mu0t:...4e5 A "ttement tht the cl!m #or rel!e# $"
uthor!Ae' (. l$.
,0 0uch" the too earl- locEout >ring0 into <la- the .ollo?ing:
IN!S 11$,.39+ 5nla?.ul removal or e)clu0ion o. tenant or ?ill.ul interru<tion o. e00ential
0ervice09 <rocedure .or e)<edited relie..
1. 1. the landlord unl$#ull. remo&e" the tennt #rom the prem!"e" or eCclu'e" the tennt (.
(loc2!ng or ttempt!ng to (loc2 the tennt/" entr. upon the prem!"e" or $!ll#ull. !nterrupt" or
' 3+ '
00164
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
cu"e" or perm!t" the !nterrupt!on o# n. e""ent!l "er&!ce reBu!re' (. the rentl greement or
th!" chpter% the tennt m. reco&er !mme'!te po""e""!on pur"unt to "u("ect!on 1% procee'
un'er NRS ++*A.?*, or term!nte the rentl greement n'% !n ''!t!on to n. other reme'.%
reco&er the tennt/" ctul 'mge"% rece!&e n mount not greter thn E+%,,, to (e #!Ce' (.
the court% or (oth.
2. 1n determining the amount" i. an-" to >e a?arded under 0u>0ection 1" the court 0hall con0ider:
Ba; 8hether the landlord acted in good .aith9
B>; &he cour0e o. conduct >et?een the landlord and the tenant9 and
Bc; &he degree o. harm to the tenant cau0ed >- the landlordL0 conduct.
3. 1. the rental agreement i0 terminated <ur0uant to 0u>0ection 1" the landlord 0hall return all
<re<aid rent and 0ecurit- recovera>le under thi0 cha<ter.
4. E)ce<t a0 other?i0e <rovided in 0u>0ection %" the tenant ma- recover immediate <o00e00ion o.
the <remi0e0 .rom the landlord >- .iling a veri.ied com<laint .or e)<edited relie. .or the unla?.ul
removal or e)clu0ion o. the tenant .rom the <remi0e0 or the ?ill.ul interru<tion o. e00ential 0ervice0.
%. , veri.ied com<laint .or e)<edited relie.:
Ba; =u0t >e .iled ?ith the court ?ithin % Audicial da-0 a.ter the date o. the unla?.ul act >- the
landlord" and the veri.ied com<laint mu0t >e di0mi00ed i. it i0 not timel- .iled. 1. the veri.ied
com<laint .or e)<edited relie. i0 di0mi00ed <ur0uant to thi0 <aragra<h" the tenant retain0 the right to
<ur0ue all other availa>le remedie0 again0t the landlord.
B>; =a- not >e .iled ?ith the court i. an action .or 0ummar- eviction or unla?.ul detainer i0
alread- <ending >et?een the landlord and tenant" >ut the tenant ma- 0eeE 0imilar relie. >e.ore the
Audge <re0iding over the <ending action.
*. &he court 0hall conduct a hearing on the veri.ied com<laint .or e)<edited relie. ?ithin 3
Audicial da-0 a.ter the .iling o. the veri.ied com<laint .or e)<edited relie.. Be.ore or at the 0cheduled
hearing" the tenant mu0t <rovide <roo. that the landlord ha0 >een <ro<erl- 0erved ?ith a co<- o. the
veri.ied com<laint .or e)<edited relie.. 5<on the hearing" i. it i0 determined that the landlord ha0
violated an- o. the <rovi0ion0 o. 0u>0ection 1" the court ma-:
Ba; 3rder the landlord to re0tore to the tenant the <remi0e0 or e00ential 0ervice0" or >oth9
B>; ,?ard damage0 <ur0uant to 0u>0ection 19 and
Bc; EnAoin the landlord .rom violating the <rovi0ion0 o. 0u>0ection 1 and" i. the circum0tance0 0o
?arrant" hold the landlord in contem<t o. court.
7. &he <a-ment o. all co0t0 and o..icial .ee0 mu0t >e de.erred .or an- tenant ?ho .ile0 a veri.ied
com<laint .or e)<edited relie.. ,.ter an- hearing and not later than .inal di0<o0ition o. the .iling or
order" the court 0hall a00e00 the co0t0 and .ee0 again0t the <art- that doe0 not <revail" e)ce<t that the
court ma- reduce them or ?aive them" a0 Au0tice ma- re@uire.J
IN!S 11$,.+9+ IE)cludeJ de.ined. IE)cludeJ mean0 to evict or to <rohi>it entr- >- locEing door0 or >- other?i0e
>locEing or attem<ting to >locE entr-" or to maEe a d?elling unit uninha>ita>le >- interru<ting or cau0ing the interru<tion
o. electric" ga0" ?ater or other e00ential 0ervice0.J
' 31 '
00165
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
,66 /,/E!S ,ND /6E,D1N:S ,ND C3!!ES/3NDENCS /!E#135S67 S5B=1&&ED &3 &2E !EN3
45S&1CE C35!& ,ND 3! 1&S E=/637EES 1S 2E!EB7 1NC3!/3!,&ED B7 !E(E!ENCE 1N&3 &21S
(161N:.
N!S 11$,.19+: I Notice: De.inition9 0ervice.
1. , <er0on ha0 notice o. a .act i.:
Ba; &he <er0on ha0 actual Eno?ledge o. it9
B>; &he <er0on ha0 received a notice or noti.ication o. it9 or
Bc; (rom all the .act0 and circum0tance0 the <er0on rea0ona>l- 0hould Eno? that it e)i0t0.
0. 8r!tten not!ce" to the tennt pre"cr!(e' (. th!" chpter "hll (e "er&e' !n the mnner pro&!'e' (. NRS
1,.0*,.
3. 8ritten notice0 to the landlord <re0cri>ed >- thi0 cha<ter ma- >e delivered or mailed to the <lace o. >u0ine00 o. the
landlord de0ignated in the rental agreement or to an- <lace held out >- the landlord a0 the <lace .or the recei<t o. rental
<a-ment0 .rom the tenant and are e..ective .rom the date o. deliver- or mailing.J
INRS 1,.0*, Service o. notice0 to @uit9 <roo. re@uired >e.ore i00uance o. order to remove.
1. E)ce<t a0 other?i0e <rovided in N!S 4+.2%3" the notice0 re@uired >- N!S 4+.2%1 to 4+.2*+" inclu0ive" ma- >e
0erved:
Ba; B- delivering a co<- to the tenant <er0onall-" in the <re0ence o. a ?itne009
B>; 1. the tenant i0 a>0ent .rom the tenantL0 <lace o. re0idence or .rom the tenantL0 u0ual <lace o. >u0ine00" >- leaving
a co<- ?ith a <er0on o. 0uita>le age and di0cretion at either <lace and mailing a co<- to the tenant at the tenantL0 <lace o.
re0idence or <lace o. >u0ine009 or
Bc; 1. the <lace o. re0idence or >u0ine00 cannot >e a0certained" or a <er0on o. 0uita>le age or di0cretion cannot >e
.ound there" >- <o0ting a co<- in a con0<icuou0 <lace on the lea0ed <ro<ert-" delivering a co<- to a <er0on there re0iding"
i. the <er0on can >e .ound" and mailing a co<- to the tenant at the <lace ?here the lea0ed <ro<ert- i0 0ituated.J
1 did not receive an- o. the email0 allegedl- 0ent to m- .rom !ichard 2illC0 email addre00" rhillWrichardhilla?.com
>et?een ,ugu0t 1$th" 2+11 to Novem>er 17th" 2+11" and certainl- none .rom rhillWrichardhilla?.com during the <eriod
>et?een the illegal locEout at 4:3+ <m Novem>er 1" 2+11 and the tre0<a00 arre0t o. Novem>er 13th" 2+11 ?hich allegedl-
0<oEe to m- >eing <rovided acce00 to the <ro<ert- .or the <ur<o0e o. m- removing m- >elonging0" de0<ite m- numerou0
call0 and ?ritten re@ue0t0" ?hich outlined the e)igencie0 inherent to m- >eing <recluded acce00 to m- client .ile0 incident
to an unla?.ul and im<ro<erl- notice and too earl- occurring locEout >- the 8CS3. 1 and m- >u0ine00 have >een
damaged greatl- >- the0e act0. (urther" 1 had re<eatedl- 0ent >oth BaEer and 2ill notice" in ?riting" that 1 did not con0ent
to 0ervice or notice o. an-thing via electronic mean0. (urther N!S 11$,.19+ doe0 not 0<eaE to Inotice o.J a legal
.inding" >ut rather to Inotice o. a .actJ. ,0 0uch" 1 ?a0 not a<<ro<riatel- 0erved notice o. the 3rder o. Summar- Eviction"
and an illegal locEout occurred" a0 0uch no criminal tre0<a00 charge can 0tand.
IN!S 11$,.2*+ Di0clo0ure o. name0 and addre00e0 o. manager0 and o?ner09 emergenc- tele<hone num>er9 0ervice o.
<roce00.
1. &he landlord" or an- <er0on authoriDed to enter into a rental agreement on hi0 or her >ehal." 0hall di0clo0e to the
tenant in ?riting at or >e.ore the commencement o. the tenanc-:
Ba; &he name and addre00 o.:
B1; &he <er0on0 authoriDed to manage the <remi0e09
B2; , <er0on ?ithin thi0 State authoriDed to act .or and on >ehal. o. the landlord .or the <ur<o0e o. 0ervice o.
<roce00 and receiving notice0 and demand09 and
B3; &he <rinci<al or cor<orate o?ner.
B>; , tele<hone num>er at ?hich a re0<on0i>le <er0on ?ho re0ide0 in the count- or ?ithin *+ mile0 o. ?here the
<remi0e0 are located ma- >e called in ca0e o. emergenc-.
' 32 '
00166
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
2. &he in.ormation re@uired to >e .urni0hed >- thi0 0ection mu0t >e Ee<t current" and thi0 0ection i0 en.orcea>le
again0t an- 0ucce00or landlord or manager o. the <remi0e0.
3. , <art- ?ho enter0 into a rental agreement on >ehal. o. the landlord and .ail0 to com<l- ?ith thi0 0ection i0 an
agent o. the landlord .or <ur<o0e0 o.:
Ba; Service o. <roce00 and receiving notice0 and demand09 and
B>; /er.orming the o>ligation0 o. the landlord under la? and under the rental agreement.
4. 1n an- action again0t a landlord ?hich involve0 hi0 or her rental <ro<ert-" 0ervice o. <roce00 u<on the manager o.
the <ro<ert- or a <er0on de0cri>ed in <aragra<h Ba; o. 0u>0ection 1 0hall >e deemed to >e 0ervice u<on the landlord. &he
o>ligation0 o. the landlord devolve u<on the <er0on0 authoriDed to enter into a rental agreement on hi0 or her >ehal..
%. &hi0 0ection doe0 not limit or remove the lia>ilit- o. an undi0clo0ed landlord.J
N!S 4+.31+ 100ue o. .act to >e tried >- Aur- i. <ro<er demand made. 8henever an i00ue o. .act i0 <re0ented >- the
<leading0" it 0hall >e tried >- a Aur-" i. <ro<er demand i0 made <ur0uant to the Nevada !ule0 o. Civil /rocedure or the
4u0tice Court !ule0 o. Civil /rocedure
,ctuall-" a lot o. <eo<le 0eemed con.u0ed regarding the I24 hour0J locEout thing. &he onl- a<<earance in either N!S
11$, or N!S 4+" in the <rovi0ion0 a<<lica>le to Summar- Eviction /roceeding0 o. an-thing related to I24 hour0J i0 in
N!S 4+.2%3B%;" ?hich onl- 0<eaE0 to a 0ituation ?here the &enant doe0 not .ile a &enantC0 ,n0?er or &enantC0 ,..idavit"
?hich i0 clearl- ina<<lica>le here" a0 the &enant did .ile 0uch a 3<<o0ition to the No Cau0e Eviction Notice: I%. 5<on
noncom<liance ?ith the notice:
Ba; &he landlord or the landlordL0 agent ma- a<<l- >- a..idavit o. com<laint .or eviction to the Au0tice court o. the
to?n0hi< in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or commercial <remi0e0 are located or to the di0trict court o. the
count- in ?hich the d?elling" a<artment" mo>ile home or commercial <remi0e0 are located" ?hichever ha0 Auri0diction
over the matter. The court m. thereupon !""ue n or'er '!rect!ng the "her!## or con"t(le o# the count. to remo&e
the tennt $!th!n 01 hour" #ter rece!pt o# the or'er. &he a..idavit mu0t 0tate or contain...J
So% ("ent "ome "ttutor. pro&!"!on llo$!ng the Or'er o# Summr. E&!ct!on to re"ult !n
loc2out (. the 8"hoe Count. Sher!##7" O##!ce pr!or to the ? '." #or m!l!ng $here per"onl
"er&!ce o# the Or'er o# Summr. E&!ct!on $" not e##ectute'% 'e"p!te $ht 8CSO emplo.ee
m. h&e !ncorrectl. 4or #l"el.5 ""erte' !n the 8CSO7" @ohn Mchem7" A##!'&!t o# Ser&!ce
#rom% #!le "tmpe' No&em(er G% 0,++. Attche' " ECh!(!t +. E)hi>it 1: $" not e##ectute'%
'e"p!te $ht 8CSO emplo.ee m. h&e !ncorrectl. 4or #l"el.5 ""erte' !n the 8CSO7" @ohn
Mchem7" A##!'&!t o# Ser&!ce #rom% #!le "tmpe' No&em(er G% 0,++ long $!th $r!tten
'm!""!on #rom 8CSO C!&!l Ser&!ce D!&!"!on Super&!"or L!A Stuchell tht Mchem onl. po"te'
the Or'er o# Summr. E&!ct!on on the 'oor o# the #ormer home l$ o##!ce% rther thn
<per"onll. "er&e'< !t n' R!chr' )!ll E"B7" o$n Proo# o# Ser&!ce o# Not!ce o# Entr. o# the
Or'er #or Summr. E&!ct!on "ho$!ng m!le' on 'te o# No&em(er +% 0,++ 4n' the R@C
ne&er m!le' cop. o# tht OR'er ccor'!ng the to Recor' on Appel !n CH++-,?60*5- three
4?5 pge".
AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 0?F;.,?,
&he under0igned doe0 here>- a..irm that the <receding document doe0 not contain the 0ocial
0ecurit- num>er o. an- <er0on.
Dated at !eno" Nevada" thi0 3rd da- o. =arch" 2+12"
' 33 '
00167
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
6,8 3((1CES 3( Zachar- BarEer Coughlin
Co'coun0el .or the De.endant
B-:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Zach Coughlin" E0@.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
' 34 '
00168
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 SERHICE
/ur0uant to N!C/ %B>;" 1 certi.- that 1 0erved a co<- o. the .oregoing document u<on the
.ollo?ing <art- >- .a)ing" emailing" dro<<ing o.. at their o..ice" and <lacing a true and correct co<-
o. the .oregoing document in the u0 mail addre00ed to:
4ill DraEe" E0@.
!eno Cit- ,ttorne-C0 3..ice ' Criminal Divi0on
/.3. Bo) 19++
!eno " N# $9%+%
/hone Num>er: 77%'334'2+%+ (a) num>er: 77%'334'242+
DraEe4Wreno.gov
,ttorne- .or Cit- o. !eno
Xeith 6lo-d 6oomi0" E0@.
94*$ Dou>le ! Blvd. Suite ,
!eno" N# $9%21
/hone Num>er: 77%'$%3'7222 (a) num>er: 77%'$%3'+$*+
Eeithloomi0WearthlinE.net
!=C (iling 3..ice (a) =achine: (a): B77%; 334'3$24
Date thi0 =arch 3" 2+12:
NSN Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin" De.endant
Co'Coun0el .or De.endant
' 3% '
00169
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
INDE: TO E:)I;ITS
1. E)hi>it 1: $" not e##ectute'% 'e"p!te $ht 8CSO emplo.ee m. h&e !ncorrectl. 4or
#l"el.5 ""erte' !n the 8CSO7" @ohn Mchem7" A##!'&!t o# Ser&!ce #rom% #!le "tmpe'
No&em(er G% 0,++ long $!th $r!tten 'm!""!on #rom 8CSO C!&!l Ser&!ce D!&!"!on Super&!"or
L!A Stuchell tht Mchem onl. po"te' the Or'er o# Summr. E&!ct!on on the 'oor o# the
#ormer home l$ o##!ce% rther thn <per"onll. "er&e'< !t n' R!chr' )!ll E"B7" o$n Proo# o#
Ser&!ce o# Not!ce o# Entr. o# the Or'er #or Summr. E&!ct!on "ho$!ng m!le' on 'te o#
No&em(er +% 0,++ 4n' the R@C ne&er m!le' cop. o# tht OR'er ccor'!ng the to Recor' on
Appel !n CH++-,?60*5- three 4?5 pge".
' 3* '
00170
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
00171

LAW OFFicE
RtCHARD G, HILL
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 Pursuantto NRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of RICHARD G.
f-lWunW
3 HILL, CHARTERED, and that on the day of 9eteBQt., 2011, I deposited in the
4 appropriate place for pick-up and hand-delivery by Reno-Carson Messenger Service, a true
5 and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Entry of Order and a true and correct copy
6 of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Summary Eviction,
7 file-stamped October 27, 2011, addressed to:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
121 River Rock Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
J
PoS! Office 80)1 2551 28
Rsno, NevGc;fa 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
00172
Ho1mail Print Message ...
RE: WCSO Deputy Machern's personally served" Affidavit of WI/2011
From: Stu.hon. Liz (LStuchell@washoecounty.us)
Sent Tue 1/07/12 11:40 AM
To; zachcoughlin@hotmail.ccm
Cc: Kandaras, Mary (mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us)
Mr. COughlin,
Our records IndlClt.! thilt the evittlOn on that day WI' personlilyserved by Deputy by postmg oil copy of the Order to the- The residente w.s unoccupied Irt the
time.
lit Stuchell, SUpervISor
wcso CIvil Sectio(1
00173
..
FiLED
" NOV -7 AM 10: 52
IN THE RENO JUSTICE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE .
RENO JUlll';
Matt Merliss
PLAINTIFF
Vs
DEFENDANT
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE
55:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
BY --'---
Civil File Number: 110 1)4;;-iSEPlITY
CASE No. REV2011001708
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
John Machen, being first duly sworn. deposes and says: That affiant is a citizen of the United States, over
18 years of age, not a party to the within entered action, and that in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, personally
served the described documents upon:
Posted: Zachary Barker Coughlin
Location: 121 River Rock Street Reno, NV 89501
Date: 111112011 Time: 4:30PM
The document(s) served were: EVICTION ORDER, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
ORDER FOR SUMMARY EVICTION; ORDER REQUIRING INSPECTION OF REAL PROPERTY
Richard G Hill Esq
PO Box 2551
652 Forest Street
Reno, NV 89505
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me before me this
7.A,J
, ,) day __ 20 lL,
o II (l ,,--v,- (
NOTARY PUBLIC in and forsaid State of Nevada,
County of Washoe
ROXANNA L:Sj'LV;' l
{ Notary Public State 0' Nevada
: \' Appclntmenf Rl;!oorded In WaShoe County j
, Ne:Ql'III1IIilIjII'HU'-IlorlI014'

MICHAEL HALEY, SHERIFF
By: J2----
Sheriff uthori Agent
911 PARR BOULEVARD RENO. NV 89512-1000 (775) 328-3310
00174

'=ILED
Case No. II CR 26405
2 Dept. No.2
3
4
5
6
7
8 THE CITY OF RENO,
9 Plaintiff,
10
II
12
\3
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vs.
ORDER (#1)
ZACHARYB. COUGHUN,
Defendant.
~ /
On November 13, 2011, the above-referenced Defendant was arrested by the Reno
Police Department and charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor. The Defendant entered a pleaof not.
guilty to the trespassing charge and a trial date was set for December 13, 20\ 1. On November 23,
2011, the Reno City Attorney's office filed a Motion to Continue said trial date which was unopposed
by the defendant's court-appointed attomey, Lewis TaiteL Trial was continued and re-set for January
10,20\2, and Roberto Puentes was appointed by the Court as defendant's attorney.
On January 3, 20\2, the Defendant filed a Motion to Continue which was unopposed
by the Reno City Attorney's office. Trial was continued and re-set for February 2, 2012.
On January 18, 20\2, Defendant's attorney, Roberto Puentes, filed a Motion for
Withdrawal rf Attorney. This motion was set for hearing and on February 2, 2012, an evidentiary
hearing was conducted The defendant was present, defendants' counsel Roberto Puentes was present
and Jill Drake, Esq., was present on behalf of the City. At the conclusion of the haring, the Court
entered an Order granting the Motion to Withdraw filed by Mr. Puentes. Keith Loomis was appointed
by the Court to represent the Defendant. Trial is set for April 10, 2012, at 8:00 am No fillaljudgment
1
00175
1
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
27
28

has been rendered in this case.
On February 16,2012, the defendant himself, an attorney, filed as co-counsel, a Notice
of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60, Motion for Reconsideration;
Motion for Recusal; Motion for publication of Transcript at Public Expense, Petition for In Forma
Pauperis Status. This same thirty-five (35) page Motion was filed twice with the Court. Initially it was
filed via fax on February 13,2012, and again filed via fax on Feb1UllI)' 16,2012. On February 22,
2012, the City filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion. Attached to each of the defendant's thirty-
five (35) page Motions are a series of rambling e-mails from the defendant to Mr. Puentes. The
defendant's Motion referenced herein incorrectly is captioned as "In The Justice Court of the Reno
Township" instead of the Reno Municipal Court.
The pleading filed by the defendant on February 13,2012, captioned as many things, is
without merit and is hereby denied. Further, all further pleadings filed in this case on behalf of the
defendant, must be filed by the defendant's attorney and not by the defendant himself. As long as
defendant has an attorney representing him in this Court and in this case,all further pleadings shall be
filed by said attorney. Any further motions filed in violation of this Order will not be considered by the
Court and will be dismissed without prejudice.
Dated this 20th day of Match, 2012.
2
WDGiJ&JIJL.
Department Two
00176
.....

'Po tk:tiI1WO

01) '-2190
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

Pursuant to NRCP S(b), 1 certify that 1 am an employee of the Reno Municipal Court,
ORDER (#1) on the party(ies) set forth below:
_X_
Placing said document in a sealed envelope placed for coJlecting and mailing
business practices.
Facsimile (FAX).
Personal Delivery.
Jill Drake
Deputy City Attorney
Keith Loomis Esq.
9468 Double R Blvd., Suite A
Reno, NV 89521
Zachary Coughlin
1422 E. 9
th
St., #2
Reno, NV 89501
DA11lD "" 20" <by @:12\J\j

00177

Case No. 11 CR 26405
2 Dept. No. 2
Dept. 2
Deputy Clerk
3
4
5 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO
6 COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
7
8 THE CITY OF RENO,
9 Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vs.
ORDER (#2)
ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN,
Defendant.
______________________
On November 13, 2011, the above-referenced Defendant was arrested by the Reno
Police Department and charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor. The Defendant entered a plea of not
guilty to the trespassing charge and a trial date was set for December 13,2011. On November 23,
2011, the Reno City office filed a Motion to Continue said trial date which was unopposed
by the defendant's court-appointed attorney, Lewis Taite1. Trial was continued and re-set for January
10, 2012, and Roberto Puentes was appointed by the Court as defendant's attorney.
On January 3, 2012, the Defendant's attorney Roberto Puentes filed a Motion to
Continue which was unopposed by the Reno City Attorney's office. Trial was continued and re-set for
February 2, 2012.
On January 18, 2012, Defendant's attorney, Roberto Puentes, filed a Motion for
Withdrawal eX Attorney. This motion was set for hearing and on February 2, 2012, an evidentiary
hearing was conducted. The defendant was present, defendants' counsel Roberto Puentes was present
and Jill Drake, Esq., was present on behalf of the City. At the conclusion of the haring, the Cowt
entered an Order granting the Motion to Withdraw filed by Mr. Puentes. Keith Loomis was appointed
1
00178
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

by the Court to represent the Defendant. Trial is set for April 10, 2012, at 8:00 a.m.
On February 16, 2012, the defendant himself, an attorney, filed as "Attorney for Pro Se
Attorney Plaintiff Denied Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel", a Notice of Appearance as Co-
Counsel and Motion to Dismiss. This same forty (40) page Motion was filed twice with the Court 0 n
March 5, 2012. The first pleading was filed at 7:36 a.m. via fax and the second was filed at 11: 19 a.m.
via fax. The defendant's motion referenced herein incorrectly is captioned "In the Second Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe" instead of the Reno Municipal
Court. On March 21, 2012, the City filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Complaint. The City's Motion to Strike aUeges that the City was never served with defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.
Notwithstanding the service issue raised inthe City's Motion to Strike, the Motion to
Dismiss filed by the defendant on March 5, 2012, is without merit, doesnotsetforth a basis to dismiss
the criminal complaint and therefore is hereby denied. Further, all further pleadings filed in this case
on behalf of the defendant must be filed by the defendant's attorney and not by the defendant himself. .
As long as defendant has an attorney representing him in this Court and in this case, all further
pleadings shall be filed by said attorney. Any further motions filed in violation of this Order will not
be considered by the Court and will be dismissed without prejudice.
Dated this 21st day of March, 2012.
2
00179
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
""'"

y.a. .. \930

CERTIFICATE OF SERYICE
Reno, Nevada, and that on this date I served a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing
ORDER (#2) on the party(ies) set forth below:
_x_
Placing said document In a sealed envelope placed for collecting and mailing
business practices.
Facsimile (FAX).
Inner-officemail following ordinary business'practices.
Personal Delivery.
Christopher Hazlett-Stevens
RenO City Attorney's office
Zachary Coughlin
1422 E,9
th
St., #2
Reno, NY 89501
Keith Loomis Esq.
9468 Double R Blvd., Ste. A
Reno, NV 89521
DATED this 21st day of March, 2012.

00180

'='LEO
JOHN J. KADLlC
2' 2012
Reno City Attorney
2 Christopher Hazlett-Stevens
R:004J.&
By __ __
4
3 Nevada State Bar No. 10075
Post Office Bo)( 1900
DePuty Clerk
Reno, Nevada 89505
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
CITY OF RENO,
vs.
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO,
CASE NO.: 12CR26405
Plaintiff,
DEPT. NO.: 2
ZACHARY CAUGHLIN,
Defendant.
----------------------- '
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPL.AlNT
COMES NOW Plaintiff CITY OF RENO, by and through JOHN J. KADLIC, Reno City
Attorney, and Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Deputy City Attorney, and files its Motion to Strike
as follows.
This Motion is made and based upon the pleading and documents on file herein, and the
Points and Authorities which are attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
From all appearances, Defendant filed 011 or about March 5, 2012 a Notice of Appearance
of Co-Counsel and Motion to Dismiss. The City requests the instant motion be stricken.
City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900

-1-
00181
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The motion filed by Defendant contains a caption foc the Second Judicial District Court
yet was apparently filed in the Reno Municipal Court.
l
Said motion was filed on March 5, 2012
in the Reno Municipal Court. Yet, the City was never served with this Motion. NRS 178.584
states that motions must be served on the attorney in accordance with the manner provided in
civil actions. NRS 178.584(2). Rule 5 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure govern filing and
service of pleadings and other papers in civil actions. NRCP 5 states that every written motion
must be served upon the attorney for the party and specifies several alternative methods of
service.
The City first learned of this motion on March 20, 2012 by way of a courtesy copy
10 provided by the Court. See Declaration of Christopher Hazlett-Stevens attached hereto as
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
no City Attornt'j
P.O.8., 1900
teno, NY 89505
Exhibit" 1." The cez1ificate of services included in the motion claims that the motion was served
upon the Reno City Attorney's Office by faxing, emailing, dropping off at their office and
placing a true and correct copy of the document in the US mail addressed to Jill Drake, Esq. at
the Reno City Attorney's Office-Criminal Division. However, the City never received service of
this document as claimed in the certificate of service. See Exhibit "\."
While NCRP Rule 5 does allow for electronic service of certain documents, this service
is only pemlitted if the party served consents to service by electronic means.
2
The City has
never, either expressly or impliedly, consented to electronic service of documents in this case.
Accordingly, if defendant did send a copy of the motion to the City Attorney's Office in an
electronic fashion, this would not constitute proper service absent an express agreement as
specified in NRCP Rule 5.
/I
, It should be noted that defendant filed this motion on his own behalf and without his counsel.
2 In relevant part, NRCP5(b)(2)(D) states that service may be made by: Delivering a copy by electronic means if the
attorney or the party served has consented to service by electronic mellns. Service by electronic means is complete
on transmission provided, however, a motion, answer or other document constituting the initial appearance of a
party must also, if served by electronic means, be filed within the time allowed for service. The served attorney's or
party's consent to service by electronic means shall be expressly stated and filed in writing with the clerk of the
court and served on the other parties to the action. [Emphasis added]
-2-
00182
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
",0 CU1 M\i)Tftq
P.O. Do, 1900

In conclusion, the motion filed by deC endant is a fugitive document and should be
stricken by this Court. Accordingly, the City respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
grant the City's Motion to Strike.
Respectfully submitted this21" day of March, 2012.
-3-
r azlett-Stevens
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
00183

CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE
2 I certify that I am an employee of the Reno City Attorney, Reno, Nevada, and that on the
3 C) I .jr < day of March, 2012, I deposited for mailing at Reno, Nevada, first class postage
4 prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document addressed to:
5 Keith Loomis, Esq.
9468 Double R Blvd. #A
6 Reno, NY 89511
7
8
9
10
1I
12
13
14
15
16
\7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City AttOJMY
P.O. JIG, 1900
Ren." NV 89505
-4-
00184
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
mo City Anornc:)'
1'.0. Box 191)0
Reno, NY 89S05

DECLARA nON OF CHRISTOPHER HAZLETT -STEVENS
1.
That Declarant is a Deputy City Attorney for the City of Reno, Nevada, and is
licensed in the State of Nevada to practice law.
2.
That this Declaration is made in accordance with NRS 53.045 and in suppon of
the City's Motion to Strike.
3.
That 00 March 20, 2012 the City received a courtesy copy of a pleading styled;
"Notice of Appearance of Co-Counsel and Motion to Dismiss."
4.
5.
TItatthe City was never served a copy of said pleading.
lbat the City never consented to service by electronic means in the instant matter.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct
Executed 00 this 11 Ir day of March, 2012.
2
00185

.FILED
Case No. 11 CR 26405
2 Dept. No.2 Reno Dept 2
BY __
tyClerk 3
4
5
6
7
8 THE CIlY OF RENO,
9 Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vs. ORDER SUSPENDING PROCEEDINGS
Defendant.

On Apri1lO, 2012, the aboVe-referenced defendant appeared with his attorney, Keith
Loomis, Esq., for trial in this case. Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens appeared on
behalf of the City of Reno. After hearing pre-trial legal arguments, after hearing directly from the
defendant himself and after being advised that a competency hearing (related to a Reno Justice Court
gross misdemeanor case involving the defendant) is now scheduled in the Second Judicial District
Court for April 19, 2012, a doubt has arisen as to the competency of the defendant. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the trial and all other proceedings in this case are
hereby suspended until the question of competence is determined.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2012.

Department Two
00186
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
""'"
MUNJClP"'-ootnlT
PO a,.:1SQ)
.... "'''''"
(702)),..uso

CERTIfiCATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NRCP S(b), I certify that 1 am an employee of the Reno Municipal Court,
_ _ Placing said document in a sealed envelope placed far collecting and mailing
x
business practices.
Facsimile (FAX).
Personal Delivery.
Electronic mail to all parties
---
Keith Loomis Esq.
Defense Counsel
Jay Dilworth
Municipal Court Judge
Kenneth Howard
Dorothy Nash-Holmes
DATED this) Oil> day of April, 2012.
~ J ~ Q p l
00187
lNIttI<.; 1\ NIClPAL COURT OF THE CIT" RENO
COlililiTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NA'
aSOUTHSIERAA STREET,RENO,NV "05
Mailing: P.O. Box 1900, Reno, NV 89505 PHONE (775)334-2290 F "'(775;)31.4-3.,24
VS.
Court Case#: 11 CR 26405 21
DOB: 0912711976
Accident#: Bookiog#: 19876
Status: OPEN
Language: ENGLISH
Attorney: LOOMIS, KEITH
BENCHllUAL JUDGE GARDNER C Tile, Dec 13,2011 8:00 8m
BYREQUESTOFCny
BENCHllUAL JUDGE GARDNER B Tue, Jan 10,2012 1:00 pm BY REQUEST OF DEFENSE
1111412011 LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: LEW T AITEL; 475 S. ARLINGTON A VENUE, SUITE lA RENO, NEVADA 89501
PHONE (775) 322-2272
PLEASE ALWW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ATTORNEY SO TlIAT HElSHE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVENAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOINTED A LEGAL DEFENDER TO
REPRESENT HlMfHER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT.
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTA nON BY THE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR SIX MONTHS FROM TODA Y'S DATE. IN THE EVENT THAT THIS ORDER EXPffiES,
THE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT AN UPDATED FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICA nON FOR RECONSIDERATION.
IF THE DEFENDANT HAS WITNESSES THAT HE/sHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OF IDS/HER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT HlSIHER
ATTORNEY.
1111412011 THE DEFENDANT APPEARED, WAS EXPLAINED IIISIHER RIGHTS BY THEJUDGEAND INDICATED THAT
HElSHE UNDERSTOOD THEM COMPLETELY.
11/30Jl011 LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: ROBERTO PUENTES; 416 RIDGE STREET (P.O. BOX 2421) RENO, NEVADA
89505 PHONE (775) 7867676
PLEASE ALWW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ATTORNEY SO TIIAT HElSHE
WILL HAVE ALL 0 F THE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM THE COURT TO ASSIST YOU WITH YOUR CASE.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVENAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOINTED A LEGAL DEFENDER TO
REPRESENT RIMIHER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MA TrER IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT COMPLETE A FINANCIAL INQUffiV APPLICATION AND
MAYBE REQUffiED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENT A TION BY THE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
THE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT AN UPDATED FINANCIAL INQUffiY APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
IF THE DEFENDANT HAS WITNESSES THAT HEISHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OFHISIHER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT HIS/HER

er eDdant Initials: ____________ Print Dat.: 4/10/2012
Data Date: 4/1012012
Page lof3
00188
.---- _.----
II/Z012011 LEGAL DEFENDER RELONIlD: LEWIS TAITEL DEll
IT IS HEREBY ORDERElIi/lA T THE LEGAL DEFENDER BE HISIHER ASSIGNMENT TO THIS
CASE..
21212012 LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED; KEITH LOOMIS: 9468 DOUBLE R BLVD SUITE A, RENO. NEVADA 89521
PHONE ('T7S) 8537222
2/212012
21212012
411012012
Offense Dt:
ArrestDI:
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ATTORNEY SO THAT HE/SHE
WILL HAVE ALL OF THE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM THE COURT TO ASSIST YOU WITH YOVR CASE.
IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOINTED A LEGAL DEFENDER TO
REPRESENT HIM/HER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT.
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTATION BY THE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
IF THE DEFENDANT HAS WITNESSES THAT HFJSHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OF HISIHER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT HIS/HER
ATTORNEY.
LEGAL DEFENDER RELIEVED: PER GRANTED MOTION HEARING
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE LEGAL DEFENDER BE RELIEVED FROM mSIHER ASSIGNMENT TO THIS
CASE.
PRESENT IN COURT FOR THE CITY OF RENO: JILL DRAKE FOR THE DEFENSE: ROBERTO PUENTES
PRESENT IN COURT FOR THE CITY OF RENO: CHRISTOPHER HAZLE1TSTEVENS FOR THE DEFENSE:
KEITH LOOMIS
11/1312011
1111312011
Jail Days: 0
Suspended Days: 0
Pie,; 11114/2011 NOT GUILTY
Additional Fees
Supervision Fee Subtotal:
seo.OO 540.00 so.OO
SuP' Fce(.) Due:
IEFENDANT: COUGm.,IN, ZACHARY BARKER
Ageneyll: 1122185
____________ Print Date: 411012012 Initials:
so.oo
Next ProofDt:
Balance:
Completed Dt:
COURT CASE II: 11 CR 2640521
Oala Oat.: 411012012
Page 2 of3
I
00189
FAILURll',Q COMPLY WITH TilE CONI> JNS OF BAIL AS DESCRIBED IN TIllS ORDER LL RESULT IN TIlE ISSUANCE OF A
FAILURE TO COMPLY WARRANT DR rADIATE ARREST AND INCARCERATION FOI!A-rrEMPTOF COURT AND/OR BAIL
REVOCATION. FOR FURTIlER INFORMllPrON, CONTACT TIlE SENTENCE COMPLJANCW!NOOW LOCATED ON TIlE FIRST
FLDOR OF TIlE REND MUNICIPAL COURT, ONE SOu-rn SIERRA ST, REND, NY (775) 334-2290.
TIlE DEFENDANT SHALL APPEAR AS ORDERED FOR ALL REVIEWS AND SHALL COOPERATE FULLY WITIl TIlE
BAILIFFSIMARSHALS AND ALL COURT STAFF.
TIlE DEFENDANT SHALL ATIEND ALL REVIEWS, COURT APPEARANCES AND COURT-ORDERED PROGRAMS ON llME AND
TIlE DEFENDANT SHALL KNOW HIS/HER COURT DATE AND MAINTAIN CONTACT WITH mSIHER A ITORNEY.
PRIOR TO CHANGING mSIHER ADDRESS OR PHONE NUMBER, THE DEFENDANT SHALL NOTIFIY TIlE COURT OF SUCH
CHANGE.
OBEY ALL LAWS.
. .. ... "'r
. .. .
04/1012012 ADDmONAL CASE INFORMATION: PROCEEDINGS SUSPENDED UNTIL COMPETENCY EV AL HAS BEEN COMPLETED
IN DISTRICT COURT MA ITER
03/0512012 MISC NOlES: SENDING MOTION UP TO 0-2 VIA BLACK FOLDER. rms IS ms 2ND REQUEST FOR SAME MOTION
TODAY.
03/0512011 MIse NOTES: D2 HAS FILE. SENDING MOTION UP TO DEPT VIA BLACK FOLDER.
THE HONORABLE
JUDGE'S SIGNATURE: DATE:
You are ordered by the Court to alrive drug/alcohol free and on time for all Court hearings and Court related programs. Failure to
appear in Court will result in the issuance of a warrant for your arrest. Any violation of this instant order may result in contempt
proceedings and the filing of additional criminal charges. In accordance with NRS 22.010, it is a misdemeanor for any person to fail.
relilse or neglect to comply with the terms of any order issued by the Municipal Court Judge. This order will remain in effect until the
Court issues another order superseding it.
UNDERSTAND AND PROMISE TO OBEY TIDS ORDER.
.. DATE: TIME: _ ___ _
I. THE SWORN INTPRETER HAVE FULLY INTERPRETED TIDS ORDER TO THE
DEFENDANT: DATE: _ _____ TIME: ____ _
RECEIVED BY DEPUTY: __ -r ....... ;;;:-_-;:-___ _________ DATE: TIME: ____ _
ISSUED BY MARSHAL: DATEN: - J -/a TIME:
Defendant Initials:
Agencyl/: 1111185
____________ PrinID.I.: 411011012
COURT CASE N: 11 CRl64051I
Dala Dale: 4110/1011
Page 3 oD
00190
iN THE n ,NICIPAL COURT OF THE CIT JF RENO
C<Wt/TY OF WASHOE, STATE OF _V ADA
~ E SOUTH SIERRA STREET, RENO, NV'S05
Mailing: P.O. Box 1900, Reno, NV 89505 PHONE (775}334-2290 FAX <1l:ij3
i
3'3",l4
vs.
Court Casetl: 11 CR 26405 21 DOB: 09n711976
Accident#:
Status: OPEN
Language: ENGLISH
Booking#: 19876
BENCHTIUAL JUDGE GARDNER c Tue,1Jec 13. 2011 8;00 am REQUEST OF CITY
BllNCHTRlAL
lUOOEGARDNER 8 Tue, Jan IO,20ll 1:00 pm BY REQUEST OF DEFENSE
11113/2011 FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED WITII TIlE COURT
1111411011 LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: LEW TAITEL; 475 S. ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE lA RENO, NEVADA 89501
PIIONE (775) 322-2272
1 l 1 4 ~
11130fl011
PLE4SE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR A ITORNEY SO THAT IIE/SIIE
WILL IIAVE ALL OF TilE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM TIlE COURT TO ASSIST YOU WITII YOUR CASE.
IT IS IlEREBY ORDERED TIIA T THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOINTED A LEGAL DEFENDER TO
REPRESENT IIIMIHER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MA ITER IN TIlE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT.
IT IS FURTIlER ORDERED THAT TIlE DEFENDANT COMPLETE A FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION AND
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTATION BY 'IlIE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY'S DATE. IN TilE EVENT TIIA T TIllS ORDER EXPIRES,
TIlE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT AN UPDATED FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERA TION.
IF TIlE DEFENDANT lIAS WITNESSES TIIAT IIE/SIIE WOULD LIKE TO IIA VE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD UKE TO DISCUSS TilE DEFENSE OF HISfflER CASE, TilE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT HISIHER
ATTORNEY.
TIlE DEFENDANT APPEARED, WAS EXPLAINED IIISIIIER RIGIITS BY TilE JUDGE AND INDICATED TIIAT
IIEISIIE UNDERSTOOD TIlEM COMPLETELY.
LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED: ROBERTO PUENTES; 416 RIDGE STREET (P.O. BOX 1421) RENO, NEVADA
89505 PIIONE (17S) 786-7676
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ATTORNEY SO TIIATHElSIIE
WILL IIA VE ALL OF TilE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM TIlE COURT TO ASSIST YOU WITII YOUR CASE.
IT IS IIEREBY ORDERED TIIA T TilE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOINTED A LEGAL DEFENDER TO
REPRESENT HIM/HER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON TillS MA ITER IN nm RENO MUNIClP AL COURT.
IT IS FURTIlER ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT COMPLETE A FINANCIAL INQUIRY APPLICATION AND
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTATION BY TilE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR SIX MONTIIS FROM TODA Y'S DATE. IN TIlE EVENT TIIA T TillS ORDER EXPIRES,
IF TIlE DEFENDANT liAS WITNESSES TIIA T IlEJSIIE WOULD LIKE TO IIA VE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OF HIS/HER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT H1SIIIER
)dendftnt Initials: ____________ PrinlDate: 5/812012
Dala Dale: SIS/20ll
Page I of3
/
00191
Hl30120H
2/2I201Z
21212012
21212012
4/1()1l011
5/812012
51812012
LEGAL DEFENDER RELI tD: LEWIS TAlTEL 'roo)
IT IS HEREBY ORDEREW:HA T THE LEGAL DEFENDER BE RELIEVEJiIIlROM HISIHER ASSIGNMENT TO THIS
CASE. .
LEGAL DEFENDER APPOINTED; KEITH WOMIS: 9468 DOUBLE R BLVD SmTE A, RENO, NEVADA 89521
PHONE (775) 853-7222
PLEASE ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3 WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ATTORNEY SO THAT HE/SHE
ITIS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT BE APPOINTED A LEGAL llEFENDER TO
REPRESENT HIM/HER IN ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT.
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES FOR REPRESENTATION BY THE LEGAL DEFENDER. THIS ORDER WILL
IF THE DEFENDANT HAS WITNESSES THATHEISHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, OR
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DEFENSE OF HIS/HER CASE, THE DEFENDANT MUST CONTACT HISIHER
ATTORNEY.
LEGAL DEFENDER RELIEVED: PER GRANTED MOTION HEARING
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE LEGAL DEFENDER BE RELIEVED FROM HISIHER ASSIGNMENT TO THIS
CASE.
PRESENT IN COURT FOR THE CITY OF RENO: JILL DRAKE FOR THE DEFENSE: ROBERTO PUENTES
PRESENT IN COURT FOR THE CITY OF RENO: CHRISTOPHER HAZLETT -STEVENS FOR THE DEFENSE:
KEITH LOOMIS
LEGAL DEFENDER RELlEVED: KEITH LOOMIS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE LEGAL DEFENDER BE RELIEVED FROM HISIHER ASSIGNMENT TO THIS
CASE
PRESENT IN COURT FOR THE CITY OF RENO: CHRISTOPHER HAZLETT -STEVENS FOR THE DEFENSE: KEITH
WOMIS
Offense Dt: 11/1312011
JailDays: 0
Suspended Days: 0
Arrest Dt: 1111312011
Plea: 1l/14/2IIU - NOT GUILTY
Disposition:
OeCendant Initials: ____________ Print Date: 5/81l()12 D.ta nate: 51812() 12
Page 2 of3
00192
Next PrOG. ..
Balan.,..
Compl'-:>t:
FAILURE TO COMPLY Willi THE CONDmONS OF BAIL AS DESCRIBED IN TIllS ORDER WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A
FAILURE TO COMPLY WARRANT OR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND INCARCERATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND/OR BAIL
REVOCATION. FOR FURTIffiR INFORMA TION, CONTACT ll1E SENTENCE COMPLIANCE WINDOW LOCATED ON THE FIRST
FLOOR OF THll RENO MUNICIPAL COURT, ONE SOU11I SIERRA ST, RENO, NY (775) 334-2290.
TIiB DEFENDANT SHALL APPEAR AS ORDERED FOR ALL REVIEWS AND SHALL COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE
BAILIFFSiMARSHALS AND ALL COURT STAFF.
TIiE DEFENDANT SHALL ATTEND ALL REVIEWS, COURT APPEARANCES AND COURT-ORDERED PROGRAMS ON TIME AND
TIiE DEFENDANT SHALL KNOW HIS/HER COURT DATE AND MAINTAIN CONTACT WITH HIS/HER A lTORNEY.
PRIOR TO CHANGING HIS/HER ADDRESS OR PHONE NUMBER, llfE DEFENDANT SHALL NOTIFIY THE COURT OF SUCH
CHANGE.
OBEY ALL LAWS.

0510812011 ADDITiONAL CASE INFORMATION: NO MOTIONS WILL BE NOT ACCEPTED BY FAX FROM DEFENDANT OR CITY
ATIURNEY. ALL PRE TRIAL MOTIONS MUST BE FILED 15 DAYS PRIOR TO TRIAL DATE OF 6-18-12 IN PERSON BY ALL
PARTIES.
0510812011 ADDmONAL CASE INFORMATION: PROCEEDINGS NO LONGER SUSPENDED, DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO OBTAIN
WRITTEN ORDER FROM DISTRICT COURT FINDING DEFENDANT COMPE1ENT PRIOR TO TRIAL DATE
03/0511012 MISe NOTES: SENDING MOTION UP TO 0-2 VIA BLACK FOLDER. TinS IS HIS 2ND REQUEST FOR SAME MOTION
TODAY.
0411012012 ADDmONAL CASE INFORMATION: PROCEEDINGS SUSPENDED UNTIL COMPETENCY EV AL HAS BEEN COMPLETED
IN DISlRICT COURT MATTER
03/0512012 MISC NOTES: D-2 HAS FILE. SENDING MOTION UP TO DEPT VIA BLACK FOLDER.
THE HONORABLE
JUDGE'S SIGNATURE:
DATE:
You are ordered by the Court to alTive drug/alcohol fill. and on time for all COUl1 hearings and Court related programs. Failure to
appear in Court will result in the issuance of a warrant for your arrest. Any violation of this instant order may result in contempt
proceedings and the filing of additional criminal charges. In accordance with NRS 22.010, it is a misdemeanor for any person to fail,
refuse or neglectto comply with the terms of any order issued by the Municipal Court Judge. This order will remain in effect until the
Court issues another order superseding it.
I UNDERSTA D AND PROMlSE TOOBEY TIDS ORDER.
, _ _____ TlME: ___ _
I. THE SWORN INTPRETER HAVE FULLY INTERPRETED THIS ORDER TO THE
DEFENDANT: DATE: ______ TIME: ____ _
RECEIVED BY DEPUTY: ____ --,oo;:-_____________ DATE: TIME: ____ _

I>EF : COUGHLIN, ZACHARY BARKER
'ltfendant Initials:
----------------------
Agency#: 11-22185
Print Date: 51812012
COURT CASE N: 11 CR 26405 21
Dat. Date: 51812011
Page 3 .f3
00193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Document Code:
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
PO BOX 3961
eno, NV 89505
ele: 775-338-8118
Fax: 949-667-7402
Attorney for Pro Se Attorney Plaintiff
2
r. ' ? "!" -<:; t'r: 8: 1 1
IJ ! " . . . ; l ; : ~ ..J I " Ii
. _ , I
IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
lTV OF RENO;
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
ACH COUGHLIN;
DEFENDANT.
)
)
)
) Case No: 11 CR 26405
)
)
) Dept No: 2
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL; MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION TO
SUPPRESS; MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND TRANSFER TO MENTAL
HEALTH COURT
COMES NOW, Defendant, Zach Coughlin, by and through himself as co-counsel to
Defendant and files the above title document on his own behalf. RMC Judge Nash Holmes, in
conjunction with materials provided to Hon. RMC Judge William Gardner by his sister, Hon. WDC
Judge Linda Gardner has request the State Bar of Nevada to perform a competency evaluation or
disability petition of some sort, utilizing copies of motions submitted by the undersigned in the
instant case. As such, a continuance is appropriate pending the outcome of that State Bar inquiry,
and further, preserved for appeal here, a respectfill request is made that this Honorable Court
- I -
Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Su.nnress, Motion for Continuance
00194
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
consider ?hether a recusal might >e in order given the 1amilial relationshi= it has ?ith a Audge ?hose
!rder 1or 2anctions ?as su>mitted to Bar Counsel 1or consternation, liCel0, >0 ?a0 o1 this 4onora>le
CourtDs delivering it to @udge Nash 4olmes, and she deliver0ing it to Bar Counsel.
LE!AL AR!UMENT
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Motion to
Suppress, and Motion for Continuance
Introduction
The defendant, Zach Coughlin ("Coughlin") is charged with criminal trespass under
the Reno Municipal Code (RMC) 8.1.1 . The factual allegations in the complaint are
insufficient to support such a charge, as such this matter should !e dismissed.
A" T#e Compa$int fai$s to esta%$is# pro%a%$e ause %eause it fai$s to a$$e&e t#at t#ere 'as
suffiient ('arnin&( not to remain at t#e propert) after %ein& to$* not to *o so an* or t#at
Cou&#$in *i* not #a+e a ri&#t to %e t#ere"
*he summar0 eviction order ?as not a==ro=riatel0 served under N%C #, ?hich is e-=ressl0
made a==lica>le to civil landlord tenant eviction matters, commercial or residential, in N%2 4).4)):
N%2 4).4)): %ules o1 =ractice. *he =rovisions o1 N%2, Nevada %ules o1 Civil
rocedure and Nevada %ules o1 /==ellate rocedure relative to civil actions,
a==eals and ne? trials, so 1ar as the0 are not inconsistent ?ith the =rovisions o1
N%2 4)...) to 4).4.), inclusive, a==l0 to the =roceedings mentioned in those
sections.
,urther, there e-ists a ?ealth o1 =recedent in su==ort o1 the =osition that an eviction is not a
E?arningE su11icient to su==ort a criminal tres=ass charge. ,urther, 9ashoe Count0 2heri11Ds !11ice
2u=ervisor 7iB 2tuchell has admitted in ?riting that 9C2! De=ut0 5achem signed his a11idavit o1
service, attesting that he =ersonall0 served Coughlin the 2ummar0 Eviction !rder, ?hen in 1act he
onl0 allegedl0 =laced a co=0 o1 it on the door o1 the la? o11ice. /s such, an0 locCout occurring on
+ . +
Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Suppress, Motion for Continuane
00195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Novem>er $, .)$$ as done =rior to the constructive service required >0 N%C #Fe< >eing e11ectuated,
and ?as a ?rong1ul locCout. ,urther, the 1act that, the %eno @ustice Court ?as still holding on to
some G.,.7( o1 CoughlinDs mone0, ?hen N%2 $$'/.3'( =rovides that Coughlin, as a tenant ?hose
rent ?as less than G$,))), should get a sta0 o1 eviction u=on de=ositing a mere G.() ?ith the %@C.
4ere, nearl0 ten times that amount ?as, at 1irst, im=ro=erl0 required as a Erent escro?E de=ositing,
des=ite the 1act that @C%C '4 and N%2 4)..(3F#< 1or>ids the %@C 1rom so doing a>sent the %@C
=u>lishing and getting a==roved a corollar0 to @C%7& 44, ?hich does =rovide 1or such rent escro?
de=osits in the conte-t o1 a summar0 eviction =roceeding. 9C2! 2tuchell has admitted in ?riting
that 5achem and her o11ice inter=ret the legal =hrase E=ersonall0 servedE to >e something other than
giving the =erson to >e served the documents ?hile that =erson is in the =resence o1 the =rocess
server. *his is contrar0 to longstanding =recedent in legal circles.
%ichard ;. 4ill, Esq. liCes to argue that 3 ?as EservedE in com=liance ?ith all time related rules >ecause it ?as
done in the Eusual custom and =ractice o1 the 9C2!. 9hat, e-actl0, is the Eusual custom and =ractice o1 the 9C2!H 3
hear a lot a>out this E?ithin .4 hoursE stu11.
*his ?hole >usiness a>out I*he court ma0 thereu=on issue an order directing the sheri11 or consta>le o1 the
count0 to remove the tenant ?ithin .4 hours a1ter recei=t o1 the order...J is ina==lica>le to this situation, ?here an !rder
;ranting 2ummar0 Eviction ?as signed >0 !cto>er .7th, .)$$. *hat language is onl0 1ound in situations ina==lica>le to
the current one. N%2 4)..(3F3<F><F.<, and N%2 4)..(3F(<Fa< are the onl0 sections o1 N%2 4) ?here this I?ithin .4
hoursJ language occurs, and those situations onl0 a==l0 ?here, in:
4)..(3F3<F><F.<: I 3. / notice served =ursuant to su>section $ or . must: ...F>< /dvise the tenant: K. F.< *hat i1 the court
determines that the tenant is guilt0 o1 an unla?1ul detainer, the court ma0 issue a summar0 order 1or removal o1 the tenant
or an order =roviding 1or the nonadmittance o1 the tenant, directing the sheri11 or consta>le o1 the count0 to remove the
tenant ?ithin .4 hours a1ter recei=t o1 the orderJ
and,
4)..(3F(<Fa<: I(. 6=on noncom=liance ?ith the notice: Fa< *he landlord or the landlordLs agent ma0 a==l0 >0 a11idavit o1
com=laint 1or eviction to the Austice court o1 the to?nshi= in ?hich the d?elling, a=artment, mo>ile home or commercial
=remises are located or to the district court o1 the count0 in ?hich the d?elling, a=artment, mo>ile home or commercial
=remises are located, ?hichever has Aurisdiction over the matter. *he court ma0 thereu=on issue an order directing the
sheri11 or consta>le o1 the count0 to remove the tenant ?ithin .4 hours a1ter recei=t o1 the order.J
+ 3 +
00196
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
*he ?a0 these summar0 eviction =roceedings are >eing carried out in %eno @ustice Court =resentl0 shocCs the conscience
and violates Nevada la?. *here is not >asis 1or e11ectuating a locCout the ?a0 9C2!Ds De=ut0 5achem did in this case.
*he a>ove t?o sections containing the I?ithin .4 hours o1 recei=tJ language are ina==lica>le, as those situations do not
invoCe the =resent circumstances, ?here the *enant did 1ile an /11idavit and did contest this matter. ,urther, as the
/nvui case sho?s, ?here it ?as dis=uted ?hether the 7ease /greement had EterminatedE or Eautomaticall0 rene?edE
there is su==ort 1or the =osition that a ( da0 sta0 =eriod is required >0 la?.
*o require NevadaDs tenants to get u= and get out I?ithin .4 hoursJ o1 Irecei=t o1 the orderJ F?hat does that
even meanH *he use o1 terms liCe IrenditionJ, IrenderedJ, Inotice o1 entr0J, I=ronouncedJ, is a>sent here, and this
Irecei=t o1 the orderJ language is something rarel0 1ound else?here in Nevada la?+see attached D5& statutor0 citations,
and in em=lo0ment la? litigations ?here one must 1ile a Com=laint ?ithin 9) da0s o1 Irecei=tJ o1 a %ight *o 2ue 7etter,
a situation ?hich 1ollo?s N%C (F><, and N%C #Fe< in im=uting recei=t o1 such a letter, ?hen actual recei=t is not
sho?n, >0 a==l0ing a Iconstructive noticeJ standard that relies u=on the da0s 1or mailing e-tension o1 time 1or items
served in the mailing, etc.<. ,or the saCe o1 analog0, in />raham v. 9oods 4ole !ceanogra=hic 3nstitute, ((3 ,.3d $$4
F$st Cir. .))9<, the record did not re1lect ?hen the =lainti11 received his right+to+sue letter. *he letter ?as issued on
Novem>er .4, .))#. *he court calculated that the 9)+da0 =eriod commenced on Novem>er 3), .))#, >ased on three da0s
1or mailing a1ter e-cluding 2aturda0s and 2unda0s. 3n order to >ring a claim under either *itle &33 or the /D/, a =lainti11
must e-haust administrative remedies and sue ?ithin 9) da0s o1 recei=t o1 a right to sue letter. 2ee 4. 6.2.C. M .)))e+(F1<
F$<. 2ee Bald?in Count0 9elcome Center v. Bro?n, 4## 6.2. $47, $4' n.$, $)4 2.Ct. $7.3, ') 7.Ed..d $9# F$9'4<
Fgranting =lainti11 an additional three da0s 1or mailing =ursuant to %ule #<....J ...
hoe Count0 2heri11Ds !11ice,
*hese state s=onsored locCouts under color o1 state la? should not >e >eing done so 1ast, unless the 9C2!
E=ersonall0 serveE the tenant, 3 1eel the la? is quite clear, 0ou have to e11ect Esu>stituted serviceE ?hich, under N%C
#Fa< and N%C #Fe< and N%C (F><F.< Fand N%C, not @C%C is a==lica>le to eviction matters according to N%2 $$'/<
the tenant cannot >e deemed to have received or constructivel0 received the !rder until the 3 da0s 1or mailing has =assed.
ersonal service >0 =rocess server: =ersonal service is service o1 =rocess directl0 to the For a< =art0 named on the
summons, com=laint or =etition.
/nd even i1 something indicates Coughlin ECne?E a>out the !rder, much liCe in the case o1 CoughlinDs that ?as
dismissed ?here the 9ashoe Count0 2heri11Ds didnDt manage to get the E=ersonal serviceE o1 the 2ummons and Com=laint
+ 4 +
00197
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
done in time, or Esu11icientl0E, o==osing counsel in that matter could tell 0ou that Eactual noticeE is not a su>stitute 1or
com=liance ?ith the service requirements.
9hich is 1ortunate in that those liCe 4ill, ?ouldnDt have such an o==ortunit0 to game the s0stem and s?oo= in
?ith locCout then assert an argument >ased u=on N%2 $$'/.4#) Ereasona>le storage, moving, and inventor0ing
e-=ensesE su>Aecting the tenantDs =ersonal =ro=ert0 to a lien. %ichard ;. 4ill insisted on thro?ing a?a0 the last thing
CoughlinDs >eloved grandmother gave me >e1ore she died . 0ears ago in the to?n dum=. 4e and his contractor lied a>out
so man0 things, including the 1act that the0 used CoughlinDs o?n d =l0?ood to >oard u= the >acC =orch o1 the =ro=ert0,
then su>mitted a >ill to the court in an e-hi>it 1or G$,)#) 1or EsecuringE the =ro=ert0 F?hich doesnDt reall0 a==l0 to N%2
$$'/.4#)Ds Ereasona>le storage moving and inventor0ing e-=ensesE liCe it is required to...1urther, 4ill charged Coughlin
G9)) a month 1or storage and sent Coughlin a >ill 1or such =rior to CoughlinDs arrest 1or tres=assing at the $.$ %iver %ocC
location. /dditionall0, 4ill has admitted on video ta=e that he su>mitted a >ill to Coughlin, =rior to the tres=assing arrest,
?herein 4ill =ur=orts to charge Coughlin the same G9)) 1or EstorageE on a monthl0 >asis that the landlord had =reviousl0
charged 1or the 1ull use and occu=anc0 o1 the d?elling... ,urther, even i1 4illDs charge ?ere 1or storage situations, there
are sections o1 N%2 $$'/ devoted to evicting someone 1rom a storage 1acilit0, not arresting them 1or tres=ass, and
certainl0 not conducting a custodial. 3n the videos that ?ere =ro=ounded >0 the %eno Cit0 /ttorne0 and taCen >0 4ill
%D !11icer Carter and 2argent 7o=eB admit the0 never issued a ?arning to me or asCed me to leave =rior to conducting
a custodial arrest F?hich required G')) o1 >ail and 3 da0s in Aail, no less<. D,urther, in a su>sequent video ta=ed intervie?
o1 %D 2argent 7o=eB, she admits that neither she nor !11icer Carter announced ?ho the0 ?ere =rior to the door >eing
CicCed in >0, allegedl0, Dr. 5erliss. *his is in marCed contrast to !11icer CarterDs ?ritten Narrative, ?herein on =age 3
o1 3 he ?rites E2gt 7o=eB and 3 CnocCed ont he >asement door and announced loudl0 E%eno oliceE and called out 1or
Zachar0 to o=en the door. 9e ?ere met ?ith no res=onse. 5atthe? decided he ?oudl CicC the door o=en, and did so. 3
entered the door?a0 o1 the >asement and 1ound Zachar0 standing...E. !11icer Carter goes on to ?rite Fseemingl0
=roviding a legal o=inion< E3 tried to e-=lain to HZachar0 that he ?as served eviction =a=ers and he asCed....E. !11icer
Carter seems to >ase his arrest u=on his legal o=inion as to ?hat EserviceE o1 these Eeviction =a=ersE required. *he
videos shot >0 4ill do reveal Coughlin asCing !11icer Carter and 2argent 7o=eB ?h0 a ?arning or citation ?as not issued
rather than a custodial arrest. 2uch statements maCe less =lausi>le !11icer CarterDs ?ritten Narratives assertion on =age 3
that EDue to Zachar0 not >elieving he has done an0thing ?rong that the 1act he >elieves he still has standing there is
reasona>le grounds to >elieve Zachar0 ?ill return to the house. *here1ore he did not quali10 1or a misdemeanor citation.E
+ ( +
00198
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
4illDs associate BaCerDs =re=ared the 2ummar0 Eviction !rder, ?hich read E>ut the G.,.7( ?onDt >e released to
the neurosurgeon 0et, Einstead that sum shall serve as securit0 1or CoughlinDs cost on a==eal, =ursuant to Nevada @C%C
73...E. But ?ait, doesnDt that mean Coughlin then gets a 2ta0 o1 Eviction during the =endenc0 o1 the /==ealH 3sntD that ?as
a securit0 that large must >e 1orH Because the E/==eal BondE is set >0 statute at onl0 a mere G.()....so holding on to $)
times that much o1 CoughlinDs cash must have >een 1or the E2u=ersedeas BondE mentioned a 0ielding one a 2ta0 o1
Eviction in N%2 4).3') and 4).3'(.
*hose N%2 sections 1orce the landlord, his attorne0s and the %@C to choose >et?een vie?ing Coughlin as a
residential tenant ?hose rent is less than G$,))), and ?hom there1ore is onl0 required to =ost a measl0 su=ersedeas >ond
o1 G.() Fand remem>er, a su=ersedeas >ond equals a sta0 o1 eviction equals not tres=assing< or the the other choice is to
vie? Coughlin as a commercial tenant, ?hich ?ould allo? charging a higher su=ersedeas >ond Fe-ce=t 1or that =esC0 =art
a>out his rent >eing under the G$,))) required >0 the statute to do so, his rent >eing onl0 G9))<, e-ce=t, %ichard ;. 4ill,
Esq. and Case0 BaCer, Esq. elected to =ursue this summar0 eviction =roceeding under a No Cause Eviction Notice, ?hich
is not allo?ed against a commercial tenant Fie, 0ou canDt evict a commercial tenant using the summar0 eviction
=rocedures set 1orth in N%2 4)..(3 unless 0ou alllege non =a0ment o1 rent and serve a 3) Da0 Non a0ment o1 %ent
Notice *o Nuit.
olice %es=onse in 3llegal Eviction and !ther *ennantO7andlord 2ituations *he ,ollo?ing Document is E-cer=ted ,rom:
&E%5!N* 2*/*E !73CE *%/3N3N; B677E*3N N65BE% + 93+$ %67E2 P %E;67/*3!N2 !E%/*3!N/7
!73C3E2P %!CED6%E2 *%/3N3N; B677E*3N N65BE% + 93+$ 7/ND7!%DO*EN/N* 7/9 +9 &.2./.
M44($+ M44#' 2ummar0 *he 6.2. 2u=reme Court has recentl0 ruled that the =resence o1 la? en1orcement o11icers,
together ?ith their inaction during an illegal eviction violated the ,ourth /mendmentLs =rohi>ition against unreasona>le
seiBures and ma0 lead to lia>ilit0 under 1ederal civil rights la?. that is the motion to su==ress all the ?itness statements
and =olice re=orts here and an0 other materials gathered. 3n this case, la? en1orcement o11icers ?ho ?ere =resent at an
eviction at the request o1 the landlord, re1used to taCe the tenantLs com=laint 1or criminal tres=ass or other?ise inter1ere
?ith the eviction. *he o11icers in1ormed the tenant that Iit ?as >et?een the landlord and the tenantJ. 2oldal v. CooC
Count0, 3llinois, 6.2. 2u=reme Court, #$ 79 4)$9 F$993<. 3n maCing the ruling, the 2u=reme Court e-=ressed con1idence
that I=olice ?ill not o1ten choose to 1urther an enter=rise Cno?ing that it is contrar0 to state la?.J No?, it is more
im=ortant than ever, that o11icers res=onding to landlordOtenant dis=utes have a >asic understanding o1 the state la? ?hich
controls this relationshi=. *he 1ollo?ing guidelines should >e used ?hen res=onding to landlordOtenant com=laints. /
num>er o1 reoccurring questions arise ?hich surround the issue o1 landlordOtenantsL rights and =olice duties. ,requentl0
the landlord or the tenant ?ill call a =olice agenc0 during a dis=ute and 0ou are then =ut in the unenvia>le =osition o1
determining ?hat course o1 action, i1 an0, to 1ollo?. *he rights and res=onsi>ilities o1 landlords and tenants are
s=eci1icall0 set out in &ermont statutes: there1ore violation o1 these statutes ma0 result in criminal violations o1 *itle $3.
5erel0 >ecause it is a IlandlordOtenant dis=uteJ does not al?a0s mean that it is a Icivil matterL and that 0ou should not
>ecome involved. 3n 1act, 1ailure to act ma0 result in civil lia>ilit0. Evictions &ermont la? =rohi>its a landlord, under an0
circumstances, 1rom entering an a=artment and evicting the tenant. 9 &.2./. 44#' states that i1 a tenant remains in
=ossession o1 an a=artment against the ?ishes o1 the landlord, the landlord must >ring an action 1or a ?rit o1 =ossession
under $. &.2./. Cha=ter $#9, M 4'($+4'(#. !nce a ?rit o1 =ossession is granted to the landlord, $. &.2./. M4'(4
mandates that Ithe ?rit shall direct the sheri11 o1 the count0 in ?hich the =ro=ert0 or a =ortion thereo1 is located to serve
the ?rit u=on the de1endant and, no sooner than 1ive da0s a1ter the ?rit is served, to =ut the =lainti11 into =ossession.J
6nder this =rocedure, a landlord ma0 not enter an a=artment and move a tenant out. /n eviction must =roceed through the
court s0stem and the ?rit allo?ing 1or eviction must >e served >0 the sheri11: 1urthermore, the tenant must >e actuall0
+ # +
00199
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
moved out o1 the a=artment >0 the sheri11. />andonment *he onl0 e-ce=tion allo?ing 1or the landlord to enter the
a=artment ?ithout going through the =rocedure outlined a>ove occurs ?hen the a=artment has >een Ia>andonedJ >0 the
tenant. &.2./. M44#.Fa< states that a tenant has a>andoned a d?elling unit i1: Q *here are circumstances ?hich ?ould lead
a reasona>le =erson to >elieve that the d?elling unit is no longer occu=ied as a 1ull+time residence: Q %ent is not current:
and Q *he landlord has made reasona>le e11orts to ascertain the tenantLs intentions. %ule o1 *hum> 31 the sheri11 is not
=artici=ating in the eviction, it is most liCel0 an illegal eviction, a violation o1 *itle $3 and 0ou should not allo? it to
=roceed. 31 a landlord, ?ithout the assistance o1 a sheri11, enters an a=artment in order to evict a tenant, the landlord is in
violation o1 $3 &.2./., M37)(Fd<, unla?1ul tres=ass. 2uggested Course o1 /ction ,reeBe the scene, maintain the Istatus
quoJ, do not allo? the landlord to remove an0 =ro=ert0 or to enter the tenantLs a=artment. E-=lain the requirements
necessar0 1or an eviction to the landlord and re1er >oth the landlord and the tenant to the a==ro=riate re1errals contained in
the 2u==ort 2ervices Director0. 31 this is not an IinnocentJ mistaCe on the =art o1 the landlord, issue a citation. 31 the
landlord =ersists contrar0 to 0our directions, maCe an arrest. I7ocC !utJ o1 the *enant 3n addition to the =rohi>ition o1 an
actual eviction >0 the landlord, unless the ste=s noted a>ove have >een taCen, &ermont la? also =revents a landlord 1rom
turning o11 utilit0 services to an a=artment or =adlocCing or changing the locC to an a=artment in order to =revent a tenant
1rom entering the a=artment or gaining access to their =ro=ert0. 9 &.2./. M44#3 states as 1ollo?s: Fa< No landlord ma0
?ill1ull0 cause, directl0 or indirectl0, the interru=tion or termination o1 an0 utilit0 service >eing su==lied to the tenant,
e-ce=t 1or tem=orar0 interru=tions 1or emergenc0 re=airs. F>< No landlord ma0 directl0 or indirectl0 den0 a tenant access
to and =ossession o1 the tenantLs rented or leased =remises, e-ce=t through =ro=er Audicial =rocess. Fc< No landlord ma0
directl0 or indirectl0 den0 a tenant access to and =ossession o1 the tenantLs =ro=ert0, e-ce=t through =ro=er Audicial
=rocess. %ule o1 *hum> Q Because it is illegal 1or a landlord to IlocC outJ a tenant ?ithout Audicial authoriBation, a tenant
?ho is required to use reasona>le 1orce to re+enter the a=artment has not committed a crime under *itle $3. 2uggested
Course o1 /ction Q ,reeBe the scene, e-=lain the =rohi>itions o1 2ec. M44#3 to the landlord: i1 the landlord does not relent
and allo? the tenant to enter the a=artment, then 0our dut0 is to maintain the =eace and allo? the tenant to gain entr0 to
the a=artment. Entr0 >0 the 7andlord in a Non+Emergenc0 2ituation 9 &.2./. M44#) states as 1ollo?s: Fa< / landlord ma0
enter the d?elling unit ?ith the tenantLs consent, ?hich shall not >e unreasona>l0 ?ithheld. F>< / landlord ma0 also enter
the d?elling unit 1or the 1ollo?ing =ur=oses >et?een the hours o1 9:)) /.5. and 9:)) .5. on no less than 4' hoursL
notice: F$< ?hen necessar0 to ins=ect the =remises: F.< to maCe necessar0 or agreed re=airs, alterations or im=rovements:
F3< to su==l0 agreed services: or F4< to e-hi>it the d?elling unit to =ros=ective or actual =urchasers, mortgagees, tenants,
?orCers or contractors. Fc< / landlord ma0 onl0 enter the d?elling unit ?ithout consent or notice ?hen the landlord has a
reasona>le >elie1 that there is imminent danger to an0 =erson or to =ro=ert0. %ule o1 *hum> Q Because a landlord ma0
not, ?ithout the consent o1 a tenant, enter an a=artment e-ce=t as outlined a>ove, an entr0 in violation o1 this section
meets the criteria 1or violation o1 $3 &.2./. M37)(Fd< + 6nla?1ul *res=ass. 2uggested Course o1 /ction Q 3n res=onse to a
tres=ass com=laint 1rom a tenant, =roceed in the same manner as an0 other criminal com=laint. 3ntervie? the com=lainant
and the accused and re1er the case to 0our 2tateLs /ttorne0 1or =rosecution. *he1t or Destruction o1 the %ental ro=ert0 >0
the *enant 9 &.2./. M44(#Fc< states: *he tenant shall not deli>eratel0 or negligentl0 destro0, de1ace, damage, or remove
an0 =art o1 the =remises or its 1i-tures, mechanical s0stems or 1urnishings, or deli>eratel0 or negligentl0 =ermit an0
=erson to do so. /lthough a securit0 de=osit ma0 >e used to o11set the loss o1 the =ro=ert0 to the landlord, intentional
destruction o1 =ro=ert0 or removal o1 =ro=ert0 >0 the tenant is not necessaril0 a Icivil matterJ. 3ntentional destruction o1
rental =ro=ert0 meets the criteria 1or violation o1 $3 &.2./, M37)$ + 6nla?1ul 5ischie1. F=ro=ert0 is de1ined under this
section as >oth real and =ersonal =ro=ert0. 2ec. 37) $Fe<.< %emoving 1i-tures or 1urnishings 1rom the a=artment ?ith the
intent to =ermanentl0 de=rive the o?ner o1 =ossession meets the criteria 1or a violation o1 $3 &.2./. M.()$ or M.(). +
7arcen0.
N%2 4).3') rovisions governing a==eals. Either =art0 ma0, ?ithin $) da0s, a==eal 1rom
the Audgment rendered. But an a==eal >0 the de1endant shall not sta0 the e-ecution o1 the
Audgment, unless, ?ithin the $) da0s, the de1endant shall e-ecute and 1ile ?ith the court or
Austice the de1endantLs undertaCing to the =lainti11, ?ith t?o or more sureties, in an amount to
>e 1i-ed >0 the court or Austice, >ut ?hich shall not >e less than t?ice the amount o1 the
Audgment and costs, to the e11ect that, i1 the Audgment a==ealed 1rom >e a11irmed or the a==eal
>e dismissed, the a==ellant ?ill =a0 the Audgment and the cost o1 a==eal, the value o1 the use
and occu=ation o1 the =ro=ert0, and damages Austl0 accruing to the =lainti11 during the
=endenc0 o1 the a==eal. 6pon ta,in& t#e appea$ an* fi$in& t#e un*erta,in&, a$$ furt#er
proee*in&s in t#e ase s#a$$ %e sta)e*"
N%2 4).3'( 2ta0 o1 e-ecution u=on a==eal: dut0 o1 tenant ?ho retains =ossession o1 =remises
to =a0 rent during sta0. 6=on an a==eal 1rom an order entered =ursuant to N%2 4)..(3:
+ 7 +
00200
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
$. E-ce=t as other?ise =rovided in this su>section, a sta0 o1 e-ecution ma0 >e o>tained >0
1iling ?ith the trial court a >ond in the amount o1 G.() to cover the e-=ected costs on a==eal. /
suret0 u=on the >ond su>mits to the Aurisdiction o1 the a==ellate court and irrevoca>l0 a==oints
the clerC o1 that court as the suret0Ls agent u=on ?hom =a=ers a11ecting the suret0Ls lia>ilit0
u=on the >ond ma0 >e served. 7ia>ilit0 o1 a suret0 ma0 >e en1orced, or the >ond ma0 >e
released, on motion in the a==ellate court ?ithout inde=endent action. / tenant o1 commercial
=ro=ert0 ma0 o>tain a sta0 o1 e-ecution onl0 u=on the issuance o1 a sta0 =ursuant to %ule ' o1
the Nevada %ules o1 /==ellate rocedure and the =osting o1 a su=ersedeas >ond in the amount
o1 $)) =ercent o1 the un=aid rent claim o1 the landlord.
.. / tenant ?ho retains =ossession o1 the =remises that are the su>Aect o1 the a==eal during the
=endenc0 o1 the a==eal shall =a0 to the landlord rent in the amount =rovided in the underl0ing
contract >et?een the tenant and the landlord as it >ecomes due. 31 the tenant 1ails to =a0 such
rent, the landlord ma0 initiate ne? =roceedings 1or a summar0 eviction >0 serving the tenant
?ith a ne? notice =ursuant to N%2 4)..(3.
N%2 4).4)) %ules o1 =ractice. *he =rovisions o1 N%2, Nevada %ules o1 Civil rocedure and
Nevada %ules o1 /==ellate rocedure relative to civil actions, a==eals and ne? trials, so 1ar as
the0 are not inconsistent ?ith the =rovisions o1 N%2 4)...) to 4).4.), inclusive, a==l0 to the
=roceedings mentioned in those sections.
*he language in N%2 4) a>out ho? the 2heri11 ma0 Eremove tenant 1rom the =ro=ert0 ?ithin .4 hours o1 recei=t
o1 the !rderE does not a==l0 ?here the *enant 1iled a *enantDs /ns?er and sho?ed u= to the 4earing and litigated the
matter. Es=eciall0 ?here, as here the lease had not terminated, >0 its terms, >ut ?as rather rene?ed. *his is =articularl0
true ?here N%2 $$'/ =revents so terminating a holdover tenantDs lease 1or a retaliator0 or discriminator0 =ur=ose.
N%C 4: EFd< 2ummons: ersonal 2ervice. *he summons and com=laint shall >e served together. *he =lainti11
shall 1urnish the =erson maCing service ?ith such co=ies as are necessar0. 2ervice shall >e made >0 delivering a co=0 o1
the summons attached to a co=0 o1 the com=laint as 1ollo?s:...F#< 2ervice 6=on 3ndividuals. 3n all other cases to the
de1endant =ersonall0, or >0 leaving co=ies thereo1 at the de1endantLs d?elling house or usual =lace o1 a>ode ?ith some
=erson o1 suita>le age and discretion then residing therein, or >0 delivering a co=0 o1 the summons and com=laint to an
agent authoriBed >0 a==ointment or >0 la? to receive service o1 =rocess. R/s amended: e11ective @anuar0 $, .))(.S Fe<
2u>Aect: %E: 9C2! De=ut0 5achemDs E=ersonall0 servedE /11idavit o1 $$O$O.)$$
Belo? is a true and accurate re=roduction 1o the email 1rom 9C2! 2u=ervisor 7iB 2tuchell clari10ing ?hat E=ersonall0
servedE means to here and 9C2! De=ut0 5achem in his /11idavit o1 2ervice o1 the 2ummar0 Eviction !rder:
Date: *ue, 7 ,e> .)$. $$:4):39 +)'))
,rom: 72tuchellT?ashoecount0.us *o: BachcoughlinThotmail.com
CC: mCandarasTda.?ashoecount0.us
5r. Coughlin,
!ur records indicate that the eviction conducted on that da0 ?as =ersonall0 served >0 De=ut0 5achen >0 =osting a co=0
o1 the !rder to the residence. *he residence ?as unoccu=ied at the time.
7iB 2tuchell, 2u=ervisor
9C2! Civil 2ection
+ ' +
00201
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,urther, the la? in our 2tate does not seem e-ce=tionall0 clear ?ith regard to the service and
=rocess requirements and timelines, and manner o1 calculating time ?ith res=ect to the Erecei=tE o1
7ocCout !rders. *he /11idavit o1 2ervice >0 5achen states that he E=ersonall0 served the descri>ed
documents u=onE m0, Zach Coughlin...4o?ever, 3 can attest >0 /11idavit that 3 ?as not E=ersonall0
servedE to the e-tent that E=ersonall0 servedE means or im=lies that 3 ?as there, that 5achen sa? me
or identi1ied me, or an0 o1 the other indicators o1 something, such as a Com=laint, >eing E=ersonall0
servedE such as 3 understand the =hrase to me. N%C (F><F.<F/<Fi+iii<. ,urther, as BaCer and 4ill
have so o1ten =ointed out, 3 cannot, according to them, receive an0 attorne0Ds 1ee a?ard 1or a==earing
as =ro se attorne0, as such, N%C (F><F.<F/<Fi+iii<, should a==l0 to me onl0 as a =art0, and not as a
=art0Ds attorne0, and, there1ore, according to N%C (, 2ervice: EF.< 2ervice under this rule is made
>0: F/< Delivering a co=0 to the attorne0 or the =art0 >0: Fi< handing it to the attorne0 or to the =art0:
Fii< leaving it at the attorne0Ls or =art0Ls o11ice ?ith a clerC or other =erson in charge, or i1 there is no
one in charge, leaving it in a cons=icuous =lace in the o11ice: or Fiii< i1 the o11ice is closed or the
=erson to >e served has no o11ice, leaving it at the person-s *'e$$in& #ouse or usua$ p$ae of a%o*e
'it# some person of suita%$e a&e an* *isretion resi*in& t#ere...E 2o, either it ?as m0 o11ice, in
?hich case a No Cause Eviction Notice maCes im=ermissi>le a 2ummar0 Eviction roceeding under
N%2 4)..(3, and there1ore, the !rder o1 2ummar0 Eviction is void 1or lacC o1 Aurisdiction, or, the
/11idavit o1 2ervice ?as on m0 home, and ?as not EhandedE to me, or E=ersonall0 servedE Fdes=ite
the /11idavit attesting to having E=ersonall0 servedE me<, nor ?as the !rder o1 2ummar0 Eviction
served in accordance ?ith N%C (F><F.<F/<Fiii<, ?hich requires: Ei1 the o11ice is closed or the =erson
to >e served has no o11ice, leaving it at the person-s *'e$$in& #ouse or usua$ p$ae of a%o*e 'it#
some person of suita%$e a&e an* *isretion resi*in& t#ere..E
,urther, 3 >elieve =osting an !rder on oneDs residence door, =articularl0 in the conte-t o1
+ 9 +
00202
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
serving a No Cause Notice o1 Eviction or 6nla?1ul Detainer, is onl0 valid i1 the document >eing
served is also =laced in the mail and 3 non Audicial da0s are accorded 1or service to >e com=lete. 2ee
N%C #Fe<. 3 do not >elieve the0 can =rove that at all, not even close.
3nterestingl0, the signor o1 the Criminal Com=laint here, 4ill, Cno?s his case is trou>led under N%C (F><F.<F/<Fi+
iii<, N%C #Fe<, in addition to N%C $$. *hat is ?h0 in %ichard 4illDs Novem>er .$, .)$$ 5otion 1or !rder *o 2ho?
Cause, on =age ., 4ills resorts to literall0 gras=ing at stra?s, imagining that ?hat the 9ashoe Count0 2heri11Ds !11ice
customaril0 does is someho? automaticall0 codi1ied into mandator0 =recedent >lacC letter la?. *o ?it, %ichard 4ill
?rote in his 5otion ,or !rder *o 2ho? Cause that: I,/C*2 24!93N; C!N*E5* !, C!6%* #. E"43B3* $ ?as
served on Coughlin on Novem>er E .)$$ >0 the 9ashoe Count0 2heri11s De=artment, >0 =osting same on the 1ront door
o1 the =ro=ert0 in the manner customar0 1or evictions in 9ashoe Count0. *he locCs to the =remises ?ere changed at that
time, there>0 eAecting and dis=ossessing Coughlin o1 =ossession o1 the ro=ert0.J
/. re+*rial 3ne11ective /ssistance o1 Counsel Claims
De1endant here>0 claims >e1ore trial that all three o1 the %5C a==ointed de1ense counsel
rendered ine11ective assistance o1 counsel, the trial court must, >e1ore trial, conduct an inquir0
su11icient to determine the truth and sco=e o1 the de1endantLs allegations. !n =ost+conviction revie?,
i1 no =retrial 1indings ?ere made, the government must =rove >0 clear and convincing evidence that
the de1endant ?as accorded re=resentation at trial >0 counsel ?ho ?as =re=ared ?ithin the requisite
range o1 com=etence. /nders v. Cali1ornia, 3'# 6.2. 73', $' 7.Ed..d 493, '7 2.Ct. $39# F$9#7<, and
6nited 2tates v. Cronic, 4## 6.2. #4', ') 7.Ed..d #(7, $4) 2.Ct. .)39 F$9'4<. 2ee, lumlee v. Del
a=a, 4.#. ,.3d $)9(, $$)3 F9th Cir. .))(<. 3n cases ?hich Icounsel entirel0 1ails to su>Aect the
=rosecutionLs case to meaning1ul adversarial testing,J ine11ectiveness ?ill >e =resumed under Cronic.
CounselLs 1ailure to 1ile a motion to su==ress evidence can =rovide the >asis 1or a claim o1
ine11ectiveness, >ut in order to sho? =reAudice the de1endant must sho? that he ?ould have =revailed
on the su==ression motion, and that there is a reasona>le =ro>a>ilit0 that the success1ul motion ?ould
+ $) +
00203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
have a11ected the outcome. &an 3ran v. 7indse0, .$. ,.3d $$43, $$4( F9th Cir. .)))<. *aitel should
have never acce=ted this case in the 1irst =lace given a =atent con1lict. 7oomis and uentes 1latl0
re1used to 1ile essential motions and su>=oena material ?itnesses or other?ise conduct a meaning1ul
de1ense, in addition to re1using to maCe arguments 1ounded in 1act and la?, rather deeming them
E1rivolousE. Counsel 4as Constitutional Dut0 to 3nvestigate
ICounsel has a constitutional dut0 to maCe reasona>le investigations or to maCe reasona>le
decisions that maCe =articular investigation unnecessar0 .J 2tricCland v. 9ashington, 4## 6.2. #'',
#9$, ') 7.Ed..d #74, $)4 2.Ct. .)(. F$9'4<. *he 2i-th /mendment requires investigation and
=re=aration, not onl0 to e-onerate, >ut also to secure and =rotect the rights o1 the accused. such
constitutional rights are granted to the innocent and guilt0 aliCe, and 1ailure to investigate and 1ile
a==ro=riate motions is ine11ectiveness. Uimmelman v. 5orrison, 477 6.2. 3#(, 9$ 7.Ed..d 3)(, $)#
2.Ct. .(74 F$9'#<. 7oomis and uentes re1used to inquire as to ?hether 4ill et al has asserted a >ill
1or the 1ull rental value o1 the =ro=ert0 in lieu o1 storage costs.
Counsel has the constitutional and =ro1essional o>ligation to conduct an investigation into =otential
mitigating evidence. 31 counsel conducts an inadequate investigation Ithat 1act ?ould have no e11ect
on the de1icient conduct =rong o1 2tricCland >ecause counsel had alread0 demonstrated
ine11ectiveness >0 1ailing to thoroughl0 investigate the e-istence o1 mitigating 1actors.J 2ummerlin v.
2chriro, 4.7 ,.3d #.3 F9th Cir. .))(<.
AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS ./01"2/2
*he undersigned does here>0 a11irm that the =receding document does not contain the social
securit0 num>er o1 an0 =erson.
Dated at %eno, Nevada, this 4th da0 o1 @une, .)$.,
+ $$ +
00204
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
7/9 !,,3CE2 !, Zachar0 BarCer Coughlin
Counsel 1or the De1endant
B0:VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
+ $. +
00205
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 SER3ICE
ursuant to N%C (F><, 3 certi10 that 3 served a co=0 o1 the 1oregoing document u=on the
1ollo?ing =art0 >0 1a-ing, emailing, dro==ing o11 at their o11ice, and =lacing a true and correct co=0
o1 the 1oregoing document in the us mail addressed to:
Christo=her 4aBlett+2tevens, Esq.
%eno Cit0 /ttorne0Ds !11ice + Criminal Divison
.!. Bo- $9))
%eno , N& '9()(
hone Num>er: 77(+334+.)() ,a- num>er: 77(+334+.4.)
haBlett+stevenscTreno.gov
/ttorne0 1or Cit0 o1 %eno
Dated this 4th da0 o1 @une, .)$.,:
O2O Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, De1endant
Counsel 1or De1endant
+ $3 +
00206
1
2
3
4
5
6
.,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
28

INDEX TO EXffiBITS
I. Exhibit: not e eclualc des ite or
faJ eJ a serted in C O's Ma m's Affi vi erv m
November 7 2011 along wi mission from WCSO Civil Service Division Supervisor
iz Stuchell that Mathern only of Summary Evidion on tbe door ofthe
former home law office, rath "personally served' I a . ard Hill Esq's own Proof 0
rvice of Notice of Entry the Order for Summary Eviction showing a mailed on date of
ovember 1,2011 (and e RJC n,ever mailed a copy of that Rder ace ,ding the to Record on
ppeal in CVll03628) three (3) lPages. " !
.-Le #
(Po- !z::
-- - ' ..,
14
Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Sunpress, Motion for Continuance
00207
101

AELE Home Page --- Publications Menu --- Seminar Information

Cite as: 2009 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101
ISSN 1935-0007
Civil Liability Law Section J une 2009

Landlords, Tenants, and Police Civil Liability

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Landlords, Tenants, and Police Civil Liability
3. Resources

1. Introduction
The relationship between landlords and tenants is often a volatile one, with disputes
arising over a wide variety of issues, including money, the condition of the premises (and
whose fault any defects are), the presence of pets (authorized or not), landlord entry into
the rented premises, noise, the number of persons living in the apartment, lead paint, safety
hazards, crime and drug or gang activity on and near the premises, and of course, eviction
and tenant lockouts, both legal and illegal. On occasion, police officers are summoned to a
rented premises by either a landlord (or their agent) or a tenant (or both). Sometimes the
officers have arrived on the scene in response to a complaint by a third person about a noisy
or violent disturbance between landlord and tenant.
Disputes arising from the landlord-tenant relationship literally hit home, and can get
emotional, with the resolution sometimes determining whether the tenant will continue to
have a place to live or access to their possessions, or whether the landlord will receive the
rent which is the basis of his or her livelihood and the ability to pay for and maintain the
building. Frequently, officers are asked by one of the parties to take action, sometimes
without knowledge of the origin of the dispute or some of the essential facts.
This article takes a brief look at some of the cases in which police officers or agencies
faced possible civil liability for their response to such disputes. It does not pretend to
summarize landlord-tenant law, which may vary vastly between jurisdictions in its
particulars. At the conclusion, there are a few useful resources listed.
00208
102

2. Landlords, Tenants, and Police Civil Liability
The case of Soldal v. Cook County, Illinois, #91-6516, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) involved a
family that lived in a mobile home that they owned, which stood on rented land in a trailer
park. While formal eviction proceedings were pending, the owners of the land and their
agent proceeded to forcibly evict the tenants.
At the request of the landlords agent, deputies from the Sheriffs Department were
there at the eviction. The family claimed that the deputies knew that the eviction was illegal
and that there was no eviction order from a court, but that they refused to take their
complaint for criminal trespass or interfere with the eviction process. They allegedly told
the family that it was between the landlord and the tenant.
A state court judge in the pending eviction case ruled that the eviction was improper,
and the familys trailer, which was damaged during the incident, was taken back to the
park. The family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, claiming that the property owner and its
agent conspired with the deputies to carry out the unreasonable seizure and removal of
their mobile home, in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the seizure and removal of the mobile
home implicated the familys Fourth Amendment rights. A seizure of property, for
Fourth Amendment purposes, the Court noted, happens when there is any meaningful
interference with the owners possessory interests in that property. Property is protected
against such seizures being carried out unreasonably even when no privacy or liberty is
involved, and even when no search has been carried out.
The officers presence during the illegal eviction together with their inaction, could,
therefore, violate Fourth Amendment rights and lead to civil liability. Repossessions or
attachments of property, if they involve entering a home, intruding on the residents
privacy, or interfering with their liberty, also implicate the Fourth Amendment. The
Court rejected the argument that its ruling would lead to a new wave of litigation in
federal courts.
Many such seizures, the Court reasoned, would be found constitutional under a
reasonableness standard. The Court also stated that police will not often choose to
further an enterprise knowing that it is contrary to state law.
In a later case in which officers assisted a landlord in a dispute with a tenant, the court
found that they were not entitled to qualified immunity on a false arrest claim. In
Radvansky v. Olmsted Falls, #03-3798, 395 F.3d 291 (6
th
Cir. 2005), police arrested a man
00209
103

for burglary of a home. The arrestee had been living as a tenant at that residence, but had a
dispute with his landlord. The landlord had previously called the police department after
the tenant left for Florida for a period of time. He told police that the tenant owed him $100
in rent and that the tenant still had keys. The landlord was advised that he could simply
change the locks and lock the tenant out, which was incorrect under state law, which
required the use of legal process to evict a tenant.
When the tenant returned, and found a note indicating that the locks had been changed,
he broke in for the purpose of retrieving some of his property, including his guns. Officers
placed him under arrest, despite his possession of the note, which allegedly made it clear
that he was a tenant at the house and had been locked out by the landlord over a rent
dispute. The officers found his driver's license, which gave the house as his residence, and
one of the officers ran his social security number and a dispatcher responded with the
house's address as the arrestee's residence. The officers allegedly refused to look at the
landlord's note, which the arrestee claimed made it clear that he was a renter at the home.
The burglary charges were later dropped after the arrestee entered an agreement to pay
the landlord $400 in restitution. He then sued the officers for violation of civil rights and
false arrest.
A federal appeals court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact that
would permit a reasonable jury to find that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest the
plaintiff for burglary. Under the terms of a rental agreement, a tenant is entitled to entry and
use of the premises, and cannot be a trespasser, a necessary element of burglary.
State law expressly forbids self-help evictions of tenants by landlords. His tenancy
was therefore only ended if he had vacated the apartment of his own accord, abandoning
the tenancy. In this case, the evidence showed, viewed in the most favorable light, that the
plaintiff had paid most of the rent for that month, and was using the residence at that time to
house his personal possessions, clothing and furniture, making him a current tenant with
the right to enter and occupy the premises, who could not, therefore, be found liable for
either criminal trespass or burglary.
In this case, a reasonable jury could find that the officers relied solely on the landlord's
representations concerning the plaintiff and his status as a burglar, and ignored
substantial exculpatory evidence, including their own prior knowledge of the existence of a
dispute between the tenant and landlord, and his valid driver's license giving the house as
his address.
Following a trial, however, a jury resolved the factual disputes in favor of the officers,
determining that they had probable cause for the arrest after all. The appeals court upheld
00210
104

that result on further appeal. Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, #06-3357, 496 F.3
rd
609
(6
th
Cir. 2007). While the officers ultimately prevailed, it was not until after a complicated
litigation process.
There may be emergency circumstances where the law authorizes the removal of a
tenant from premises without the usual court-based eviction process. In one such case, the
court ruled that city code enforcement officers were not liable for federal civil rights
violations for evicting two elderly residents from their home without a pre-eviction
hearing. The officers had the legal authority to issue emergency vacate orders, and had
grounds to do so in light of the residents keeping 33 dogs and four birds in the two bedroom
house, which was allegedly in an unsanitary condition. Sell v. City of Columbus,
#03-4654, 127 Fed. Appx. 754 (Unpub. 6th Cir. 2005).
Other surrounding circumstances may also have an impact on the reasonableness of an
officers actions in a landlord-tenant dispute. In White v. City of Markham, #01-2034, 310
F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2002), the court reasoned that even if an officer seized a tenant in
ordering him to vacate his home upon threat of arrest after a landlord told the officer that he
wanted the individual removed, the seizure was reasonable under circumstances where the
tenant had no written lease and did not pay rent, the house was under construction at the
time, and the level of the dispute between the landlord and tenant was serious enough that
the tenant had called the police. Even if the officer acted unreasonably, however, he was
entitled to qualified immunity.
What about when the shoe is on the other foot, i.e., the landlord seeks but is refused an
officers assistance? In Trask v. City of Chicago, #06-4237, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21051
(Unpub. 7th Cir.), a federal appeals court ruled that a landlord's rights were not violated by
the alleged refusal of police officers to enforce a court order she obtained to oust a squatter
from her property. The landlord did not show that she was legally entitled to police
assistance in enforcing an eviction order issued by the courts, and she could not show a
violation of equal protection, as there was no claim that the officers refused to carry out the
eviction on the basis of her race or gender.
Sometimes particular persons may not have the type of possessory interest in a premises
to qualify as tenants as defined by state law. In Thomas v. Cohen, #05-5072, 453 F. 3
rd
657
(6th Cir. 2006), the court found that three homeless women, evicted from a homeless
shelter by police without legal process at the request of the shelter's director were not
tenants under Kentucky law. They had no property interest in the premises, and,
therefore, the officers' actions did not violate their due process rights. This was the case
even though the women asserted that they paid rent, since a state statute governing tenants
rights expressly excluded residence at an institution, public or private, if incidental to
00211
105

detention or the provision of medical, geriatric, educational counseling, religious, or
similar service.
The shelter's programs were designed to help homeless women become financially
independent members of mainstream society, the appeals court stated, and the plaintiffs
resided there only as a result of their participation in the shelter's programs. The
environment at the shelter and its location in a residential neighborhood did not diminish
the primary social services character of the shelter. The shelter did not provide housing
to the general public who would not participate in, or benefit from, its primary social
service program, the court concluded.
The fact that a landlord-tenant dispute may be present does not alter the applicability of
general criminal law. Police can proceed to make arrests for criminal acts of violence, theft
of property, trespass, and other crimes, given the proper circumstances, and based, at times,
simply on a complaint from a purported victim, including a landlord or tenant. In Fielding
v. Tollaksen, #06-5393, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28939 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.), police officers
who arrested a tenant on the basis of signed complaints from landlords had probable cause
for the arrest, and were properly granted qualified immunity. Prosecutors in the case were
entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, and the landlords, who were private persons,
did not act under color of state law, so they could not be defendants in a federal civil rights
lawsuit.
Similarly, on search and seizure issues involving law enforcement access to a premises,
the power to consent or object depends on who has privacy rights. In Vincennes v.
Emmons, #42S02-0504-CV-131, 817 N.E. 2
nd
155 (Ind. 2006), the court stated that a city's
ordinance authorizing warrantless inspections of rental units unless tenants object did not
violate the constitutional rights of landlords, as landlords had no reasonable expectation of
privacy in units rented to either residential or commercial tenants. In instances where the
landlords are themselves the tenants, the ordinance would be interpreted as also requiring
their consent or a warrant.
In Harvey v. Plains Township, #04-1148, 421 F. 3rd 185 (3d Cir. 2005), the court held
that a police officer who ordered a landlord to open a door to an apartment so that a
woman's ex-boyfriend could retrieve his possessions was not entitled to qualified
immunity on a woman's claim that he violated her Fourth Amendment rights by becoming
actively involved in an ex parte private repossession.
In this case, after a woman's relationship with her boyfriend deteriorated, she obtained
an order of protection granting her exclusive right of possession of their apartment.
Pursuant to that order, the boyfriend was required to immediately retrieve all of his
00212
106

belongings. The trial court denied a request that he be allowed to return to pick up
furnishings and other items that would be difficult to remove during his first trip.
The man's attorney sent a letter to the woman informing her that he would go to the
apartment at a particular time to retrieve his remaining belongings. A copy of the letter was
sent to the woman's landlord and to the local police department. A police officer was sent
to the apartment at the time designated in the letter in order to keep the peace at the
repossession, and the landlord was also present at that time. The woman, who claimed
never to have received the letter, was not there.
The officer allegedly directed the landlord to unlock the door so that the man could
retrieve his property. After this was done, and when the woman returned, she found the
apartment in disarray, and claimed that many items were missing, including some not
included in the ex-boyfriend's list of his property.
On appeal, the federal appeals court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the
officer, holding that a police officer actively involved in an ex parte private repossession of
property may be engaged in state action in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It agreed,
however, that the landlord, who opened the door at the direction of the officer, was not
engaged in state action, and upheld the result as to the remaining defendants.
The appeals court rejected the officer's argument that his conduct was not state action
and that he was merely present at a private repossession. There was evidence, including
the testimony of the landlord, that the officer directed the opening of the door, and that she
never would have opened it without the officer's instructions. If this was true, the officer
played a principal role in the entry and seizure of the property, and a reasonable jury
could conclude that he used his public authority to help the ex-boyfriend gain entry and
take the property from the apartment. The record supported a finding that he was not a
mere spectator.
Additionally, the law was unquestionably clear at the date of the incident, September
1999, that the Fourth Amendment prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures of a
person's home by the police without a warrant. The court also found that if the officer
concluded that the woman had consented to the repossession merely on the basis of a copy
of the letter, to which the woman did not respond (and which she claimed she never got)
that was not reasonable. A reasonable officer at least would have refused to assist with
opening the door until he was satisfied that consent was given.
In some instances, cities have attempted to make use of the landlord-tenant relationship
for crime control and prevention purposes. In one case, however, the court found that the
city had gone too far. In Cook v. City of Buena Park, #G031326, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 105
00213
107

(Cal. 4th App. Dist. J anuary 28, 2005), the court ruled that a city's ordinance requiring a
landlord to institute eviction proceedings against a tenant when the chief of police has a
suspicion that the tenant engaged in or permitted illegal drug or gang activity was an
unconstitutional violation of procedural due process rights.
The case involved a landlord who filed a lawsuit challenging a city ordinance which
requires the commencement of eviction proceedings against all occupants of a rental unit
when the chief of police suspects that the tenant has engaged in or permitted illegal drug
activity, gang-related crime, or a drug-related nuisance in or near the rented property.
The court found that the ordinance exposed landlords to a substantial risk of the
erroneous deprivation of property rights through compelled eviction litigation,
unwarranted fines and penalties, and counter-suits by tenants, violating procedural due
process.
The court found that the ordinance's procedures were constitutionally infirm in three
ways. First, in that the notice requiring the landlord to institute the eviction proceedings
provided landlords with insufficient information to successfully prosecute such a case.
Second, the ten-day period stated within which the landlord is required to begin the
eviction proceedings was found to be too short. And finally, the ordinance improperly
required the landlord to prevail in the eviction action or else face fines, penalties, a lien on
his or her property, or even punishment for a misdemeanor offense.
The plaintiff landlord had rented an apartment to an individual, and after three years of
tenancy, city police cited the tenant's roommate for possession of drug paraphernalia. The
roommate subsequently participated in a drug treatment diversion program under the terms
of which his plea of guilty is not considered a criminal conviction for any purpose.
Following that, the landlord received a letter from the city's police chief giving him ten
business days to institute eviction proceedings against the tenant, and to diligently
prosecute the eviction, as required by the city's ordinance, the Narcotics and
Gang-Related Crime Eviction Program.
The landlord appealed the notice to the city manager within ten days of receiving it, as
provided by the notice. The city manager denied the landlord's appeal, and the landlord
filed suit in state court challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance.
In upholding the injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance, the appeals court
acknowledged both the landlord's important property interests in collecting rent, and the
city's interest in combating criminal activity, especially drug and gang related crimes.
But in this case, the court found, the notices required to be sent did not contain enough
specific information to aid the landlord in the eviction action, but instead only the alleged
00214
108

offender's identity, apartment number, and the mere dates and times of the alleged criminal
activity or arrest.
The court stated that it was not suggesting that due process required that the city's
allegation of illegal conduct had to be documented by the observations of a law
enforcement officer, but rather, the documented observations of any witness willing to
testify, such as a neighbor or an informant, would supply probable cause for the landlord's
unlawful detainer action and give the landlord a chance at success in the action.
The ten-day time period in which to initiate the eviction proceeding was not nearly
enough time for the landlord to bolster his evidence or otherwise investigate the matter
and develop his case.
Further, under the ordinance, if the landlord fails to prevail in the eviction action, even if
this is the result of inadequate documentation provided by the city, the penalties under
the ordinance included fines of up to $500, misdemeanor punishment for a fourth violation,
and a lien against the property and a civil penalty if court action is required to enforce the
ordinance.
The court rejected the city's defense of its procedures, which was based on the fact that
the landlord is allowed to appeal to the city manager the police chief's determination that
the ordinance applies. But the ordinance provides no guidance to the city manager
regarding the adequacy of the police chief's notice and, in any event, the landlord who does
not succeed in a court of law would take little comfort from the city manager's contrary
assessment of the merits.
A concurring opinion by one judge on the three judge panel agreed that the ordinance
violated procedural due process but he expressed his misgivings that the ordinance might
also suffer from other, more fundamental constitutional problems, including its
sweeping requirement that all occupants of the premises must be evicted for the sins of one,
its disparate treatment of property owners and renters (our record reflects no nuisance
abatement efforts against the owners of property for similar crimes), and the Damoclean
substantive due process issue which hangs over this statutory scheme.
Other cases of interest include:
Grimm v. Sweeney, #01-431, 249 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D. Pa. 2003), in which a fire chief
was held entitled to qualified immunity for issuing a citation against the owner of rental
properties for refusal to consent to a warrantless inspection of tenants' apartments. The
alleged right of the owner, under the Fourth Amendment, to refuse to consent to the
warrantless inspection intended to protect the tenants' safety, was not clearly established,
00215
109

so that a reasonable building or fire code enforcement official could have believed that the
landlord had no right to refuse entry, so that he could be cited for obstructing access.
* Loudes v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., #00-1210, 233 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2000),
finding that an officer was not liable for the detention of a landlord, which allegedly caused
his collapse because he needed access to his oxygen and medical equipment to prevent
reoccurrence of a recent stroke, when the officer had no information concerning the
landlord's medical condition when she detained him while attempting to resolve a
landlord-tenant dispute over tenant property.
* Ryan v. Mary Immaculate Queen, #98-3849, 188 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1999), ruling that
apartment tenants had standing to challenge an allegedly unconstitutional search of a
rented premises when their landlord, who wanted to evict the tenants, did not have a valid
order granting him exclusive possession at the time deputy sheriffs allegedly engaged in a
search.
* Kalmas v. Wagner, #64206-1, 943 P.2d 1369 (Wash. 1997), stating that a deputy
sheriff's brief, invited entry into the tenants' residence to assist a landlord's agent in
showing the premises to potential new tenant, even if it constituted a search, was
reasonable, based on the deputy's community caretaking function. The deputy acted with
a motive to keep the peace in a dispute between tenant and landlord.
* Osipova v. Dinkins, #92 Civ. 8959, 907 F. Supp. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), concluding that
a police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for a warrantless entry into an apartment
when the landlord told him that water was leaking into the premises below, interfering with
the provision of heat and hot water for whole building.
* Craig v. Krzeminski, #88-159764 F. Supp. 248 (D. Conn. 1991), in which a mere
denial by a landlord that he had harassed a tenant did not eliminate the officer's probable
cause to arrest him based on the tenant's complaint.
In summary, some points to remember:
Do not carry out or aid in carrying out an eviction unless there is a verifiable court
order. Doing so without an order may be a Fourth Amendment violation. Even when
a lease states that a landlord has the right to retake the premises under certain
conditions, almost every jurisdiction requires legal process and an eviction order.
There are some particular rules that apply to Section 8 federally subsidized housing
concerning evictions, drug activities in the rented premises, etc. Before taking any
action, you may want to check with the local agency administering the program
concerning how these apply.
00216
110

When officers respond to a complaint about the presence of a trespasser, they should
inquire as to the reason the person is there. The answer to that question may provide
probable grounds for an arrest. Many laws concerning trespass, however, require
that, prior to an arrest, a person is asked to leave and is given an opportunity to
comply. Make sure officers are familiar with state statutes and/or local ordinances
bearing on this question.
It is not the job of an officer to resolve landlord tenant disputes. Whether the rent
was fully paid, or whether the landlord broke a promise to paint the living room, are
civil disputes, and the parties can be reminded that there are courts to resolve those
disputes. Officers can, of course, stand by while landlord-tenant disputes are going
on, but should not take part on either side. They may, of course, take appropriate
action if an offense occurs.
In emergency situations, such as indications of a person in danger or distress,
officers can make warrantless entry into premises without consent,

3. Resources
The following are some online resources related to the topic of this article. Inclusion
does not necessarily imply agreement with the views expressed.
City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.
City of Philadelphia, Pa, Police Department Citizen Information Bulletin on
Landlord-Tenant Disputes.
New York Police Department Patrol Guide Procedure No. 117-11, Illegal Evictions.
Website of the International Crime Free Association, an organization working to
keep illegal activity off rental property.
Police Response in Illegal Eviction and Other Tenant/Landlord Situations.
Excerpted From:
Vermont State Police Training Bulletin 93-1.
Basalt, Colorado Police Department page on landlord-tenant disputes.
Suffolk County, N.Y. Police Order Number 88-19 Willful Eviction Violations.
Description of Hollywood, Florida Police Departments Landlord Workshop.

00217
111

AELE Monthly Law Journal
Bernard J. Farber
Civil Liability Law Editor
P.O. Box 75401
Chicago, IL 60675-5401 USA
E-mail: bernfarber@aele.org
Tel. 1-800-763-2802

2009, by the AELE Law Enforcement Legal Center
Contents may be downloaded, stored, printed or copied,
but may not be republished for commercial purposes.

AELE Home Page --- Publications Menu --- Seminar Information
00218
00219
00220
00221
00222
, . I'-'--U

012
1 Case No. 11 CR 26405
Reno - Dept. 2
BY---'H/-U;:---::,,---
Deputy OerJc;
2 Dept. No.2
3
4
5
6
7
8 THE CITY OF RENO,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff,
vs.
Defendant.
--------------------- ,
0I1N:ER DENYING MOTION
F R NEW TRIAL & FOR
OTHER RELIEF
On June 18, 2012, the defendant was found guilty after trial on one count of
trespassing. The defendant was sentenced to time served in jail and was fined $310.00. On June 26,
2012, the defendant filed a hand-written Motion for New Trial and for other relief the extent ofwhich
is difficult to discern.
This motion filed by the defendant does not establish or support any legal or equitable
grounds fcc relief and is without merit. Accordingly, the defendant's Motion filed June 26,2012, is
hereby denied.
Dated this 11 th day of July, 2012
1
JUDGEdNER
Department Two
00223
I
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
....,
a.lUHICl1ALCOOitf

PUrsuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the Reno Municipal Court,
ORDER on the party(ies) set forth below.
_x_
Placing said docUlllent in a sealed envelope placed fOr collecting and mailing
business practices.
Facsimile (FAX).
Reno/Carson Messenger Selvice.
Personal Delivery to City Attorney
_x_ Electronic mail to City Attorney
Deputy City Attomey
Zachary Coughlin.
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
DATED this 11th day ofJuly,
00224
00225
00226
00227
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
UNO
28
1l.IWtOI'Al. rouaT
'.0."'_

(7021 ))t-tQ

Case No(s). ! C I!.-. 26t((;;;-
R FILEO
END M!JNICIP
Ai COllI? r
Dept. L 2012 JUL 23 PH 2: 43
< . .
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF J,,-
COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA ..
******
CITY OF RENO, A Municipal Ulrporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Co vGHL,',-J
'3961
V\ Q "89 ,
AddR:e
City, State, Zip Code
Defendant in the above-entitled action, do hereby appeal to the Second Judicial District Cowt
for final judgment of the Reno Municipal Cowt in this action, wherein the Defendant was
found guilty of the charge(s) of cr (M( brft;j4 5'$
and sentenced as follows: Pc J '1310
00228
1
2
3
4

Document Code:
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
POBOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402

Reno
Byl rt Dept. 2
PiJty Cl9rfI
5 Pro Se Defendant
6
7
8
9
10
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF W ASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
STATE OF NEVADA;
Plaintiff,
)
)
) Case No: II CR 26405
)
12 vs.
)
)
)
)
)
13 ZACHARY COUGHLIN;
14
Defendant.
15
16 Notice of Appeal. Motion to vacate and or Set Aside. JCRCP 59. JCRCP 60. Motion for
Reconsideration: Motion (or Reeusal: Motion For Publication Of Transcript at Public Expense.
17 Petition (or In Forma Pauperis Status
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FACTS
I. Richard G. Hill, Esq. (opposing counsel in the civil eviction case from which this criminal trespass
trial stems) testified, under oath, that the Reno Police Department identified themselves prior to
entering the door that Hill's client Merliss had kicked down.
2. HilI also testified that Merliss had not been at the 121 River Rock property in the week preceding
the arrest, despite Officer Carter's report indicating otherwise. rmc II cr 26405 reno attorney zach
coughlin, esq. charged with criminal trespass incident to civil eviction by Dr. Matthew Joel Merliss,
MD, nuerosurgeon and his attorney Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey Baker, Esq. whom allege the
- 1 -
MotiOn {or New Trial. Motion to Alter or Amend: Motion for ReCOnsideratiOn. MotiOn to Set
Aside Convictjon
00229
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
charged ?erliss D#)E <a;;ro+imatelB, *rom start through current a;;eal: to evict attorneB Coughlin
*rom his commerical tenancB, Aased u;on a No Cause Eviction notice, even though N%- 4).,(3
e+;resslB *orAids using summarB evictions against commercial tenants unless the nonF;aBment o*
rent is alleged and a NonFaBment eviction notice is served.
3. 3urther 4ashoe CountB -heri**>s !**ice *iled *alse a**idavit, AB De;utB ?achem, alleging
Coughlin =as G;ersonallB servedG eviction order, ho=ever 4C-! .5 -u;ervisor 9iC -tuchell has
admitted in =riting <see her email to Coughlin in E+hiAit $: that G;ersonallB servedG, to the 4C-!
civil division, means Hust ta;ing a notice to a door =hen no one is home, and -tuchell con*irmed in
=riting that 4C-! De;utB ?achem indicated to her that no one =as home at $,$ %iver %oc@ =hen,
on NovemAer $, ,)$$, he ;er*ormed a loc@out on Coughlin>s la= o**ice and alleges he ;osted the
!rder *or -ummarB Eviction on Coughlin>s door.
4. /he CitB *ailed to ;ut on anB evidence that anBAodB <not the %eno 1ustice Court, not the 4C-!,
not o;;osing counsel 0ill or Ba@er, etc: actuallB mailed Coughlin a co;B o* the !rder o* -ummarB
Eviction ;rior to the illegal loc@out o* NovemAer $, ,)$$, there*ore ma@ing anB such loc@out a legal
nullitB, and void, and a tres;ass, actuallB, done under color o* state la= 4, 2-C -ec $9'3, see 9Bnn v
Desiderio....ho=ever, N%C is made a;;licaAle to landlord tenant matters in Nevada, and there*ore,
suAstituted or constructive service is required <ie, 3 daBs *or mailing =here ;ersonal service is not
done:. /here*ore, %ichard 0ill and ?erliss =ere the tres;assers, in addition to the %eno olice
De;artment !**icer Chris Carter and -argent ?onica 9o;eC.
1udge 4illiam 8ardner o* the %eno ?unici;al Court re*used to recuse himsel* des;ite having =or@ed
*or the %eno CitB 5ttorneB>s !**ice Hust , Bears ;rior to this case, and des;ite his o=n sister, -econd
1udicial District Court 3amilB 1udge 0on. 9inda 8ardner Aeing involved in a -tate Bar grievance
- 2 -
Motion for Ne' "rial, Motion to Alter or A&end; Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Set
Aside Con(iction
00230
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
against Coughlin Aased u;on her !rder *or -anctions against Coughlin three Bears ;rior in a divorce
trial. Coughlin *iled a etition *or 4rit o* ?andamus challenging 1udge 9inda 8ardner>s !rder *or
-anctions. Coughlin =as *ired *rom his HoA at 4ashoe 9egal -ervices, according to 49- E+ecutive
Director aul Elcano, strictlB Aecause o* 1udge 9inda 8ardner>s sanctions against Coughlin.
htt;:IIcasein*o.nvsu;remecourt.usI;uAlicIcase&ie=.doJcs..DK,,74#
/he %eno olice De;artment also arrested attorneB Coughlin *or HaB=al@ing and Gmisue o* 9$$G
des;ite Coughlin Aeing granted t=o ;rotection orders *rom his roommates at the time. 3urther, the
%eno 1ustice Court order Coughlin to de;osit D,,,7( in a Grent escro=G account to maintain his right
to litigate haAitaAilitB issues in a summarB eviction ;roceeding, des;ite there e+isting no corollarB to
1C%9&44 in the %1C, and des;ite 1C%C '4 e+;resslB *orAidding the %1C *rom a;;lBing anB such
rules =here N%- 4).,(3<#: e+;resslB *orAids such a rent escro= de;osit Aeing required. -o, the %1C
did not give Coughlin a -taB o* Eviction, des;ite N%- $$'.3') onlB requiring D,() to get one, =hile
at the same time, the %1C converted to its co**ers D,,,7( o* Coughlin>s moneB, in direct violation o*
the la=. /hen the %D suAHects Coughlin to a custodial arrest, =ithout =arning him to leave the
;ro;ertB or issuing a citation, then %D !**icer Carter lies in his ;olice re;ort AB alleging that
Coughlin re*used to leave, and there*ore =as not eligiAle *or a citation, des;ite the videos ta@en AB
%ichard 0ill, during the N!vemAer $,th, ,)$$ arrest clearlB sho=ing Coughlin as@ing %D !**icer
Carter =hB a =arning or citation =ould not Ae given in lieu o* a custodial arrest. 3urther, !**icer
Carter>s statements at the scene o* the arrest and in his re;ort clearlB sho= Carter maintaining that
Coughlin had Aeen GservedG the eviction order, des;ite Carter>s clear lac@ o* understanding as to =hat
such GserviceG entails.
!.N/- 5ND 52/0!%./.E-
- 3 -
Aside Con(iction
00231
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
N%- 4).7#) -ummarB eviction o* ;erson using s;ace in *acilitB *or storage as residence.
$. 4hen a ;erson is using a storage s;ace at a *acilitB as a residence, the o=ner or the o=nerLs agent shall serve or have
served a notice in =riting =hich directs the ;erson to cease using the storage s;ace as a residence no later than ,4 hours
a*ter receiving the notice. /he notice must advise the ;erson that:
<a: N%- $)'.47( requires the o=ner to as@ the court to have the ;erson evicted i* the ;erson has not ceased using the
storage s;ace as a residence =ithin ,4 hours7 and
<A: /he ;erson maB continue to use the storage s;ace to store the ;ersonLs ;ersonal ;ro;ertB in accordance =ith the rental
agreement.
,. .* the ;erson does not cease using the storage s;ace as a residence =ithin ,4 hours a*ter receiving the notice to do so,
the o=ner o* the *acilitB or the o=nerLs agent shall a;;lB AB a**idavit *or summarB eviction to the Hustice o* the ;eace o*
the to=nshi; =herein the *acilitB is located. /he a**idavit must contain:
<a: /he date the rental agreement Aecame e**ective.
<A: 5 statement that the ;erson is using the storage s;ace as a residence.
<c: /he date and time the ;erson =as served =ith =ritten notice to cease using the storage s;ace as a residence.
<d: 5 statement that the ;erson has not ceased using the *acilitB as a residence =ithin ,4 hours a*ter receiving the notice.
3. 2;on recei;t o* such an a**idavit the Hustice o* the ;eace shall issue an order directing the sheri** or constaAle o* the
countB to remove the ;erson =ithin ,4 hours a*ter recei;t o* the order. /he sheri** or constaAle shall not remove the
;ersonLs ;ersonal ;ro;ertB *rom the *acilitB.
4. 3or the ;ur;oses o* this section:
<a: M3acilitBN means real ;ro;ertB divided into individual storage s;aces. /he term does not include a garage or storage
area in a ;rivate residence.
<A: M-torage s;aceN means a s;ace used *or storing ;ersonal ;ro;ertB, =hich is rented or leased to an individual occu;ant
=ho has access to the s;ace.
<5dded to N%- AB $9'9, ,$37 5 ,)$$, $'3):
sim;lB ;ut to =hatever e+tent Coughlin =as not alreadB legallB entitled to Ae =here he =as at
the time o* the arrest in vie= o* the lease agreement =herein his commercial use o* the ;remises =as
e+;resslB a;;roved, a criminal tres;ass charge =as still not a;;ro;riate here given the dictates o*
N%- 4).7#) %ichard 0ill testi*ied that he e+;ressed to Coughlin Aoth in =riting and verAallB and in
*act a video e+ists o* this see E+hiAit $ that he noti*ied Coughlin that 0ill and ?arlBs =ould Ae
see@ing to chart Coughlin the same rent theB =ere charging him ;rior to anB alleged eviction ta@ing
;lace some D9)) a month 0ill no= alleges that that =as the *ull rental value o* the ;ro;ertB at trial
0ill seeminglB made a 3reudian sli; and announced that he =as charging that much in vie= o*
Coughlin Aeing at the ;ro;ertB the later attem;ted to saB he miss;o@en that he meant in vie= o*
Coughlin>s ;ro;ertB Aeing at the ;ro;ertB such a sli; =as telling Aecause even someone li@e 0ill
- 4 -
Aside Con(iction
00232
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
@no=s that its =rong to charge someone the same amount *or the *ull use and occu;ancB o* a
;ro;ertB as one is charging *or quote unquote storage o* someone>s materials at the ;ro;ertB hillsides
to N%- $$'5.4') as allo=ing him to charge such storage. 4ell to the e+tent 0ill =as charging *or
storage N%- 4).7#) clearlB ;rovides that a criminal tres;ass charge and conviction is not a;;ro;riate
and that this court did not have the Hurisdiction to so enter given that a summarB eviction o* ;erson
using s;ace in *acilitB *or storage is a residence ;reem;ts anB aAilitB to ma@e a criminal tres;ass
charge *urther des;ite the citB attorneBs chortling at the notion o* actuallB a;;lBing some ;uAlic
;olicB rather than Hust generating revenue *or the citB in the %eno ?unici;al Court is clearlB and verB
verB Aad taste *or the %eno ?unici;al Court the %eno olice De;artment and the citB attorneB to Ae
see@ing to glom criminal tres;ass charges on the civil evictions ;articularlB =here the 4ashoe
CountB -heri**>s o**ice has admitted to *iling *alse a**idavits under oath attesting to ;ersonal service
o* eviction orders =here in *act no such ;ersonal service =as actuated. ClearlB in the videos %ichard
0ill too@ *ound in E+hiAit $ even 0ill struggles to e+;lain this as does !*c. Carter in the video !*c.
Carter e+claims to Coughlin that he =as served the eviction order Aut then !*c. Carter has trouAle in
de*ining =hat service actuallB means that he does ta@e care to @no= to Coughlin that quote Bou>re not
the victim here unquote at =hich ;oint 0ill can Ae heard chortling in the Aac@ground. 0ill has
struggled in the ;ast to e+;lain the Aases *or his ;osition that Coughlin =as served the summarB
eviction order as 0ill is onlB aAle to cite to the usual custom and ;ractice o* the 4ashoe CountB
-heri**>s o**ice as though that =ere someho= Alac@ letter la= =ith res;ect to the requirements service
o* the eviction order. 0o=ever Bou =ould thin@ *or the D#),))) 0ill and Ba@er charge Dr. ?arlBs
theB =ould>ve Aothered to notice that N%- 4). 4)) ma@es a;;licaAle the Nevada %ules o* Civil
rocedure and Nevada rules o* a;;ellate ;rocedure to the summarB eviction ;roceeding *rom =hich
this criminal tres;ass matter stems.
- 5 -
Aside Con(iction
00233
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
N%- 4).4)) %ules o* ;ractice. /he ;rovisions o* N%-, Nevada %ules o* Civil rocedure and Nevada
%ules o* 5;;ellate rocedure relative to civil actions, a;;eals and ne= trials, so *ar as theB are not
inconsistent =ith the ;rovisions o* N%- 4).,,) to 4).4,), inclusive, a;;lB to the ;roceedings
mentioned in those sections.
/here*ore there is a Aases *or setting aside altering or amending or other=ise nulli*Bing this
course conviction =hether under rule (9 a rule #) the conviction is not su;;orted AB the evidence the
Aurden o* ;roo* is not Aeen met, and there =ere clear errors o* la=, reversiAle errors as =ell as
con*licts o* interest and ;rocedural and suAstantive irregularities it =as clear error *or Hudge 4illiam
8ardner not to recuse and sel* =here his sister Hudge 9inda 8ardner>s order sanctions is a suAHective
o;inion grievance *or the -tate Bar o* Nevada and 4are Hudge DorothB Nash 0olmes sus;ended
another matter involving Coughlin in the %eno ?unici;al Court ;ending the resolution o* a
com;etencB evaluation *urther it =as clear error *or the court to sua s;onte collect a /iAuron ;rintout
to hel; out the citB attorneB and ?r. 9oomis and getting this case moving *or=ard des;ite Hudge Nash
0olmes is ;rotestation that Coghlan>s com;etencB =as clearlB in question li@e=ise recusal =as in
!regon Coughlin *iled a etition *or 4rit o* ?andamus against 1udge 9inda 8ardner, the sister o* the
Hudge ;residing over this criminal tres;ass case, 1udge 4illiam 8ardner. 3urther the order should Ae
undone given the a;;arent *raud incident to the testimonB AB %ichard Dale =herein the videos and
evidence *ound in E+hiAit $ =hich are ,4 to some e+tent =here on o* the laAel to the de*endant andIor
made unreasonaAlB di**icult to ;resent to the court given the misconduct o* Nevada court services
0ill %eno olice De;artment the citB o* %eno marshals division and others in attem;ting to
im;ermissiAlB leverage state ;o=er including attem;ted Area@Fins AB Nevada court services =ho
share o**ices =ith one o* the a;;ointed de*enders em;loBed AB the %eno ?unici;al Court , 9e=
/aitel, Esq., =ho at one time re;resented Coughlin in this matter and =ho *ailed to aAide AB %eno
- 6 -
Aside Con(iction
00234
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
?unici;al Court rules e+;laining via =ritten motion the reason *or his =ithdra=al Coghlan>s case
=as then ;assed to %oAerta ;ointed to admitted he =or@ed on Cagle>s cam;aign and his a close
;ersonal *riend o* titles and =hom also has a Ausiness relationshi; =ith Nevada court services *urther
the conviction should Ae.undone given the a;;arent ;erHurB or *raud AB the 4ashoe CountB -heri**>s
o**ice as de;utB match them and that he *iled an a**idavit dated NovemAer 7, ,)$$ =herein he s=ore
that he ;ersonallB served the eviction order. ?atch them su;ervisor at the =ashed . -heri**>s o**ice
civil division 9iC -tuchell <see her email to Coughlin in E+hiAit $: has admitted in =riting that
mansion did not M;ersonallB serveN Coughlin, Aut rather merelB ;osted the eviction order on Coghlan
store and therea*ter *ailed to mail Coghlan co;B o* the order at a time =hen Coughlin =as not at the
$,$ %iver roc@ address. 0ill testi*ied under ;enaltB o* ;erHurB that the %eno olice De;artment
identi*ied itsel* ;rior to Dr. ?arlBs @ic@ing do=n the door to the Aasement.
it is not tres;assing i* one has a right to Ae there. 5nB =arnings not Ae there =hen one has a
right to Ae there are not =arnings at all theB are Hust idle chatter the citB could not estaAlish the
requisite intent necessarB *or conviction under the one la= mentioned in the criminal com;laint i.e.
%eno munici;al code section '. $). )$). /he case cited AB the citB attorneB is com;letelB ina;;licaAle
here and *urther that case does not cite to the %eno munici;al code section in question *urther that
case does not even cite to anB corollarB section o* the Nevada revised statutes rather anB discussion
o* addiction and service requirements indicate a state the ?cNichols $)# Nevada #($, 79) 9. ,D
(() <$99): =as ;urelB dicta and should not o* Aeen relied u;on AB this court in reaching its decision
to issue a conviction here that case, ?cNichols, dealt =ith the la=*ulness o* a search AB the state and
involve a criminal conviction *or ;ossession o* a controlled suAstance it sim;lB did not involve
tres;ass incident to a civil eviction o* a tenant AB landlord anB discussion o* addiction and ?cNichols
related to a *oreclosure =as dicta no actual tres;assers statute =as cited to and use o* the term
- 7 -
Aside Con(iction
00235
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
tres;ass =as as a term o* art there =as no distinction =hether it =as a civil tres;asser criminal
tres;ass and ?cNichols and no real discussion AB the court as to =hether the service requirements are
met and =hether or not theB e**ectuated it morning incident to an evaluation o* the elements o* some
;articular eviction statute *urther the citB attorneB *ailed to *ill his dutB to disclose contrarB authoritB
=hile ;erha;s this dutB does not e+tend to merelB ;ersuasive authoritB it>s telling o* the ;ractices AB
the citB attorneB and the e+tent =hich theB =ill go to increase revenues. .t =as ;atentlB dishonest to
the citB attorneB to re;resent that the Nichols case re;resents an inter;retation o* %?C eight. $). )$)
%?C -ec. '.$).)$). F /res;assing.
<a:
EverB ;erson =ho goes u;on the land or into anB Auilding o* another =ith intent to ve+ or annoB the o=ner or occu;ant
thereo*, or to commit anB unla=*ul act, or =il*ullB goes or remains u;on anB land or in anB Auilding a*ter having Aeen
=arned AB the o=ner or occu;ant thereo* not to tres;ass, is guiltB o* a misdemeanor. .* the ;remises =ere at the time o;en
to the ;uAlic, the =arning must have Aeen given =ithin the ;revious si+ months. /he meaning o* this suAsection is not
limited AB suAsections <A:, <c:, <d: and <e: o* this section.
<A:
EverB o=ner or other occu;ant o* anB land shall Ae deemed to have given a su**icient =arning against tres;assing, =ithin
the meaning o* this section, =ho ;osts in a cons;icuous manner on each side thereo*, u;on or near the AoundarB at
intervals o* not more than 7)) *eet, signs, legiAlB ;rinted or ;ainted in the English language, =arning ;ersons not to
tres;ass, or =ho *ences the area.
<c:
.t is ;rima *acie evidence o* tres;ass *or anB ;erson to Ae *ound on ;rivate or ;uAlic ;ro;ertB =hich is ;osted or *enced as
;rovided in suAsection <A: =ithout la=*ul Ausiness =ith the o=ner or occu;ant o* the ;ro;ertB.
<d:
5n entrBman on land under the la=s o* the 2nited -tates is an o=ner =ithin the meaning o* this section.
<e:
5s used in this section, G*enceG means a Aarrier su**icient to indicate an intent to restrict the area to human ingress,
including, Aut not limited to, a =all, hedge or chain lin@ or =ire mesh *ence.
9Bnn v. Desiderio, 3rd 2.-. Circuit Court o* 5;;eals, No. )4F4)7) <,))(: /he 3rd 2.-.
Circuit has Hurisdiction over Dela=are, Ne= 1erseB, ennsBlvania, and the 2.-. &irgin .slands. 5n
accrual o* a;;ro+imatelB D4)) in Aac@ rent ;rom;ted the Bethlehem <a.: 6?C5 to =rite 9Bnn a
letter in 3eAruarB ,)),. /hat letter stated that the 6?C5 =ould evict 9Bnn i* he did not ;aB the Aac@
- 8 -
Aside Con(iction
00236
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
rent AB ?arch ,, ,)),. 9Bnn did not ;aB the Aac@ rent, and 6?C5 sta** memAers and ;olice o**icers
came to his room to demand that he move out. 9BnnLs re*usal to leave ;rom;ted the o**icers to enter
the room and arrest him on a charge o* de*iant tres;ass. 9BnnLs inaAilitB to ma@e Aail resulted in his
incarceration until his ;reliminarB hearing () daBs later. /he magistrate =ho ;resided over the
;reliminarB hearing dismissed the de*iant tres;ass charge, charged 9Bnn =ith disorderlB conduct, and
sentenced him to time served. 9Bnn then *iled a civil rights la=suit that included a claim that the
arresting o**icer and the 6?C5 sta** had violated rights that 4, 2.-.C.-. -ection $9'3 ;rotected.
/he trial court granted the arresting o**icerLs request to dismiss the la=suit. /he trial court concluded
that 9Bnn had not stated a claim *or =hich relie* could have Aeen granted Aecause dismissing the
de*iant tres;ass charge =as not a reversal o* a conviction or a sentence on direct a;;eal that granting
the requested relie* required. ConsequentlB, 9Bnn *iled an a;;eal that challenged the grant o* the
request to dismiss the la=suit. DEC.-.!N: 5**irmed. /he a;;ellate court determined that 9Bnn could
not have ;revailed Aecause a Hudgment in his *avor =ould have necessarilB im;lied that he =as
im;ro;erlB convicted o* disorderlB conduct. /hat im;lication =ould have Aeen im;ro;er Aecause
there =as no conviction that =as reversed on a;;eal, e+;unged, declared invalid, or questioned.
3urther Coughlin si+th amendment right to s;eedB trial =as violated additionallB it =as clear error
not to love Coughlin to ;ut on argument or evidence in su;;ort o* his contention that Hust *or arises
eviction order =as illegal nullitB given the %eno Hustice court =as to vest Hurisdiction u;on the *iling
o* a notice o* a;;eal has argued and ;resented AB Coughlin *ormer de*ense attorneB limits at a
;revious hearing ;articularlB un*air to not consider this =ord the court clearlB relied u;on eFmails
never introducing the evidence that the citB attorneB re*erenced in his closing argument in *act courts
order as rendered *rom the Aeen cited to those verB eFmails =hile at the same time re*using to
- 9 -
Aside Con(iction
00237
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
consider the arguments related to the divestiture Hudge Aro=ses Hurisdiction under the eviction order
and it consequent e**ect that =ould have on the *ine anB criminal tres;ass charge.
/he !rder allo=ing uentes =ithdr=as *its under G .rregularitB in the ;roceedings o* the court, HurB, master, or
adverse ;artB, or anB order o* the court, or master, or aAuse o* discretion AB =hich either ;artB =as ;revented *rom having
a *air trialG as uentes =as at least ommitting @eB in*ormation to the court, i* not misleading it as to his rationale *or
=ithdra=ing. lus 1udge 8ardner>s !rder, res;ect*ullB contains GError in la= occurring at the trial and oAHected to AB the
;artB ma@ing the motion. !n a motion *or a ne= trial in an action tried =ithout a HurB, the court maB o;en the Hudgment i*
one has Aeen entered, ta@e additional testimonB, amend *indings o* *act and conclusions o* la= or ma@e ne= *indings and
conclusions, and direct the entrB o* a ne= Hudgment.G /he la= sim;lB does not allo= *or such an unsu;;orted AB *acts or
s;eci*ics ?otion to 4ithdra= to Ae granted.
/he !rder or 1udgment is void as it e+tends to matters *or =hich the Court cannot rule, ie, an !rder allo=ing
=ithdra= =here not good *aith Aasis *or requesting a =ithdra=al e+ists.
;rosecutorial misconduct <such as the D.5. =ithholding Ge+cul;atorBG evidence that couldLve hel;ed Bour de*ense:
Hudicial errors <such as the Hudge ;ermitting evidence that shouldLve Aeen e+cluded or vice versa:
erroneous a;;lication o* a la= or regulation im;ro;er HurB instructions
ine**ective assistance o* counsel or other mal;ractice the evidence did not ;rove Bour guilt AeBond a reasonaAle douAt
35.92%E /! 533!%D -."/0 5?END?EN/ %.80/ /! C!2N-E9 !% 8%5N/ DE?5ND 3!% 12%6 /%.597
another DE?5ND 3!% 12%6 /%.59 0E%EB6 ?5DE .N E&EN/ !3 NE4 /%.59, -.?.95%96 %EO2E-/ 3!%
.N 3!%?5 52E%.- -/5/2- 0E%EB6 ?5DE 5ND -2!%/ED B6 5//5C0ED .3 E/./.!N
3urther, here 0aClettF-tevens did as am %oAerts did in $$ cr ,,$7# AB ;utting on ;erHured testimonB AB %ichard 0ill and
doing ni*ong, er, nothing to distance the citB o* reno *rom it or other=ise see@ to correct =hat =as ;resented to the court
AB 0ill>s testimonB that =as in direct contravention to that conveBed in the CitB o* %eno>s o=n discoverB ;ro;ounded,
s;eci*icallB , the videos shot AB 0ill and ?erliss and the entired contents o* the ;olice re;ort.
C!NC92-.!N
De*endantI5;;elant Coughlin hereAB res;ect*ullB requests all !rders, Convictions,
1udgments, Contem;t 3indings, etc, Ae amended, set aside, etc. and soon Aecause -C% $$$ maB
require Coughlin re;ort this conviction <more research is required to determine i* this Mtres;assN is a
Mserious o**enseN under -C% $$$<#:...=ithin 3) daBs, unless, a;;arentlB, this court sets aside,
vacates, or other=ise nulli*ies the !rder it entered in res;onse to the 1une $', ,)$, trial in this matter.
. /o saB a crime =as ;roven AeBond a reasonaAle douAt here, or that Coughlin intended to ve+ and
annoB the o=nere =hile also, allegedlB Aeing verB surre;titious aAout everBthing, Hust doesn>t add u;
and in comAination =ith all the other irregularities in the ;olice =or@, ;rosecution, *ilign o**ice
reHections, smart ;hone seiCures and data =i;ing, ArotherFsister 1udicial con*licts o* interest,
grievances *iled AB other %?C Hudge and the instant 1urist>s sister =ith the -tate Bar o* Nevada, and
;rosecutorial misconduct, =ell....this is -oldal v Coo@ CountB, %eno -tBle.
- 10 -
Aside Con(iction
00238
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
533.%?5/.!N ursuant to N%- ,39B.)3)
/he undersigned does hereAB a**irm that the ;receding document does not contain
the social securitB numAer o* anB ;erson.
D5/ED this ,7
th
daB o* 1une ,)$,
PIsI Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
De*endant
- 11 -
Aside Con(iction
00239
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
%!!3 !3 -E%&.CE
., Zach Coughlin, declare:
!n H2NE ,7/0, ,)$,, ., ?r. Zach Coughlin served the *oregoing Motion for Ne' "rial,
Motion to Alter or A&end; Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Set Aside Con(iction AB
emailing and *a+ing and or ;lacing in the mail, 5ND E%-!N5996 DE9.&E%.N8 /! /0E
!33.CE !3 /0E %EN! C./6 5//!%NE6 a true co;B thereo* to:
C0%.-/!0E% 05Z9E//F-/E&EN-, E-O.
1!0N E5D..C E-O.
Com;anB: %eno CitB 5ttorneB>s !**ice F Criminal Divison 5ddress: .!. Bo+ $9)) %eno , N&
'9()( hone NumAer: 77(F334F,)() 3a+ numAer: 77(F334F,4,)
D5/ED /0.- $12NE ,7, ,)$,
B6:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Zach Coughlin
De*endant
- 12 -
Aside Con(iction
00240
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
.nde+ to E+hiAits
$. E+hiAit $: D&D !3 %E9E&5N/ ?5/E%.59- 5ND &.DE!-
- 13 -
Aside Con(iction
00241
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
E"0.B./ $
E"0.B./ $
- 14 -
Aside Con(iction
00242
F I L E D
Electronically
07-31-2012:07:05:55 AM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 3116928
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
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Code: 2315
JOHN 1. KADLIC
Reno City Attorney
Christopher Hazlett -Stevens
Nevada State Bar No.1 0075
Post Office Box 1900
Reno, Nevada 89505
Attorneys for Respondent
ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO, a municipal
corporation,
Respondent.
1+---------------------------
* * 0 * *
CASE NO.: CR12-1262
DEPT. NO.: 10
/
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
COMES NOW Respondent CITY OF RENO, by and through Christopher Hazlett-
Stevens, Deputy City Attorney, and files its Motion to Dismiss Appeal as follows. This Motion
is based upon the pleadings and documents on file herein, and the following Legal Argument.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
1. F ACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 13,2011, Appellant was charged with Trespassing under Reno Municipal
Code, Section 8.10.010 by way of Criminal Complaint upon arrest. June 18,2012, after several
continuances, Appellant was found guilty of trespassing by the Honorable William Gardner of
the Reno Municipal Court. See Certified Copy of Docket, filed July 25,2012. Pursuant to being
found guilty of trespassing, the Court imposed a fine in the amount of $31 0 consecutive to the
time he served in custody at the Washoe County Jail. See Certified Copy of Docket. On July 18,
-1-
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
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Code: 2315
JOHN 1. KADLIC
Reno City Attorney
Reno, Nevada 89505
Appellant,
vs.
corporation,
Respondent.
/
* * 0 * *
CASE NO.: CR12-1262
DEPT. NO.: 10
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
COMES NOW Respondent CITY OF RENO, by and through Christopher Hazlett-
Stevens, Deputy City Attorney, and files its Motion to Dismiss Appeal as follows. This Motion
is based upon the pleadings and documents on file herein, and the following Legal Argument.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
1. F ACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 13,2011, Appellant was charged with Trespassing under Reno Municipal
Code, Section 8.10.010 by way of Criminal Complaint upon arrest. June 18,2012, after several
continuances, Appellant was found guilty of trespassing by the Honorable William Gardner of
the Reno Municipal Court. See Certified Copy of Docket, filed July 25,2012. Pursuant to being
found guilty of trespassing, the Court imposed a fine in the amount of $31 0 consecutive to the
time he served in custody at the Washoe County Jail. See Certified Copy of Docket. On July 18,
-1-
00243
1 2012, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in this matter. See Certified Copy of Docket. The City
2 files this instant Motion to Dismiss Appeal based on Appellant's untimely filing as explained
3 below.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
II. APPELLANT'S APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED
NRS 189.010 establishes the time within which an appeal from a municipal court must be
filed. In relevant part, NRS 189.010 states,
a defendant in a criminal action tried before a justice of the peace
may appeal from the final judgment therein to the district court ... ,
at any time within 10 days from the time of the rendition of the
judgment.
This 10-day rule applies to the Reno Municipal Court. See Root v. City of Las Vegas, 84 Nev
258, 439 P2d 219 (1968). Appellant filed his notice of appeal exactly 30 days after his judgment
of conviction was rendered on June 18,2012.
The Nevada Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the 10-day time-frame announced in
NRS 189.010 is mandatory and jurisdictional. In Scherer v. State, 89 Nev. 372, 374, 513 P.2d
1232, 1233 (1973), the Nevada Supreme Court held that timely filing a notice of appeal is
16 jurisdictional and is an essential prerequisite to perfecting the appeal. (emphasis added). The
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box ]900
Reno, NV 89505
Court citied to a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that an appeal from a judgment of
conviction must be filed within the time fixed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
stating: " ... filing a notice of appeal within the 1 O-day period . .. is mandatory and
jurisdictional. Id. citing United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282 (1959) (emphasis
added). Additionally, the Court added that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the appellate
court by consent of the parties or stipulation. Scherer, 89 Nev. at 374, 439 P.2d at 1233-34,
citing Jasper v. Jewles, 50 Nev. 153,254 P. 698 (1927).
The same requirement of timely filing notice of appeal applies equally to the defendant as
to the state. In State v. Sant, 110 Nev. 748, 750, 877 P.2d 545 (1994), the Nevada Supreme
Court held that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and not harmless error
where the state untimely filed its notice of appeal.
-2-
00244
1 In the instant matter, Appellant would have to have filed his appeal on or before June 28,
2 2012. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until July 25,2012, almost thirty days
3 after the mandatory 10-day deadline. Because Appellant's notice of appeal is untimely, his
4 appeal must be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with Scherer.
5
III. CONCLUSION
6 Based upon the foregoing, the City respectfully requests the instant appeal be dismissed with
7 prejudice.
8 CONCLUSION
9 DATED this 30
th
day of July, 2012.
10 JOHN J. KADLIC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-3-
........... ......,,=. opher Hazlett-Stevens
Reno, Nevada 89505
00245
1
2
3
4
5
6
AFFIRMATION
Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
7 The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document Motion to Dismiss
Appeal
8 (Title of Document)
9 filed in case number: ____________________ _
10 [2]
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
D
Document does not contain the social security number of any person
-OR-
Document contains the social security number of a person as required by:
D
A specific state or federal law, to wit:
-OR-
D
For the administration of a public program
-OR-
D
For an application for a federal or sta.UH$ll1l-_
21 Date: July 30,2012
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
(Print Name)
City of Reno
(Attorney for)
00246
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
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the RENO CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, and that on this date, I am serving the foregoing document(s) on the
party(s) set forth below by:
o
o
o
o
Placing an original or true copy thereof in a sealed envelope placed for collection and
mailing in the United States Mail, at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary
business practices.
Personal delivery.
Facsimile (FAX).
addressed as follows:
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
DATED this 31
st
day of July 2012.
Penelope H. olter
An Employee of the Reno City Attorney
00247
****** IMPORTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORMATION *****
PROOF OF SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
A filing has been submitted to the court RE: CR12-1262
Judge: STEVEN ELLIOTT
Official File Stamp: 07-31-2012:07:05:55
Clerk Accepted: 07-31-2012:08:03:27
Court: Second Judicial District Court - State of Nevada
Case Title:
ZACHARY COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO
(D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn to Dismiss
Filed By: CHRIS HAZLETT-STEVENS, ESQ.
You may review this filing by clicking on the
following link to take you to your cases.
This notice was automatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.
If service is not required for this document (e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.
The following people were served electronically:
CHRIS HAZLETT-STEVENS, ESQ.
JILL DRAKE for CITY OF RENO
The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditional
means (see Nevada electronic filing rules):
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
00248
F I L E D
Electronically
07-31-2012:07:03:42 AM
Clerk of the Court
2
3
4
5
6
7
Code: 2520
JOHN J. KADLIC
RENO CITY ATTORNEY
Reno, NV 89505
(775) 334-2050
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
10 * * 0 * *
11
12
13
14
Appellant,
vs.
Case No.: CR12-1262
Dept. No.: 10
15 CITY OF RENO, a municipal
corporation,
16
17
Respondent.
18 I-t------------- /
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box ]900
Reno, NV 89505
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Notice is hereby given to you, and each of you, that Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Deputy
City Attorney, hereby files this Notice of Appearance in the above-captioned case as counsel of
record for the City of Reno on this matter, and requests that all further pleadings and
correspondence be served on the undersigned.
/1/
//1
/1/
/1/
-1-
2
3
4
5
6
7
Code: 2520
JOHN J. KADLIC
RENO CITY ATTORNEY
Reno, NV 89505
(775) 334-2050
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 * * 0 * *
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box ]900
Reno, NV 89505
Appellant,
vs.
corporation,
Respondent.
Case No.: CR12-1262
Dept. No.: 10
/
Notice is hereby given to you, and each of you, that Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Deputy
City Attorney, hereby files this Notice of Appearance in the above-captioned case as counsel of
record for the City of Reno on this matter, and requests that all further pleadings and
correspondence be served on the undersigned.
/1/
//1
/1/
/1/
-1-
00249
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
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Affirmation
The undersigned does hereby affinn that the document does not contain the social
security number of any person.
DATED thisll!fa;, of July, 2012.
-2-
JOHN J. KADLIC
By:
plier Hazlett-Stevens
Reno, NV 89505
(775) 334-2050
Attorneys for City of Reno
00250
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
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
party( s) set forth below by:
D
D
D
D
business practices.
Personal delivery.
Facsimile (FAX).
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
DATED this 31 st day of July 2012.
eneIope H. ~ l t r -
00251
Clerk Accepted: 07-31-2012:08:04:28
Case Title:
(D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Notice of Appearance
CHRIS HAZLETT-STEVENS, ESQ. for CITY OF
RENO
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
00252
8
9
10

Code 1180

OR\G\NAL
F
1 L
E
D
"?
JJ'
J
|o
J
aJ
. :, ',I
' .
', " .:.:, :ifGS
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DIStRICT CO:'T; : ,' _ F NEVADA
ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
Appellant, Case No.CRI2-1262f
11
vs.
12
13
14
15
CITY OF RENO,
Respondent,
Dept. No.lO
16
ADDENDUM TO CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET FROM RENO MUNICIPAL COURT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00253
CODE: 41 85 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE SECOND JUDICIA DISTRICT COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, COUNTY OF WASHOE
9 - -
0
0
0
- -
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13 TH CITY OF RENO,
14 Defendant.
15
Case No: CR12-1262
Dept. No: 1 0
I
BENCH TRIAL - TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Transcription: Pam ongoni
(775) 530-5251
Proceedings recorded by a digital sound recording, transcript produced by a
certified transcription service.
Page -1-
00254

1 CASE NO: 1 1 CR 26405
2 DEPT. NO: II
3
4
5

6 I T RENO JUSTICE COURT
7
8
9
I AND FOR WASHOE COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA
BEFORE TH HONORABLE WILLIAM GARDNER
10 T CITY OF RENO,
II Plaintiff,
12 v.
14 Defendant.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/
TRIAL
JNE 18. 2012
Transcript of Proceeding
ORIGINAL
00255
1
2
3
4
5

APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq.
Deputy City Attorey
Reno City Attorey
One E. First Street, 3,
d
Floor
Reno, NY 89505
6 FOR THE DEFENDANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zachary Coughlin
In Proper Persona
7
8
9 TRANSCRIPTION 4 + A + q q q q q 4 4 q 4 q q 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pam Longoni
10
1 1 Proceedings recorded by digital sound recording, transcript produced by
certifed transcriptionist.
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page -2-
00256
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

WIlESSES:
Richard Hill
Casey Baker
EXHIBITS:
Plaintifs Exhibits
Exhibit I Eviction and
Decision Order
Exhibit 2 Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law
Exhibit 3 Notice of Entry
of Order
INDEX
Direct
1 8
52
Marked
60
63
115

Cross Redirect Recross
24 90, 1 1 5 99, 1 17
72
Aditted
62
66
117
Page
-
3
-
00257
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

EXAMINATION
CARSON CITY, NEVADA, AUGUST 30, 2010
000
(Cour in session at 2:31:20 p.m.)
THE COUT: Good aferoon, ladies and gentlemen.
8
M= HAZLETT -STEVENS: Good moring, Your Honor.
9
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, good moring.
10
M. COUGHLIN: Good moring, Your Honor.
1 1 THE COURT: Have a seat, gentlemen.
12
MB HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, for the record, I'll
13
just go ahead and announce this is City versus Zachary Coughlin,
14 1 1 R2640
5
.
15
Mr. Coughlin is present. As seen, he's representing himself on
16 this case, pursuant to our last hearing on this.
17
The Cit is ready to proceed to trial. He's charged with
18 trespass, Judge.
19 THE COURT: Okay, let's see here. There' s one item of
20
business we need to attend to prior to starting the trial, and that was on June
21 5th
, 201 2, Mr. Coughlin fled a motion. He fled, actually for the record, a
22
Notice of Appearance as Counsel, a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion to
23
Suppress, a Motion for a Continuance of Trial, and a Transfer of the Case to
24 Mental Health Court.
25
Were you served a copy of that, M. Hazlett-Stevens?
Page -4-
00258

1 M. HAZLET-STEVENS: I was not, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, did you serve a copy of that on
3
the City?
4 M. COUGHLIN: Uh, Your Honor -
5
THE COURT: You can have a seat. You don't need to stand.
6 That's alright, thanks.
7 MR. COUGHLIN: I placed one in - I went to the City Attorey's
8
Ofice there and there's like a metal drop box. It might have only been for
fnes though. 9
1 0 THE COURT: Okay, well, let me do this. I' m going to - I
1 1 reviewed this in detail and spent some time last week going over it.
1 2
Let me address the - because we're making a record, I want to
1 3 finish up this item of unfnished business.
1 4 The Motion to Continue, Mr. Coughlin, is that a motion you're
1 5 still desirous of pursuing this moring?
1 6 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
1 7 THE COURT: Alright.
1 8 MR. COUGHLIN: I wouldn't mind.
1 9 THE COURT: Alright, I understand that. Let me make a little
20 bit of the record here, in terms of the background of this case, is why I' m
21 making a record.
22
On November 1 3
t
h, 201 1 , Mr. Coughlin was arrested by the
23
Reno Police Departent and charged with one count of trespassing.
24
On November 1 4'
h
, 201 1 , M. Coughlin was arraigned and
25 pled not guilty. Trial was then set for December 1 3
t
h, 201 1 .
Page -5-
00259

1 On November 23'
d
, 201 1 , a Motion to Continue was filed by
2 the Cit Attorey, a Hill motion is what I'll call it, based on an absent
3 witness. I believe i was M. Hill, not related to the Hill motion.
4 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: That's the original motion, yes.
5 THE COURT: That was not opposed by Defendant's counsel at
6 the time. And on November 28th
, I entered an order continuing the trial the
7 first time.
8 The trial was then reset for January 30t
h
, 2012. On Januar 3,
d
,
9
2012, a Motion to Continue was filed by M. Puentes, your attorey at the
10 time. The City Attorey did not object.
1 1
On January 1 8t
h
, I -well, prior to that, before the ruling on that
12
motion, on January 18t
h
, M. Puentes filed a Motion to Withdraw as your
1 3 attorey.
1 4
On February 2n
d
, 201 2, I scheduled a (inaudible) hearing on
15 the Motion to Withdraw. The motion was granted, and M. Loomis was
1 6 appointed.
17
On February 13t
h
, 2012, you filed, M. Coughlin, a Motion to
1 8 Vacate, a Motion for Reconsideration for Recusal.
19
On February 22n
d
, 2012, an Opposition to the Motion was filed
20 by the City Attorey.
21
Trial, then at that point, was ultimately reset for April 10
th
,
22 2012. On March 5t
h
, 201 2, Mr. Coughlin, you filed a motion actually
23
captioned in the District Court, but it made itself -it did make itself
24 appropriate to our file.
25
On March 21 `,you fled another Motion -the City fled a
Page -6-
00260

1 Motion to stike your motion based on no service on the City Attorey.
2 On January 20t
h
, 201 2, I entered an order, number one,
3
denying your motion that was filed on February 1 3t
h
, 2012. On March 21
s
t,
4
2012, I entered a second order denying your Motion to Dismiss that was
5 fled on March 5th
, 2012.
6 And then on April lOt
h
, 201 2, I suspended the proceedings
7 based on a competency issue that had been raised in the District Court. And
8 then at that time, at your request, M. Loomis was relieved as your attorey.
9 On April 26t
h
, 201 2, in District Court, Judge Elliott found you
10 competent to stand trial.
1 1 On May 19t
h
, 201 2, Judge Elliott signed an Order fnding you
1 2
competent and remanded whatever case was pending in the Justice Court
1 3 back to the Justice Court, and then I reset trial for June 1 8t
h
, 201 2, today' s
1 4 date.
15 On May 7
th
, 201 2, Judge Sferrazza assigned that case in the
1 6 Justice Court to the Mental Health Court. On May 24t
h
, Judge Breen, the
1 7
District Court Judge, and the Judge responsible for the administration - him
18
and Judge Blake, one of the two Judges, sent the case back to the Reno
1 9 Justice Court.
20 Then on June 5
th
, you filed the motion we're talking about
21 now, including the Motion to Continue.
22
So this case has been now continued twice. The proceedings
23
have been suspended once, all in the normal course and scope of business.
24 Motions filed by the City, motions fled by the Defendant.
25
Page -7-
00261
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
1 2
13
1 4
IS
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
24
25

When I conducted te hearing last time on May 8t
h
, we were
very clear that absent getting this matter resolved, we were going to conduct
the trial today - today, on June 18'\ at 9:00 a.m. I set some limitations on
motions filed by the parties. Those motions were respected and fled timely.
Tere is a service issue that we don't need to address today
because -
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: I'm happy to respond to whatever
motion, but I was not served with it.
THE COURT: For the record, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, what is the
City'S position on the Motion to Continue?
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, the City opposes the Motion
to Continue. This case is getting pretty old now. We're getting - 1 1 113 is
the offense date, and I think it's proper to actually proceed to trial today.
We've reset this thing many, many times. You're right, in the
normal course of things, there were appropriate reasons to reset this thing.
The Cit has its witnesses present, ready for trial this moring.
I think we should move on, and close this case up whatever way it goes.
THE COURT: Okay, and M. Coughlin, briefly, would you like
to respond to the City's opposition to your Motion to Continue? And I do
mean bref
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I've read all your briefs. I've read everthing,
and I've reviewed the fle at great length, so I just need to know what you'd
like to say about the Motion to Continue.
Page -8-
00262

1
MP COUGHLIN: I don't know if! can (inaudible) te Sixth
2 Amendment right to a speedy. Yeah, it would be nice to have a little more
3 time to prepare, but if! can do that.
4 THE COURT: Okay, well, we've been given a lot oftime to
5 prepare. These cases need to be heard in a timely fashion. Again, the time
6 delay has been in the normal business of this case. The Motion to Continue
7 is denied. We are going to have the trial today.
8
That leaves us with the second issue raised, your Motion to
9 Dismiss, Mr. Coughlin.
10
Essentially, as I read the Motion, the allegation primarily is
11 that the Complaint failed to establish probable cause, that there was a
12 waring given and that based on that right that you feel the case should be
13 dismissed.
14 Is that substance correct?
15 M COUGHLIN: Your Honor, you said there was no waring
16 given?
17 THE COURT: No, I'm reading your language from your legal
18 argument that says, A) that page two of your Motion to Dismiss, that the
1 9 Complaint fails to establish probable cause because it fails to allege that
20 there was sufcient waring not to remain on the property afer being told
21 not to do so, and/or that Coughlin did not have a right to be there. That's the
22 basis for the Motion to Dismiss?
23 M. COUGHLIN: Yes.
24 THE COURT: M. Hazlett-Stevens?
25
Page -9-
00263

1 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I did not receive a copy of
2 that. Nonetheless, I will argue today. The City opposes the Motion to
3 Dismiss, as you might imagine, and for this reason, on March 21
s
t, 2012, this
4
Court entered an Order in regard to a prior Motion to Dismiss the Criminal
5 Complaint previously.
6 This issue has already been heard and decided on by Your
7
Honor. You actually hit the issue head on on the March 1 2
th
, 2012 March
8 21 , 2012, Order.
9 You will recall that the Cit wasn't served properly with that
10 one either, and there was an issue. I oppose - I move to strike the Motion to
1 1 Dismiss in that case.
1 2 You said notwithstanding the service issue, you would reach
1 3
the issue on its merits, deny te Motion to Dismiss on the lack of the
1 4 sufciency of the Criminal Complaint.
15 We've already heard this issue. It's already been decided on,
1 6 and I don't think it's right to have two bites at the same apple, Judge.
1 7 THE COUT: Alright, M. Coughlin, your response to that? I
IS
mean, I've given you a couple of breaks because notwithstanding allegations
1 9 that the City Attorey wasn't properly served, I still addressed the merits of
20 the Motion, giving you a break in that regard, and I'm doing the same thing
21 today given the allegation the Cit wasn't served with this Motion. What is
22 your response to Mr. Hazlett-Stevens' argument that the case should not be
23
dismissed? Again, we can make this brief because I've reviewed in detail all
24
the pleadings you've filed in this Court, both this moring and last Friday, so
25 go ahead.
Page - 1 0-
00264

1
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. Mr. Hazlett-Stevens is
2
recounting of your Order in response to my earlier Motion to Dismiss differs
3 somewhat fom my recollection, althoug admittedly, I wished I' d reviewed
4 that Order a little more clearly.
5
But it seems to me that you perhaps did not get to the merits,
6
or that it was not - so it almost seems as though you said M. Loomis was
7
my attorey and it's inappropriate for me to unilaterally decide. I' m going
8
to appoint myself as co-counsel, and then present a Motion to Dismiss.
9
So, I don't know if that is law of the case, or something in that
10 regard.
1 1 I do recall reading your Order, and respectfully, I ' ll say this,
1 2
SI. Just a little bit - I had put some time into that Motion to Dismiss, and
1 3 your Order seemed to find it somewhat frivolous.
1 4 THE COURT: So whenever I enter an Order, all the lawyers
15
know. Whenever I enter something, half the parties involved are in
1 6 disagreement, or are unhappy or discontented with my Order.
1 7 So, moving that aside - moving that aside, I've entered the
1 8
Orders. The basis of the Motion - of my order denying the Motion was that
1 9 i lacked legal merit. That's a decision made by the Court which is
20 obviously - I live with the fact that half the parties are in disagreement every
21
time I make a ruling. That's te cross to bear you have as a Judge. I've
22 gotten used to that.
23 The Motion to Dismiss in this case is going to be denied
24 because this is an allegation that ultimately goes to the ultimate issue of fact
25
in this case, and will rise and fall on the proof of the City, or the lack of the
Page 1 1
00265

1
proof on te City. Whether or not tere was sufcient waing in this case,
2 which is an element of the trespass case, we'll deal with at trial.
3 So, the Motion to Dismiss again is denied. The Motion to
4 Suppress, what is it, M. Coughlin, that you're desiring to suppress? I read
5 tat, and I couldn't really fgure that out. I didn't see any evidence that was
6
seized illegally. In reviewing all your motions, would you like to address the
7 Motion to Suppress briefy?
8 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I believe, depending upon
9 how one looks at it, this might have been a Fourth Amendment violation, or
10 seizure of person maybe, in that either anything in the police report, or
1 1 anything -I know M. Hill wouldn't necessarily be a state actor invoking
12 one of these constitutional concers, but to the extent he's somewhat acting
1 3 in concert with the police, or he's the one signing the Criminal Complaint.
14 If a tenat still has a legal rigt to be somewhere, the landlord
15 does not have a legal right to walk in, and kick down a door, and invite their
1 6 some police ofcers.
17 THE COURT: Okay, what is it that we're seeking to suppress?
18 Is it items of evidence that you're arguing that was illegally obtained, or was
1 9 it statements by you that were obtained in violation of your Fifh
20 Amendment privilege, your Mirada issues? Because I'm not seeing any
21 evidence in this case that we're looking to suppress.
22 M. COUGHLIN: The entire police report. Any knowledge
23 of my being there. Any testimony that Mr. Hill or any other percipient
24 witnesses might wish to proffer.
2S THE COURT: Okay, that motion is going to be -
Page -12-
00266

1 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Judge, I would like to put on the
2 record -
THE COUT: Go ahead. 3
4 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: -- my objection because I' d like to
5 make an ofer of proof for the objection i case of appeal.
6 I'll draw Your Honor's attention to the State a/Nevada v. Bill
7
Nchols. It's a 1990 case. It's 106 Nev. 651, where the Court said, "A
8
person who is evicted from a property no longer has an expectation of
9
privacy." There is no Fourth Amendment right anymore when someone re-
10 enters a property after eviction.
1 1 It says, "The State contends that the search respondent no
1 2
longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence address."
1 3
The State maintains that respondent's subsequent re-entry was a trespass.
14
It's very similar to this case, Your Honor, and did nothing to restore the
15 reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court said we agree.
1 6 There is no expectation of privacy. I hardly even think he has
17 standing to bring the issue. Certainly, there is no Fourth Amendment
18 violation here, Your Honor.
1 9 THE COUT: I' m not seeing any evidence, and indeed, under
20
United States v. Cru, there is no real suppression of a criminal
'
defendant in
21 a criminal case.
22 So, the Motion to Suppress is denied.
23
The transfer to Mental Health Court, M. Coughlin, do you
24
want to address that? I think we've already gone down the road - you've
25
already been down the road with the Mental Health Court and the Justice
Page -13-
00267

1
Court. Is that something that we should discuss today because you've raised
2 it i your pretrial motion?
3
M. COUGHIN: Perhaps, Your Honor. I've attempted to access
4
justice in that regard with respect to what happened in Mental Health Court.
5
Essentially, you know, you have two paties, and you have an offer and
6 acceptance, and they come to an ageement on terms, and they enter a
7
contact, and then one of them later decides to unilaterally change the
8
contact, usually, that's a due process problem of some sort of contract law.
9 THE COUT: Okay, how does that relate to the Mental Health
10 Court? Here' s where I'm going with this.
1 1 We, all along at the last hearing, we discussed the issue of
12 tansfer to Mental Health Court, which notwithstanding the City Attorey' s
1 3 position at that time, I'm not clear what it was, ultimately we decided that
14 was a decision that could be made by the Court, and I was willing to
1 5 entertain looking into that.
1 6 I have the discretion to transfer cases to Mental Health Court,
1 7 transfer original jurisdiction with the permission of the Distict Court Judge.
1 8
Hearing nothing up until today, and moreover, fnding that in the District
1 9
Court case number M12-0032, Judge Breen, on May 24t transfered the
20
Justice Court case involving Judge Sferraa and yourself back to the Justice
21
Court, it would not appear to be in the interest of anybody at this point in
22
time to delay the proceedings fher by transfering the case to the Mental
23 Health Court.
24
You've had that opportunity to get over there once. I would
25 have been very inclined to transfer this case to the Mental Health Court if
Page -14-
00268

1
you would have been accepted in doing well over there, but that didn't
2
happen. So, the Motion to Transfer to Mental Health Court is a matter of
3 discretion for this Court, and it's going to be denied.
4 Finally, although the -
5 M4 COUGHLIN: Your Honor, quickly.
6 TH COURT: Go ahead.
7 M4 COUGHLIN: If! could just interject. It is my understanding,
8
for the record, that I was accepted into that progam, and then tey changed
9' the tenus of it and decided -
1 0 TH COURT: Yeah, I don't know exactly what happened, Mr.
1 1
Coughlin. I appreciate that. I'm reading from Judge Breen' s Order that
1 2
"The Defendant be removed fom the Mental Health Progam, and that you
1 3
be retured to the Reno Justice Court for all fture proceedings."
14 So, whatever happened over there, which I' m not privy to, and
1 5
which I don't think really is related or relevant to this case, we're going to
1 6 not delay these proceedings by sending the case over there.
1 7 Finally, that leaves the issue of recusal. You have, while not
1 8
raised in the caption of the pleading, it is identified in the pleadings you
19
raised, on page two, we've addressed this issue before i n detail.
20 I've denied that Motion to Recuse. There's nothing raised that
21
even (inaudible) prevents me from hearing this case and being a fair,
22 detached observer to the facts oflaw, so that will be denied.
23
M4 COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if! could quickly enter an objection
24 for the record on that.
25 TH COURT: Go ahead.
Page - 1 5-
00269

1
M. COUGHLIN: And just to preface that by saying everybody
2
I've talked to has indicated you're an outstanding Judge, Your Honor, and
3 completely fair, so that's defnitely given me a lot of confidence in the Court
4 in that regard.
5 But I do believe there might be - I don't know ifit's ajudicial
6 (inaudible) or something that says where a Judge has litigants before him
7 who have a case involving a family member of the Judge, in some other
8
sphere. I don't know if that's a mandatory recusal, but I did fle a mandatory
9 habeas action against your sister, the Honorable Judge Linda Gardner, in
1 0 Family Court in 2009. I was fired from my job as a domestic violence
1 1 attorey fom Washoe Legal Services, and I was told I was fred because of
1 2
her - because of the conduct by me that resulted in her order only. It's the
1 3 only reason I was fred, according to Washoe Legal Services.
14 I did file a Mandamus Petition. It was pretty much a three
1 5 judge panel, and the Supreme Court felt i wasn't worthy of, I guess, more
1 6 review or requiring a response.
1 7 And then now there is a gievance with the State Bar. I call it
1 8 - not to be flip, but I call i kind of the immolate conception grievance
1 9 because nobody can tell me who filed it, or how it became a grievance.
20
But that order from 2009 sanctioned me requiring me to pay
21 $\,000 attorey' s fees, NRS (inaudible) .085. In the context of my being a
22 domestic violence legal aid attorey advocating on behalf of my client, a
23 battered woman, tring to get her alimony incident to a 20-year marriage
24 with two kids, wherein I was ordered to pay $\,000 out of my pocket, that's
25 now a gievance.
Pae -16-
00270

1 It's upon infonnation and belief it became a gievance with the
2 State Bar because your sister, Judge Linda Gardner, gave the order to you,
3 whereupon I believe you indicated you gave it to Judge Nash Holmes,
4
whereupon Judge Nash Holmes gave it to bar counsel, along with a number
5
of other materials that I have not been privy to, either in my attempts to
6 secure them from the filing ofice here at the Muni Court, or from bar
7 counsel, M. Patick Kinney.
8
I've made numerous attempts to get these recordings and these
9
different materials. So, just to enter tat for the record, Your Honor.
1 0 THE COURT: Alright, thank you, M. Coughlin. And let me
1 1 just tell you this. That case goes back to the Family Court, I have no real
1 2
knowledge, except I have read the Order. It's unrelated and irrelevant to this
1 3
case. I have not really discussed the merits of this case with my sister who is
14 a Judge i n the Family Court.
1 5
There would be no reason to discuss that case, and even ifthat
1 6 would have happened, we have not -there' s really no nexus between her
1 7
being a Judge and having heard a case where you're an attorey on, and my
1 8
being a Judge some three years later on a case where you are a Defendant in.
1 9
So, the Motion to Recuse is denied. And I think that identifies
20
the issues raised in your Motion filed June 5
th, 201 2. It looks like now we're
21 ready to go to trial, is that correct, counsel?
22 M. HAZLETT -STEVENS: The City is ready, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Alright, let's go ahead and call your first
24 witness, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
25
Page -17-
00271

1
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: The City calls Richard Hill to the
2 stand.
3
M. COUGHLIN: And, Your Honor, I don't know if I'm supposed
4
to intelect this now, or not, but I believe I did subpoena some witnesses
5 who appear (inaudible).
6 THE COURT: Right, and we'll address that at the appropriate
7
time. Ultimately, M. Coughlin is a lawyer. You know we take these M.
8 Hill, good moring.
9 M. HILL: Good moring, sir.
1 0 THE COURT: We take these matters step by step by step.
1 1
There's no other way to do it, so we'll address all legal issues as they show
1 2
up in the due course, and pursuant to protocol at trial.
1 3 So, let's swear in M. Hill.
1 4 (Witness duly swor).
1 5 THE COURT: Have a seat, M. Hill. Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, go
1 6 ahead.
1 7 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Your Honor.
1 8
RICHAR HILL
1 9
called as a witness, having been duly swor,
20
testifed as follows:
21 DIRECT EXAMINA nON
22 BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
23
Q
Good moring, can you pleae state your name, and
24 spell your last for the record?
25
Page - 1 8-
00272

I THE COURT: You know, M. Hazlett-Stevens, and Mr. - let
2 me make one last comment for the record.
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: Please. 3
4 THE COURT: I know that Mr. Coughlin is an attorey.
5 Nonetheless, he's representing himself
6
M. Coughlin, let me tell you what I know about this case to
7
date. I am looking at a Criminal Complaint that alleges that on November
8 1 3
t
, 201 1, in the Cit of Reno, at 1 21 River Rock Street, the Defendant was
9
found on the property afer being evicted on November 1 st, 201 1 .
1 0 The only other information I know about the case is that the -
II
whatever was raised in the pleadings fled, both by you and M. Hazlett-
1 2 Stevens.
1 3
So, with that in mind, go aead, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
1 4 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
IS BY M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Thank you.
1 6
Q
Thank you. Can you please state your name, and spell
1 7 your last for the record?
1 8 A Richard Hill, H-I-L-L.
19
Q
Good, M. Hill, I'm going to ask you -
20
MR. COUGHLIN: I' m sorr, I don't mean to interrupt you, Mr.
21
Hazlett-Stevens. If! could just quickly interject, Your Honor, given what
22
you just said, to any extent, I' m required to broach the topic of any
23
discussions you've had with Judge Nash Holmes with respect to these
24 matters or -
25
Page -19-
00273

1 THE COURT: I can tell you that Judge Nash Holmes and I have
2
not discussed this case with anybody, we have not. There has been no
3
discussions between me and the Judge about your case, the trespassing, set
4 for today.
5
M. COUGHLIN: Or any other matters related to Richard Hill?
6
T COURT: Or any other matters. We've never discussed
7 any matters related to Richard Hill at all.
8
M. COUGHLIN: Okay, and when you said you and your sister had
9 never discussed anything about me?
1 0 THE COURT: Not related to this case.
1 1
M. COUGHLIN: I believe earlier you just said you never
12 discussed anything about me at all.
1 3 M. HALETT-STEVENS: Judge, you've already ruled on
14 this. I' m going to ask that you -
1 5
THE COURT: We have ruled. Let me tell you - let me tell you
1 6
what I've discussed. We have discussed - I have not discussed with Judge
1 7 Nash Holmes and I a advised that based on some steps she's taken, there' s
1 8
been a matter referred to the State Bar which is under, i f not - I'm aware
19
that you have been suspended by the State Bar, and that that's subject to
20 frther review.
2 1
To the extent that Judge Holmes has had a case in her
22
department, as has Judge Howard, and has myself, we have had discussions,
23 general discussions related to the State Bar matter.
24
As related to my conversations with either my sister, which
25 have been very limited related to you, and certainly none related to your
Page 20
00274

1
case, except you had a case over here, I've had no discussions with Judge
2
Howard, Judge Holmes, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, or my sister
3
regarding this trespassing case. And that's by desig that was careflly
4 thought out so there' s been no discussions.
5
M+ COUGHLIN: And with the State Bar, I know earlier -
6 THE COUT: I have had no conversations with the State Bar.
7 M COUGHLIN: Okay, at our last hearing though you made a
8 statement, I believe, the disciplinary or the Bar will be meeting next week to
9 mae a -
1 0 THE COURT: I was advised by Judge Holmes that the process
1 1
involving you and the State Bar was in the process where they were going to
1 2
make a decision, which ultimately apparently they did. Those were the
1 3
substances of those conversations, but none were related to this case, and I
14
can tell you that none have had any conversations regarding the witnesses in
1 5
this case that have never come up between any of the counsel. I' m not sure
1 6 they even know who the witnesses were quite fankly.
1 7 M. COUGHLIN: Okay.
1 8 TH COURT: Okay, thank you.
19 M+ COUGHLIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Okay, let's go ahead and proceed.
21 BY M. HALETT-STEVENS:
22
Q
Thank you. M. Hill, I'm going to ask you to make sure
23
you speak up and not trail off your answers at the end. This is being
24
recorded, so for appellate purposes, or any other purose, I' d like to get a
25 good recording of this.
Page -21 -
00275

M. Hill, what's your occupation or profession?
A I am an attorey practicing in Reno, Nevada.
I
2
3
Q
Okay, and what's your area of focus as an attorey here
4 in Reno?
5 A Real estate, constuction, business litigation,
6 landlord/tenant, elder law.
7
Q
Okay, as an attorey, how long have been licensed, by
8 the way, to practice law here in Nevada?
9 A 33 years.
1 0
Q
As an attorey, did you have any relation to the address
II of 1 21 River Rock Street, that's in Reno, Nevada, 89503?
1 2
A Yes, sir.
How did you get associated with that place?
1 3
1 4
Q
A In August of last year, -I was contacted by Dr. Matthew
1 5 Merliss. I believe he is a resident of Chico, Califoria.
1 6 He explained to me that he had a tenant with whom he was
1 7
having some difculties, and he'd had enough, and he wanted us to evict
1 8 him.
19
Q
20 efectuate that?
2 1
22
A
Q
And did you enter into an agreement in order to
Yes, sir, we did.
And did part of that agreement entail you initiating
23
eviction proceedings against the occupier of 1 21 River Rock Street?
24
25
A
Q
Yes, sir, it did.
Is 1 21 River Rock in the City of Reno?
Page -22-
00276

A Yes, sir, it is.

1
2
Q
And do we know who was living at 1 2 1 River Rock at
the time you started the eviction proceedings? 3
4
A Well, Dr. Merliss identified the individual as M.
5
6
Coughlin, and informed me that he was a lawyer.
Q
Okay.
7 A And that there had been quite a bit of backing and forth
- going back and forth between them, and he'd had enough.
8
9
Q
And was part of the basis for that eviction failure to pay
10
rent?
11 A I was informed that M. Coughlin had not paid rent, at
12 that point, for some 4 or 5 months.
13
Q
Okay.
14 A And that there were problems at the house. There had
15
been some damage observed and that M. Coughlin was a hoarder, and as
16
we later confirmed, huge piles of car pas, tires, dead stereo equipment,
17 dead TV's, outside.
18 And then that's what we (inaudible).
19
Q
Now, so you entered into an attorey/client relationship
20
with Mr. Merliss on or about August of20 1 1 , is that correct?
21 A Yes, sir.
22
Q
And did you actually initiate the eviction proceedings,
23 or did you have someone else in your ofice do that?
24
A I assiged that to my associate, M. Baker.
25
Page -23-
00277
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Q
Okay, and would he have the authority then to initiate
eviction proceedings against the occupier of 1 21 River Rock?
A Absolutely.
M. HAZLETI-STEVENS: Judge, that's the only questions I
have for Mr. Hill at this time, subject to recall, of course.
THE COURT: Alright, Mr. Coughlin, cross-examination?
M. COUGHIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. COUGHLIN:
Q
Good moring, Mr. Hill. So, your client, how many
fees - how much in fees -what amount of fees does he actually incur?
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Objection, that exceeds the scope
of cross, or direct, and it's irrelevant.
THE COURT: What relevance would M. Hill's fee
15
arrangement with his client have to M. Hill's direct testimony today, M.
16 Coughlin? What is the nexus here that makes it relevant?
17 M. COUGHLIN: I believe it may go to a motive analysis wherein
18
if an exorbitant amount of fees has been r up or incurred, or needs to be
19 presented as -
20 THE COURT: Tat motion is -Mr. Hazlett-Stevens' objection
21
is sustained. I don't fmd any relevance to M. Hills' fnancial arrangement
22
with his client to this tespassing case. I can't imagine how that could be
23
24
25
relevant.
So, let's move on. I'm going to sustain the objection.
Page -24-
00278

I
M. COUGHLIN: Okay, sir, I believe on direct, attorey' s fees
2 were brought up and an arrangement was -
3 THE COURT: I - you can ask if there was a relationship that
4
involved Mr. Hill getting paid, but I'm not going to allow I don't tink it's
5
relevant for Mr. Hill to go into any details about specifc dollar amounts, and
6 I' m not going to allow that type of questioning.
7 Go ahead with a new question.
8 M. COUGHLIN : Yes, sir, Your Honor.
9 BY MR. COUGHIN:
10
Q Mr. Hill, you just testifed that this client, Dr. Merliss,
I I contacted you in August?
12 A That's what I testified, sir.
13
Q 0f2011. Okay, and you testifed that at that time, it
14
was your understanding that the tenant had failed to pay rent for some 4 or 5
15 months?
A That is what I testifed to. I'm not exactly positive as I 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
sit here today how long a period oftime rent had not been paid, but it was
substantial.
Q So, if you're not exactly positive, why did you give that
figure of 4 or 5 months in your earlier testimony?
A
Q
My best recollection today, sir.
Okay, so if it was - if in August, you say rent hadn't
23
been paid for, let's say 5 months, that would be August, July, June, May,
24
April. Would that be your understanding of what five months less August
25 would be?
Page -25-
00279
1
2
3
4

A
Q
A
Q

I think your math is correct, sir.
Okay, and what are you basing that on?
Math? Of what you --
No, I mean, did your client call you up and say, "Well,
5 he hasn't paid rent in fve months," or "He hasn't paid rent since April," or
6 does that just sound like something that would make me sound like a bad
7 person (inaudible).
8 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Objection, argumentative.
9 Objection, argumentative.
10 THE COURT: I think the question that can be asked, and I think
11 you - frame i is, you ask M. Hill, and then you begin to go on with a
12
compound question whether -what information did he base his testimony
13 today that rent wasn't paid, what was the source of that information. And I
14 think that question, if you want to ask it, is allowable, but we get into a
15 compound question and argumentative question, which I'm not going to
16 allow.
17 So, I'll allow you to ask that question and direct Mr. Hill to
18
answer that question to the extent you want to ask that question, so go ahead.
19 M= COUGHIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
20 BY M. COUGHIN:
21 Q M. Hill, if you would please do that, I guess, to
22 simplif the compound question.
23 What statements or information lead you to believe that rent
24 hadn't been paid for five months as of August?
25
Page -26-
00280
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

A First of all, my conversations with my client were
privileged. I will tell you that there were discussions to the efect that rent
had not been paid, and we were provided with many, many email strings
between you and Dr. Merliss that clearly demonstrated that rent had not been
paid, and that you were manufacturing reasons to justif not paying rent.
Q
So, I didn't hear where did 4 or 5 months come from,
that figure? Why not one or two months?
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, he's already testifed that
that's protected by the attorey/client privilege.
M4 COUGHLIN: And I believe it was waived to the extent he
utilized and leveraged it earlier.
THE COURT: Well, why don't you refrain your question and
reask the question, Mr. Coughlin? Go ahead.
MR. COUGHLIN: I'm not sure I understand the gist of-
T COURT: Well, I'm going to sustain the objection, so why
don't you rephrase the question and ask i again, and we'll address the
answer and the response (inaudible), so go aead.
BY M COUGHLIN:
Q
Okay, why did you say 4 or 5 months earlier?
A As I told you, sir, that's my best recollection today?
Q
A
Q
Based on what?
Based on my best recollection, M. Coughlin.
And would that - specifically, what does that
24 recollection include? Is i something you heard on the phone? Was it in
25 writing? Something-
Page -27-
00281
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

A It's consistent with the stor that you've told
subsequently about a young lady taking off with -supposedly taking off
with rent money.
Q Okay, but earlier you weren't talking about what I told
you. You were talking about what your client told you, and how it was
privileged, except for te extent to which you (inaudible) and leveraged it by
saying 4 or months.
So, now you're basing your recollection upon something?
You're saying I told her - is it what you said earlier, about how it was about
what your client told you?
A Mr. Coughlin, all I can do is give you my best
recollection. That recollection has been reinforced by things that you have
said and done subsequently.
Q Okay, but earlier, you testified your recollection
15
stemmed fom what your client had told you. Can you tell me what your
16 client told you?
17 A I think you --
What you remember about that? 18
19
20
Q
A
Q
I'm sorry, sir. I think your statement is incorrect.
Well, it's my understanding that earlier you testified
21
that based upon your recollections, rent had not been paid for 4 or 5 months,
22 and that those recollections were based upon your conversations with your
23 client.
24 THE COUT: I believe that 's what M. Hill has testified to, and
25 I think we can accept that as a fact, so let's move on.
Page -28-
00282

1 BYM. COUGHLIN:

2
Q
Okay, so now I' m asking you specifically, was this
3 somethig your client wrote you? Did he give a 4 or 5 month figure? Did
4 he talk to you about this? Did he mention April?
5
Why say 4 or 5 months? Why wasn't it 1 or 2 months? How
did you come up with that figure? 6,
7 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, he's already testified that ' s
8
his best recollection as to what he discussed with his client. That's the issue.
9 That' s already been submitted as fact, Judge.
10 THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection. M. Hill, to
11 the extent possible, why don't you answer the question. What was the basis
12
that the 4 to 5 months came into play without compromising your
13 attorey/client relationships? Just give me your best answer to that.
14 M. HILL: My best recollection is between what the client
15
told me, and the email strings that he forwarded to me, that it had been April
16 or May was the last time that any rent had been paid.
17
And sice that time, there was lots of obtuse scathing as to
18 why the rent shouldn't be paid.
19 THE COURT: Okay, thank you, M. Hill. Okay, M. Couglin.
20 BY M COUGHLIN:
21
Q
So earlier your testimony was that it had been 4 or 5
22 months since any rent had been paid?
I believe that ' s what I said, sir.
23
'
24
A
Q
Okay, but if - now you just said it was either April or
25 May was the last time.
Page -29-
00283

That time fame. 1
2
A
Q Any rent had been paid. So, if a partial rent had been
3
paid in May, but your earlier statement was that since "any", then that would
4 take it down to more like two months, wouldn't it?
5 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to object to this.
6 This is retrying a case that's already been tried.
7
This is a simple matter of a trespass. All he testifed to was his
8 best recollection as to how much, or the basis for the eviction. He had
9 authority at that point. That's all that was for. It's not the truth of the matter
10
asserted, the trespass, and I'd like to move on, off that questioning, Judge.
11 THE COURT: M. Coughlin?
12 Me COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I'm not offering it for the truth of
13
the matter asserted. It goes to his credibility and M. Hill - what I believe the
14
established practice of spinning things, like perhaps a good attorey should,
15 but spinning them nonetheless.
16 THE COURT: I' m going to sustain the objection. The Court
17
has received information, relevant information, that M. Hill has
18
guesstimated and given his best estimate that rent had not been paid for 4 or
19 5 months, and it had come from information provided by his client from you,
20 and we can move on to the next question. Go ahead.
21 BY M COUGHLIN:
22 Q Okay, and you said that any rent had been paid before?
23 M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, objection. He's already
24 testified to this, and this is the same line of questioning.
25
Page -30-
00284

1 THE COURT: I'm not sure it's really relevant. If you want to
2
ask a question to follow up on that, M. Coughlin, go ahead. Make your
3
question specifc and direct. M. Hill, do your best to answer that question.
4 Go ahead, M. Coughlin.
5 BY M+ COUGHIN:
6
Q
Mr. Hill, do you have any recollection of whether, say,
7 a partial rent had been paid for May?
8 A Mr. Coughlin, it really didn't matter. Rent was more
9 tan a dollar, and more than a day late.
10 Mo COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: You've asked the question. You've asked the
12 question, and you are now going to be stuck with the answer. Go ahead, Mr.
13 Hill.
14 THE WITNESS: M. Couglin, it didn't matter. The rent was
15
more than a dollar, and more than a day late. That is sufcient under
16 Nevada law to move to terminate the tenancy.
17
In addition, you were a month-to-month tenant at that point in
18 time.
19
M. COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor. He's offering a legal
20
opinion, which I don't believe he's qualifed to make, nor have I asked him
21 to make it.
22 TH COURT: You asked the question. I hear the question. I'm
23
not sure whether or not you were a month-to-month tenant. There's really, if
24 any, legal merit to the trespassing case.
25
Page -31-
00285

1
I want to stay focused, Mr. Coughlin, with some questions that
2 you're questioning on cross-examination obviously can be directly related
3 to the information, and I give witnesses and the lawyers and the litigants a
4 geat deal ofleeway on cross-examination.
5
Let's keep it relevat and focused on what we're talking about
6 here, so go ahead.
7
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay, yes, sir, Your Honor.
8 BY Mq COUGHLIN:
9 Q You said in your testimony on direct, Mr. Hill, that the
10 client had told you that the tenant was a hoarder in August when he hired
11 you?
I believe that topic was discussed. 12
13
A
Q Can you provide some more background on that?
14
When that might have been discussed and some specifics detailing why that
15 diagnosis was proffered?
16 A Mr. Coughlin, I've already told you. I' ve already
17 answered the question.
18 Mq COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor. Non-responsive.
19 THE COURT: M. Hill, M. Coughlin has asked you a question.
20
I'm going to direct you -he's asked the question. It's a fair question on
21
cross-exam on what information you've received to the conclusion that he
22 was a hoarder (inaudible) answer that question.
23 THE WITNESS: The information provided to me at that time was
24 that Mr. Coughlin was a hoarder.
25
Page -32-
00286
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

I subsequently confirmed that with visual observation afer he
was evicted. The backyard, the size of the area that your staff and I are
occupying (inaudible - both talking).
M COUGHLIN: Your Honor, objection. Non-responsive. I
asked you what his client told him at that time, not what he found out later
on.
THE COUT: He's now -M. Coughlin, he's now -you've
asked the question. I've asked M. Hill to answer it, now he's answered it.
So, go ahead, M. Hill.
THE WITNESS: It was a six foot fence.
M COUGHIN: He's not answering it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, I've asked hi to answer the
question. Let him finish. You asked the question.
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
TH COURT: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Hill.
THE WITNESS: There is a six foot fence around the backyard,
the size that I've already indicated to the Court .
I was full to the top of the fence with tires, car parts, dead
stereo equipment, dead speakers, dead big screen TV's.
M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, I asked about August .
THE WITNESS: Trash.
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, you've asked the question, he's
answering it. That ' s the exact question you asked is what information he
had to come to the conclusion that you were a hoarder, which I' m not sure
Page -33-
00287

1
how relevant it is to this case to start with, but go ahead and fnish - that
2 sums it up.
3 TH WIlESS: That completes my answer.
4 THE COURT: Okay, there's an answer to the question.
5
M COUGHLIN: I agee, Your Honor. I don't think it's all that
6 relevant, but that's what Richard Hill does. He throws up a bunch of
innuendo - 7
8 . M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, objection. If it's not
9 relevant, let's move off that line of questioning.
10 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, let's stay focused. You asked a
11 question. He's answered it. Let's move on t o our next question.
1 2 M COUGHIN: He talks about finding crack pipes and -
13 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Objection, objection.
14 (Inaudible - all talking at once).
15 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, let's stay focused. Ask him the
16 next question. Go ahead and ask the next question.
17 BY M COUGHLIN:
18 Q So, because -what did - in August, Mr. Hill, now try,
19 try to keep your answer tailored to what I'm asking you, M. Hill. Please
20 don't try to go off on one of your tangents.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, let me tell you something right
22 now. I'm giving you a great deal of leeway. I don't want you engaging with
23 the witnesses in any type of conversation any more than I'm allowing M.
24 Hazlett-Stevens.
25
Page -34-
00288
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0

You have a right to ask questions on cross-examination. Go
aead and ask those questions. To the extent they are relevant, I'll make
rulings, but let's ask him a question now. I don't want you engaging with
any witness in any type of questioning, any type of argumentative diatribe.
So, go ahead.
M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
BY MR. COUGHLIN:
Q Mr. Hill, if someone had 1 1 Porsches, would they be a
Porsche hoarder?
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, objection. There is no basis
1 1
for that question. It's irrelevant to this proceeding, and it's speculative.
1 2 T COURT: That objection is sustained. It's irrelevant.
13
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't - the subject of hoarding got introduced
14 somehow on direct.
15 T COURT: It's irrelevant. Mr. Hill was asked a question.
16
You've properly answered, but his basis was to come to that conclusion, and
17
now I think a question regarding someone's automobiles and hoarding is
1 8
irrelevant to what we're talking about today, so go ahead and move on.
1 9 M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
20 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
21
Q So, specifcally though, just as of August, as you
22
testifed earlier, what had your client or anyone told you that lead you to
23
believe, as you testifed under oath earlier, that as of August you had
24 discussions about a possible hoarding diagnosis.
25
Page -35-
00289

1 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m still going to object.
2 It's irrelevant at this point.
3 THE COURT: Go ahead, I'm going to overrule that objection.
4
M. Hill can answer that limited question. As of August, what information
5
did you have, Mr. Hill? I think you can answer that. Maybe you can.
6 THE WITNESS: I' ll try, sir.
7 TH COURT: Okay.
8 T WITNESS: That was generally part of the assignment that
9 was part of the background information that the client had given me to try to
10 inform me as to what he had been dealing with.
1 1 BY M. COUGHLIN:
12
Q
And what - so your client, he attested to having some
13 percipient recollection of the information that lead him to that diagnosis?
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Judge, now we're getting into
hearsay, speculation, and all sorts of objection material.
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin?
M. COUGHLIN: I offer it for the truth of the matter asserted.
THE COURT: How is i relevant?
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, it goes to Mr. Hill's -
THE COURT: Let me just - we're getting off on an issue
regarding hoarding. It has come up on direct. It has been explored on cross,
and the Court, quite fankly, fmds any frther references to hoarding
marginally, if not totally irrelevant, to this case.
M. COUGHLIN: I agee, Your Honor. But yet on direct -
THE COURT: Let's move on.
Page -36-
00290

1 M COUGHLIN: We had 4 or 5 months. We had hoarding. We
2 had all this prejudicial information, and now that I seek to rebut it and show
3 M. Hill's practice, and what he does, it's irrelevant.
4 TCOURT: Okay, next question, Mr. Coughlin.
5 BY M COUGHLIN:
6
Q
M. Hill, are you billing your client for being here
7 today?
8
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, objection. It's irrelevant.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, how is that relevant? How is it
10 relevant to the trespassing case, which is the nexus?
11 M COUGHIN: It seems intimately intertwined.
12 TH COURT: Okay, go ahead and answer the question, M.
13
Hill.
THE WI1NESS:
THE COURT:
No.
Thank you, there' s the answer.
14
'
15
16
17
18
THE WI1NESS: I a not charging Dr. Merliss for my time here
today.
THE COURT: Thank you, okay.
19 M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
20 BY M COUGHLIN:
21
Q
Did you ever have any conversation with your client
22 about whether this was a commercial tenant that he was seeking to evict?
23
24
25
A I don't recall that conversation.
Page -37-
00291

1
Q
Are you aware of whether or not there is an express
2
prohibition against using (inaudible) eviction proceedings against
3
commercial tenants where the non-payment of rent is not alleged or noticed?
4 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object as that
5 calls for a legal conclusion for this witness.
6 THE COURT: Well, I don't know how it's relevant is what I' m
7 - I understand what you're saying, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
8
How is the issue of whether someone is a commercial client,
9
or a commercial tenant rather, relevant to this case, M. Coughlin?
10 MR. COUGHLIN: Well, Your Honor, I think it's possible that even
11
i f the City were able t o establish that the eviction order was appropriately
12
served, which I do not believe they will be able to do, that nonetheless, that
13 Order will be void and that Judge Sferrazza did not have a jurisdictional
14
basis for rendering it and that tere is an express prohibition against using
15
(inaudible) eviction proceedings to evict commercial tenants.
16 Where, as here, in the non-payment of rent, was not alleged.
17
Despite what M. Hill might be saying here, when it came t ime to put it on
18 paper and face Rule 1 1, and put it to the Court, Mr. Hill and M. Baker
19 didn' t want t o do that. They just said no -
20 THE COURT: Okay, you are losing me when you begin to
21 ramble on, M. Coughlin.
22 Specifically, my question was how is the question as to
23
whether or not you are a commercial tenant relevant? And the more you
24
wa on, the more I get - I' m not an expert in landlord and tenant, and I
25 . begin to get detached fom the issue here.
Page -38-
00292

1 M. COUGHLIN: I understand, Your Honor. That's what's so
2 interesting about this case, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I just want you to tell me how it's relevant. 3
4
5
M. COUGHLIN: I am, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
6 relevant.
Mr. Coughlin, I just want you to tell me how it's
7 M. COUGHLIN: I will. This is a civil eviction that meets criminal
8 tespass nexus here. It's relevant in that if the civil eviction order lacks a
9 basis, a jurisdictional basis, for it to be ordered, it is what, under 60(b), void.
10
Therefore, to the extent the City is trying to say a waring did exist in that a
11 notice was posted or it was personally served. If it's void, that's a legal
12 impossibility.
13 THE COURT: Okay, I' m going to allow you to ask a couple of
14
questions about your status as a commercial tenant or a residential tenant
15 (inaudible) fom M. Hill, and Mr. Hill, do your best to answer those
16
questions.
17
I' m trying to give M. Coughlin a great deal of leeway here on
18 cross-examination, in the spirit of getting all the evidence for the Court.
19 So, go ahead, Mr. Coughlin.
20
BY M. COUGHLIN:
21
Q
You said you spoke with your client in August and were
22 aware that the tenant was an attorey?
Yes.
23
24
.
A
Q
Did you have any discussion as to whether or not the
25 lease allowed for the tenant to be practicing law at that location?
Page -39-
00293

I A The residential lease did not prohibit it. We did come
2
to understand that you didn't have a business license, so we didn't feel that
3 you were lawfully conducting a business in premises.
4
Having reviewed virtually eveing that you have filed in
5 that case, M. Coughlin, it's my understanding -
6
M COUGHLIN: I' m going to ask you not to go on here.
7 THE WITNESS: That you did not raise -
8 l. COUGHLIN: Just answer my question, sir.
9 M HALETT-STEVENS: I would like him to answer - I
1 0
would like him to - Judge. I would like the attorey not to interrupt the
answer to the question. 11
1 2 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, you ask these questions of a
1 3
witness where they are opened ended questions. They are not -
14
M. COUGHLIN: It's not a blank check.
15
THE COURT: Listen, listen. When you ae asking open ended
16
questions, and you are not utilizing leading questions on cross-examination,
17 the witness is entitled to answer those questions, and you're going to be
18 stuck with the answer, and I think you understand that.
19
So, Mr. Hill, go ahead and briefy fnish up what you were
20 saying.
21
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
22
Mr. Coughlin, you raised -you did not assert that argument in
23
the Justice Court. You have appealed the case to the District Court, and te
24 appeal has been decided adversely to you.
25 That case is over, you're bound. It's done.
Page -40-
00294

1 THE COURT: Okay, thank you, M. Hill. M. Coughlin, next
2
question.
3
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I appreciate the point of
4
expertise on asking leading questions on cross. That was something I was
5 not intending to do.
6 BY M COUGHLIN:
7
Q
M. Hill, you just testifed that in August, your client
8
and you had a discussion as to whether or not the lease allowed for a
9 commercial use, is that correct?
10 A Mr. Coughlin, I recall examining the document almost
11 immediately. Whether I had a discussion or not with my client or not, I
12 don't recall.
13
Q
I thought you just testifed that you did, and you two
14
just talked about how I didn't have a business license. Was that not true?
15
A No, sir. No, sir. What I said was that he informed me
16
that you were an attorey. At a subsequent time, we contacted the City and
17 ascertained that you did not have a business license.
18
Q
Okay, when you entered the property in November -
19
M+ HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, that question exceeds the
20
scope of my direct examination. There is no evidence that he entered any
21
property in November. That was just not part of my direct at this point.
22
T COURT: Alright, Mr. Coughlin, M. Hill, in some
23
substance, has testified that he was contacted by a client to commence
24
eviction proceedings where you were a resident based on an issue that
25
primarily concered lack of rent, and he began to further up on that
Page -41-
00295

1
attorey/client relationship by instituting eviction proceedings, and he
2 assigned the matter to M. Baker in his ofice.
3
That's the extent of his cross-examination, of his direct
4
examination, rather, and your cross-examination should be limited to the
5
information raised on direct. So, I' m going to sustain M. Hazlett-Stevens'
6 objection.
7
Try to keep you inquiry limited to, quite frankly, the very
8 amount of limited information provided by M. Hill this moring.
9 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I'll try to wrap this up
10 given tat dictate tat I keep it to what was brought up on direct.
11 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
12
Q M. Hill, you said you commenced an eviction
13 proceeding, or you had your associate, Mr. Baker, do so. What type of
14 eviction was pursued?
15 A Initially, you were served with a 5-day failure to pay
16 rent eviction notice. And I believe you were also simultaneously served
17 with a 30-day notice to quit.
Was that subsequently what was pursued?
I don't understand your question.
18
19
20
Q
A
Q Well, you testified that a su ary eviction order was
21 subsequently procured by your ofice.
22 A Yes.
MR. HALETT-STEVENS: I don't - go ahead. 23
24 THE COURT: My understand is the question is asked what
25 proceedings did he commence, and he commenced a 5-day failure to pay,
Page -42-
00296

1
and I believe M. Hill (inaudible) contemporaneously a 30-day notice to
2 quit, is that correct?
3 THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.
4 BY M. COUGHLI:
5 Q Did your ofice eventually convert that to a no cause
6 notice?
7
8
A
Q
Yes, that decision was made.
Why?
9 A Because of your antics. We determined that we were
10 going to probably do better and circumvent a lot of your fabricated
11 arguments by going down the no cause eviction path rather than haggling
12 with you over all the little petty issues you were raising and fabricating.
13 Q When you say pett issues, are you referring to having
14 the debility issues - notices, notice to cure, and l 4-day notices, and
15 (inaudible) statutes?
16 A What you call having debility issues, sir, which Justice
17 Sferrazza ultimately determined did not exist, and you did not prove.
18 Q
19 eviction notice?
So your ofce converted it to a no cause sum ary
20 A More precisely, sir, the decision was made to forego the
21 rent eviction and simply do a 30-day no cause.
22 Q Okay, and if subsequently the tenant was considered a
23 commercial tenant, would that not be tantamount to sort of a wrong side
24 legal surger?
25
Page -43-
00297

1 A Well, I don't quite understand your metaphor, sir. But
2 the fact ofthe matter is it was a residence. The fact that you were illegally
3 conducting a business there, a side issue, number one.
4 Number two, you didn't raise it in the Justice Court.
5
Q
6 residential use?
You say it was a residence. Is it zoned for just
I don't have any idea, sir. 7
8
A
Q
Well, why did you say it was a residence if you don't
9 have something to base that upon?
10 A That's what the lease said, and there was no lawfl
11 business being conducted.
1 2
The lease said - did the lease say a commercial use was
Q
acceptable?
A I don't know, Mr. Coughlin.
13
14
15
1 6
Q
Well, how can you testif to what the lease said if you
don't recall?
A
1 7
I'm giving you my best recollection, Mr. Coughlin.
1 8
Okay, now whether or not the lease -you said the frst
Q
19 thing you did was you read that lease.
That's not what I said. 20
21
A
Q
Well, did you say something substantially similar to that
22 earlier when you were testifing?
23 A I said I almost certainly looked at the document almost
24 immediately.
25
Page -44-
00298

1
Q
Okay, so you -afer your ofce has billed 60 grand,
2
you aren't sure whether or not the lease said something about it being
3 commercial use acceptable?
4 Mw HALETT-STEVENS:
Judge, he's asked and answered
5
that question already. There's no evidence as to the 60 grand (inaudible).
6 THE COURT: Yeah, that's assuming a fact not in evidence.
7 I'm going to sustain the objection.
8 BY Mw COUGHLIN:
9
Q
Did your ofice bill approximately $60,000 to
1 0 (inaudible)?
M= HALETT-STEVENS: Objection, relevance. 11
12 T COURT: Sustained. It's irrelevant, M. Coughlin. I've
13
addressed that issue. M. Hill's financial arrangement with his client is
14 irrelevant to this trespassing case.
15 I' m really not legally interested in the amount of money he
16 billed nor received. I think it's irrelevant.
17
M COUGHLIN: I'm not offering to prove the truth of the matter
18 asserted in what he billed. I'm offering it -
19 THE COURT: I'm telling you it's irrelevant. That's a
20
hearsay issue whether it's been ofered to prove the truth, and quite frankly,
21
I'm making a judicial determination that his relationship with his client
22
related to finances is irrelevant to this trespassing case.
23 So, I' m going to not allow any questions related to that line of
24 inquiry. So, let's move on to our next question.
25 M COUGHIN: Yes, sir.
Page -45-
00299

I BY M. COUGHIN:

2
Q
Was the issue of whether or not the lease allowed for a
3
commercial use a very important issue in that summary eviction proceeding
4 fom which this criminal trespass (inaudible)?
5 A Are you asking was that an important consideration in
6
my being able to undertake the assignment? The answer is no.
7
As to what exactly you did or said - (inaudible -both talking).
8
Q
No, I'm asking you if it was important as to whether or
9
not it was permissible to pursue a su ary eviction proceeding if it's a
10
commercial tenant where you are only alleging non-payment of rent.
1 1 THE COURT: If you can answer that, M. Hill, go ahead.
12
THE WITNESS: I didn't hear it, and I'm not sure that I can
13 understand it. But if you'd like to tr again, 1'11 -
14 THE COURT: Go ahead and rephrase the question, Mr.
15
Coughlin. Speak loudly and clearly and M. Hill will do his best to answer
16 that question.
17 BY M. COUGHLIN:
18
Q
Was it an important consideration to your ofice in the
19
course of representing Dr. Merliss whether or not the lease agreement
20 allowed for use of the premises for a commercial use?
21
22
23
24
25
A No.
Q
You are testifing that your ofice's representation of
Dr. Merliss did not include a carefl consideration of whether or not the
lease allowed for a commercial use of the premises?
Page -46-
00300

1 M. HALETT-STEVENS: Asked and answered, Judge. He
2 . said no.
3 THE WITNESS: That wasn't the question. The question was
4 whether -
5 THE COURT: I got three things going on here, and we're
6
making an oral record so let's try to keep it civil to the extent we're able to.
7
M. Hazlett-Stevens has raised an objection to the question.
8 M. Coughlin, do you want to respond to that?
9
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir. M. Hazlett-Stevens said it was asked
and answered, I believe? 10
11 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Yes, there was an objection asked
12
and answered afer he said no to the previous question, asked slightly
13 differently.
14 THE COURT: What's your response to Mr. Hazlett-Stevens?
15
M. COUGHIN: It was seeking clarifcation because I was
16 surprised to hear no to such an important issue.
17 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Surprise doesn't overcome.
18 THE COURT: Okay, as a matter of clarification, so the record
19
is clarified, ask the question again, and Mr. Hill, let's see if we can answer
20
that question to the best of your ability. Go ahead, M. Coughlin.
21 BY M. COUGHLIN:
22
Q
Mr. Hill, did you just testif that you did not feel it was
23
an important consideration in representing your client to determine whether
24 or not the lease in question would permit commercial use?
25 A No, it's not important. We were hired to evict you, and
Page -47-
00301
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

that was the assignment.
Q
Okay, so if the law has an express dictate prohibiting
the use of su ary eviction proceedings against commercial tenants where
the non-payment of rent is not alleged o served as an eviction notice, would
that present a situation where it would be an important consideration?
A Mr. Coughlin, I'm having a real tough time following
your question.
Q
Okay.
THE COURT:
Coughlin.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Go ahead and rephrase the question, M.
You've made it in small pieces.
Hang on, Mr. Hill. Rephrase the question. Let
13 me tell you, I'm giving you a geat deal ofleeway on cross-examination in
14 fairess to you, and we're getting into issues tat really, really exceed te
15 scope of the direct examination.
16 And I' m willing to give you a great deal of leeway, but at
17 some point, the leeway limitation comes to an end.
18
So, go ahead and ask one more question related to this. Try to
19
make it specifc, ad then M. Hill will do his best to answer tat question.
20 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. Just quickly, I' m a little
21 green on this, but he opened the door quite a bit, too.
22 THE COURT: Go ahead and ask a question, M. Coughlin.
23 BY M. COUGHLIN:
24
Q
You just testifed that you did not feel it was an
25
important consideration whether or not the lease allowed for commercial
Page -48-
00302
1 use, correct?

2 A Yeah, it was not that important.
3 Q Okay, would it become important if your entire case, or
4 the order which you prepaed for your client was void because there is no
5 jurisdictional basis for entering such an order?
6 A If your presumptions were correct, which they're not,
7 then it would become important. But since you're wrong, it was not
8 important.
9 Besides that, you didn't raise it.
10
Q Was the fact that the propert was being used for a
11 commercial purose set forth in the tenant's affidavit?
12 A I don't know.
13
Q You don't know?
14 A I do not recall.
15
Q You just testifed that it wasn't raised, so how could
16 you do that with a straight face, and then answer you don't recall now?
17 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, he's answered the question that he
18 doesn't recall . Your comments become argumentative so let's -
19
We're getting into an area where I'm not going to litigate in
20 this Court the merits of the landlord/tenant relationship, nor the - ultimately
21 the basis for te eviction.
22
Mr. Hill has testified to a limited degree what he's done, and if
23 you have anything relevant to what he said, go ahead and ask it. If not, I
24 think it would be a good time to terminate your cross-examination unless
25 you have any other relevant questions.
Page -49-
00303

I MB COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, and I appreciate your frustration with
2 the extent to which civil eviction laws is taking up criminal court resources,
3 and that's underscored in State v. Johnson.
4 . T COURT: No, let me tell you, M. Coughlin. You are not
5 going to misquote what I'm saying. I'm not fustrated by that process at all.
6
I'm just saying that it becomes irrelevant in my Court when you hear this
7
criminal matter, the details which happened in the Justice Court, on a
8 landlord/tenant matter, and I'm not frustrated one bit.
9 M= COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
10 THE COURT: To the extent matters are relevant in the criminal
II case, I'm going to hear them, but as they get to be marginally irrelevant, we
12
begin to take up time that's not best served in the Court.
13 So, if you have any other direct relevant questions, go ahead,
14 and don't ty to put words in my mouth about what I' m thinking. Thank
15
you.
16 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I apologize.
17 BY M= COUGHLIN:
18
Q
M. Hill, are you aware of a case called State v.
19
Johnson, tat' s 2010 Westlaw 4514666 where in some of the problems
20 associated with co-opting a police force -
21
MB HALETT -STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object already
22 as to relevance.
23 THE COURT: Let him finish the question. Go ahead, Mr.
24 Coughlin. Go ahead and fnish your question. Mr. Hazlet-Stevens, you ca
25 object at the appropriate time.
Page -50-
00304

1 M COUGHLIN: Wherein some ofthe problems associated with
2
landlord co-opting a police force to do civil landlord/tenant -to a certain -
3 an effect on civil landlordltenant disputes is discussed at length?
4 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I am going to object a to
5 relevance, and there's no foundation for the question in this case at all based
6 on direct examination.
7 THE COURT: That objection is sustained, M. Coughlin. I
8 don't think that's relevant.
9 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I'm trying to wrap it up
10 here with a question or two, Your Honor.
11 I think that's all I have.
12 THE COURT: Thank you, M. Coughlin. M. Hazlett-Stevens,
13 any redirect?
14 M# HALETT-STEVENS: Nothing. No redirect, Your Honor.
1 5 THE COURT: M. Hill, thank you very much. You may have a
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seat. Thank you, sir. Alright.
MR. HALETT-STEVENS: The City calls Casey Baker.
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, ifI can, am I too late to invoke the
rule of exclusion?
THE COURT: I'm going to -
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: It's too late, Your Honor.
TH COURT: No, I'm going to go ahead - is that a fact? Or
does the Court have its discretion?
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: It is. It has to be invoked at the
beginning of the trial. You can't hamstring one witness and prejudice one
Pae -51 -
00305
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
\ 1 2
13
14
J5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25

side by invoking it midway through !e trial. It has to be invoked at the
beginning oftrial, Your Honor.
T COURT: M. Coughlin?
M COUGHLIN: Mr. Hazlett-Stevens is a very experienced
litigator in this regad, so I don't have anyling to rebut that. I don't know
whether that's !he case or not.
TH COURT:
be denied.
Okay, thank you. Go ahead. That request will
M. Baker, let's get you swor in.
(Witness duly swor).
THE COURT: Thank you, M. Baker. Have a seat. Alright,
M. Hazlet-Stevens, go ahead.
MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Your Honor.
CASEY BAKER
called as a witess, having been duly swor,
testifed as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Q Good moring. Could you please state your name, and
spell your last for the record?
A Casey Baker, B-A-K-E-R.
Q Are you employed, sir?
A Yes.
Q What's your profession or occupation?
A I'm an associate attorey in Richard Hill's ofice.
Page -52-
00306

How long have you been an attorey, sir?
Since October of 2005.
1
2
3
Q
A
Q
Okay, and how long have you been working with M.
4
Hill?
5 A I started with M. Hill when I finished law school in
6
June, 2005. I was there for three years. I lef for about 11 months, came
7 back, and been there ever since.
8
Q
And what's your - what are your duties as an associate
9 attorey at the Law Ofices of Richard Hill?
1 0 A When M. Hill assigs me cases, I handle those cases to
1 1
the best of my abilit. I hadle some of the intake for new cases, if the client
1 2 contacts our ofice or contacts me directly, and M. Hill is not available.
1 3
I assist M. HilI with some of the cases he's handling.
1 4
Q
Okay, thank you. And do part of your duties entail
1 5 landlord/tenant law?
Yes. 1 6
1 7
A
Q
What portion of your case law - or your case load deals
1 8 with landlord/tenant issues, do you know?
1 9 A It varies. Generally speaking, when landlord/tenant
20 cases come into our ofice, they find their way to me.
Okay.
21
22
Q
A Dr. MerIiss's case occupied a substantial amount of my
23 time for the past several months.
24
Q
Okay, when about did you get -were you assiged a
25 case associated with Dr. MerIiss?
Page -53-
00307

Yes. 1
2
A
Q
And is that case associated with the address of 1 21
3 River Rock Steet?
A
Q
A
Yes.
Is that in Reno?
Yes.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q
A
Q
When about were you assigned to handle that case?
I believe it was the end of August, 201 1 .
Okay, and what was your asignment? Did M. Hill
1 0 come to you and assign that case to you?
1 1 A Evict M. Coughlin.
1 2
Q
Okay, okay. Did you initiate proceedings to evict Mr.
1 3 Coughlin fom that residence?
14 A I did.
1 5
Q
How did you go about doing that?
16 A It was my understanding that there was rent due, past
1 7 due, fom M. Coughlin.
1 8
Q
Okay.
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Afer reviewing the lease, I also determined that M.
Coughlin wa a month-to-mont tenant because his lease had expired.
Q
Okay.
A I believe in February of20 1 1 . Under those
circumstances and in this case, general practice is to begin both proceedings,
a
5
-day pay or get out proceeding, and a 30-day no cause. That's what I did.
Page -54-
00308

Q
A

So you did both of those simultaneously?
Correct.
I
2
3
Q
Okay, did you fle these papers - did you serve these
4 papers on the rsidence at 1 21 River Rock?
5
6
A
Q
The way it works -the answer to the question is yes.
How does it work? Do you also file something i
7 Court? Is tat when you do that simultaneously?
8
9
A
Q
The way i works is you have the notices served first.
Okay.
1 0
A For instance, with the 4-day pay or vacate notice, the
I I
tenant then has fve days to come down and commence the proceeding in the
1 2 Justice Court by filing an Afidavit.
1 3
Q
Okay.
That's sort of what M. Coughlin did. 14
IS
A
Q
Okay, and eventually this case wound up in Justice
1 6 Court, correct?
1 7
A That's correct. M. Coughlin contested - I believe he
1 8 contested both matters.
Okay. 1 9
20
Q
A We had a short hearing with Judge Sferaza on the 5-
21 day non-payment issue.
22
Q
Okay, when was that hearing? Do you recall? If you
23 recall.
24
25
A
Q
That was early October.
Okay, go ahead.
Page -55-
00309

A We backed off of that.
Okay.

1
2
3
Q
A Because M. Coughlin was, as Mr. Hill stated, he was
4
fabricating all these issues. We didn't want to deal with that.
Okay. 5
6
Q
A We decided the path ofleast resistance, I believe is the
7
term we actually used in one of our pleading papers, was to siply set that
8 aside and continue with the 30-day no cause.
Q
A
Okay.
And that's what we did.
9
1 0
1 1
Q
Okay, eventually that 30-day no cause eviction wound
12 up before a judge in the Justice Court, correct?
1 3 A Judge Sferrazza. Our hearing on that, our first hearing
25
Q
Okay.
Page 56
00310

1
2
3
A
Q
A
When Mr. Coughlin attempted to raise those issues
Yes?
Judge Sferrazza got into the statutes and the statute
4 requires that if a tenant is going to assert a defense based on habitabilit,
5 then the tenant is required to deposit rent into a Court maintained escrow
6 account in order for him to proceed with those defenses.
7
That was the order that came out of that hearing.
8 Q Okay, so October 1 3
t
Judge Sferrazza says, "If you
9 want to address the habitability issues, you need to deposit -you need to
1 0 escrow a certain amount of money in order to even have the ability to
1 1 address those issues."
1 2 Is that basically what happened?
\ 3
A That is correct. And Judge Sferrazza further ordered if
14 Mr. Coughlin were not to deposit that money, the eviction would be granted.
1 5
Q
A
Okay, did Mr. Coughlin deposit that money?
No, he didn't.
1 6
1 7
1 8 Q Okay, was there another hearing pursuant to your no-
19 cause eviction?
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes. A
Q
A
When did that occur?
That occurred on October
25th
THE COUT:
THE WITNESS:
TH COUT:
I' m sorry?
October 25
t

Thank you.
Page -57-
00311

1 BY M HAZLETT-STEVENS:

2
Q
And can you just briefy give the Court an overview of
3 what actually happened at the October 25th hearing?
4 A Yes, the purpose of the October 25t
h
hearing was to
5
allow M. Coughlin to substantiate defenses he had raised in the October
6
7
8
9
Regarding habitability?
Correct.
Go ahead.
1 0
Q
A
Q
A So, the ruling was that if M. Coughlin puts the money
1 1 into the escrow account, then we're going to be back on October 25th and he
12 can attempt to substantiate the defense at that time by physical evidence.
Okay. 1 3
1 4
Q
A We had a hearing on October 25th that took all day. At
1 5
the end of the hearing, Judge Sferazza took a short break, then he came
16 back into the Courtoom where he announced his Findings and Facts,
1 7 Conclusion of Law, and granted the eviction.
1 8
Q
Okay, was Mr. Coughlin present during that entire
1 9 proceeding?
20 A Yes, he was.
21
M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy.
22 M HAZLETI-STEVENS: Judge, it goes to notice.
23 THE COURT: It does go to notice, M. Coughlin.
24
M COUGHLIN: Notice in criminal law sense or civil law sense?
25 This is an eviction.
Page -58-
00312

1 THE COURT: Well, I' m going to tell you right now, it goes to
2
notice in the criminal law sense as to whether or not you had notice of the
3 eviction order being entered.
4 That's very relevant, and I' m going to allow that question to
5 be asked and answered.
6 -
M. COUGHLIN: But notice in a criminal law sense entails an
7
analysis of whether the civil notice and service rules were set forth sufcient
8 to issue a legitimate waing.
9
THE COURT: In this case, the issue - one of the issues in this
1 0
case is whether or not you had notice of the eviction that was ultimately - it
1 1
sounds.like was ordered by Judge Sferrazza, and so it's a direct important
1 2
issue in the case, and so I ' m going to allow that question to be asked and
1 3 answered.
14 BY MR. HALETT-STEVENS:
1 5
Q Mr. Baker, was Mr. Coughlin present durng the portion
16 of the hearing afer Judge Sferrazza retured to the Courtroom and granted
1 7 the eviction?
1 8 A Yes, he was. He was sitting at the same table he's
1 9 sitting at now on that side of the Courtoom.
20
M. COUGHLIN: I' m sorry, Your Honor, if I could just quickly
21
interject. You're not making a ruling - it's just ifI can clarif, on the issue
22
of - it seemed to me, sir, that you said it's relevant, but it didn't seem
23
necessarily you made a law of the case or a ruling to say, a waring is not
24 based upon a civil standard of service of an eviction notice. That is still a
25
matter that's up for argument.
Page -59-
00313

T COURT: My ruling was is that M. Hazlett-Stevens asked
2
a question that was relevant, and got a relevant answer, and I' m not making
3
any rulings on anything except the fact that the answer was you were present
4 in the Justice Court when Judge Sferrazza made a ruling.
5
Me COUGHLIN: Okay, thank you, Your Honor.
6 TH COUT: That's where we are right now.
8
Q
Can you please describe what M. Coughlin was
9
actually doing in the Courtroom while M. excuse me, Judge Sferrazza
1 0 was issuing his ruling?
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
A
Q
A
He was sitting at the same table he's sitting at now.
Okay.
Q
And sitting back in his chair and listening.
Was he engaged in listening to the Judge?
A He was listening. He was not taking notes. I know that
because I glanced over. He wasn't taking notes.
Q
Okay.
(Inaudible conversation).
Me HAZLETT-STEVENS:
20 Honor?
21 THE COURT: You may.
22 BY Me HAZLETT-STEVENS:
May I approach the witness, Your
23
Q
M. Baker, can you take a look at that document? It's
24 been marked as Cit's 1 .
25 A Okay.
Page -60-
00314

Q
A
Q

Do you recogize that document?
Yes.
Please tell the Court what that document is.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
A This is the Eviction and Decision Order signed and
issued by Judge Sferrazza on October 25th at 5: 1 8 p.m.
Q
And is there any indication in that Order that the
eviction was granted?
Yes.
Okay.
1 0
A
Q
A And it's in CAPS. The first line, the first two words of
II the second sentence are the decision.
1 2
1 3 efective?
Q
And when does it announce that the eviction is
1 4 A Effective October 31 , 201 1 , at 5: 00 p.m.
1 5 THE COURT: You said, I' m sory, October ?
1 6 THE WIlESS: October 31 , 201 1, at 5:00 p.m.
1 7 THE COURT: Thank you.
1 8 BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 9
Q
Now, did M. Coughlin ever, during that long all day
20 proceeding, move for a stay afer Judge Sferrazza announced tat the
21 eviction was granted?
22 A I believe the (inaudible).
23
24
2S
Q
A
Immediately?
Yes.
Page -61 -
00315

1
Q
And does the Order that you're holding announce any
2 decision on whether the stay is either ganted or denied?
3 A Yes, the last line of the decision says, "Tenant's verbal
4 motion to stay, denied."
5 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you. Your Honor, th
e
City
6 moves to admit what's been marked as City's 1 , and I move that into
7
evidence under 50(b). 1 25. That's a certified public document, a self-
8 authenticated document, Judge.
9 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, any objection?
1 0 M4 COUGHLIN: Relevancy.
1 1 THE COURT: Okay, I think it's very relevant, and the objection
1 2 is overruled, and City's Exhibit No. 1 will be admitted into evidence.
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 3
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
Q
Now, did Judge Sferrazza order anything else in that
proceeding afer he granted the motion - or the eviction?
Yes.
What did he order?
A
Q
A At that point, when the Judge announced his Findings
20 of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I ofered, "Judge would you like me to
21
prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and Order for
22 Eviction?"
23 I offered that because that is customary, and I believe there is a
24 rule in District Court, 1 think it's Rule 9, that the prevailing part prepares it.
25
Page -62-
00316

1 M. Coughlin objected, and said he wanted to prepare his own.
2
At that point, Judge Sferrazza said, "Fine, you guys each prepare one. Get
3
them to me by noon on Thursday, the 27t\ and I will sign one at that time."
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q
Okay, and did you go about preparing your Findings of
Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Su ary Eviction?
A Yes, I did.
Q
So, Judge Sferrazza, we didn't really get into this,
actually entered Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the record as
he was announcing his decision?
A Yes, he did. 1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, may I have this
marked a City's 2?
THE COURT: Yes.
14 (Inaudible discussion).
1 5 THE COURT: Why don't we do this. Just go ahead and make -
16
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: You know, Your Honor, I' m happy
1 7 to provide copies. I actually have extras.
1 8 THE COURT: Perfect, thank you, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens.
1 9 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Certainly.
20
THE COURT: These were previously provided in discovery?
21 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: They were previously provided in
22 discover.
23 THE COURT: Well, we'll give him another copy today so we
24 have a copy. Great, thank you very much, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
25 THE COURT: Certainly, Judge.
Page -63-
00317

1 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, may I approach
2
again?
3 THE COUT: Yes.
4 BY M HAZLETT-STEVENS:
5
Q
Mr. Baker, can you take a look at what's been marked
6
.
as City's 2?
7
8
9
A
Q
A
Okay.
Do you recognize that document?
Yes.
1 0
Q
Can you please tell the Court what that document is?
1 1 A These are the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
12 Order for Su ary Eviction that I prepared following the October 27
th
,
1 3 201 1 , hearing.
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
Q
A
Do you recall when about you prepared that document?
I believe it was on the 26
th

Okay.
Because Judge Sferrazza wanted it on the 2
7
th

Okay, did you prepare that on your computer?
Yes.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Did you send a copy to anyone? It could either be of
21 email. mail. or any other form of this mailing?
22
A I sent an original down, or a copy, down to the
23 Courthouse to Judge Sferrazza.
24
Q
Okay.
25
Page -64-
00318
1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
sits today?
Sferrazza."
document.
page five?

A I believe I sent a member of our staff to take it down.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
I'm going to direct your attention to page five of that
A Okay.
Q
And can you please describe what's at the bottom of
A 1 8 That, on approximately line 21 , that's where it begins
19 the order for summar eviction.
20
Q
Okay, ad on te next page, I'm going to draw your
21 attention to page six, is there a date that's given for the eviction, the final
22 eviction?
23 A Yes, what I tped was that Mr. Coughlin - this is on
24
line 4, M. Coughlin was to be -or the Sheriff was to remove anyone found
25 there by no later than October 3 1 , 201 1. Judge Sferrazza made some
Page -65-
00319

I
(inaudible) where he crossed out "later" and wrote "earlier." And he also
2
added "at 5:00 p.m." And Judge Sferrazza initialed his changes there.
3 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: The City moves to admit what's
4 been marked as City's 2, again under 52. 125, into evidence.
5 T COURT: M. Coughlin, any objection?
6 M COUGHLIN: No, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Okay, thank you sir. City'S No. 2 will be
8 admited into evidence. Thank you.
9 BY M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 0
Q
So, that document actually gave a date ofthe eviction
II afer which -i s tat correct?
1 2
1 3
A
Q
That's correct.
Afer which Mr. Coughlin was no longer allowed to be
14 there, is tat correct?
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
A That's correct.
Q
So, the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and
Order of Eviction found in your favor, M. Merliss's favor, rather, and the
date of eviction was as of October 3 1" at 5:00 p.m., correct?
A That's correct. That's what we announced in Court and
put on tat Findings of Fact.
Q
And that Order said that anyone there afer that date
22 could be removed, is that correct?
23
24
25
A
Q
A
That was te command given to the Sherif.
"Shall be removed. "
Yes.
Page -66-
00320

I
Q
Did you serve that document on M. Couglin in any
2
fashion? A Notice of Entry of Order or anything like that? Or wa that
3 served by the Court on him?
4 A The way it works is the Court - afer the Court enters
5 the Order, the Court forwards it to the Sheriff
Okay. 6
7
Q
A And the Sheriff goes out and enforces the order.
8
Q
Okay, now I' m going to draw your attention to the date
9 of November 1 3th, 201 1 .
1 0 THE COURT: What was that date again?
I I M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: November 1 3, 201 1, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Okay, give me just a second, counsel.
1 3 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Certainly, Judge.
1 4 THE COURT: I' m making some notes here regarding some
1 5 dates.
1 6 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: And I' m going to withdraw that
1 7 question, Your Honor, so if you don't want to jot that note down, you don't
1 8 have to at this point.
1 9
THE COURT: Okay, I' m looking at something else, okay. Go
20 ahead. Thank you, counsel.
21 BY M. HAZLETT-STVENS:
22
Q
I'm going to draw your attention to the date of
23 November 1 st, 201 1 . Do you recall what you were doing that day?
24 A Yes, I was actually off of work that day. I was at home.
25
Page -67-
00321

Okay. 1
2
Q
A But I was basically on stand-by because I knew that the
3 eviction was going to happen.
4
Q
Okay, and did you actually eventually respond or have
5 to come to the area of 1 2 1 River Rock?
Yes.
Why?
6
7
8
9
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
The way it works, again, I'm sorry to keep doing this.
Please, please, please, you are educating us all.
1 0
1 1
You have to wait for the Sheriff to contact you.
Okay.
1 2 A The Sheriffs Deputies are sent out with several of these
1 3
things on the days that they do them, however, they do them every day. You
1 4
can try to shoot for a specific time, but you are at the mercy of the Sheriffs
1 5
Deputy's schedule. Some lockouts take longer than others. They try to give
1 6 you lead time.
1 7
I had spoken with the Sheriffs Deputy already, I believe, on
1 8 Friday the 28t
1 9
Q
Okay.
20
A I believe. It was either that, or I contacted him on his
21 cell phone. But I came back in (inaudible) do the lockouts.
22 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
23
THE WITNESS: I came back in so we could do the lockout, to
24
meet the Sheriffs Deputies at the property afer the Sheriff calls.
25
Q
Okay, and so you actually did go to 1 2 1 River Rock?
Page -68-
00322
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A

Yes.
And were there Sheriffs Deputies there?
I got there frst.
Okay.
Along with a member of our staff.
Okay.
And then two Sherifs Deputies arrived.
Okay.
And ten we had to wait for the locksmith.
1 0
Q
Okay, when the Sherifs Deputies arrived, did they
1 1 have any documents in their hand?
1 2
A I believe they had - yes, they had their copies of the
1 3 Findings of Fact, and Order for Summary Eviction.
1 4
Q
Okay, and do you recall what the deputies, or one or
1 5
both of those deputies did with the Findings of Facts ad Order of Eviction?
1 6 A Yes.
1 7
Q
Please tell.
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
A
Q
A
Once -the short answer is they take you to the door.
Okay.
I can tell you the process, if you want.
Please, tell us what happened.
Q
A When the locksmith fnally arrived, the Sheriffs bang
23 on the door, announce their presence, "Open up, police, sherif."
24
There was no response. At that point, everybody stands back.
25 They get the locksmith to go ahead and open the door. He opens the door.
Page -69-
00323

1
The Sheriffs go in. They clear the property, make sure nobody is there.
2 Then they came back out and they tape it to the door.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q
A
Okay, and you said the locksmith was there, too?
Correct.
What did the locksmith do?
Q
A
Q
A
The locksmith, his frst task was to open the front door.
Okay.
Afer he did that, and afer the Sheriff clears the
9 property, then he changes the locks, re-keys the locks.
1 0
Q
Okay.
1 1
12
A
Q
On the front door and the back door.
Okay, and what did the -were there new keys
1 3 associated wit re-keying the locks?
Yes.
What did the locksmith do with the new keys?
Gave them to me.
Okay.
14
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
A
Q
A
Q
A It was either me, or Sherry Hill, who was also with me
1 9 from my ofice. I think he gave to me.
Q
A
I'm sorr?
I think he gave them to me.
20
21
22
Q
Okay, and so thus, the old keys that were formerly
23
associated with that lock would no longer work, is that correct?
24
25
A That' s my understanding.
Page -70-
00324
3
4
5
door?
propert?

Q
A Corect.
Q
Were there any other doors, entry doors, into the
A
6
There were no other outside entr doors.
Q
7 Now, did you -do you recall wheter the Sherif
8
executed any other documents while he was there? An Afidavit of Service
9 or anything like that, do you recall?
A I don't know. 1 0
1 1
Q
So, it's your testimony that the Sheritr s Deputy posted,
1 2
taped on the font door, this 6-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
1 3 Law that's already been admitted into evidence, the City' s 2?
That's correct. 1 4
1 5
A
Q
Okay, did he post it on the front door and the back
1 6 door? Or just the font door? Do you recall?
A Just the font door.
Q
Okay.
1 7
1 8
1 9 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: No frther questions for this
20 witness, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Alright, thank you.
22 M. Coughlin, any questions on cross-examination?
23 M* COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
24 III
25 III
Page -71-
00325

1
CROSS-EXAMIATION
2 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
3 Q Good aferoon, M. Baker. You just testified that the
4
Order says that the tenant shall be removed at some point, is that correct?
5 A I don't think that was my testimony. I think my
6 testimony was that the Order commands the Sheriff to remove whoever he
7
8
finds there.
Q And by Order, you mean this one that you prepared and
9 Judge Sferrazza signed?
1 0 THE COURT: Let's refer to the documents that we have in
1 1 evidence. I believe, Mr. Coughlin, you are referring to City's Exhibit 2. If
1 2 that's not correct, let me know. Ifit's on the record, it's clear. That makes
13 specifc reference to documents that are i n evidence.
14 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
1 5 THE COURT: Go ahead and ask that question.
16 BY M. COUGHLIN:
1 7 Q So, that would be Exhibit 2, Findings of Fact,
1 8 Conclusion of Law and Order for Summary Eviction.
1 9
Did you earlier testif to te effect that in that document there
20 is essentially a command to the Sheriff that they shall - the tenant shall be
21 removed?
A I believe that was approximately how I paraphrased
Exhibit 2 when I handed it back to Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, yes.
22
23
24
25
Q Okay, and just for point of reference, do you -where on
page six, line 2, one, it says, "It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed as
Page -72-
00326

I follows, that the Sheriff Constable of Reno Township or one of their duly
2
authorized agents be and hereby is directed to remove each person and every
3
person found upon or within the rental unit located at River Rock."
4
A No, I do not see that. I do not have the document in
5 front of me.
6
Q Okay, well is that -
7 THE COURT: Let me ask you this. Would it help, Mr. Baker,
8 if! gave you -let me do this so we're very clear.
9 M. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I have another copy.
1 0 THE COURT: No, that's fne. Go ahead, and the original,
II
City's Exhibit 2, let's give to Mr. Baker so he has reference to that
1 2 document. Thank you, sir.
1 3
Now, does that help to answer the question, M. Baker?
1 4
THE WITNESS: What was the question? Can I (inaudible) the
frst paragaph? 15
1 6 THE COURT: He essentially read verbatim the first paragraph
17
to you, and asked if that's what the document said. Is that correct, M.
1 8 Coughlin?
1 9 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
20 T COURT: Okay, thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: I don't have your question in mind, but to the
22 extent the Judge says you've read the frst paragaph on page six -
23 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
24
Q Okay, and was that what you were referring to when
25
you testifed earlier about language involving "shall be removed?"
Page 73
00327

4
5
Does it say anything in that paragaph about wanting to
6
Or within the entire Order, or witin any relevant
7
documentation involved in this proceeding for the eviction order?
8 A You mean a waing in addition to what Judge
9 Sferrazza told us at the hearing?
1 0
Q
Well, I'm not referring to the hearing just now. I' m
1 1
referring to the notice that you say was posted - I mean, this document -
12 Exhibit 2 that you say was posted.
1 3 And I gather you believe that effectuated service ofit. I'm
1 4
asking you, is there anything within this that speaks to a waing to leave
1 5
similar to what is found in RMC 8. 1 0.040, the trespass section of the Reno
1 6 Muni Code?
1 7 A I don't know the Reno Muni Court -the Muni Code. I
1 8 think the best I can do to answer your question is to say tat in the
1 9
introductory paragraph on page one, recites that on page 21 , that you were
20
present and proceeded in proper person at the two hearings referenced on
21 that page, October 35th and - excuse me, October 1 3th and October 25th
22
I don't see big flashing letters that say "waring" on there, if
23 that' s your question.
24
25
Q
Okay, so you're saying there' s nothing in there that
Page -74-
00328

1
speaks to a waring to leave, or puts one on notice that they'll be subject to a
2 criminal trespass prosecution?
3 A That's not what I said.
4
Q Well, is there anything to that effect in that Order?
5 A I don't practice criminal law. I don't know what you
6
think is sufcient to wa you, besides a Judge telling you from the bench
7 that you're going to be evicted.
8
I don't know what you think is suficient to wa you that
9 you're going to be evicted.
1 0
Q Right, and you're saying evict, and not prosecuted for
1 1 criminal trespass, right?
1 2 A Like I said, I don't practice criminal law.
13
Q Okay, but I asked you about whether there' s a waing
14
relative to a criminal trespass prosecution, and your answer related to a civil
1 5 eviction.
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Okay, maybe the best answer is that you're asking me
for a legal conclusion in respect to a criminal law question, and I don't have
an answer to that.
Q Is it your belief that waing was appropriately issued
to leave to the tenant such that a criminal prosecution was justified?
M. HZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object. That's
a matter of a legal conclusion in this case, and it's the ultimate conclusion of
this case. I don't think this witness can answer that question.
Page -75-
00329
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20

THE COURT: This witness cannot answer a question that goes
to the ultimate legal conclusion. I'll make that determination, so that
objection is sustained.
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
BY M. COUGHLIN:
Q You said you didn't serve any Notice of Entry of Order
of Exhibit 2, the Findings of Fact, that you prepared and Judge Sferrazza
signed?
A We probably did aferwards. But I didn't for the
lockout, I don't think. Maybe.
Q Okay, before the lockout, did you ever mail, or anyone
wit your organization, mail or otherwise perform constructive service under
NRCP 6, of this Order?
A Well, in these proceedings (inaudible) by Justice Court
rules, not the rules of the (inaudible). That's number one.
Number two, I don't kow when my ofice received a siged
copy. So, I don't - I can't tell you as I sit here today whether we sent a
Notice of Entr. Although, I can tell you, that's my practice, especially in
your case, to immediately send a Notice of Entry.
Q Okay, and you said "these proceedings" this summary
2 1 eviction proceeding, which Judge Sferrazza also characterized as a trial, that
22 would be reconvened on October 25t, but you said those proceedings/trial
23 are not govered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, NRCP?
24
A First, I didn't say "tose proceedings/tial." I did not
25
say that word. You said it. And yes, these proceedings, Exhibit 2, were in
Page -76-
00330

1
the Justice Court. They are govered by the Justice Court Rules of Civil
2
Procedure, and in fact, there is a very small portion of those rules, I think
3 they (inaudible).
4 I don't know. I think Rule 8(1 ) or so that have to do with
5
su ary proceedings, which is what this was. That's my answer. That's the
6 rules that gover those proceedings. Case RB 201 1 001708.
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
Q Okay, are you aware that NRS 40.2080 specifically
indicates that the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure do apply to summary
landlord/tenant proceedings to the extent that the matters not spoken to by
the statutes found in 1 1 8(a) or the relevant portions of 40, are silent in those
regards?
A You're asking me to tell you what that statute says? I
have no idea what that statute says (inaudible).
Q Are you aware that NRS 40.2080 specifcally does
make NRCP applicable to these proceedings?
A I'm aware that you just told me that, but I don't know
that to be the case without reading the statute.
Q Okay, but earlier, you said that was not the case, just
1 9 now, correct?
20 A What I said was that the rules that we were operating
21
under in the summary eviction proceeding are the Nevada Justice Court
22 Rules of Civil Procedure.
23 I understand there is some interplay in between the rules to the
24
extent one set does not cover something, you can look to the other set.
25
Page -77-
00331

1 But, are we talking about substitute service still? I don't really
2 know what your questions were other than do I know that statute verbatim?
3 No, I don't.
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
Okay, so you're unaware of whether or not, yes, the
rules relative to substantive -constructive service -
THE COUT: Mr. Coughlin.
M. HALETT-STEVENS: I'm going to object.
THE COUT: Let me tell you something. We are getting way
out in an area that, quite frankly, from te legal perspective, I' m not really
interested or relevant where this is going.
I think you were making some ground, headway, asking some
of the relevant questions about the issue in this case, some notice, what was
contained in the language.
Those were ripe questions for cross-examination, and you
were doing a good job asking those questions.
But really, I have no interest legally, and I think it's 1 00%
irrelevant, which rules apply in the Justice Court.
I think you are getting far, far - you are straying far fom the
relevant issues which you were exploring earlier, and I'm going to sustain
the objections, and direct you to ask some questions that directly relate to the
content of either the Findings of Fact, the Order of Eviction, or what
happened when you were present in Court.
But I'mjust not going to allow the questions because they're
not going to affect my ruling at all. I fnd them just irrelevant.
Page 78
00332

1 M COUGHLIN: Okay, Your Honor. And in order to ascertain
2
whether or not service was appropriately done, we need to know what rules
3 apply, don't we?
4 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, we don't need to know what rules
5
are done (sic). Service, you can ask. I'll decide what service was done from
6 ascertaining what facts are developed here in
Court, and listen to those.
7 I've heard some things were lef on the door by the Sherif. I
8
have a couple documents in evidence, and I know you were present at a
9
hearing. And those are the questions that I think, quite frankly, you should
1 0 be zeroing in on in terms of any questions, and then there's only so many
1 1 questions ultimately that can be asked that really are relevant before we start
1 2 to wear out the welcome on cross-examination in terms of redundant, repeat,
1 3 and asked and answered questions.
1 4
So, let's stay focused on that issue, and go ahead and ask
1 5 another question.
1 6 M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. It just is - I don't know if
1 7 you can call it an offer of proof, but.
1 8 THE COURT: Go ahead and make an offer of proof. I'll allow
1 9 that.
20
M4 COUGHLIN: I don't even think I know what that is, sir.
21 My point is not to take up the Court's time. My point is -
22 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, let me tell you right now. You
23 can take all the Court time we need as long as we're focusing on the relevant
24 areas that we have not explored.
25
Page -79-
00333

1 To the extent we begin to rehash and go over items that we've
2 heard before, that's a waste of everybody's time. I don't think anybody
3
needs to worry about me having my time wasted. I've dedicated the entire
4
day to have this trial conducted and heard. I will do that to the extent we're
5 asking questions that are new, fesh, and relevant.
6 So, go ahead.
7
M. COUGHLIN: And, Your Honor, my only point is, this is
8.
probably one of the most important issues in the whole trial, if you ask me.
9 THE COURT: Well, then that's -
1 0 M. COUGHLIN: And that's why I'm -
1 1
T COURT: And that's why I think you should probably zero
1 2
in on those issues, and you're starting to stray into areas that I don't believe
1 3
are relevant to that issue, and I'm giving you my ruling from the bench.
14
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I' m just asking for some
15
clarification. If! can just, for a minute, set forth why I believe this is
1 6
relevant.
17 THE COURT: Go ahead, M. Coughlin.
1 8
M. COUGHLIN: It seems to - it seems this case is premised upon
1 9
the idea that an eviction notice i s tantamount to a waing under A. 1 0.040,
20
the trespass statute, failure to leave the premises afer being waed to do so.
21 Trespass, Reno Muni Code.
22
So, it seems as though the City is saying, "Your waring to
23 leave the premises was this." And I'm saying, "This isn't this until it's
24
served under the law, and the law says that you have to serve it by personally
25 serving it, because NRCP is incororated under 40.280."
Page 80
00334
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25

So, you have to either personally hand it to the party, which I
will establish later was not done, and I believe his testimony was to the
effect that no one was there.
So, if you don't get that, the law says, NRCP 6 - 4,
5
, and 6, it
says you have to substitute service. I think some people call it constructive
service, three days for mailing.
THE COURT: To the extent this witness is able to answer, why
don't you ask the witness those tpe of questions. I think you can -
M4 HALETT-STEVENS: And, Judge, I'm going to interpose
THE COURT: Go ahead.
M HAZLETT -STEVENS: -- my objection for lack of a better
word here. I'm not tring to prove that an eviction - that an eviction
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law was properly served on
Defendant. That's not my obligation as a criminal prosecutor in this case.
My obligation is to show notice that he was evicted, and ifhe
was back on the property. I don't think they're relevant what kind of service
actually happened, whether it's pursuant to Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure, the LandlordlTenant Law, or rules applicable to the Justice
Courts.
So, for the record, that's my objection.
THE COURT: Thank you. Why don't you focus your inquir
on some of the areas you raised which you should be able to have answered
in two or three questions of this witness to the extent he's able to answer
Page -81 -
00335

1 those about what service was accomplished, and I'll deal with those legal
2 issues at the back end?
3 M. COUGHLIN : Yes, sir, Your Honor.
4 BY M. COUGHLIN:
5
Q
So, your testimony is that you don't know that you ever
6 effected substitute or constructive service of this that your ofce did prior to
the lockout?
A I don't know when we did the Notice of Entry.
7
8
9
Q
You don't know when you did the Notice of Entry of
1 0 Order?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
19 THE COUT: I think you're asking this witess for legal
20 conclusions, M. Coughlin. You can ask him what he did, or what he has
21
personal knowledge of as what was done. I'll make any legal rulings later
22 on on what service, if any, was appropriate relating to the Municipal Code.
23 I think those are the kind of questions that can be asked, and
24
that this witness can o cannot answer.
25 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. .
Page -82-
00336

1 BY M. COUGHLIN:
2
Q
Sorry i fI've asked this before. It seems as though
3 earlier you said you don't believe a Notice of Entry was mailed to the tenant
4 prior to the lockout occurring, is that corect?
5 A I don't know. I don't know when we got the fle-
6
stamped copy, so I don't know when we did the Notice of Ent.
7 I can tell you that normal procedure is that the Sheriff goes and
8 enforces the Order by taping it to the door, clearing the propert, and then
9 the locks are changed. That's what the Sheriff does.
1 0
Q
Okay, thank you. And earlier, you made some mention
1 1 ofthe way it works. By that, did you mean the law isn't particularly clear
1 2
with regard to how service and notice are done in these regards, and it ofen
13 falls to just the Sherif kind oftelling people what the logic is, or what they
1 4 believe it to be? When you said the way it works.
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
A
Q
A
Q
A
20 was referencing?
That's not what I was referencing, no.
What were you referencing, the way it works?
Which question was I answering?
What's that?
Which question was I answering and I'll tell you what I
21
Q
I believe M. Hazlett-Stevens was asking you about on
22 November 1 st, you went to River Rock. Did you meet them? Did they call
23
you or something like that, and you said, "Well, the way it works."
24 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, why don't you ask a question, a
25 specific direct question? Give the witness the opportunity to answer that
Page -83-
00337
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20

question, if possible.
M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: We're getting way out here on this diatribe.
M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I'll withdraw that
question.
THE COUT: Let me tell you, it's not helping the Court.
M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
BY M COUGHLIN:
Q
What did you do for the 1 1 months during which you
lef the employ of M. Hill?
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object.
THE COURT: That's irrelevant. Sustained. (Inaudible).
That's irrelevant.
M4 COUGHIN: It was testified to on direct.
THE COURT: He testifed he wasn't there, but in terms of
where he went, this is not going to assist the Court one bit where he went.
M COUGHLIN: Okay, yes, sir.
THE COURT: It's irrelevant to these proceedings.
BY M4 COUGHLIN:
Q
And M. Baker, you testifed that your assignment was
21 to evict M. Coughlin, is that correct?
22 A Yep.
23
Q
Did that include exploring settlement or was that just to
24 evict no matter what?
25
Page -84-
00338

1
2
M HALETT-STEVENS:
to no relevant issue in this case.
Judge, I'm going to object. It goes
3 M COUGHLIN: That's correct. I withdraw, Your Honor. I
4 apologize. I'll continue to focus in here more.
5 But the thing is, Your Honor, we have all these things that
6 aren't relevant, but they are so prejudicial, they keep getting brought up.
7 I want to ask him about fabricating issues. M. Coughlin was
8 fabricating issues. No, it's not really relevant to the eviction, but they keep
9 '
bringing all this stuff up. The hoarder that didn't pay for 4 or 5 months, the
1 0 fabricating issues.
1 1 You know-
1 2 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, if you have a question, go ahead
1 3
and ask the question, and we' II deterine the relevance of each question as
14 they're asked, so go ahead.
1 5 M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
1 6 BY M COUGHLIN:
1 7
Q
What did you mean by fabricating issues when you
1 8 were testifing earlier?
1 9 A Did I say that? Or was that M. Hill you are thinking
of? 20
21 THE COURT: My recollection is both you and Mr. Hill testified
22 to that. So to the extent that you testifed to that, that presents an
23
opportunity for a couple of questions fom M. Coughlin if you can answer
24 those in brevit.
25
Page -85-
00339

1 HE WITNESS: I believe I was referring to the "habitability"
2
issues that you were ting to set up as your defense to the eviction.
3
There was never any proof, and Judge Sferazza found that
4
there were no issues, and that's all laid out in the Findings of Fact.
5
M COUGHLIN: Okay, when you stated there was no proof is
6 that accounting for the emails wherein mold issues were set forth?
7 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, we're getting -
8 MR. HALETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to object.
9
THE COURT: We're getting into areas that are irrelevant in
1 0
terms of what precipitated in specifics, the basis for the seeking and
1 1 obtaining of an Order of Eviction.
1 2
I think the relevant and ripe area in this case is the notice issue.
1 3 M= COUGHLIN: Alright.
1 4 THE COURT: And I think you were exploring that, but it
1 5
doesn't need to be explored for an hour. I f you want to ask some questions
1 6
related to that, the Court is interested i n hearing your questions, and
1 7 responses of this witess.
1 8
MR. COUGHIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
1 9 THE COURT:
20 BY M. COUGHLIN:
I mean M. Baker.
Q
Was the tenant waed to leave the property?
21
22 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object as to
23
vagueness. When was the tenant waed? What date are we talking about?
24 THE COURT: We're talking the tenant. Who are we talking
25
about? And was the tenant waed by who to leave the property?
Page -86-
00340

1 Let's be specific in the question. I believe you're referring to
2
yourself that -to ask that question by whom and when - someone identifed
3
as the tenant may have been asked to leave the propert and waed to leave
4 the property.
5 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
6 BY MB COUGHLIN:
7
Q By whom and when was either I, or anyone else, legally
8 deemed to be the tenant, wared to leave the premises?
9 THE COURT: And then to the extent you can answer that, Mr.
1 0 Baker, answer it. If you can't, don't.
1 1 TH WTSS: I can answer it, sir.
12 THE COURT: Okay, thank you.
1 3 THE WTSS: The frst two notices were served on you on
1 4
August 22nd, 201 1 . One of those was a 5-day notice that wared you that if
1 5 you did not pay your rent within five days you would be evicted.
1 6
M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy. When one
1 7 has a legal right to be somewhere -
1 8 THE COURT: You asked the question. He's giving the answer.
1 9
I f you are going answer (sic) open ended questions on cross-examination,
20 you're stuck with the answer.
21
You can answer that question, M. Baker. Go ahead.
22 THE WTSS: Tank you, sir.
23
The second ofthose notices was a 30-day no cause that gave
24
you 30 days. And what that notice did was that it told you that your tenancy,
25 your month-to-month tenancy, was being terminated as of that time.
Page -87-
00341

1
So, you had through sometime in the middle to the end of
2 September to vacate under that notice.
3
The way it works is afer the 30 days has run, then we serve
4 you, and we served you with another 5-day Notice of Unlawfl Detainer.
5 That was your third waring.
6 Then we had our hearings on October 1 3'h and October 2'h.
7 At the end ofthat hearing, at approximately 5:00 on October 25th, Judge
8 Sferrazza told you, and told me and everyone else in te Court, that the
9 eviction had been granted, and that you had through October 3 1 at 5:00 p.m.
1 0 That was your fourth waing.
1 1 Afer that, well - that was your fourth waing.
12 BY M. COUGHLIN:
1 3
Q
So, when you're saying "waing," are you saying upon
14 the original waring in August that failing to leave at that time would have
1 5 justifed a criminal trespass prosecution at that time?
1 6 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, it calls for a legal
1 7 conclusion. Objection.
1 8 THE COURT: Sustained. This witness cannot answer that
1 9 question. That does call for a legal conclusion.
20 THE WITNESS: You were also waed on October 27'h when I
21 emailed you the proposed Order.
22 BY M. COUGHLIN:
23
Q
And when you say "waed," wared to do what and by
24 when?
25
Page -88-
00342

1 A Your question was were you ever wared that you were
2 going to be evicted, so I think that's why.
3
Q
No, it wasn't. It was, "were you ever waed to leave
4 the premises?" I keep refering to a criminal trespass statute, and you keep
5 referring to civil eviction statutes.
6 THE COURT: Listen, I don't want to have an engagement
7 between the witess and the Defendant.
8 I want you to answer questions. I can figure this stuf out up
9 here. I wasn't -I' ve been doing this for fve years.
1 0 You've asked some important questions, M. Coughlin. I
1 1
don't know if you're going to really help yourself anymore by asking any
12
more questions from tis witness. I think Mr. Baker has testifed to the best
13 of his ability about what he knows, and I think that' s all he can testif to.
14 M. COUGHLIN: Alright, thank you, Your Honor.
1 5 THE COURT: You made some headway, and it's probably a
1 6 good time to stop unless you have some other direct, relevant questions
1 7 related to his direct examination.
1 8 M. COUGHLIN: No, sir, Your Honor. Thank you.
1 9 THE COURT: Okay, M. Hazlett-Stevens?
20
M. HAZLETT -STEVENS: No redirect, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Alright.
22
MR. HAZLET-STEVENS: Your Honor, the City recalls M.
23 Richard Hill to the stand.
24 THE COURT:
25 under oath? Thank you.
Alright, M. Hill. May I remind you you're
Page -89-
00343

I THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
2 THE COURT: Alright, go ahead, M. Hazlett-Stevens.
3 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Judge.
4
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. HILL
6
Q
Mr. Hill, I'm going to now draw your attention to the
7 date of November 1 3t
h
, 201 1 . Do you recall that day?
8 A Yes, sir.
9
1 0
Q
A
What were you doing that day? Were you working?
Well, the client is from Califoria, and he had contacted
II
me and said he had wanted to come up and inspect the house and see what
12 kind of damage had been done to it.
1 3
Q
Okay.
14 A And we'd made arrangements for him to come up. I
1 5 had reported to him that somebody had been breaking into the house.
Okay, how do you know that? 1 6
1 7
Q
A Well, M. Baker was of, as he already testified, on
1 8 leave during the time that the eviction actually came down.
1 9 He came back long enoug to do the eviction.
Okay. 20
21
Q
A And he and my wife came back. They lef the keys at
22
the ofce, and I determined that under the circumstances, the prudent thing
23 to do was to go over and videotape the property.
24
25
Q
Okay.
Page -90-
00344

I A So the next day, I took a young kid, a high school kid
2 that was working for us, and he and I went over to the house, videotaped.
3 Went up to the font door, and the notice was still taped to the front door.
4 Unlocked the font door, went in, and most of the windows
5
were unlocked, and the back door was unlocked. So, we secured everything
6 and I went back to the ofce, and I read my staf the riot act. I said, "Did
7 you secure this place?" And I was infonned that proper procedure was
8 followed, that all the doors were locked, all the windows were locked, and
9 that caused me a little bit of concer.
1 0
So, a day or so later, r went back. And my recollection is tat
1 1 at that point i time, the Eviction Notice was still up. Went i and some of
12
the windows that I had locked personally were unlocked. Some of the things
1 3
in the house had been moved around, and the back door was unlocked again.
1 4 So, that caused me some concer as to perhaps somebody was
1 5
getting in. And I related that to the client. And at that point, I was emailing
16 Mr. Coughlin telling him that M. Baker was off on vacation, and he was
1 7 going to have to deal with me i tenns of getting his stuf out. We wanted to
1 8 get his stuff out. And I never got any response from him.
1 9
Turing now to that Sunday, the client made arrangements to
20 meet me at my ofice. We then went over to the property. By that time, the
21 ' notice had been taken down off the front door.
22
We went in, and once again, the one particular window on the
23 north side was open.
24
25
Q
Okay.
Page -91 -
00345

1 A Or unlocked, not open. And once again, the back door
2
was open, and I noticed there was a food wrapper on the counter that had not
3 been there the last time I was in.
4 And the client was rather distressed at the condition of the
5
propert. The caret had been ripped up and put on the lawn. The doors
6 were taken of.
7
M# COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy.
8 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that objection. I think we're
9 getting out to an area again, irelevant.
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
1 6 .
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: That's fine.
THE COURT: I appreciate it, but I'm going to sustain that, M.
Coughlin. Let's move on, M. Hill, to what we think are the relevant issues
regarding notice and what happened when you got there on the
1 3th
,
THE WITNESS: Okay.
T COURT: Thank you.
BY M+ HAZLETT-STEVENS:
Q
And what did happen when you got there on the
1 3
t
h
afer you inspected the property?
A At that point in time, the client said, "Well, I want to
check the basement." I said, "Basement?"
And the basement entrance was outside the locked back door
on the porch. And we went around out the back door to go down the
staircase, and there were tool boxes of - like small suitcases, boxes, stacked
in the stairwell that we had to pick up and move to get out of the way so we
could get down the stairs to go to see what was in the basement.
Page -92-
00346

1
We finally got all that stuff out of the way, having to walk
2 through all of the stuf that was on the porch.
3 Anyway, the client gets down to the bottom ofthe stairs. I was
4
3 or 4 feet behind him, and he pushed on the door, and I could see that the
5
door was moving, but it was barricaded. And he tured to me and said, "It's
6
barricaded fom the inside." I said, "Okay, that's it. Let's go upstairs."
7
We went upstairs. We called the police. They arrived about
8
1 0 minutes later. Told them what the problem was. They went down. It
9
was a lady sergeant. I believe her name was Lopez, and an ofcer. I don't
1 0 recall his rank. I believe it was Carter.
1 1
They went down, and banged on the door with their
12
nightsticks. We were pretty sure who was inside. Didn't know for sure.
1 3
And I said, "Come on out, Zach." Nothing. "Come on out, Zach." Nothing.
1 4
And that went on for 2 or 3 minutes. And they specifically
1 5
identified themselves as the police. They said, "Well, that's it, we're going
1 6
to leave." And both Dr. Merliss and I said, "What do you mean? This guy
1 7
is in here. Somebody is in here criminally trespassing. We need to know
1 8
who it is and get him out of here. " And they said, "Well, we're not going to
19 break down the door."
20
So, Dr. Merliss went down the stairs, and he's the one that
21
kicked the door open. Broke the door in the process. He then came up. One
22
of the police ofcers went down with his gun drawn, flashlight tured down,
23
and the frst thing I heard was, "Show me your hands! Show me your hands!
24 Come towards me."
25
Page -93-
00347

1
And I don't recall at that time whether M. Coughlin identified
2
himself or not. We then proceeded upstairs, and M. Coughlin then came
3 upstairs on his own. He was wearing a pair of pajamas, and a t-shirt, and I
4 think a pair of slippers.
5
Q
Okay, so your testimony, let's break this down just a
6
little bit.
7 A Okay.
8
Q
Ta you for testifing as to that. Now, on November
1 6
Okay, and you've seen previous times the Notice of
1 7
Trespass, or excuse me, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law taped
1 8 on the door in previous times at 1 21 River Rock?
1 9 A And I will also tell you that afer I started to see that
20
somebody was inside, I lef an additional copy on the coffee table or
21 whatever it was in the living room.
22
Q
Okay, and then you finally go back on November 1 3
t
h
23 with your client, M. Merliss?
24
25
A Dh-huh.
Page -94-
00348

Q
Go into the property, go down to the basement, and did
2 you see M. Coughlin there?
3 A In the basement, no, no. The police told us to clear out
4
when they went through the broken through door. I' d never met or seen M.
5 Coughlin up until that time.
6
Q
Okay.
7
8
9
A
Q
A
He came up out ofthe basement into the living room.
Thank you.
Where he was placed under arrest.
1 0
Q
Okay, and did you actually see M. Coughlin in the
1 1 living room at that house?
1 2
A I saw him come up out of the stairs, walk through the
1 3 stairway on the porch, through the kitchen, and into the living room.
14
Q
And is that person you just described the person sitting
1 5 in this Courtroom here today?
1 6 A It was Zach Coughlin, absolutely.
1 7
Q
And you know him now?
1 8 A Oh, yes.
1 9
Q
And he looks substantially similar today as he did on
20 November 1 3t
h
, 201 1 ?
21 A Yeah.
22
Q
Roughly? Absent the pajamas you testified to?
23 A Right.
24 M. HLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, I would like the
25 record to note the identification of the Defendant.
Page -95-
00349
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21

THE COURT: I will note the identification of M. Coughlin.
Thank you.
M HALETT-STEVENS: Thank you.
BY M HAZLETT-STEVENS:
River Rock?
Q
So, from your testimony, M. Couglin was in 1 2 1
A Oh, unquestionably. He was living in the basement.
Q
Okay, now I'm going to draw-
M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor. I don't believe that - it
misstates prior testimony.
THE COURT: I' m going to sustain that objection to the extent
that he said he's living, but the fact he was in the property, and identifed by
M. Hill as part of the record.
M4 COUGHLIN: And further, Your Honor, it's not just to the
extent to which he said he's living. M. Hill has not testified that he saw M.
Coughlin in the basement.
THE COURT: M. Hill testifed that he saw you come up the
stairs into the kitchen, into the living room. That's what's been testified to.
MR. COUGHLIN: Right, he didn't see M. Coughlin in the
basement.
TH COURT: That's fine. I think Mr. Hill testified to that, and
22 the Court knows that. Thank you.
23 M. Hazlett-Stevens?
24 BY M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
25
Q
Mr. Hill, did you actually examine the basement?
Page -96-
00350

1 A Oh, afer M. Coughlin was taken by the police we did,
2 yes.
3
Q
Yes, okay, what did you fnd in the basement?
4
M4 COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy?
5
THE COURT: Okay, I'm going to sustain that objection. I
6
don't think the Court really needs to know what's in the basement at this
7
point. I think it provides ver little value to the Court what's in that
8 basement, unless you want to make an offer of proof.
9
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I would like to make an
1 0
ofer of proof on this issue. It's actually important because it establishes - it
1 1 establishes that he was living in that basement, and that goes to both notice,
1 2
oterwise he would be occupying the entire property, not just the basement
1 3
ofthe property, so it goes to notice as to whether or not he kew he was
14 evicted fom tat property, or else he would be occupying te entire house,
1 5 not just the basement.
16
So, I think it's relevant what was in that basement and the
17 condition. I'm talking about what kind of living material was in that
1 8
basement. Not boxes and that kind of stuff as to hoarding or anything like
1 9 that.
20 But I think it's relevant and it's to the issue of notice.
21 THE COURT:
22 _ objection is sustained.
Okay, I appreciate that. M. Coughlin's
23 BY M HAZLETT -STEVENS:
24
25
Q
A
So, you saw M. Coughlin in his pajamas?
Yes.
Page -97-
00351
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25

Q
A
And slippers?
Yes.

M COUGHLIN: Objection, Your Honor, relevance.
T COURT: Irrelevant to what?
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't know what slippers or pajamas have to
do with -
THE COURT: That objection will go to the weight of the
evidence, not the admissibility. I'm not sure what difference it has. It's
been testifed to. It's in evidence, and I'll give it whatever weight I decide
to give it - give to it, which won't be much, at least not what you were
wearing.
Go ahead, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens.
MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: I have no frther questions, Your
Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Alright, M. Coughlin, any cross-examination
related to what Mr. Hill has testifed to?
M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor, and I'll tr to keep it brief
THE COURT: That would help the Court.
MR. COUGHLIN: Edit it down.
THE COURT: Keep it brief, and we keep it specific. I think
that's in your best interest.
III
III
III
III
Page -98-
00352

1 RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
3
Q
Just quickly, Mr. Hill, you said Dr. Merliss, had he
4 previously inspected the property at any time between November I " and that
5 day, November 13th, when you said he came up?
6 A Not to the best of my knowledge.
7
Q
Doesn't i say he did in a police report you and Dr.
8 Merliss -
9 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object as to
1 0 hearsay. There's no police report, and the police report is hearsay, Judge.
1 1 THE COURT: I' m going to overrule the objection. You can ask
12 that question, M. Coughlin. I'm not sure what relevance it has, but go
1 3 ahead.
1 4 THE WITNESS: Can you say that again, please?
1 5 M. COUGHLIN: Isn't there some signed written document, either
1 6 in one of your Motions for Order to Show Cause or your Protection Order
1 7
Application, or one of your letters to the State Bar, or one of your police
1 8 reports, wherein you report on Dr. Merliss's behalf that he was there at the
1 9 property approximately a week prior to the arrest on the 13th, and he, Dr.
20 Merliss, noticed things had been changed?
21
A No, I didn't. I was in there several times during that
22 period oftime, M. Coughlin, and I kept noticing things being moved
23
around, and windows and doors that I' d locked, specifcally, the back door,
24 kept being unlocked.
25
Page -99-
00353

I Q And you never made any statements that Dr. Merliss
2 had noticed that?
3 A Not to the best of my knowledge. We had the key.
4
Q And Dr. Merliss had never made such statements?
5 A I have no idea what he may have said, M. Coughlin.
6 We had the key.
7
Q Well, I'm talking about things your ofce has fled.
8 A But for somebody breaking in, they would have had to
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
go through us to get the key. And I' m unaware of Dr. Merliss having
contacted us --
Q Was there some sign of-
THE COURT: Hang on, hang on, hang on.
M. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: I would like Mr. Hill to finish his question you
asked. Let him finish the question, and then you can ask another question.
Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Merliss had
not been in town during that period of time. He made a special trip up on
that Sunday for that purose.
THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, next question?
BY M. COUGHLIN:
22
Q
You mentioned some breakage?
23 A No.
24
Q
Breaking -well somebody, you said somebody had
25 been breaking in?
Page - 1 00-
00354
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9

A
Q

Yes.
What was the breakage?
A Not breakage, sir. Break in. Breaking in. Entering a
closed space. You apparently had fgured out how to jimmy the back door
open, and kept coming in and out through the back door.
Q
Was there some sign of breaking?
A No, but it was obvious that you had been -you had
some way to get that back door open.
Q
Why do you say me?
A Well, you were living in the basement.
M. COUGHLIN: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. You asked these open-
ended questions, M. Coughlin. And when you answer them - Mr. Hill is
entitled to answer those questions. You may not agree with the answer. But
Mr. Hill, you can answer that question.
THE WlTNESS: Thank you. I kept fnding food wrappers on the
counter when I' d come in.
BY M. COUGHLIN:
Q
Okay, did they have my name tag on them or
20 something?
Not that I saw. 21
22
A
Q
Okay, but you are testifing here under oath that they
23 were my paper wrappers?
24
A No, sir. I said there were food wrappers, and you were
25 living in the basement.
Page -1 01 -
00355

1
2
3
Q
Okay, ifthat' s true that I was living in the basement,
how long were you aware of that?
A I became aware of it on Sunday when you were found
4
down there, as I have testified. I deduced that you were living there when
5 afer you were taken away.
6 Dr. Merliss and I went downstairs and what we found -we
7
found jugs of water. Two and a half gallon jugs of water. There could have
8 been 5 or 6 of those.
9
You had a hot plate. You had a microwave. We had
1 0
interrupted your breakfast. There was a half eaten bowl of oatmeal on the
1 1
table. You had a bed down there suspended in one of the comers with
1 2
computer screens set up. You had your computer set up. You had
1 3 automobile seats.
1 4
At a later time, I counted 1 3 automobile seats, including what
1 5
somebody identifed as the font bench seat out of a Bronco.
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
How do you know that this wasn't -you mentioned you
felt the tenant was a hoarder, how do you know all this stuff wasn't there for
months?
A Well, sir, you were down there. I forgot to mention
when you came up you had your dog with you.
There was dog food down there, dog water bowl that had
water in it. I noticed that there were papers there that pertained to the
eviction. I noticed envelopes with my retur address on them out stewn
about down there.
Page -1 02-
00356

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q
Well, how long had that eviction been going on at that
point?
A Mr. Baker testified that he began in late August.
Q
Then?
A So, fom late August through September, through
October, and now into mid-November.
Q
Did you ever receive notice, any emails that you
purported to send to the tenant, would be either blocked or not recognized as
an accepted form of communication of service by you from the tenant?
1 0 A Yes, you would email us, and ten respond and say that
I I you would not accept email service. That was the only way that we could
1 2 communicate with you.
1 3
Q
Why do you say that?
1 4 A Because you'd call up and harass my staf and then
1 5
hang up. We had no address for you at that point in time. We didn't know
1 6 where you were.
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
Q
Do you know whether or not a forwarding address had
been fled?
I know that one had not been provided to us. A
Q
Okay, but do you know whether or not, say the United
21 States Postal Service had a forwarding address?
22 A I wouldn't have any idea what you did, sir.
23
Q
And what about the tenant's fax number?
24 A What about it?
25
Q
Did you ever utilize that?
Page -103-
00357

1
A I' m sorry?

2
Q
You mentioned you had no way of contacting the tenant
3 (inaudible) fax number, did he not?
4 A I don't know.
5
Q
You don't know whether the opposing attorey in a
6 litigation wherein you billed $60,000 and not have a fax number?
7 THE COURT: M. Coughlin.
8 M. HALETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object.
9 THE COURT: It's argumentative. It's been asked and
1 0 answered, and I think it's irrelevant. I mean, let me tell you, you can go on
1 1 and ask questions that were raised on the second testimony, but again, the
1 2
issues regarding notice and the presence ofthe property seemed to be
1 3 relevant to the issues in this case that have been testified to, and which I
1 4 think are ripe for cross-examination.
1 5 But it just
comes to an end as it gets closer (inaudible).
1 6 M. COUGHIN: Okay, Your Honor.
1 7 BY M. COUGHLIN:
1 8
Q
So you were unaware there was a basement on the
1 9 property?
20 A Correct.
21
Q
Okay, and you were - were you purorting to charge
22 some fll rental value of $900 a month under a theory that you were entitled
23 to do so, and assert a lien for the reasonable storage, moving and inventor
24 of expenses?
25
Page -1 04-
00358

1
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to object a to
2 relevance.
3 T COURT:
4 Coughlin.
That's sustained. It's not relevant, M.
5 M COUGHLIN: Your Honor.
6 T COURT: It's not relevant.
7
MR. COUGHIN: I understand that, Your Honor, with respect to
8
the lien. But with respect to whether or not he was purorting to charge fll
9 rental value, I believe that might be relevant.
1 0 THE COURT: I think it's irrelevant. Whether or not someone -
1 1
what's relevant in this case is all the proceedings in the Justice Court related
1 2
to the eviction, the presence of the parties at those proceedings, the location
1 3 of you on the premises on November
1
3
th
1 4 Those are all relevant items for this Court.
1 5
M= COUGHIN: And here's what I mean by that, Your Honor. If
1 6
someone is evicted, but then the landlord later accepts a rent, the eviction is
1 7 withdrawn, and they have to go through the whole thing again.
1 8 So, I feel Mr. Hill is saying -
1 9 THE COURT: And you can ask M. Hill those types of
20
questions, whether or not the eviction was withdrawn, whether or not any
21
payments were made afer the fact, and he can answer those, ifhe can
22 answer those. He may not be in a position.
23 BYMR. COUGHLIN:
24
Q M. Hill, did you, or anyone with your ofce ever
25
indicate to the tenant that you would be charging the same amount, the same
Page - 1 05-
00359

1 $900 per month that was previously charged for a fll use and occupancy of
2 the premises to the tenant during this period of time?
3 A Mr. Coughlin, as you well know, the landlord is obliged
4 to care for the tenant's possessions for
3
0 days.
5
M+ COUGHLIN: Objection, non-responsive.
6 T COURT: To the extent, I agee with M. Coughlin. He
7
asked a question, Mr. Hill. See if you can focus in. I know these questions
8
are sometimes open-ended. See if you can answer the question without
9 any -
1 0 TH WITNSS: I'll do what I can.
1 1 T COURT: I'm not sure I need a lot of editorial comment
1 2
from anybody in this case to come to the right conclusion under the law and
1 3 the facts. But do your best to answer that question.
14
T WITNSS: M. Coughlin, I believe the correspondence was
1 5
directed to you to the effect that because ofthe quantity of materials lef
1 6
behind at the property, we could not eficiently move it out. And therefore,
1 7
since you were, in effect, occupying the whole place, we felt that the fair
1 8 storage fee was the rent, yes.
1 9 BY Mq COUGHLIN:
So the full rental value of the property?
Yep.
20
21
22
Q
A
Q
Is that the same as what was charged prior to November
23
1 s
?
24
25
A
Q
I believe so.
$900 a month?
Page -1 06-
00360

I believe so. 1
2
A
Q
Okay, and so you just testifed, "We believe that since
3
you were occupying the property, we were justifed in charging you the same
amount, $900 a month, that we charged you prior to November
1 s
t
"
A
Q
No.
Well, you did say --
A You were not --
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q -- just you were efectively occupying the property.
You did say that, corect?
A Your possessions were there, M. Coughlin.
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
Q But that's not what you just said. Now you're saying
that.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, you can ask questions, but I don't
14
want you to entertain any argument, any argumentative commentary with
1 5 any of the witnesses.
16 M COUGHLIN: Okay.
1 7 THE COURT: Go ahead and ask another question. I can hear
1 8
the questions. I can hear the witness's response. I don't need anybody to
19 argue with the witness to make a point .
20 M. COUGHIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
21 BY M COUGHLIN:
22
Q
So, earlier you testifed that you and Dr. Merliss
23
perceived that the door was barricaded, and you said, "That's it," and you
24 went and called the police, correct?
25 A Yep.
Page -1 07-
00361

4
And they said, "Come out Zach."
5 They said, "This is the police. Come out Zach."
1 0 And then the police - one of the oficers actually - did
1 1
he climb over the broken door and actually step foot in the basement?
1 2
1 3
1 4
A
Q
A
No.
He never stepped foot in the basement?
My recollection is that he reached around the comer
1 5
with his gun drawn and his fashlight out. He may have stepped through.
1 6
Q
Okay, and he said something to the effect of, "Come
A
Q
direction?
A 21
Yeah, you came upstairs with your dog.
Q
22
So, when did anybody war the tenant to leave?
A 23
In addition to what M. Baker told you, I had sent you
24
an email telling you that you were not authorized to be on the property.
25
Page -1 08-
00362

1
Q
You said an email, and you testifed earlier that you
2 were told that emails would not be accepted from you or would not be
3 effective forms of service?
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
15
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
A
Q
Yeah, emails with you were a one way street.
What's that?
A It was a one way street dealing with you.
Q
Okay, so you were put on notice that emails were not an
effective means of communicating anything to the tenant?
A It didn't seem that way because I'd get responses
occasionally.
Q
Okay, but on this day in question, November 13'h, I've
heard you testif about you and D. Merliss ascertained that the door was
barricaded, and immediately you went and called the police, and then the
police came and banged on the door with a nightstick, and say, "Come out,
Zach."
But I haven't heard anything wherein the relevant provisions
ofRMC 8. 1 0.040 -
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, this is argumentative.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, you are aware that you can ask
20 Mr. Hill questions to the extent he can answer them, he can answer them.
21 But this is argumentative in the legal sense, not in the fact you're arguing
22 with him.
23 M. COUGHLIN: Right.
24 THE COURT: It does no good for the Court for you to have a
25 narrative tpe of argument.
Page - 1 09-
00363

1 M COUGHLIN: I apologize, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: When Mr. Hill is here to ask some questions that
3 I think you've explored the possibilities, and I don't know what else you can
4 offer the Court in terms of this case via cross-examination.
5 M COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I'll wrap this up quickly.
6 BY M COUGHIN:
7
8
9
Q Mr. Hill, at any time on that day, November 1 3t, did
the owner of the premises war the arrestee to leave the property?
A I think the message was communicated.
Via what medium? 1 0
1 1
Q
A The fact that you were handcufed and arrested. Didn't
1 2 you get the picture?
1 3
Q Okay, prior to the handcufng and the arresting, did
1 4 anybody say, "You need to leave the premises?"
1 5 A I didn't hear that.
1 6 Q Nobody said that?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
I did not hear that, sir.
Did you say it?
No.
Did Dr. Merliss?
Not that I heard.
Did the police?
A No, not that I heard.
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q So, nobody that you heard of waed the person
arrested for tespassing?
Page -1 1 0-
00364

1
THE COURT: I think it's been asked and answered. I've heard
2
the question five times, and we're going nowhere by answering this. I think
3
you asked the question that's relevant. Mr. Hill answered it. Now, move on
4 to your next relevant question if you have any.
5
MR. COUGHIN: Alright, Your Honor. And this might not be
6
relevant, but the other part of te statute is someone failed to leave afer
7 being waed to do so.
8
We have testimony that there was no waing.
9
THE COURT: You can ask a question right now. This is all
1 0
subject to argument later on. It's subject to other testimony, but M. Hill has
1 1
answered the questions that you seem to have answered (sic) that are
1 2 relevant to his direct testimony.
1 3 BY M COUGHLIN:
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
Did the accused ever fail to leave the propert afer
being waed to do so?
A You were there.
THE COURT: To the extent you can answer that would be yes
or no, M. Hill. Answer the question so we don't drag this out.
THE WTSS: I don't know that I can answer it yes or no.
THE COURT: If you can't answer it, that's fne.
M4 COUGHLIN: And then just quickly, and I'll wrap this up,
Your Honor.
BY M4 COUGHLIN:
Q
Did the accused ever say anything to the police to the
effect that, "Why would you arrest me instead of telling me to leave?"
Page -1 1 1 -
00365

A
Q
A
No.
Wa me to leave?
No.

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q
Do the videos that you propounded to the City Attorey
showed just that?
I don't remember. A
Q
City Attorey?
Have you reviewed the videos you propounded to the
Not really.
1 0
A
Q
Okay, did the police report that you filed indicate
1 1 whether or not you waed the accused to leave?
I' d have to see it. 1 2
1 3
A
Q
Okay, did the police ever ask you whether or not you
1 4
had indicated to the accused that you would be charging him the fll rental
1 5 value of the property during this period of time?
1 6
MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I'm going to object.
1 7 T COURT: It's irrelevant, sustained.
1 8 M. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I believe it -
1 9 TH COURT: We're not -that doesn't help the Court with the
20
issues at all. I'm just telling you right now that's irelevant in my opinion.
21
M. COUGHLIN: I f the eviction is withdrawn?
22 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. You can ask your next
23 question.
24 M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir. I think this is my last question, Your
25 Honor.
Page -1 12-
00366
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23

BY MR. COUGHLIN:
Q
Mr. Hill, you say the police -you're testifing under
oath that you're sure the police specifically identifed themselves as police
prior to the door being kicked down?
A l am.
Q
And can you tell me specifcally how -
M= HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I ' m going to object as to
relevance. It's not relevant.
THE COURT: It's irrelevant to me, Mr. Coughlin, what the
police identified - he's testified they've identified themselves. They were
ofcers on the premises. What relevance is it at this point to explore any
line of questioning related to that fact?
M= COUGHLIN: Well, ifit's someone with authority to war
someone to leave, that's one thig. If it's a crazy person outside on the
street, saying, "Come on out."
THE COURT: Ask Mr. Hill a couple of questions related to the
police, what they were dressed like, what they asked when they showed up.
You can ask that.
to that.
M COUGHLIN: I'm sorry, I couldn't understand what -
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask some questions related
BY M COUGHLIN:
Q
Can you tell me exactly what the police said when they
24
identifed themselves as police prior to the door being kicked down?
25
Page -1 1 3-
00367

1 A We told them that we were pretty sure you were there,
2
so my best recollection is that they shouted, "Come on out, Zach. Come on
3 out, Zach." Words to that effect.
4
I recall hearing that, as well as, "Come on out, this is the
5
6
7
8
9
police."
basement.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
When did you hear, "Come on out, this is the police."
When they were down banging on the door of the
Prior to the door being kicked down?
Yes.
You're sure?
Positive.
Were you videotaping during this period oftime?
I wasn't.
You were not videotaping?
Nope.
At any time on this date in question?
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, that misstates the question.
1 9
He said, "Were you taping at this time?" He answered that question. He
20 said, "No."
21 THE COUT: Ask another question, Mr. Coughlin. I'm not
22 sure how relevant this is, to tell you the truth.
23
Again, I think I've made myself very clear. You are getting
24
far afeld. It's not necessarily helpful to the Court, and you're making an
25 ultimate conclusion regarding the trespass violation.
Page - 1 1 4-
00368

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
M4 COUGHLIN: Here's my offer of proof, Your Honor, is that if
Mr. Hill was taping, and he has a tape of everything except a period where
anybody wars the accused to leave, or a period where the police actually
identit themselves as police, prior to the door being kicked down, then that
would tend to indicate that those things didn't happen.
TH COURT:
questions for M. Hill?
Okay, I'll note for the record. Any other
MR. COUGHIN: No, sir, Your Honor.
T COURT: Okay, any redirect?
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Yes, Your Honor.
RE-DIRECT EXINATION
BY MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
Q
Mr. Hill, did you - briefly, did anyone in your ofce
14 file or serve a Notice of Entry of Order of the Findings of Facts, Conclusions
1 5 of Law, (inaudible) that are Exhibit 2 of the City?
16 A I would expect we did.
1 7
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, I'd like this marked
1 8
1 9
as City's 3, please.
20 that.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin? Show Mr. Coughlin a copy of
21 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, may I approach the
22 witness?
23
24 III
25 III
THE COURT: Yes.
Page -1 l 5-
00369

1 BY M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS:
2
Q M. Hill, can you please take a look at this document?
3 It's been marked as Cit's 3.
4 A What's the question?
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Do you recognize that document?
Yes.
Q
A
Q
Can you please tell the Court what that document is?
A That is a Notice of Enty of Order that I signed on
November 1 s. Attached is a copy Judge Sferrazza's Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order for Summary Eviction.
The Certifcate indicates that it was mailed on November 1 to
M. Coughlin at his last known address by my secretary.
Q Thank you.
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: Your Honor, I'd move to admit
what's been marked as City's 3 into evidence.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, any objection to that?
M4 COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I'd just object in that it's not signed
by Judge Sferrazza.
THE COURT: That goes to the weight, I think, of the evidence,
not the admissibility. I don't think a Notice of Entry of Order, I've ever seen
signed by a Judge. I could be wrong.
M4 COUGHLIN: Your Honor, the attached Order to the Notice of
Ent of Order.
THE COURT: You're objecting because the -the nature of
your objection is because his stamp is on there?
Page - 1 1 6-
00370

I
MR. COUGHLIN: His stamp rather than a signature, and it's being
2 offered and purorted as being a -
3 T COURT: And I am in possession of the original Findings
4
of Fact, which are signed by Judge Sferrazza, so the objection is noted for
5 the record and overuled. The City's Exhibit 3 is admitted.
6 M4 COUGHLIN: ' Your Honor, it's not offered for the veracity of
7
whether or not Judge Sferrazza ultimately signed that. It's offered for - had
8
he siged it, if they have it, when they noticed -when they served, mailed
9 this Notice of Entry.
1 0
THE COURT: Objection is noted, and Exhibit 3 is admitted.
II
M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS: No frther questions, Your Honor.
1 2
T COURT: Any questions related specifically, and only to
1 3 the City's Exhibit No. 3, Mr. Coughlin?
1 4 M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
1 5
T COURT: That's the extent of M. Hill's testimony, and
1 6 then we will (inaudible) the cross-examination.
1 7
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
1 8 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
1 9
Q
M. Hill, is the Order here by Judge Sferrazza signed,
20 or is it a rubber stamp of Judge Sferazza?
21
A I f you say it's a rubber stamp, I'll take your
22 representation. That's the way it comes back fom the Court when the clerk
23 conforms the cert. You should know that.
24
25
Page - 1 1 7-
00371
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4

T COURT: And for the record, let's show M. Hill City's
Exhibit 3 so he can answer that question so there's nothing lef in the record
as an open-ended question.
THE WITNESS: That has Judge Sferaza's stamp on it, yes, sir.
BY M COUGHLIN:
Q
And is that your typical practice to attach a stamped
version of the Order, rather than a photocopy of the signed version?
A M. Coughlin, up until we were able to access these
online very recently -these you can't through Justice Court, but District
Court, for example, that's all you usually get. The clerk will stamp the
conformed copies that you get back. It's customary.
Q
Okay, but do you --
A
Q
It has been up until you could get them online.
Okay, was it typical for the Justice Court to fax you a
1 5 copy of the signed Order?
1 6 A No, this was not a typical case either. To be specifc, if
1 7 it was faxed, and I don't see anything on here to indicate that it was, I don't
1 8 see anything on here to indicate that it was, M. Coughlin.
1 9
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay, I have nothing frther.
20 THE COURT: Okay, any frther questions?
21
M. HALETT-STEVENS: No fer, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you again, M. Hill.
23 Alright, any other witnesses?
24 Me HAZLETT-STEVENS: The City rests.
25
Page - 1 1 8-
00372

1 THE COURT: Okay, the City has rested, M. Coughlin. We are
2 now at 1 0 minutes to 12.
3
I'll give you a couple options. I don't know if you intend to
4
call any witnesses or to testif yourself. Certainly, as a criminal Defendant
5 in this case, you know that you have a Fifh Amendment privilege against
6 self-incrimination. If you don't testif, and you elect to invoke that Fifh
7
8
9
Amendment privilege, that is a fact the Court will not hold against you.
Are you going to be calling any witnesses this aferoon? Are
you going to be testifing? Or would you rather take a lunch break and
10 address that afer the lunch break? Because I think if you're going to -
1 1 whatever we're going to do here, well, it depends on what you're going to
1 2
do.
13
So, it's your time to present any evidence. Call your first
1 4 witness.
1 5 M COUGHLIN: Your Honor, the lunch break idea sounds
1 6 amenable to me, if it is with the Court.
1 7 THE COURT: Okay.
1 8
M4 COUGHLIN: And this might be inappropriate, Your Honor,
19 but I' m a little bit unsure of whether to what extent - i fI choose to testif,
20
can I testif to what I want to testif to, and then assert the Fifh
21 Amendment, or is it once you testif, you have to testif?
22 THE COURT: No, when you open the door, once you get up
23
and testif, the line of cases with use immunit, transactional use immunity
24 and derivative immunity, once you testif, you can't decide what you want
25 to testif to.
Page - 1 1 9-
00373

1
You can decide what you want to testif to, but in my Court, I
2
give a great deal of leeway to all parties in terms of cross-examination, as
3
you've seen, and the City is free to ask a lot of questions, certainly not
4 irrelevant questions.
5
Mq COUGHLIN: So, it's matters testified to on direct, the City is
6 allowed to cross-examine?
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: That's correct.
M COUGHIN: But then they can't call me as their own witness
and ask me new matters that weren't -
THE COURT: That's a good question for the Court. I don't
really think it would really make a difference in this case, but that's a
question in this case, I' ll tell you the benefit of that will inure to you that if
you decide to testif, I will limit the City's cross-examination to simply
matters that you've testifed to, and nothing else, and I'll direct the
prosecutor to limit his questions to that fact.
Mw COUGHLIN: And when you state his questions in his cross,
did you also mean any direct that he might -
THE COURT: Well, I don't know ifhe's going to - he'll be
cross-examining you because you'll - if you decide to testif, your testimony
will act as direct examination. He will be able to cross-examine you with
leading questions. That's the benefit of cross-examination.
But that's a decision only you can make, and only you can
make alone. So, if you have any witnesses other than yourselfthat you
intend to call as a witness.
Page -1 20-
00374

1
M. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I do, but I have to say I'm not
2
totally sure I served them with a subpoena. I believe I did with respect to
3
Oficer Chris Carter ofthe Reno PD, and Sergeant Monica Lopez. I believe
4
I did subpoena them, but I do want to tell the Court, I'm not absolutely sure.
5 THE COURT: Alright, well, I'll tell you what we're going to
6
do. It's 1 0 minutes to 12. Are you going to testif this aferoon, Mr.
7'
Coughlin, or do you need an hour to pause and reflect upon this decision?
8
M. COUGHLIN: It would - I'd prefer to have -
9 THE COURT: Alright, I'm going to give it to you again. For
1 0
the record, I' m going to give you the benefit ofthe doubt to allow you to
1 1 contemplate your legal options before we start Court.
1 2 And we'll start Court again at I :00. Does that work, Mr.
1 3 Hazlett- Stevens? Does that work, M. Coughlin?
1 4 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: I'll take care of my docket.
1 5 THE COURT: Okay, I would like everything started at 1 :00.
1 6
We'll be ready to go. I'd admonish and remind the witesses that you're
1 7
under oath. I a going to direct you not to discuss your testimony to
1 8 anybody outside the Courtroom.
1 9 MR. HILL: So we are to be back at 1 :OO?
20 THE COURT: You don't have to come back. You've testifed,
21
unless M. Coughlin intends to recall you as a witness, you don't need to be
22 back.
23
Mr. Coughlin, do you anticipate calling either M. Hill or Mr.
24
Baker back as witnesses? I can't imagine a reason you'd want to based on
25
Page -1 21 -
00375
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7

the fact I seem to have all the evidence I need, but that's an opportunity I
will aford you.
M4 COUGHIN: Your Honor, I don't -
THE COURT: I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what I'm going to
do. You don't need to be back at 1 :00. If, for reasons unknown, the trial
develops in a manner that is unanticipated and your testimony becomes
relevant and necessary, I will afford M. Coughlin the opportunity to call
you back at that time.
M4 HILL: Your Honor, we're two blocks away.
T COURT: Thank you, Mr. Hill.
MR. HILL: We can be here i fve minutes.
THE COURT: I appreciate that very much. Mr. Baker, thank
you. M. Coughlin, we'll see you back at 1 :00 shar. Mr. Hazlett-Stevens,
thank you ver much.
M HAZLETT-STEVENS: Are we going to be in Courtroom
B again, Judge.
THE COURT: We'll be (iriaudible). We'll be back here in B.
1 8 In fact, we are going to be back here i B. That's my order. You can leave
1 9
your stuffhere. We are going to secure the Courtroom so nobody - once
20 you guys leave the Courtroom, no one will come back in the Courtroom
21 without the company of Mr. Menzel!.
22 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you, Judge.
23 THE COURT: So, if there is anything you need to take at lunch,
24 take it. But everything will be secure in the Courtroom when we leave.
25 We'll be in recess until I :00. Thank you.
Page -1 22-
00376

(Court in recess at 1 1 : 5
3
:04 a.m.)
(Court in session at I :02:48 p.m.)
I
2
3 THE COURT: Alright, M. Hazlett-Stevens, Mr. Coughlin have
4
a seat.
5 Gentlemen, we're back on the record in the case of City versus
6 Zachary Coughlin, 1 1CR26405.
7 This moring, the City rested its case in chief. M. Coughlin, I
8 gave you an hour at lunch to think about what you want to do. Do you want
9 do you have any witesses to call? Are you going to testif or are you not
1 0 going to testif?
1 1
M. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if! did subpoena them corectly,
1 2
which I'm no
'
t sure whether or not I did, I would like to call either Ofcer
1 3
Carter or Sergeant Lopez. I don't believe either of them are here.
THE COURT: Okay, well, that presents a problem. 14
1 5
1 6
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Yeah, not that the City is aware of.
THE COURT: Any other witnesses then if they're not here? Do
1 7 you have any witnesses that are here that you want to testif, call to the
1 8 stand, or any documentar evidence you'd like to present?
1 9
M. COUGHLIN: Is citations to relevant case law documentary
20 evidence?
2 1 THE COURT: I'll consider that. That's really not evidence that
22 I'm interested in hearing right now. Right now, I want to know if there are
23
any other live witnesses that you intend to call, or do you intend to testif?
24 M. COUGHLIN: r think I 'll testif, Your Honor, but tis case law
25
r mentioned, it's not real (inaudible) on landlord/tenant stuff. All it is, is the
Page - 123-
00377

1 best cases I found speaking to situations where criminal trespas statutes are
2 applied, and to those subject to civil evictions.
3 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to ask that you
4 reserve that for argument. That sounds like argument to me.
5 THE COURT: Yeah, we'll address that in argument. There's
6
certainly some case law i Nevada. Mr. Hazlett-Stevens cited a case today
7
that the Supreme Court of Nevada has talked about the Fourth Amendment
8 issues and trespass issues afer evictions have been duly served, but we'll
9 deal with that at argument.
1 0 Right now, any witnesses you'd like to put on, or any
1 1 testimony - or do you want to testit?
1 2 MR. COUGHLIN: Ur, I do want to testit, Your Honor. It's pretty
1 3 narrow and limited.
1 4 TH COURT: Whether you testit or not, it's up to you. By
1 5
testiting, the City Attorey can cross-examine -you are open to cross-
1 6 examination by the City Attorey, and I' m not going to give you any
1 7
guidance as to what the questions are going to be. We're going to address
1 8 that on a case-by-case basis.
1 9 So, you don't get to make a decision to testit and then not
20
answer questions on cross-examination as if you would have some sort of
21 immunity.
22 So, by testiting and waiving your Fifh Amendment privilege,
23 you're going to be opening yourself to cross-examination, and we'll address
24
the questions on a question by question basis as we did this moring.
25
Page - 1 24-
00378

1 Or you have the Fifh Amendment option of not testifing, but
2 you've got to let me know what you want to do, M. Coughlin. I've given
3 you an hour to think about it.
4 In addition, you've had really since May 8'h, six weeks to think
5 about the trial, but today you need to make that decision.
6 M. COUGHLIN: Then I won't, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 M. COUGHLIN: I'll refain from that.
9 THE COURT: That's your decision, and we respect tat. And I
1 0 will tell you, I will not hold that against you. I never hold it against anybody
1 1 who doesn't testif. It's an important Fifh Amendment privilege you have,
1 2 and I' ll respect that.
1 3 So, given the fact that you don't want to testif and subject
14
yourself to cross-examination, which is your right, do you have any other
1 5
documentary evidence, or witnesses you'd like to present? Or are we ready
1 6 to go to argument?
1 7
1 8
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: The City is ready, Judge.
THE COURT: M. Coughlin?
1 9 M. COUGHLIN: Other than the cites to this case law.
20 THE COURT: Now, I'm going to allow you to cite the case law
21
in argument and make whatever legal argument you want to make in closing.
22
But to make it very clear for the record, I'm hearing from you
23
there' s no witnesses here to testif, and you are desirous of invoking and
24
maintaining your Fifh Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, is
25 that correct?
Page -1 25-
00379

1
M COUGHLIN: Yes, Your Honor, and with respect to any other
2
documentary, I would like to introduce the videos that were propounded to
3
me. I don't have them here, so if that prevents me from doing so.
4 TH COURT: That's a logistical problem if you don't have
5 them. Today is the day set for trial, and the time set for trial. So absent that,
6
I 'm going to consider the evidence portion of the case closed.
7
I' ll respect Mr. Coughlin's Fif Amendment privilege not to
8
testif, and based on that, there certainly will be no rebuttal given the fact
9 M. Coughlin offered no evidence, and I would open the matter now to
1 0
closing argument, starting with, of course, M. Hazlett-Stevens who has the
1 1 burden of proof, then giving M. Coughlin an opportunity to address the
12 facts and law, and then finish it up with Mr. Hazlett-Stevens.
1 3 So, Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, go ahead.
14 BY M4 HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 5
This case, I'll tell you, has been, frankly by the testimony
1 6
presented today, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge of Trespass
1 7 was proven by at least two diferent avenues in this case.
1 8
Mr. Coughlin was wared not to trespass, not to go on 1 21
1 9 River Rock, which is in the Cit of Reno, and he was wared at least fve
20 times by these people in all kinds of different manner.
21
He was wared originally when he was sent a 5-day and a 30-
22 day notice. They didn't want him on the property. They wanted him to quit.
23 They wanted him to leave the property. They sent those notices.
24
25
Page 1 26
00380

1
He was noticed again on an additional 5-day notice sometime
2
later before the 1 0/25 proceeding where they sent another notice asking him
3 to leave the property.
4
Most importantly in this case, Your Honor, is the 1 0/25
5
hearing where Judge Sferrazza - where Judge Sferrazza announced in open
6 Court where M. Coughlin was present, that the eviction is ganted.
7
And I draw Your Honor's attention to City's 1 . IfI could find
8 that, I would -
9
THE COUT: Do you need a copy of it? I have it right here in
1 0
evidence.
1 1
M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: No, it's in evidence, Your Honor.
1 2
And I'll draw your attention to the part that says, "Decision."
1 3
And it also says, "Matthew Merliss present, Casey Baker - represented by
1 4
Casey Baker," and then it also indicates Zachary Coughlin present.
1 5
And then I'll draw your attention to the decision where it says
1 6
"eviction granted effective October 31 st, 201 1, at 5:00 p.m."
1 7 That's what Judge Sferrazza announced in open Court with
1 8 Mr. Coughlin, according to M. Baker, listening, actively listening to the
1 9
Judge. He wasn't writing anything down, but he was actively listening to
20 the Judge when he announced that decision in open Court.
21 And you have the Order granting eviction right there.
22
Now, there was another issue whether or not the proceedings
23
were stayed pending some sort of appeal, but that Motion to Stay was also
24 denied in the October 25
t
h, 201 1 , hearing. And you'll see in City's 1, it
25
Page -1 27-
00381

I
actually says, "Tenant's verbal motion to stay, denied." The case was over
2 at that point.
3
Then, M. Baker drafed up the Findings of Facts, Conclusions
4
of Law, and Order of Summary Eviction. That was provided to you as
5
City's 2. That was also emailed to M. Coughlin. There's another notice
6 that they don't want him here. They want him off the property. They
7
waed him to be of the property as of October 31 st at 5:00 p.m.
8 This Order of Eviction specifies that M. Coughlin, excuse me,
9
the tenant of the property or anyone thereon, is to be out of the property no
1 0 earlier than October 3 1 st, 201 1 , at 5:00 p.m., just as announced in open Court
II on 1 0125.
1 2
So, Mr. Baker emailed that document to Mr. Coughlin as a
1 3
courtesy, I imagine. And then what happens next? On November 1, 201 1,
1 4 1 2 days before the trespass in this case, M. Hill executes a Notice of Entry
1 5
of Order and sends that to M. Coughlin' s last known address, as he would
1 6
normally do in his course of business, i s send a Notice of Entr of Order.
1 7
And what does he attach to that? The Findings of Facts,
1 8 Conclusions of Law, and Order of Su ary Eviction.
1 9
What does M. Coughlin do in response to that? 1 2 days,
1 3
20
days afer M. Coughlin was evicted from that property, pursuant to Judge
21
Sferrazza's Order of Eviction, he's found on the property by M. Hill.
22
In fact, Mr. Hill testifes he sees him walk up the stairs from
23
the basement, walk in the living room into -or in the kitchen into the living
24
room. He's at the house afer he's been evicted fom the property. That is a
25 criminal trespass, Your Honor.
Page -1 28-
00382

1 He's been waed many times that they do not want him there,
2 and yet, he's there on the property afer being formally evicted, afer going
3
through all of the Court proceedings, and that doesn't keep him out. He
4 goes back afer all of this.
5 There's another issue here too, Your Honor. The City argues
6
that anyone that goes on the property and "lives in the property" was found
7
in his pajamas, his night - a shirt, slippers, his dog downstairs, is living at
8 that property with the intent of vexing or annoying the owners of that
9
property. Because that is vexing and annoying afer they go through all the
1 0
legal proper procedures, pursue this case in Court, fnally afer days of test -
1 1
or afer a fll day of testimony and argument. And then on 1 0/25, finally
1 2 geting an Order of Eviction, he goes back to the house.
1 3
That is indicia of vexing or annoying the owners of that
1 4 property afer this huge legal battle. That' s not even enough.
1 5
Then you have M. Baker testif that well, he was at the Court
1 6 proceeding, or excuse me, he was at the eviction, the lockout he called it, on
1 7
November 1 st, 201 1 , where he saw the Sheriff, the Washoe County Sheriff,
1 8
tape onto the front door, City's 2, Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law,
1 9 Order of Eviction. They tape it onto the front door.
20
But that's not all that happens. There's a locksmith there as
21
well. The locksmith goes about to change or rekey the locks, both the front
22
door and the back door, so that no one can enter that property.
23
In fact, his testimony was that afer a question, "Could the
24
person with the key previously have entered that afer he rekeyed?" "No."
25 That' s the idea. You lock them out.
Page -129-
00383
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
{
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25

And so he recalls that he was given the new set of keys. There
was no way in that property other than some kind of forced entry, or illegal
entry at that point, fankly. That's enough of a waing right there. We
don't want you. We're locking you out. The Court says we can lock you
out. We're locking you out.
How many warings does Mr. Coughlin need? That was a
huge waing. He has to enter some other way. His key wouldn't work
anymore, so in order to get in that property, he had to enter that propert
having been locked out. That shows an intent to vex or annoy the owners, as
well, of the waing, not to trespass, not to be on that property, and being on
that propert.
Now, there isn't a lot of case law as you might imagine in
Nevada, Your Honor, with regard to reentering property afer being evicted,
and whether that's a criminal trespass. There is that one case I did
announce, and that was State v. Nichols, 1 06 Nev. 651 , where the Court did
say, "Reentr afer eviction is a trespass." It's a trespass. They can't be any
clearer than that. It's a tespass. That's what the Court said. And we agee.
It's a trespass.
There is case law in other jurisdictions, most of it unpublished,
Your Honor, because as you might imagine, these are pretty benig matters
that go through the criminal justice process.
But there was one case out in Nashville, Tennessee, the Court
of Criminal Appeals. This was a published decision, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App.
Lexus 1 002, where the Court did find that afer being served a Notice of
Eviction afer remaining on the property afer being evicted, the person was
Pae -130-
00384

1
subject to criminal trespass penalties. The jury had sufcient evidence to
2 actually fnd that person criminally trespassed.
3 So, this isn't anything new. This is actually what's happening
4 out in the country, and this is just one case that I could fnd that was a
5
published opinion on just this. Here, I'll just provide it to you.
6 THE COURT: And just for the record, is there a cite or a name
7 on that Tennessee case?
8 M. HAZLETI-STEVENS: Yes, Your Honor.
9
THE COURT: Just because we've run into this.
1 0 M. HAZLETI-STEVENS: Certainly, it's Tennessee v. Lovins
1 1
(inaudible), L-O-V-I-N-S, and I'll say it slowly, it's 2009, Tenn., T-E-N-N,
1 2 period, Crim, period, App. , A-P-P, period, Lexus, 1002.
1 3 THE COURT: Okay, thank you.
1 4 BY M. HAZLETI-STEVENS:
1 5
And, Judge, I think based on all of the evidence presented with
1 6
M. Hill having authority provided to him by M. Merliss to evict, to have
17
M. Coughlin leave that propert, and going through all the proper channels
1 8
to have him leave that property - they didn't use self-help in this case. They
1 9
went through the summary eviction proceeding a they were supposed to do.
20
And yet, afer they've noticed him, they've wared him,
21
they've asked him not to be on the property by many different avenues, he
22
still is on the property. And I think they were lef to no other remedy than to
23
call the police and have him arrested for criminal trespass, and that's
24
pursuant to 8 1 0.01 0, trespassing statute of the Reno Municipal Code.
25 Ta you, Judge.
Page - 1 31 -
00385

1 THE COURT: Thank you, M. Hazlett-Stevens. M. Coughlin,
2 closing argument?
3 M4 COUGHLIN: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
4 BY M COUGHLIN:
5
I actually came across that Lovins case, too. I don't know that
6 it quite says what M. Hazlett-Stevens purports it to say, but it's impressive
7 that he found that nonetheless.
8 I found a number of cases that do speak to just this situation.
9
I' ll quickly cite to them. Not all of them, I believe, are entirely positive fom
1 0
my point of view, but I believe the vast majority of them are given the public
1 1 policy behind.
1 2 I'm trying to avoid situations where you're evicting someone,
1 3
and that's tough enough, but then when you go and you pile on criminal
1 4
prosecution on top of it, and maybe like in this case, you pile on a forced
1 5 rent escrow deposit that's contrary to Nevada law, and the Court failing to
1 6 give back that money, while at the same time, apparently requiring the
1 7 commercial tenant who was evicted in a su ary proceeding for non-
1 8
payment of rent was not alleged, contrary to Nevada law again. I know I'm
1 9
running on with this sentence, but there's just a lot of stuff that went on here
20
that adds up to a pretty tough set of circumstances that the Legislature
21
actually enacted laws to prevent, but unfortunately, maybe it's due to my
22
poor legal work, maybe it's due to Judge Sferrazza's court having limited
23
jurisdiction having to deal with too broad of a subject matter. God knows it
24 would be difcult to do all the work that he does do.
25
Page -1 32-
00386

1
But Steele v. State, Steele with an "E" on the end, 1 32 - and
2
Your Honor, I can give this to the Court so to avoid anyone - if you need to
3
write it down. But for the record, Steele v. State, 1 32, N.E. 739 at 740.
4 State v. Peers, 41 7 A.2d 1 085. Reed v. Comm, 366 S.E. 2d
5
275. There is an Aw Jur. Section, 75 Aw Jur. 2d trespass, section 87,
6 that's fairly relevant.
7 The case Lynn v. Desiderio, 1 59. Fed. App. 382. Dawson v.
8
State, 52 Indiana 478. Myers v. State, 1 30 N.E. 1 16. Charles S Downy v.
9
S&D Liquor, 880 N.E. 2d 322. And just quickly, Houston, 647 N.E. 2d 1 6.
1 0 State v. Johnson, Higgins v. Penoscot, In The Matter ofMaricopa, 942 P.2d
1 1 477, and finally Ken v. Wood, 275 S.2d. 60.
1 2 Those cases largely speak to what the public policy rationale
1 3 underlining my position that wherever possible a criminal eviction statute
14 should not be applied incident to a civil eviction, the criminal trespass
1 5 incident to a civil eviction.
1 6 Now, obviously, there's got to be some reasonable place to
17 draw the line. Some (inaudible) will not leave. They just keep (inaudible)
1 8
the Court' s authority. I guess a contempt order could be issued, a Motion to
1 9 Show Cause.
20
There's a number ofthings, and maybe somewhere way down
21
the line, sure a criminal trespass arrest, or a citation. I would hope not what
22
happened here, three days in jail, a custodial arrest, and all that's attendant to
23 that.
24
Mr. Hazlett-Stevens, in his closing argument, cited to a lot of
25
emails that I don't believe were introduced into the record. At least not
Page -133-
00387

1
today. I could be wrong. They might have been somewhere i there, but it
2
was kind of curious because he mentioned a number ofthese warings
3 occurred in these emails, yet, they are not intoduced as exhibits herein.
4 Perhaps that's due to the fact that the opposing attoreys were
5
waed that email would not be a valid means of serving notice of anything.
6 And that was done because the speeding nature of these
7
summar eviction proceedings is fast enough as is. Mr. Hill's law firm
8
seemed to continually attempt to speed it up even more by sering things
9 through email.
1 0
The Legislature i n NS 40.253 has explicitly provided that for
1 1 commercial tenants it is against the law to use a summary eviction
1 2
proceeding to evict them unless the non-payment of rent is alleged.
1 I take that to mean the Legislature saying look, it's hard.
1 4
We're a pro-business state. It's hard enough to succeed in business. We
1 5
don't want people being summarily evicted unless they're just not paying
1 6 their rent.
1 7
If they're paying their rent, and they have - and the landlord
1 8
just wants them out for some other reason, well, they're going to have to do
1 9 it a little bit slower.
20
Now, there was testimony today that the rent was being -was
21
not being paid. However, that's not what was served. That's not what was
22 ftIed. That's not what was litigated.
23
M. Hill and his client chose to litigate it a certain way for
24
legitimate reasons. They chose not to allege the non-payment of rent. They
25
could say it's because I'm making up stuff. They could say it's because I'm
Page -1 34-
00388

I
-what was the term he used? I forget, but Mr. Baker used a term, and I
2
queried him on it. They could say all that, and they've said that about just
3 about everything I've ever uttered.
4
You know, I'm kind ofa Yosemite Sam cartoon villain as far
5
as they put it. Everything I do or say is just ridiculous, I'm crazy, I'm a
6
charlatan, fraud, and all this. Well, that's their position, but to me, it dilutes
7
itself. They don't ever mix in a little bit of ''well you got a point there" once
8 in a while.
9
There was a lot of evidence put on in this summary eviction.
1 0
They spent $60 grand litigating this so to say it was totally baseless and I put
1 1 on no evidence, yet their fees of $60 gand were legitimate and appropriate
1 2
and they should be compensated for them is to me, trying to have it both
1 3 ways.
1 4
If my case was so baseless and groundless and vexatious, I
1 5
would think they could have brought it home for something less than $60
1 6 gand.
1 7
In Nevada, under - and I know this isn't speaking to the real
1 8
reason we're here, the criminal trespass, but in Nevada there's a case called
1 9
Aitkens in the landlord/tenant context which provides that the procedural
20 notice requirements, and it's A-I-T-K-E-N-S, the procedural notice
21
requirements within the context of eviction proceedings, particularly within
22
summary eviction proceedings, must be strictly adhered to.
23
The policy rationale underlying, that is that given the privacy
24
of one's home ,or business, and in my case, both the home ofce, is so
25
important that the law really needs to strictly adhere to them. Similar to
Page - 1 35-
00389

1 what the Nevada Supreme Court has reinterpreted the Foreclosure Mediation
2 Statute to be whereas the Legislature might have said you need substantial
3 compliance with it, and the Nevada Supreme Court said, "No, we're going
4
to say you need strict compliance with it." Well, that's somewhat of an
5 analogy in what goes on in these eviction matters.
6
I believe there is a couple quasi 60(b) basis for challenging the
7
validity of any - to the extent this Court views te Eviction Order as a
8
waing, which I think is kind of the big inquir here. Maybe not, but to me,
9 it seems like it's possibly what the case could come down to.
1 0 To the extent the Court does consider a valid Eviction Order
1 1
appropriately served, a waing suficient to satisf the criminal trespass
1 2 statute, I believe there is a couple 60(b) like basis to challenge that Order.
1 3 One is brought up by M. Loomis, who so astutely pointed out
1 4 that under the McManley case there was a Notice of Appeal fled in the
1 5 interim between the initial October 1 3t hearing, and then the October 25t
1 6 trial.
1 7 M. HLETT-STEVENS: Judge, this is getting into
1 8 testimony - or evidence that's not in testimony, testimony that's not in
1 9 evidence rather. It's not there about any appeal taken.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin?
21 MR. COUGHIN: Well, I believe Mr. Loomis -
22 THE COURT: Your argument is limited to the facts that were
23 produced today at trial.
24 MR. COUGHLIN: Just today, not what Mr. Loomis -
25
Page -1 36-
00390

1 THE COURT: That's correct, today's trial. So to that extent,
2
the objection - and I try to give parties a great deal of leeway in closing
3 argument, but when you start getting far afield of what was argued,
4 presented via facts of the trial, that's not proper argument.
5 M COUGHLIN: Okay, and I thought it was part of the record at
6 this point. And ifit's not too late, I'd object to the notice by email that was
7 intoduced. THE COURT: Okay, go ahead.
8 BY M COUGHLIN:
9 Beyond tat 60(b) basis, I believe there is an additional basis
1 0 in that -there is a couple. I think under the ANVUI, A-N-V-U-I-E-
I I
A-N-V-U-I, which is kind of the main Nevada case on summary evictions of
1 2
commercial tenants. That was a restaurant in Vegas doing a lot of business,
1 3 like $500K a month or something, and they got evicted, and it went to the
1 4 Nevada Supreme Court, and a lot of litigation was done over that.
1 5 And the holding, the take home holding fom that was that it's
1 6 basically a summary judgent standard in the summary eviction
1 7
proceedings. The tenant merely needs to present a material issue of law or
1 8
fact to beat a summary judgment motion. If they do that, the Court may do
1 9 nothing frther, and it has to go on to a (inaudible) unlawfl detainer
20 approach. Served, 20 days to respond, discovery, all that.
2 1
So, my position would be that there's a 60(b) basis for viewing
22 this - any summary eviction order, as void in that I was a licensed attorey,
23
at that time, at least, and I held that out as my law ofce. I fled a tenant's
24
afdavit that I was a commercial tenant. I pled that. Mr. Hill testifed today
25 that he wasn't aware of that, and he didn't consider it a particular
Page -137-
00391

consideration, for his neurosurgeon client who had spent $60 grand on this.
2 That's where I'm at the analogy of the wrong side legal surgery, because I
3 think it could wind up potentially being fairly important to his client if it's
4 proven that a wrongful eviction occured.
5 If it's proven that yes, I did present a (inaudible) issue of
6
material fact, that this was a commercial tenancy, and to the extent judicial
7 notice could be taken that i was merely a No-Cause Eviction Notice that
8 was pursued and that non-payment of rent was not alleged, then this could
9 be problematic, and Mr. Hill might wish he had considered that point
1 0
whether this was a commercial tenancy, and I ' m not subject to su ary
1 1 eviction proceedings in 40.253, and (inaudible) pay my rent as alleged as
1 2 being in fact very important.
1 3
Just some ancillary factual considerations. The main summary
14 eviction statute in Nevada is NRS 40.253. It's about this long. It's 8 to 9
1 5 subsections, and that's just kind of the procedural mechanisms of that. It's
1 6
mixed in there with the construction defect and Chapter 40 and some other
1 7 stuf.
1 8 THE COURT: Mr. Coughlin, how does this all relate to the
1 9 case? We're getting really far afield on these eviction issues when we're
20 here on a tespassing case. So let' s try to keep our focus limited to this
21 crminal case, and the trespassing issues raised in this hearing.
22 BY M. COUGHLIN:
23
Yes, Your Honor. I guess the reason I' m going into this one,
24
my position is I' m not guilty. But if you are reading some guilt into this, I
25 think there are some mitigating factors that the Court might consider.
Page - 1 38-
00392
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25

If that's appropriate, I could go into those briefly.
TH COURT: Well, I'm not going to - I just want you to limit
your argument to testimony that was presented here this moring on the
trespassing statute. That's what M. Hazlett-Stevens did, and that's what
I'm asking you to do.
M. COUGHLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: I doesn't mean you have to be up here for an
hour talking, and necessarily more isn't necessarily better. But if you focus
in on the legal issues and identif them during your closing argument and
why they support your position that you're not guilty, that would be helpfl.
BY M. COUGHLIN:
Okay, the charge is RMC 8 10.040. I believe that the specific
language -
T COURT: Section 810. 010.
M. COUGHLIN: Oh, it's 01 0, okay.
THE COURT: Just for the record.
M. COUGHLIN: Okay, I believe that the exact language is failure
to leave the premises afer being waed to do so.
It doesn't say failure to leave the premises afer kind of having
an Eviction Notice served, according to the procedures ofthe Washoe
County Sheriff, maybe, but maybe not according to the NRCP that's ruled
expressly applicable to civil evictions under NRS 40.258.
It doesn't say that. It says, "Failure to leave the premises afer
being waed to do so." So, what do we have when we have somebody
evicted, and they need to go get their mail for a couple days? Are we going
Page - 1 39-
00393

1
to go arrest them when they go into their mailbox ad get that social security
2
check? Are we going to charge them with criminal trespass there? Or are
3
we going to say, "Hey you need to leave," and if they don't leave, then
4 maybe consider that because that's what the precedent would be here today
5
is anybody who is evicted who's found on the property and is unfortunate
6
enough to have Richard Hill roll up and call the police and do what took
7
place here, is going to not only be facing an eviction, wherein they might
8
have also been subject to an impermissible rentescrow deposit, in that the
9
Reno Justice Court is not allowed to do that, unless they pass a rule like Las
1 0 Vegas Justice Court Rule 44.
1 1
In order to do so, they have to publish it and get it approved by
1 2
the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court let Las Vegas
1 3
implement such a rent/escrow requirement i n their Justice Cout Rules
1 4
because it's Las Vegas. It's crazy. I went to law school there. They have to
1 5
make some crazy rules to deal with the transiency of that community. I love
1 6
Las Vegas. Don't get me wrong. But I can understand why the Court would
1 7
say, "Alright, normally, we're not going to allow these forced rent escrow
1 8 deposits to tenats in a sua eviction setting."
1 9
But because it's Las Vegas, and otherwise it would be too hard
20
to be a landlord, we're going to let you implement Rule 44.
21 Now, Justice Court Rule 84 says before a Justice Court can
22
implement such a rule like that, they have to get it approved by the Nevada
23 Supreme Court.
24
THE COURT: M. Coughlin, we're getting way out again.
25 MR. COUGHLIN: Alright.
Page -140-
00394

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
THE COURT: I mean, (inaudible) State v. McNichols, the
Nevada Supreme Court case in 1990 clearly indicated that someone who has
been evicted from the property and subsequently reenters the property is
guilty of trespass.
M. COUGHLIN: Is that a casino case though?
THE COURT: A resident where someone lost their home in
foreclosure, went back on the propert, eviction was served, and then there
was ultimately an arrest made on the property for the crime of narcotics.
M. COUGHLIN: For a crime of narcotics?
THE COURT: Although the Supreme Court has said subsequent
1 1 reentry is a trespass.
1 2 M. COUGHLIN: Afer the eviction?
1 3 THE COURT: Afer being evicted.
14 M. COUGHLIN: The eviction was --
1 5 THE COURT: Afer being evicted and having the owners
16 change the locks.
1 7
M. COUGHLIN: Afer the eviction was served you said.
1 8 THE COURT: Then why don't you focus in -no, I didn't say
1 9
that. I said afer an eviction. Why don't you focus in on the relevant issues
20 so we're not here for the next three hours talking about things that are
21 irrelevant.
22 M. COUGHIN: Okay, but I did, Your Honor, hear you say the
23 & word "served."
24 THE COURT: I said subsequent reentry was a trespass afer an
25 eviction process. Three and four days notices of an unlawful detainer were
Page -1 41 -
00395

I
served as present order of summa eviction. So, if you think that there's a
2 defense there, that's what you should focus in on.
3
M. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir. I do think there is, and especially under
4 the Aitken case that I mentioned earlier requiring that strict adherence.
5 There was not appropriate service here. And, in fact, M. Hill
6
in his pleadings struggles to point to some rule somewhere that says, "Yeah,
7
that's appropriate. That satisfies the standard having the Sheriff post it on
8 the door."
9
In fact, if one really looks into the Anvui restaurant summary
10
eviction case, there is a strong argument that Hill, et aI., were not allowed to
1 1 effectuate this lock out for at least five days.
1 2
Furthermore, and the Court was holding $2,275.00 of my
1 3
money. Given that under 1 1 8(a).380, a supercedes bond is only $250.00.
1 4 There is a very strong argument that this -
1 5
THE COURT: What does that have to do with this case? You
1 6
are going nowhere with helping the Court when you get off on these
1 7
tangents about the specifcs of the Justice Court. You do make some
1 8
headway when you talk about the service of the eviction proceedings, so if
1 9
you want to focus on that and limit i t to that, that would be fine. But you are
20
just geting way out there, and it's also, I think, outside the course and scope
21 of the evidence presented today at the trial.
22
M. COUGHLIN: So, is it not something this Court considers
23 whether or not something is void under 60(b)4?
24 TH COURT: I' m not going to give any legal advice durng
25
closing argument, M. Coughlin. You know as a lawyer that's inappropriate.
Page -142-
00396

1 I'm just saying that you are getting far afield on your arguments based on the
2 evidence.
3 M. COUGHLIN: Well, I feel I'm trying to make relevant
4 arguments that point out that --
5 T COURT: I'm telling you they're not that relevant, at least
6 to this Judge.
7 M. COUGHLIN: Well, but I didn't get to say much about the
8 supercedes bond, and the fact that the Court took 1 0 times what it was, and
9 didn't give me a stay.
1 0 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: And, Judge, I' m going to object to
1 1 that because that's not testimony that's presented here at trial today.
1 2 THE COURT: Tat's not even the testimony. I didn't even hear
1 3 anything about a supercedes bond until just about two seconds ago.
1 4 M. COUGHLIN: It's in my motions on file in the record.
1 5 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 6 I'm going to object.
Those are not evidence, Judge.
1 7 TH COURT: Let's move forward with the argument, M.
1 8 Coughlin. Mr. Hazlet-Stevens' objection is sustained.
1 9
M. COUGHLIN: Okay. I believe it is NRS 40.280, but it is
20
somewhere in NRS 40 that specifcally incorporates NRCP or applies NRCP
21
to service requirements, just in general, to these landlord/tenant matters to
22 the extent the subject matter has been spoken to already in the
23 landlord/tenant statute.
24 So, when you want to know how you serve somebody, it's not
25 set forth in the landlord/tenant statute, which it's not, you go to NRCP,
Page 1 43
00397

1 Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. And if you can't serve somebody in
2 person, personally served, and I ask that you take judicial notice that
3 personally served means handing something to someone in person. Because
4
the Washoe County Sherif doesn't view it that way. They think posting
5 something on the door, ad they've told me tis.
6 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Judge, I' m going to object. Him
7 telling - it's hearsay that wasn't even provided in testimony.
8 THE COURT: M. Coughlin, I don't know if you're hearing
9 what I'm saying here. You are getting so far afield that it's undermining and
1 0 eroding your argument.
1 1 MR. COUGHLIN: Well, I heard you say that I should focus on --
1 2 THE COURT: I' m not tell you what to say. You need to stay
1 3 focused and comment only on evidence that was related this moring.
14 MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
1 5 THE COURT: And when you rehash it for the fifh and sixth
1 6 time, it loses it's value and punch. I mean, afer awhile you make your
1 7 argument, there's nothing else to be said. I mean, a good lawyer knows
1 8
when to sit down afer making an argument instead of droning on and
1 9 droning on, I mean, forever.
20
At some point, the aguent is made and the information is
2 1 digested, and then it becomes to be noise.
22 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir.
23 THE COURT: You've made some valid points. I've heard
24
them. But I don't need to hear them ten times. I heard a lot of stuff this
25 moring over and over and over.
Page -144-
00398

1 M. COUGHLIN : Yes, Your Honor, and I'll just conclude with
2 stating that there was no waing to leave the premises.
3 There was no failure to heed a waing to leave the premises.
4 Perhaps it's a matter of Mr. Hill just jumped the gun and called the police a
5 little too soon, and he would have been better off saying, "You need to
6
leave," and then getting that refsal to leave, and then call the police.
7 But as it occurred, there simply was no waing to leave the
8
premises. A Eviction Order, even if appropriately served, and I don't
9 believe it was here, prior to the lockout, is not a waring under all those
1 0 cases, or at least a majority of those cases that I cited to you, sufcient to
1 1 sustain a criminal trespass prosecution.
1 2 Ta you, Your Honor.
1 3 THE COURT: Thank you, and I appreciate you zooming in on
14 that because I think that's a good issue.
1 5 M. Hazlett-Stevens, would you like to fmish up?
1 6 BY M. HALETT-STEVENS:
1 7
That's right, Your Honor. That's the crux of the issue in this
1 8 case.
1 9
M. Coughlin restates or limits RMC 8 1 0.01 0 just a little bit,
20 and improperly. There' s many ways to get a trespas under the law, Your
21
22
Honor.
M. Coughlin said you had to be waed and remain on the
23
propert in order to get a trespass, but that's not the only way to have a
24
criminal trespass under statute. There are three ways under Subsection A.
25
Page -145-
00399

1 If you go on the propert with the intent to vex or annoy
2
someone, you've committed a criminal trespass. That's it, right there.
3
There' s another part of the statute that says if you go or remain
4 on the property afer being waed not to trespass, you are guilty of a
5 trespass.
6 So, it is the case that sometimes, and we see these all the time
7
in casino cases, where the casino security is saying, "You leave the
8 propert." And they say, "No, I'm not leaving the propert," or they do
9 some other gesture that indicates they're refsing to leave the property.
1 0 That's a criminal trespass.
1 1
But if you go onto the property afer being waed not to go on
1 2
the propert, that's also a trespass. He was waed so many times by them
1 3 personally, by Mr. Hill and Mr. Baker, through notices, through Judge
1 4
Sferrazza that he was evicted from the property, and then through a Notice
1 5 of Entry of Order.
1 6
I don't know how many other ways they could have possibly
1 7
done this. Are they required to war him when they actually go on the
1 8
propert 1 3 days later, and he's still living on the property? I don't think so.
1 9
I think they're well within their rights to call the police, and say, "Hey, we
20
got this guy evicted, and he's still on our property." That's a valid arest.
21
Now, we're not here to talk about the public policy, Your
22
Honor, about whether it's advisable, whether it's a good idea to arrest
23
someone who's been evicted fom the propert. That's not why we're here.
24
We're not here to have you decide whether that's good public policy or not.
25
Pae -1 46-
00400

1 We're here to have you decide whether there was a criminal
2 trespass under RMC. You might not think so, or you might think so, but
3 that's why we're here. We're not here to set public policy precedent about
4
trespassing people who have been evicted for various reasons, or foreclosed
5 upon, or anything like that. We're not here to do that.
6
With regard to all ofthe issues Mr. Coughlin brought up in
7 regard to commercial residence, commercial property, notices, whether or
8 not they can take summar eviction proceedings against a commercial
9 tenant, this is not the proper forum to decide that issue.
1 0 That, Mr. Coughlin, had an opportunity to address in front of
1 1 Judge Sferrazza, in his appeal in front of Judge Flanagan, which you actually
1 2 did hear in evidence today. That matter is appealed, and Judge Flanagan
\ 3 already denied the appeal.
14 That issue should have been litigated in the proper jurisdiction.
1 5 The issue here is simple. He was evicted from his property a announced in
1 6 open Court by Judge Sferrazza. He was provided a copy ofthe Notice.
1 7
Regardless, it was announced by Judge Sferrazza, "You are evicted a of
1 8 October 3 1s at 5:00 p.m."
1 9 That's enough right there. Right there. Ifhe was on that
20 property afer October 3 1 s, 201 1 , afer 5 :00 p.m., he is criminally
21 trespassing on that property either by an intent to vex or annoy the other
22 litigants in that party, or by being waed not to come on that propert, and
23 going on that property pursuant to statute.
24
I think the Cit has proven its case based on those two
25 theories, and I'll submit it beyond that. Thank you.
Page - 147-
00401

1 THE COURT: Thank you ver much. Alright --
2 M. COUG: Your Honor, could I?
3 THE COURT: No, we're done. That's it. You know how it
4
works. The prosecutor goes frst, you go second, they finish up. They have
5 the burden of proof. That's it. No more argument. That's very clear.
6
Alright, let me just make a couple comments here. Both
7
parties have identifed - there's numerous issues here. The big issue is the
8
waing. Under our statute, both 207.200, and RC 810.0lD, the part - it
9
doesn't even talk about the vex or annoy, the party who goes or remains,
1 0
either one, M. Hazlett-Stevens pointed that out, into any building afer
1 1
being waed by the owner or the occupant, ad the owners and occupants
12
can be agents with ostensible, actual or implied authority, and certainly M.
1 3
Hill and M. Baker had that authority. That's clearly established by the
1 4 evidence.
1 5
I f you go back onto that propert afer having been wared,
1 6 you are guilt of a trespass, and I guess the question is what is a waing?
1 7
And unlike many areas in the law, it's not defined under the trespassing
1 8 ordinance, or the trespassing statute. It's a notice requirement.
1 9
And the real issue in this case -there's a number of issues, but
20
I do - there's no question, M. Coughlin, that you were on propert that
21
belonged to another at 1 21 River Rock on November 1 3th, and that's in the
22 City of Reno, and there' s no question about that.
23
The question is, what tpe of waing did you have? You had
24
so many types of waings, it's hard to fgure out which one is the best.
25
Page 148
00402

1 First of all, the first waing -and by the way, when we talk
2 about waring here, when you look at the statute under state law or the
3
Municipal Code, both the Legislature and the City Council have given some
4 guidace tat indicate for some occupants they've got sufcient waing if
5
the property is posted in a conspicuous manner in intervals of not less than
6 700 feet.
7 So, something as broad as that is sufcient waing under our
8 trespass statute. And the statute goes on to say it's prima facia evidence of a
9
trespass if the property is posted or fenced on a propert. That's prima facia.
1 0 So, the question is did you have notice? Did you have some
1 1 sort of waing not to be on that property, and here's what the Court has
1 2 determined.
1 3 You received some kind of mild notice, and a waring when
14 you were given a 5-day notice and a 30-day notice. Probably in and of itself,
1 5 probably not enough to support a trespassing fi
n
ding.
1 6
But at two separate hearings in October of201 1 , on the 1 3
th
17
and the 25
t
h, where you were present in Court, there can be no question that
1 8
the issue is whether or not the owner of that property wanted you on that
19 propert more, or should you be on that property.
20
Then, right in open Court, Judge Sferraza evicted you fom
21 the property. He followed that up with a written Eviction Decision ad
22
Order clearly indicating that you were evicted, and that the stay was denied.
23
So, I don't know what - that would be what I call super notice, or super
24 waing, coming from the Judge himself.
25
Pae -1 49-
00403

1 It's ofen the situation we never get that kind of waing. So
2 not only did you get a waring, you got an Order from the Judge that you
3 were evicted fom the property. That was then posted on the font door of a
4 propert that you had been i and retured to on November p
t
, 2012 (sic)
5 the day it was posted.
6 There was a copy lef on a coffee table later at some point in
7
time afer Mr. Hill had entered the property ad realized that there had been
8 someone in the property.
9
You were emailed. Whether or not you received that email, I
1 0
don't know, but there was at least another attempt to email you at an address
1 1
to which you had responded, and to an address, an email address, to which
1 2
you had responded that you would not accept emails on your - as notice.
l 3
Finally, you were mailed a Notice of Entry of Judgment to 1 21
1 4
River Rock. I'm sure - I would guess you didn't get that, but the parties
1 5 here did everything possible to provide you notice, to provide you waing,
1 6 and you had actual notice, you had constructive notice, tat you shouldn't be
1 7 on that property.
1 8
The State of Nevada and the Supreme Court decision which
1 9
Mr. Hazlett-Stevens quoted this moring and I have in front of me, State v.
20 McNichols, \ 06 Nev. 651 , clearly, clearly, says that afer someone has been
21 evicted, a subsequent reentry in the property is a trespass.
22
A trespass reentry is what the Supreme Court called it, did not
23 create an objective of that expectation of privacy.
24
So, that's just te frst section. That's been proved beyond any
25
doubt. There's no question that portion of the statute has been proved.
Page -1 50-
00404

1 And I would also submit that M. Hazlett-Stevens is correct.
2
And afer going back on that property numerous occasions, seting up a
3 residence with your pet in the basement, constitutes a separate basis
4
independent from the notice requirement that you went on to that property
5 with the intent to vex or annoy the owner.
6 So, under any theory set forth by the City, I find you guilt of
7 the charge of Trespassing. We can proceed to sentencing.
8 Mr. Hazlett-Stevens?
9 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS:
1 0 you know, I think the --
Thank you, Your Honor. I'll let
II T COUT: I've indicated before there will be no jail. There
1 2 will be no suspended sentence. That's been part of my ruling and that will
1 3 not happen in today's case.
14 MR. HAZLETT-STEVENS: And I've already announced that
1 5 on the record, too, that the City is not going to be pursuing any sort of jail
1 6 time, whether suspended or actual in this case. I don't think it's appropriate.
17
I think we all should know the value of our diferent cases that we have.
1 8
I'm going to ultimately submit sentencing to you, Judge,
1 9
because I'll tell you, fom the City's perspective, the problem is (inaudible)
20 by M. Coughlin's arrest.
21 So, based on that, I'm submitting to you. Whatever you decide
22 in this case, and putting time served, would be okay with the City.
23 TH COUT: I don't believe there has been any other issue
24 since tis issue. This problem is not recurring, and we have no reason to
25 believe M. Coughlin is headed back to that property, correct?
Pae - 1 51 -
00405

1 M HAZLETT-STEVENS: That's exactly right, Your Honor.
2 T COURT: M. Coughlin, anything you'd like to say? I
3 noticed you have $3 1 0 cash bail posted. As I indicated, a suspended
4 sentence or any jail sentence at all will not be issued by this Court.
5 So, anything you'd like to say in terms of sentencing?
6 MR. COUGHIN: Well, Your Honor, I mean, there' s things I'd like
7
to point to as mitigating factors, but to the extent -by sentencing, maybe I
8 don't -
9 TH COURT: I can sentence you. I'm telling you right now,
1 0
part of my jurisdiction is up to 6 months in jail, up to a $2,000, stike that, up
1 1
to a $1 ,000 fne, up to two years probation, and up to 200 hours community
1 2 service.
1 3 I will not be putting you on probation. That means there will
1 4
be no jail. I' m not putting you on probation anyway, but with a suspended
1 5
sentence of a fne, there will be no jail. So, we're looking at a fme and/or
1 6 community service and/or time served.
1 7
So, we have $3 1 0 posted, and the question is what sentence
1 8 should I impose? Should I give you community service? Should I not?
1 9 Should I fine you in excess of up to $1 ,000? Should I not? What would be
20
the appropriate sentence? There are mitigating circumstances, as pointed
21 out by the prosecutor, that you have not been back to the property and I
22
consider that a very mitigating circumstance. I'm open to any areas in terms
23 of what sentence you think would be appropriate here.
24
M COUGHIN: Well, Your Honor, things that I consider
25 mitigating circumstance, and if this Court doesn't, I don't.
Page - 1 52-
00406

1 THE COURT: Well, I don't know what they are until you
2 mention them to me, but I'm all ears.
3
M. COUGHLIN: Okay, Nevada law does not allow for forced
4
rent/escrow deposit that is ten times the amount - at all to a summar
5
eviction litigant, much less one that is ten times the amount one would need
6 to put up to get a stay of eviction where the rent is less than a grand.
7
THE COURT: How would that relate to what I just said, in
8
terms of what I could impose, whether it's community service or fmes?
9 How would that relate to that argument?
1 0 M. COUGHIN: Because this wrecked my life.
1 1
THE COURT: Okay.
1 2
MR. COUGHLIN: In a ver real way. And not just my life. It
1 3 wrecked a lot ofpeople's lives in my family.
1 4
TH COURT: So, what do you think is an appropriate
1 5 sentence? M. Hazlett-Stevens is asking the Court to determine it, and
1 6 unless you have anything you' d like to offer up, I do find a mitigating factor
1 7
that upon the arrest, there have been no frther problems, and that's a very
1 8 large mitigating factor.
19 M. COUGHLIN: Then I'd consider the pain someone has gone
20 through a mitigating factor, and also, any sort of mistakes made by the
21
judicial system a mitigating factor. I don't consider these events to take
22 place in a vacuum.
23
THE COURT: Okay.
24 M. COUGHLIN: I think if the Court looked at it, it would agree
25 with me that this rent/escrow deposit was not allowable by the law.
Page - 1 53-
00407

1 THE COUT: I'm not going to look into and buy into whether I
2 agree with you or not on anything that has to do with the landlord and tenant.
3 I'm trying to decide if! should give you more than a $3 1 0 fine,
4
up to $1 ,000 fne, or give you some community service. Or is a fne
5
enough? Or the jail time you spent in jail, is that enough to wrap this thing
6 up?
7
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I' d ask that the $3 1 0, and I say this
8
respectflly, sir, and I' d ask that it be given back to me. I'm fat broke. I've
9
had my law license taken away. I went through a divorce just immediately
1 0 preceding this.
1 1 So, this has been a pretty difcult period of time. I don't
1 2 know.
1 3 THE COURT: Alright.
1 4 M# COUGHLIN: With respect to other mitigating factors, I think
1 5
that -I mean, there was three days served i jail, frst of, you know.
1 6 I believe the bond was --
1 7 THE COURT: It was a cash bail. There was no bond.
1 8 MR. COUGHLIN: There was no bond?
1 9 THE COURT: You posted a cash bail. There was no bond.
20
And it's been on the books since you posted it to get out of jail.
21
M= COUGHLIN: Yeah, yeah. I don't know ifit's a mitigating
22 factor is the misconduct of Mr. Hill or others in this.
23 T COURT: Well, I don't find any misconduct presented
24
today. I' m more interested in what I - I don't think that's a mitigating
25 factor.
Page - 1 54-
00408
,

1 Here's the Court's Order. There's been no further issues, M.
2 Coughlin. You've conducted yourself professionally in this trial. I
3 appreciate that.
4 The fines and fees in this case of $3 1 0 will be imposed as the
5 fne, and time served, and tat will close te case. Time sered plus $3 10.
6 Alright, that's it. Thank you, gentlemen.
7 M. HAZLETT-STEVENS: Thank you for your time, Judge.
8 T COUT: Alright, we'll be in recess.
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Court adjoured at 1 :59:27 p.m.)
Page - 1 55-
00409
1
2
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE
SS:
3 I, PAMLA D. LONGONI, a notary public in and for the County of
4 Washoe, State of Nevada, do hereby certif:
5
That I was provided an audio of the hearing above-referenced, and
6
that said transcript, which appears hereinbefore was transcribed verbatim
7
into tpewriting as herein appears to the best of my knowledge, skill, ad
8 ability and is a true and correct record thereof.
9
I fher certif that I a not an attorey or counsel for any ofthe
10 parties, nor a relative or employee of any attorey or counsel connected with
1 1 the action, nor financially interested in the action.
1 2
DATED this 3 day of July, 2012.
\ 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
PAML D. LONGaN!
Page - 1 56-
00410
F I L E D
Electronically
07-31-2012:05:17:22 PM
Clerk of the Court
1 2880
2
3
4
5
8
9 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
10
11
vs.
Appellant,
Case No. CR12-1262
12 CITY OF RENO,
Dept. No. 10
13
14
15
16
Respondent.
~ /
ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE
The record on appeal in the above-entitled matter having been filed with the
17 Clerk of this Court on July 25, 2012;
18
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant file and
19 serve on Respondent an Opening Brief within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
20 The Opening Brief shall contain a statement of the errors committed in Reno Municipal
21 Court, with accompanying authorities, and shall not exceed five pages.
22
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file and serve on
23 Appellant an Answering Brief, which shall not exceed five pages, within twenty (20) days
after the filing date of Appellant's Opening Brief.
24
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's failure to file an Opening Brief
within the time limitation hereinabove stated shall be deemed an admission that the appeal
26
was not well founded and shall constitute adequate grounds for dismissal of the appeal.
27
28
-1-
00411
1
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that upon the briefs having been filed, the
2 matter should be submitted by Appellant pursuant to WDCR 12(4). This Court will take the
3 matter under submission without oral argument.
4
5 DATED this 31 day of July, 2012.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~
~ ,
STEVEN P. ELLIOTT v
District] udge
-2-
00412
1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2 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 JILL DRAKE for CITY OF RENO
5
I further certify that I am an employee of the Second Judicial District Court of the
6 State of Nevada, in and for the County of Washoe; that on this date I deposited for mailing
a copy of the foregoing document addressed to:
7
Zachary Coughlin
8 P.O. Box 3961
9 Reno, NV 89505
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this d ( day of July, 2012.
A Q ) C v ~
HEIDI HO '
Judicial Assistant
-3-
00413
Clerk Accepted: 07-31-2012:17:17:39
Case Title:
(D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Ord for Briefing Schedule
Filed By: Heidi Howden
RENO
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
00414
F I L E D
Electronically
08-14-2012:07:51:55 AM
Clerk of the Court
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Code: 3860
JOHN J. KADLIC
Reno City Attorney
Reno, Nevada 89505
* * 0 * *
Appellant, CASE NO.: CR12-1262
vs. DEPT. NO.: 10
corporation,
Respondent.
/
18 REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION
19 IT IS REQUESTED that Respondent City of Reno's MOTION TO DISMISS, which was
20 filed July 31, 2013 in the above-entitled matter be submitted to the Court for decision.
21 The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of this request has been mailed to all
22 counsel of record.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-1-
00415
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
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Affirmation
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the document does not contain the social
security number of any person.
Respectfully submitted this It; rfl day of August, 2012.
-2-
JOHN J. KADLIC
er Hazlett-Stevens
Nevada State Bar 10075
Reno, Nevada 89505
00416
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
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
party(s) set forth below by:
D
D
D
D
business practices.
Personal delivery.
Facsimile (FAX).
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
DATED this 14th day of August 2012.
Penelope . Colter
00417
Clerk Accepted: 08-14-2012:09:20:23
Case Title:
(D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Request for Submission
RENO
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
00418
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Document Code:
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89!
"ele: ##$338$8118
%a&: 9'9$66#$#'!(
)tto*ne+ ,o* P*o -e )..ellant e,,ecti/el+ denied -i&th )mendment Right "o Coun0el
1N "23 -3COND 45D1C1)6 D1-"R1C" CO5R" O% "23 -")"3 O% N3V)D)
1N )ND %OR "23 CO5N"7 O% 8)-2O3
Z)C2 CO59261N:
)..ellant,
/0;
Cit+ o, Reno:
Re0.ondent;
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Case No: CR12-1262
Dept No: 10
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
CO=3- NO8, )..ellant, Zach Coughlin, >+ and th*ough him0el, ,ile0 thi0 OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO DISMISS ;
FACTS
1. As the record reflects, Coughlin filed tolling motions and at least one Notice of Appeal, and
timely served them upon the City of Reno, serving the Notice of Appeal within the 1 days
allowed under NRS 1!".#.
6)8
- 1 -
F I L E D
Electronically
08-15-2012:11:50:44 PM
Clerk of the Court
00419
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
NR- 189;!3! .*o/ide0 that the a..ellant need ,ile and 0e*/e the Notice o, )..eal ?ithin 1!
da+0 o, the *endition o, @udgment; Coughlin did 0o; 1, Zach Coughlin, decla*e unde* .enalt+ o,
.e*@u*+ .u*0uant to NR- 3;!' that thi0 i0 t*ue;
AFF$R%AT$&N '(RS(ANT T& NRS )#"*.#
"he unde*0igned doe0 he*e>+ a,,i*m that the .*eceding document doe0 not contain the 0ocial
0ecu*it+ num>e* o, an+ .e*0on;

Dated: )ugu0t 1
th
, (!1(
A-A Zach CoughlinBBBBBBBB
Zach Coughlin, )..ellant
- 2 -
00420
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
'R&&F &F S+R,$C+
Pu*0uant to NRCP C><, 1 ce*ti,+ that 1 0e*/ed a co.+ o, the ,o*egoing document u.on the
,ollo?ing .a*tie0 >+ elect*onicall+ ,iling on tho0e ?ho a*e *egi0te*ed e,ile*0 and o* de.o0iting ,o*
mailing in the u0ual cou*0e o, >u0ine00 ?ith the 5-P- a t*ue and co**ect co.+ o, thi0 ,iling to tho0e
?ho a*e not *egi0te*ed e,ile*0 on thi0 date:
4ohn Dadlic, 30E;
Ch*i0to.he* 2aFlett$-te/en0, 30E;
3!! 3 -econd -t, -te 1(!!
Reno NV 89!1
PO Bo& 19!!
Reno, NV 89!
)tto*ne+ ,o* Cit+ o, Reno
4ill D*aGe, 30E;
D3P5"7 )""ORN37 93N3R)6
1!! N; C)R-ON -"R33"
C)R-ON C1"7 NV 89#!1$'#1#
Dated: )ugu0t 1th
th
, (!1(
A0A Zach Coughlin
- 3 -
00421
Clerk Accepted: 08-16-2012:08:11:56
Case Title:
(D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Opposition to Mtn
Filed By: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
RENO
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
00422
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Document Code:
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89!
"ele: ##$338$8118
%a&: 9'9$66#$#'!(
1N )ND %OR "23 CO5N"7 O% 8)-2O3
Z)C2 CO59261N:
)..ellant,
/0;
Cit+ o, Reno:
Re0.ondent;
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Case No: CR12-1262
Dept No: 10
CO=3- NO8, )..ellant, Zach Coughlin, >+ and th*ough him0el, ,ile0 thi0 Notice o,
)..ea*ance and a0?0 to >e li0ted a0 .*o 0e de,endant in thi0 matte*, though it ma+ >e the ca0e that the
-i&th )mendment *e@ui*e0 .*o/iding thi0 indigent de,endant coun0el unde* the -i&th )mendment;
A
A
A
A
A
A
- 1 -
Notice of Appearance
F I L E D
Electronically
08-15-2012:11:47:21 PM
Clerk of the Court
00423
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 PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030

Dated: )ugu0t 1
th
, (!1(
A-A Zach CoughlinBBBBBBBB
- 2 -
00424
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
Pu*0uant to NRCP C><, 1 ce*ti,+ that 1 0e*/ed a co.+ o, the ,o*egoing document u.on the
,olloDing .a*tie0 >+ elect*onicall+ ,iling on tho0e Dho a*e *egi0te*ed e,ile*0 and o* de.o0iting ,o*
mailing in the u0ual cou*0e o, >u0ine00 Dith the 5-P- a t*ue and co**ect co.+ o, thi0 ,iling to tho0e
Dho a*e not *egi0te*ed e,ile*0 on thi0 date:
4ohn Eadlic, 30@;
Ch*i0to.he* 2aFlett$-te/en0, 30@;
3!! 3 -econd -t, -te 1(!!
Reno NV 89!1
PO Bo& 19!!
Reno, NV 89!
4ill D*a?e, 30@;
D3P5"7 )""ORN37 93N3R)6
1!! N; C)R-ON -"R33"
C)R-ON C1"7 NV 89#!1$'#1#
Dated: )ugu0t 1th
th
, (!1(
A0A Zach Coughlin
- 3 -
00425
Clerk Accepted: 08-16-2012:08:13:24
Case Title:
(D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Notice of Appearance
RENO
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
00426
F I L E D
Electronically
08-27-2012:10:10:50 AM
Clerk of the Court
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
***
10 ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN,
11
12
13
vs.
Appellant,
Case No.: CR12-1262
Dept. No.: 10
14 CITY OF RENO, a municipal
corporation,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Respondent.
________________________
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Presently before the Court, is a Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Respondent CITY
OF RENO ("Respondent'') on July 31, 2012. Following, on August 14, 2012, Respondent
filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the matter for the Court's consideration.
22
On August 15, 2012, Appellant ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN ("Appellant'') filed an
23
24 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
25
On November 13, 2011, Appellant was charged w i t ~ Trespassing under Reno
26 Municipal Code, Section 8.10.010 by way of Criminal Complaint upon arrest. On June 18,
27 2012, Appellant was found guilty of trespassing by the Honorable William Gardner of the
28 Reno Municipal Court. On July 18, 2012, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in this matter.
-1-
00427
1 Respondent files this instant Motion to Dismiss Appeal based on Appellant's untimely
2 filing pursuant to NRS 189.010. NRS 189.010 establishes the time within which an appeal
3 from a Municipal Court must be filed. In relevant part, NRS 189.010 states that a
4 Defendant in a criminal action tried before a justice of the peace may appeal from the final
5 judgment therein to the district court ... , at any time within 10 days from the time of the
6
rendition of the judgment.
7
8
9
10
After considering the papers and pleadings on file herein, this Court has determined
that Appellant would have to have filed his Appeal on or before June 28, 2012. Appellant
did not file his Notice of Appeal until July 18, 2012, after the deadline had passed.
Accordingly, Respondent's motion is granted.
11
12
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to
13 Dismiss is GRANTED.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this J 'i

STEVENPOELuoTT'
District Judge
-2-
00428
1
2
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 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN
5 CHRIS HAZLElT-STEVENS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
6 JILL DRAKE for CITY OF RENO
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this ~ 7
day of August, ~ ~
HEIDI HOW
Judicial Assistant
-3-
00429
Clerk Accepted: 08-27-2012:10:11:18
Case Title:
(D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Ord Dismiss Appeal/Remand
Filed By: Heidi Howden
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
RENO
00430
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Document Code:
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89!
"ele: ##$338$8118
%a&: 9'9$66#$#'!(
1N )ND %OR "23 CO5N"7 O% 8)-2O3
Z)C2 CO59261N:
)..ellant,
/0;
Cit+ o, Reno:
Re0.ondent;
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Case No: CR12-1262
Dept No: 10
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSDIERATION OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE
APPEAL, OR, FILED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO ALTER, AMEND, OR SET
ASIDE ORDER DISMISSING APPELLANT'S APPEAL
CO=3- NO8, )..ellant, Zach Coughlin, >+ and th*ough him0el, a0 he ?a0 denied hi0 -i&th
)mendment Right "o Coun0el, and ,ile0 thi0 =O"1ON %OR R3CON-D13R)"1ON O% "23
ORD3R D1-=1--1N9 "23 )PP3)6, OR, %163D 1N "23 )6"3RN)"1V3, =O"1ON "O
)6"3R, )=3ND, OR -3" )-1D3 ORD3R D1-=1--1N9 )PP366)N"@- )PP3)6; "hi0 =otion
in i0 >a0ed u.on the .leading0 and .a.e*0 on ,ile in thi0 matte*, >oth in thi0 a..eal and the unde*l+ing
R=C 11 CR (6'! and the ,ollo?ing legal a*gument;
FACTS
- 1 -
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSDIERATION OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL, OR,
FILED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO ALTER, AMEND, OR SET ASIDE ORDER DISMISSING
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
F I L E D
Electronically
08-27-2012:04:38:49 PM
Clerk of the Court
00431
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
1; Coughlin ,a&ed, emailed, and .e*0onall+ deli/e*ed the Notice o, )..eal to the Cit+ o,
Reno@0 2aAlett$-te/en0 on B5ne (#th, and 4une (8, (!1( C-ee 3&hi>it 1<; )l0o, on 4une (#th,
Coughlin attem.ted to ,ile the Notice o, )..eal and gained ent*+ to the Cou*thou0e on 1 -; -ie**a
-t*eet .*io* to the u0ual ,*ont doo*0 >eing locDed Cthi0 0ituation ha0 a*i0en .*e/iou0l+ and -te/e
"uttle, Cou*t )dmini0t*ato* ha0 in,o*med Coughlin that the doo*0 a*e on a time* and that one cannot
ente* the >uilding, nece00a*il+, i, the+ get the*e a,te* .m<; Coughlin ente*ed the >uilding, ho?e/e*,
he ?a0 denied acce00 to ,iled hi0 Notice o, )..eal ?ith the R=C on 4une (#th, (!1( >+ the 0ecu*it+
gua*d0; Coughlin then ,a& ,iled the NOtice o, )..eal in the ea*l+ mo*ning hou*0 o, 4une (9th, (!1(;
Coughlin ?a0 then ?*ong,ull+ a**e0ted the mo*ning o, 4une (8th, (!1( in connection ?ith +et
anothe* in0tance o, Ne/ada Cou*t -e/ice0 ,*audulentl+ damaging tenant0 ?hile committing the
unautho*iAed .*actice o, la?; Coughlin had .lanned on, in an a>undance o, caution, .a.e* ,ilign the
Notice o, )..eal ?ith the R=C late* that da+, to gua*d again0t an+ a00e*tion >+ the R=C that it did
not *ecei/e o* a..*o.*iatel+ ,ile hi0 ,a& ,iled NOtice o, )..eal o, 4une (8th, (!1(; "o ?hate/e*
e&tent that ,a& ,iled notice o, a..eal i0 not acce.ted, an e&cu0a>le neglect anal+0i0, along ?ith that
di*ected to the e,,ect o, the tolling motion ,iled on 4une (6th, (!11 and Coughlin inca*ce*ation0
>et?een 4une (8th, (!1( and 4ul+ (1, (!1(, including the -oldal /; CooD Co /iolating conduct o, the
RPD in *ea**e0ting Coughlin on 4ul+ 3*d, (!1(, then 0ho?ing u. to cou*t, and in conce*t ?ith the Cit+
o, Reno@0 D*aDe a0Dign ,o* a >ail inc*ea0e not >a0ed in ,act o* la? C/iolating D*aDe@0 .*o,e00ional
conduct dutie0, in Ne/ada >ail i0 onl+ allo?ed ,o* once .u*.o0e, to 0ecu*e de,ednant0 a..ea*ance,
and an+ E.u>lic health and 0a,et+E a*gument i0 un0u..o*ta>le; -im.l+ .ut, the Cit+ o, Reno .*o0ec
uto*0 and RPD continue to game the 0+0tem, countenance the unautho*iAed .*actice o, la? >+ Ne/ada
Cou*t -3*/ice0 C?hom .a*tne*0 ?ith R=C .u>lic de,ende* 6e? "aitel, ?hom ha0 committed
nume*ou0 act0 o, mi0conduct, including acce.ting Coughlin@0 *e.*e0entation at a time that Coughlih?
- 2 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00432
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
a0 0uing NC-, and no? "aitel allegedl+ ?o*D0 ,o* 8a0hoe 6egal -3*/ice0, ?hom Coughlin i0
0uing;;;;;-election0 ,*om the DocDet in the Reco*d on )..eal *e/eal: FOn Octo>e* 13th, (!11 a
2ea*ing held; "enant@0 =otion to Continue Denied; 1, tenant .o0t0 *ent o,G(,(#;!! >+ 9:!! am,
=onda+ Octo>e* 1#,(!11 a trial ?ill >e 0et ,o* OC"OB3R (, (!11 )" 1!:!! am; 1, tenant doe0 not
.o0t the monie0, e/iction 9R)N"3D at 9:!! am; Octo>e* 1#, (!1l; On Octo>e* 1#th, (!11 G2,275.00
CASH p!t"# $% &ACHAR' CO(GHLIN; O) O*t$"r +,t-, C./-li) 0il"# a Nti*" 0 App"al
t t-" Di!tri*t C.rt. O) O*t$"r 25t-, 20++ a H"ari)/ -"l#. 6andlo*d ha0 met hi0 >u*den o,
.*oo,; 3V1C"1ON 9R)N"3D e,,ecti/e Octo>e* 31, (!11 at :!! .m; 6andlo*d ma+ in '8 hou*0
,*om toda+, in0.ect the .*o.e*t+; O*de* to >e 0u>mitted to the cou*t >+ noon on "hu*0da+; Den+
*eHue0t ,o* a 1.r% Trial, not timel+; BailI*ent .o0ted o, G((#;!! not to >e di0>u*0ed at thi0 time;
"enant ha0 1! da+0 to a..eal and p!t"# r")t 2ill !.00i*" a! app"al $)#;;;J
(; On Octo>e* 19
th
, (!11 Coughlin ,iled a Notice o, )..eal; On Octo>e* 1#
th
, (!11 Coughlin
de.o0ite G(,(# ?ith the Cou*t, ?hich mo*e than co/e*0 the co0t o, the a..eal, t*an0c*i.t, >ond, and
and an+ othe* amount *eHui*ed along ?ith the Notice o, )..eal; 1m.o*tantl+, on the Octo>e* 19
th
,
(!11 Notice o, )..eal Coughlin ,iled, on the /e*+ ,o*m that the Reno 4u0tice Cou*t hold0 out and
.*o/ide0 to the .u>lic a0 the FNotice o, )..eal %o*mJ ,o* 0umma*+ e/iction0, the ,ollo?ing
>oile*.late language i0 contained nea* the >ottom o, the one .age Notice o, )..eal: F1 acDno?ledge
that 1 am *eHui*ed to .o0t an a..eal >ond and to .a+ all ,iling ,ee0 and co0t0 o, a..eal, including the
e&.en0e o, a t*an0c*i.t o, the t*ial >e,o*e thi0 a..eal ?ill >e ,iled ?ith and con0ide*ed >+ the di0t*ict
cou*t; 1 ,u*the* acDno?ledge that i, the a..eal i0 di0mi00ed o* the Budgment i0 a,,i*med, 1 ?ill >e
0u>Bect to *eim>u*0ing the othe* .a*t+ ,o* cou*t co0t0, a)# attr)"%'! 0""!, )t t "3*""# 4+5.00,
togethe* ?ith an+ *ea0ona>le e&.en0e0 a0 dete*mined >+ the Di0t*ict Cou*t;J 13 );6;R; %ed;#9(;
- 3 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00433
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
LEGAL ARG(MENT
NRCP R.l" 5,, NRCP R.l" 50 5DCR +2 DCR +6778, NRCP 52, "t*. $a!i! 0r t-i! r"li"0,
NRS +9,.0+0 2a! ti:"l% :"t. Reno =unici.al Cou*t Rule Cg<: E)ll motion0 I.leading0 ,iled >+
,ac0imile mu0t >e accom.anied >+ .*oo, o, 0e*/ice; -e*/ice ma+ >e accom.li0hed >+ 0a*!i:il" 2-")
t-" r"*"i;i)/ part% i! a /;"r):")tal a/")*%, a) attr)"%, r 2it- t-" *)!")t 0 t-" r"*"i;i)/
part%.
)l0o, R=C Rule : =otion0IPleading0 >+ %ac0imile: Rule C3<: EAll p"r!)! ar" "li/i$l" t .!"
:ti)<pl"a#i)/=$%=0a*!i:il" pr*"#.r"!.>
Coughlin ,a&ed hi0 Notice o, )..eal to the Reno =unici.al Cou*t on 4une (8th, (!1(, .*io*
to the ':3! .m cuto,, to >e acco*ded a ,iling date on that da+; %o* *ea0on0 unDno?n, the Reno
=unici.al Cou*t ,ailed to included that ,iling in the Reco*d on )..eal t*an0mitted ot the Di0t*ict
Cou*t, and de0.ite >eing .*e0ented ?ith .*oo, o, con,i*mation o, that ,a&, the Reno =unici.al Cou*t
/ia E)le&aE C*e,u0ed to gi/e a 0u*name<, and E6i0aE 4udge 8illiam 9a*dne*0 4udicial )00i0tant, ha0
*e,u0ed to maDe an+ in/e0tigation *o inHui*+ into ?h+ e&actl+ thi0 timel+ Notice o, )..eal ?a0 not,
a..a*entl+, a..*o.*iatel+ ,iled and t*an0mitted to the Di0t*ict Cou*t; -ee 3&hi>it 1;
Rega*dle00, the Cit+ o, Reno o?e0 a dut+ o, cando* to thi0 t*i>unal and ,ai*ne00 to o..o0ing
coun0el and =*; 2aAlett$-te/en0 i0 di0engenou0 in the e&t*eme in hi0 =otion to Di0mi00 con0ide*ing
that not onl+ ?a0 he ,a&ed and email thi0 Notice o, )..eal, >ut, and Coughlin i0 not BoDing a>out
thi0, he i0 0o u0ed to thi0 0o*t o, mad da0h ,o* *e/enue ca0h ,*om the Cit+ o, Reno P*o0ecute*0, and
thei* ?ont to do Bu0t a>out an+thing to get a di0mi00al o, an a..eal and a con/iction in gene*al, that
Coughlin actuall+ .hotog*a.hed and /ideota.ed him0el, .e*0onall deli/e*ing the timel+ Notice o,
)..eal to the Cit+ o, Reno P*o0ecuto*@0 O,,ice on 4une (#th, (!1(; -ee 3&hi>it 1 ,o* the
.hotog*a.h0, and /ideo doe0 e&i0t 0houdl it >e nece00a*+; )nd the*e i0 .*o>lem0 ?ith the Cit+ o,
Reno .utting on te0timon+ >+ Richa*d 2ill to an+ e&tent that 2ill claimed, unde* oath, that the Reno
Police De.a*tment identi,ied them0el/e0 a0 la? en,o*cement .*io* to the doo* >eing DicDed do?n,
.a*ticula*l+ to the e&tent that the +outu>e /ideo o, RPD -a*gent =onica 6o.eA atte0t0 othe*?i0e and
- 4 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00434
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
al0o to the e&tent that the /ideo0 2ill him0el, ta.ed and 0u>mitted to Cit+ o, Reno P*o0ecuto* 2aAlett$
-te/en0 >elie 0uch an atte0tation; )nd that ?ould .*e0ent 0ome Rule0 o, P*o,e0ional Conduct
/iolation0 >+ the .*o0ecuto*; Not to mention ?hate/e* -oldal /; CooD Count+ i00ue0 a*i0e, o*
8heele* / C*o00;
"he due .*oce00 legitimac+ o, thi0 con/iction and the .*oceeding0 0u**ounding it ma+ ?ell
>ecome a %ede*al matte* gi/en the ,act that Coughlin ha0 *ecentl+ *e.o*ted thi0 con/iction to the
5nited -tate0 Patent and "*adema*D O,,ice and that the .*ocedu*e0 in/ol/ed in con0ide*ing ?hethe*
o* not to 0u0.end Coughlin la? licen0e >e,o*e the 5-P"O ?ill e&amine the legitimac+ o, the0e
.*oceeding0; the inte*im 0u0.en0ion and di0ci.line >a0ed u.on con/iction o, committing a 0e*iou0
c*ime C3# C;%;R; K 11;(' and 11;(<:
? ++.2@ R"*ipr*al #i!*ipli)"A....Cd< Hearing and discipline to be imposed; C1< "he
5-P"O Di*ecto* 0hall hea* the matte* on the documenta*+ *eco*d unle00 the 5-P"O
Di*ecto* dete*mine0 that an o*al hea*ing i0 nece00a*+; ),te* e&.i*ation o, the ,o*t+ da+0
,*om the date o, the notice .u*0uant to .*o/i0ion0 o, .a*ag*a.h C>< 0 t-i! !"*ti), t-"
(SPTO Dir"*tr !-all *)!i#"r a)% ti:"l% 0il"# r"!p)!" a)# !-all i:p!" t-"
i#")ti*al p.$li* *")!.r", p.$li* r"pri:a)#, pr$ati), #i!$ar:")t, !.!p")!i) r
#i!*ipli)ar% #i!B.ali0i*ati) .)l"!! t-" pra*titi)"r *l"arl% a)# *);i)*i)/l%
#":)!trat"!, a)# t-" (SPTO Dir"*tr 0i)#! t-"r" i! a /").i)" i!!." 0 :at"rial 0a*t
t-atA
7i8 T-" pr*"#.r" "l!"2-"r" 2a! ! la*Ci)/ i) )ti*" r pprt.)it% t $" -"ar# a! t
*)!tit.t" a #"pri;ati) 0 #." pr*"!!D
7ii8 T-"r" 2a! !.*- i)0ir:it% 0 pr0 "!ta$li!-i)/ t-" *)#.*t a! t /i;" ri!" t t-"
*l"ar *);i*ti) t-at t-" O00i*" *.l# )t, *)!i!t")tl% 2it- it! #.t%, a**"pt a! 0i)al
t-" *)*l.!i) ) t-at !.$E"*tD
67 CFR ? ++.25 I)t"ri: !.!p")!i) a)# #i!*ipli)" $a!"# .p) *);i*ti) 0 *::itti)/
a !"ri.! *ri:".
Ciii< A) r#"r #ir"*ti)/ t-" pra*titi)"r t 0il" a r"!p)!" 2it- t-" (SPTO Dir"*tr
a)# t-" OED Dir"*tr,... "!ta$li!-i)/.... r t-at t-" *);i*ti) 2a! ! la*Ci)/ i)
)ti*" r pprt.)it% t $" -"ar# a! t *)!tit.t" a #"pri;ati) 0 #." pr*"!!.
- 5 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00435
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
C3< Hearing and final order on request for interim suspension; "-" r"B."!t 0r i)t"ri:
!.!p")!i) !-all $" -"ar# $% t-" (SPTO Dir"*tr ) t-" #*.:")tar% r"*r# .)l"!!
.... r t-at t-" *);i*ti) 2a! ! la*Ci)/ i) )ti*" r pprt.)it% t $" -"ar# a! t
*)!tit.t" a #"pri;ati) 0 #." pr*"!!.
"hen, the*e i0 the ine,,ecti/e a00i0tance o, coun0el i00ue0 and de.*i/ation o, Coughlin@0
-i&th )mendment *ight to coun0el, in addition to the ,act that -aa*.+
-a*.+ /; de la 2ou00a+e, (1# -o;(d #83 3! )PP3)6 )ND 3RROR 3!V111 3,,ect o, "*an0,e*
o, Cau0e o* P*oceeding0 "he*e,o* 3!V111C)< Po?e*0 and P*oceeding0 o, 6o?e* Cou*t 3!D'36 D;
"*an0,e* o, Bu*i0diction in gene*al; 6a;)..;';Ci*;,1969 "*ial cou*t@0 Bu*i0diction in 0umma*+
.*oceeding ,o* e/iction o, a tenant ?a0 di/e0ted, and Bu*i0diction o, cou*t o, a..eal attached, u.on
timel+ ,iling o, a..eal >ond, an# trial *.rt t-"r"a0t"r -a# ) E.ri!#i*ti) i) :att"r "3*"pt a! t
*"rtai) :att"r! )t p"rti)")t t app"al a)# t t"!t !.r"t% ) app"al $)#. 6-)$C;C;P; a*t; (!88 ;
Re,e*ence0 )m; 4u*; (d )..ellate Re/ie? K K '(1$'83;
NR- '!;(3C6< maDe0 clea* that the Reno 4u0tice Cou*t lacDed the Bu*i0diction to o*de* an+
F*ent e0c*o? de.o0itJ; 4CRCP 8
NR- '!;'!! Rule0 o, .*actice; "he .*o/i0ion0 o, NR-, Ne/ada Rule0 o, Ci/il P*ocedu*e and
Ne/ada Rule0 o, )..ellate P*ocedu*e *elati/e to ci/il action0, a..eal0 and ne? t*ial0, 0o ,a* a0 the+
a*e not incon0i0tent ?ith the .*o/i0ion0 o, NR- '!;((! to '!;'(!, inclu0i/e, a..l+ to the .*oceeding0
mentioned in tho0e 0ection0; )0 0uch, NRCP 6!C><C'< i0 a..lica>le, and the*e i0 not 0tatute o,
limitation0 o* deadline to ,ile 0uch a motion ?he*e /oidne00 ,o* lacD o, Bu*i0diction ,o*m0 the >a0i0 o,
the motion, a0 he*e; 4CRCP 83 *eHui*e0 the Reno 4u0tice Cou*t to .u>li0h then get a..*o/ed >+ the
Ne/ada -u.*eme Cou*t an+ t+.e o, *ule that ?ould allo?0 0uch F*ent e0c*o? de.o0it0J in the conte&t
o, a 0umma*+ e/iction .*oceeding, in cont*a/ention o, NR- '!;(3C6<; 4CR6V Rule '' i0 one
e&am.le o, 4u0tice Cou*t 0o doing, >ut that i0 onl+ in 6a0 Vega0 4u0tice Cou*t; "he Reno 4u0tice
Cou*t ha0 +et to ha/e an+ 0uch *uled .u>li0hed o* a..*o/ed >+ the Ne/ada -u.*eme Cou*t, and a0
- 6 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00436
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
0uch e&ceeded it0 Bu*i0diction he*e, and an+ a..eal dealing ?ith t*ial cou*t matte*0 occu**ing a,te* the
,ilign o, the ,i*0t Notice o, )..eal >+ Coughlin on No/em>e* 19
th
, (!11, lacDed Bu*i0diction, and a0
0uch, the atto*ne+ ,ee a?a*d in that *ega*d 0hould >e 0et a0ide; %u*the*, much o, the ,ee0 a00e*ted >+
2ill and BaDe* *elated to cou*t date0 and motion0 that ?e*e onl+ nece00a*+ due to the negligence and
mi0taDe0 o, 2ill and BaDe*; Coughlin ?a0 0anctioned thou0and0 o, dolla*0 in atto*ne+0 ,ee0 ,o* thing
liDe 2ill and BaDe*@0 .*e.a*ation and attendance at the No/em>e* #
th
, (!11 hea*ing C?he*e the matte*
o, Ca0e+ BaDe* 0neaDing a mi0a..*o.*iation o, the G(,(# to hi0 client had to >e co**ected, a0 i0
e&.*e00l+ de.a*ted ,*om 4udge -,e**aAAa@0 O*de* a0 *ende*ed; 6iDe?i0e, the ,ee0 in/ol/ed in a
=otion to -ho? Cau0e and concomitant hea*ing, ?hich 4udge %lanagan *uled the )..ellate Cou*t
lacDed Bu*i0diction on to add*e00 that ?hich 2ill and BaDe* ?anted add*e00ed, ?a0 0imila*l+ a 0ou*ce
o, thou0and0 o, dolla*0 o, 0anction0 in the ,o*m o, atto*ne+@0 ,ee0 again0t Coughlin, de0.ite the ,act
that NR- #;!8 onl+ 0.eaD0 to conduct occu**ing in connection ?ith Fci/il action0@ and 4CRCP 3
0.eci,icall+ de,ine0 Flandlo*d tenant matte*0J a0 0e.a*ate and di0tinct ,*om Fci/il action0J; %u*the*,
the Reno 4u0tice Cou*t@0 o?n Notice o, )..eal ,o*m contain0 language ?hich Coughlin could
Bu0ti,ia>l+ *el+ u.on that indicate0 the atto*ne+@0 ,ee0 in 0uch an a..eal ?ould >e limited to G1;!!;
-ee 3&hi>it 1; )dditionall+, the No/em>e* 1#
th
, (!11 O*de* >+ 4udge Cli,ton .*o/ide0 ,o* a F"*ialJ
in the conte0t o, a F0umma*+ e/iction .*oceedingJ; ) "*ial *eHui*e0 all the .lena*+ .*otection0
attendant to a ,ull unla?,ul detaine* action0 C0e*/ice o, a Com.laint, (! da+0 to *e0.ond, a/aila>ilit+
o, di0co/e*+, etc<;;;a0 0uch, not enough notice o* time ?a0 .*o/ided to conduct a F"*ialJ Cand the R4C
0ent the .a*tie0 a Notice o, "*ial ,o* the Octo>e* (
th
, (!11 F"*ialJ date;;;a0 0uch, the R4C lacDed
Bu*i0diction to i00ue the O*de* ,o* -umma*+ 3/iction at the conclu0ion o, the Octo>e* (
th
, (!11 t*ial,
/oid ,o* lacD o, Bu*i0diction, a0 0hould >e the atto*ne+ ,ee 0anction0;
4CRCP R563 1!9; -ETTING OF TRIAL IN ACTIONS P(RS(ANT
TO NRS @0.2,0 Ca< 1n no ca0e 0hall a t*ial on the me*it0 >e 0et le00 than (!
- 7 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00437
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
calenda* da+0 a,te* 0e*/ice o, 0ummon0 and com.laint; C>< 1, the cou*t i00ue0 an
o*de* to 0ho? cau0e ?h+ a tem.o*a*+ ?*it o, *e0titution 0hall not >e i00ued, it ma+
notice on 0uch o*de* the date and time 0et ,o* t*ial in addition to the date and time
0et ,o* the tem.o*a*+ ?*it 0ho? cau0e hea*ing; H2";"r, i0 !"r;i*" 0 t-"
!.::)! a)# *:plai)t **.r! l"!! t-a) ++ #a%! prir t t-" #at" 0r a
-"ari)/ 0r a t":prar% 2rit r l"!! t-a) 20 *al")#ar #a%! prir t a trial
#at", t-" *.rt !-all *)ti)." t-" r"l";a)t -"ari)/ #at" .p) r"B."!t $% t-"
t")a)t. Cc< "he t*ial on the me*it0 0hall not >e 0et and noticed u0ing an o*de* to
0ho? cau0e;
Coughlin made 0uch a *eHue0t ,o* a hea*ing; De0.ite that, Coughlin ?a0 e&.ected to mo/e all
hi0 .e*0onal .*o.e*t+ out ?hile .*e.a*ing ,o* the Octo>e* (
th
, (!11 hea*ing, le0t he *i0D hi0 .*i/ac+
and .*o.e*t+ >eing com.*omi0ed Cha*d d*i/e0 co.ied and o* *e/ie?, thou0and0 o, dolla*0 o, .e*0onal
.*o.e*t+ 0tolen due to the negligence in F0to*ingJ it, de0.ite a he,t+ G'8! ,o* 1# da+0 o, F0to*ageJ
unde* NR- 118);'6!, all ?hile a>0o*>ing the lo00 o, mo0t all o, the mone+ he had in the ?o*ld at
that time, 0ome G(,(# to a F*ent e0c*o? de.o0itJ, that de,ied e&.*e00 0tatuto*+ dictate0 *e.*e0enting
mandato*+ autho*it+ in the -tate o, Ne/ada; )nd ,u*the*, Coughlin ?a0 cha*ged G1,!!! ,o*
F>oa*ding u.J a .*o.e*t+ that 0till ?a0 *o>>ed o, thou0and0 o, dolla*0 o, Coughlin@0 .e*0onal
.*o.e*t+, and de0.ite the inc*edi>l+ du>iou0 te0timon+ o, 2ill@0 cont*acto* ?ith *e0.ect to e/e*+thign
he te0ti,ied to at the =a*ch (3
*d
, (!1( 2ea*ing on =e*li00@0 =otion to -ho? cau0e; %u*the*, =e*li00
can ha*dl+ >e con0ide*ed a F.*e/ailing .a*t+J and G'(,!! i0 not a F*ea0ona>le ,eeJ;
CONCL(SION
Ba0ed u.on the ,o*egoing the unde*0igned *e0.ect,ull+ *eHue0t0 that thi0 Cou*t *econ0ide*,
/acate, o/e*tu*n, alte*, amend, o* 0et a0ide o* othe*?i0e add*e00 it0 O*de* Di0mi00ing )..eal;
AFFIRMATION P(RS(ANT TO NRS 26,F.060

- 8 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00438
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
Dated: )ugu0t (#
th
, (!1(
I-I Zach CoughlinLLLLLLLL
- 9 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00439
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
Pu*0uant to NRCP C><, 1 ce*ti,+ that 1 0e*/ed a co.+ o, the ,o*egoing )..ellant@0 O.ening
B*ie, u.on the ,ollo?ing .a*tie0 >+ elect*onicall+ ,iling on tho0e ?ho a*e *egi0te*ed e,ile*e0 and o*
de.o0iting ,o* mailing in the u0ual cou*0e o, >u0ine00 ?ith the 5-P- a t*ue and co**ect co.+ o, thi0
,iling to tho0e ?ho a*e not *egi0te*ed e,ile*0 on thi0 date:
Ch*i0to.he* 2aAlett$-te/en0, 30H;
4ohn Madlic, 30H;
PO Bo& 19!!
Reno, NV 89!
Dated: )ugu0t (#
th
, (!1(
I0I Zach Coughlin
- 10 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00440
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
INDEG TO EGHIFITS
1; 3&hi>it 1: collection o, *ele/ant mate*ial0: one hund*ed and eight+ eight C188< .age0;
- 11 -
APPELLANT'S APPEAL
00441
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
F I L E D
Electronically
08-27-2012:04:38:49 PM
Clerk of the Court
00442
Hotmail Print Message
Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice Court
Sent: Tue 6/26/12 7: 58 AM
To: sheriffweb@washoecounty.us; Istuchell@washoecounty.us; kstancil@washoecounty.us;
chansen@washoecounty.us; milllerr@reno.gov
Dear Sparks Justice Court, WCSO, RPD, and Reno Justice Court.
Page lof2
I have received (though not personally served) what appears to be an eviction notice (5 day unlawful
detainer?) for rentals located at 1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Reno, 89523, but the notice indicates that I
must file a Tenant's Answer with the Sparks Justice Court.
Am I mistaken in viewing this matter to be outside the jurisdiction of the Sparks Justice Court, and
rather, a matter to be handled in Reno Justice Court?
Given Sparks Justice Court is open 5 days a week (closes at noon on Fridays) and Reno Justice Court
has 4 judicial days a week, the deadline for filing a special appearance (to contest jurisdiction) and or a
Tenant's Answer of Affidavit is difficult to measure.
I spoke with a Reno Police Department who identified himself as Sargent Miller last week and he
indicated the WCSO planned to come effectuate an eviction on this date, June 26, 2012. I believe that
would be premature, as Nevada Landlord Tenant law provides for filing a Tenant's Answer or Affidavit
by noon after the fifth fUl/day (judicial days) and Fridays in Sparks Justice Court are not ful/ days in that
sense, and regardless, Sparks Justice Court, I believe, is not the appropriate forum where, as here, the
situs is located in Reno (Ward 1-nap?)
Sincerely,
Zach Coug hlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel 775 338 8118
fax 949 667 7403
Civil Division
630 Greenbrae Drive
Sparks, Nevada 89431
(775)353.7603 Phone
(775)352.3004 Fax
Civil Department Supervisor
Chris Hansen
chansen@washoecountv.us
The Civil Division of Sparks Justice Court is made up of three major functions:
Civil
Civil Complaints for damages in excess of $5000 or if a suit involves a breach of contract, punitive
damaqes, an action to obtain possession of property, a writ of restitution, or other like actions, leqal
https://bay 148.mail.live.com/maillPrintMessages. aspx?cpidFfe88a9f7 -28f4-496d-b550-5a... 7/25/2012
00443
counsel is suggested for these types of actions.
Evictions
An act or process of legally dispossessing a person of land or rental property.
Small Claims
Page 2 of2
An action filed in order to obtain a monetary judgment. Claims must not exceed $5000. A small claims
action may be filed with the Sparks Justice Court if one of the following applies to the defendant:
1. They reside within the boundaries of the Sparks Township;
2. They are employed within the boundaries of the Sparks Township; and/or,
3. They do business within the boundaries of the Sparks Township.
00444
Inquire Within <renoattorney@gmail.com>
Outbound fax report
Voxox <noreply@voxox.com> Thu, J un 28, 2012 at 2:05 AM
To: renoattorney@gmail.com
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was successfully sent to 3ad3f15b-3a33-4863-a6cd-7934ec8f8b32general693298
( 17753343859).
Your Fax was delivered @ 09:05:24 AM on 2012-06-28.
xoxo,
The Voxox Team
This message was intended for renoattorney@gmail.com. Want to control which emails you receive from
Voxox? Get Voxox: http://download.voxox.com and adjust your Notifications in the Settings/Preferences
window. Voxox by TelCentris, Inc. is located at 10180 Telesis Ct., San Diego, CA 92109.
00445
State Bar Of Nevada
file:///D|/1%20downloads%20ie%20and%20firefox/State%20Bar%20Of%20Nevada%20rmc%20gardner.htm[8/17/2012 11:30:39 AM]
Skip to navigation
Member Login
State Bar Of Nevada
image description
FIND A LAWYER
{Back to Search Results }
William L. Gardner
Company:
Address:
1 South Sierra Street
P.O. Box 1900
Reno
,
NV
89505
Phone Number:
7753342297
Fax number:
7753343859
Email:
No information provided
Website:
Admit Date:
09/29/81
Law School:
U. of Arizona
Specialization:
00446
Outbound fax report
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17753343859).
xoxo,
The Voxox Team
00447
Outbound fax report
12 messages
Voxox <noreply@voxox.com> Sat, J un 30, 2012 at 2:08 AM
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was successfully sent to 4ba59639-c27b-4b42-9ed8-cf4e3de3a37dgeneral693298
( 17753256715).
xoxo,
The Voxox Team
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was successfully sent to 4c0160eb-a5fb-433d-9f28-035056964c59general693298
( 17757479202).
[Quoted text hidden]
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17757479202).
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17753256715).
Page1 oI3 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui2&ik9ab12a5d52&viewpt&q17753343824&qs...
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/... 8/17/2012
00448
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17753256715).
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17757479202).
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17757479202).
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was successfully sent to 1699ac9c-69b1-4598-88f6-30dd36ee7a98general693298
( 17753343824).
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was successfully sent to 14021bda-178b-448f-afcc-1af150604a18general693298
( 17753344226).
00449
Hi zachcoughlin,
Your Fax was successfully sent to 7c3f27e9-fcc8-467a-8e0f-7ea559b45d5bgeneral693298
( 17753256591).
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17757479202).
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17757479202).
00450
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
DocumentCode:
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
NevadaBarNo:9473
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
ProSeDeIendant
INTHEJUSTICECOURTOFRENOTOWNSHIP
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOFWASHOE,STATEOFNEVADA
STATEOFNEVADA;
PlaintiII,
vs.
ZACHARYCOUGHLIN;
DeIendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CaseNo:11CR26405
DeptNo:JudgeGardner
Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, 1CRCP 59, 1CRCP 60, Motion for
Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Publication Of Transcript at Public Expense,
FACTS
1.RichardG.Hill,Esq.(opposingcounselinthecivilevictioncaseIromwhichthiscriminaltrespass
trialstems)testiIied,underoath,thattheRenoPoliceDepartmentidentiIiedthemselvespriorto
enteringthedoorthatHill'sclientMerlisshadkickeddown.
2.HillalsotestiIiedthatMerlisshadnotbeenatthe121RiverRockpropertyintheweekpreceding
thearrest,despiteOIIicerCarter'sreportindicatingotherwise.rmc11cr26405renoattorneyzach
coughlin,esq.chargedwithcriminaltrespassincidenttocivilevictionbyDr.MatthewJoelMerliss,
MD,nuerosurgeonandhisattorneyRichardG.Hill,Esq.andCaseyBaker,Esq.whomallegethe
- 1 -
Motion for New Trial, Motion to Alter or Amend; Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Set
Aside Conviction
00451
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
chargedMerliss$60K(approximately,Iromstartthroughcurrentappeal)toevictattorneyCoughlin
Iromhiscommericaltenancy,baseduponaNoCauseEvictionnotice,eventhoughNRS40.253
expresslyIorbidsusingsummaryevictionsagainstcommercialtenantsunlessthenon-paymentoI
rentisallegedandaNon-Paymentevictionnoticeisserved.
3.FurtherWashoeCountySheriII'sOIIiceIiledIalseaIIidavit,byDeputyMachem,alleging
Coughlinwas"personallyserved"evictionorder,howeverWCSOIASupervisorLizStuchellhas
admittedinwriting(seeheremailtoCoughlininExhibit1)that"personallyserved",totheWCSO
civildivision,meansjusttapinganoticetoadoorwhennooneishome,andStuchellconIirmedin
writingthatWCSODeputyMachemindicatedtoherthatnoonewashomeat121RiverRockwhen,
onNovember1,2011,heperIormedalockoutonCoughlin'slawoIIiceandallegeshepostedthe
OrderIorSummaryEvictiononCoughlin'sdoor.
4.TheCityIailedtoputonanyevidencethatanybody(nottheRenoJusticeCourt,nottheWCSO,
notopposingcounselHillorBaker,etc)actuallymailedCoughlinacopyoItheOrderoISummary
EvictionpriortotheillegallockoutoINovember1,2011,thereIoremakinganysuchlockoutalegal
nullity,andvoid,andatrespass,actually,doneundercoloroIstatelaw42USCSec1983,seeLynnv
Desiderio....however,NRCPismadeapplicabletolandlordtenantmattersinNevada,andthereIore,
substitutedorconstructiveserviceisrequired(ie,3daysIormailingwherepersonalserviceisnot
done).ThereIore,RichardHillandMerlisswerethetrespassers,inadditiontotheRenoPolice
DepartmentOIIicerChrisCarterandSargentMonicaLopez.
JudgeWilliamGardneroItheRenoMunicipalCourtreIusedtorecusehimselIdespitehavingworked
IortheRenoCityAttorney'sOIIicejust2yearspriortothiscase,anddespitehisownsister,Second
JudicialDistrictCourtFamilyJudgeHon.LindaGardnerbeinginvolvedinaStateBargrievance
- 2 -
Aside Conviction
00452
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
againstCoughlinbaseduponherOrderIorSanctionsagainstCoughlinthreeyearspriorinadivorce
trial.CoughlinIiledaPetitionIorWritoIMandamuschallengingJudgeLindaGardner'sOrderIor
Sanctions.CoughlinwasIiredIromhisjobatWashoeLegalServices,accordingtoWLSExecutive
DirectorPaulElcano,strictlybecauseoIJudgeLindaGardner'ssanctionsagainstCoughlin.
http://caseinIo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID22746
TheRenoPoliceDepartmentalsoarrestedattorneyCoughlinIorjaywalkingand"misueoI911"
despiteCoughlinbeinggrantedtwoprotectionordersIromhisroommatesatthetime.Further,the
RenoJusticeCourtorderCoughlintodeposit$2,275ina"rentescrow"accounttomaintainhisright
tolitigatehabitabilityissuesinasummaryevictionproceeding,despitethereexistingnocorollaryto
JCRLV44intheRJC,anddespiteJCRCP84expresslyIorbiddingtheRJCIromapplyinganysuch
ruleswhereNRS40.253(6)expresslyIorbidssucharentescrowdepositbeingrequired.So,theRJC
didnotgiveCoughlinaStayoIEviction,despiteNRS118.380onlyrequiring$250togetone,while
atthesametime,theRJCconvertedtoitscoIIers$2,275oICoughlin'smoney,indirectviolationoI
thelaw.ThentheRPDsubjectsCoughlintoacustodialarrest,withoutwarninghimtoleavethe
propertyorissuingacitation,thenRPDOIIicerCarterliesinhispolicereportbyallegingthat
CoughlinreIusedtoleave,andthereIorewasnoteligibleIoracitation,despitethevideostakenby
RichardHill,duringtheNOvember12th,2011arrestclearlyshowingCoughlinaskingRPDOIIicer
CarterwhyawarningorcitationwouldnotbegiveninlieuoIacustodialarrest.Further,OIIicer
Carter'sstatementsatthesceneoIthearrestandinhisreportclearlyshowCartermaintainingthat
Coughlinhadbeen"served"theevictionorder,despiteCarter'sclearlackoIunderstandingastowhat
such"service"entails.
POINTSANDAUTHORITIES
- 3 -
Aside Conviction
00453
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
NRS40.760SummaryevictionoIpersonusingspaceinIacilityIorstorageasresidence.
1.WhenapersonisusingastoragespaceataIacilityasaresidence,theownerortheowner`sagentshallserveorhave
servedanoticeinwritingwhichdirectsthepersontoceaseusingthestoragespaceasaresidencenolaterthan24hours
aIterreceivingthenotice.Thenoticemustadvisethepersonthat:
(a)NRS108.475requirestheownertoaskthecourttohavethepersonevictediIthepersonhasnotceasedusingthe
storagespaceasaresidencewithin24hours;and
(b)Thepersonmaycontinuetousethestoragespacetostoretheperson`spersonalpropertyinaccordancewiththerental
agreement.
2.IIthepersondoesnotceaseusingthestoragespaceasaresidencewithin24hoursaIterreceivingthenoticetodoso,
theowneroItheIacilityortheowner`sagentshallapplybyaIIidavitIorsummaryevictiontothejusticeoIthepeaceoI
thetownshipwhereintheIacilityislocated.TheaIIidavitmustcontain:
(a)ThedatetherentalagreementbecameeIIective.
(b)Astatementthatthepersonisusingthestoragespaceasaresidence.
(c)Thedateandtimethepersonwasservedwithwrittennoticetoceaseusingthestoragespaceasaresidence.
(d)AstatementthatthepersonhasnotceasedusingtheIacilityasaresidencewithin24hoursaIterreceivingthenotice.
3.UponreceiptoIsuchanaIIidavitthejusticeoIthepeaceshallissueanorderdirectingthesheriIIorconstableoIthe
countytoremovethepersonwithin24hoursaIterreceiptoItheorder.ThesheriIIorconstableshallnotremovethe
person`spersonalpropertyIromtheIacility.
4.ForthepurposesoIthissection:
(a)'Facilitymeansrealpropertydividedintoindividualstoragespaces.Thetermdoesnotincludeagarageorstorage
areainaprivateresidence.
(b)'StoragespacemeansaspaceusedIorstoringpersonalproperty,whichisrentedorleasedtoanindividualoccupant
whohasaccesstothespace.
(AddedtoNRSby1989,213;A2011,1830)
simplyputtowhateverextentCoughlinwasnotalreadylegallyentitledtobewherehewasat
thetimeoIthearrestinviewoItheleaseagreementwhereinhiscommercialuseoIthepremiseswas
expresslyapproved,acriminaltrespasschargewasstillnotappropriateheregiventhedictatesoI
NRS40.760RichardHilltestiIiedthatheexpressedtoCoughlinbothinwritingandverballyandin
IactavideoexistsoIthisseeExhibit1thathenotiIiedCoughlinthatHillandMarlyswouldbe
seekingtochartCoughlinthesamerenttheywerecharginghimpriortoanyallegedevictiontaking
placesome$900amonthHillnowallegesthatthatwastheIullrentalvalueoIthepropertyattrial
HillseeminglymadeaFreudianslipandannouncedthathewaschargingthatmuchinviewoI
CoughlinbeingatthepropertythelaterattemptedtosayhemisspokenthathemeantinviewoI
Coughlin'spropertybeingatthepropertysuchaslipwastellingbecauseevensomeonelikeHill
- 4 -
Aside Conviction
00454
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
knowsthatitswrongtochargesomeonethesameamountIortheIulluseandoccupancyoIa
propertyasoneischargingIorquoteunquotestorageoIsomeone'smaterialsatthepropertyhillsides
toNRS118A.480asallowinghimtochargesuchstorage.WelltotheextentHillwaschargingIor
storageNRS40.760clearlyprovidesthatacriminaltrespasschargeandconvictionisnotappropriate
andthatthiscourtdidnothavethejurisdictiontosoentergiventhatasummaryevictionoIperson
usingspaceinIacilityIorstorageisaresidencepreemptsanyabilitytomakeacriminaltrespass
chargeIurtherdespitethecityattorneyschortlingatthenotionoIactuallyapplyingsomepublic
policyratherthanjustgeneratingrevenueIorthecityintheRenoMunicipalCourtisclearlyandvery
verybadtasteIortheRenoMunicipalCourttheRenoPoliceDepartmentandthecityattorneytobe
seekingtoglomcriminaltrespasschargesonthecivilevictionsparticularlywheretheWashoe
CountySheriII'soIIicehasadmittedtoIilingIalseaIIidavitsunderoathattestingtopersonalservice
oIevictionorderswhereinIactnosuchpersonalservicewasactuated.ClearlyinthevideosRichard
HilltookIoundinExhibit1evenHillstrugglestoexplainthisasdoesOIc.CarterinthevideoOIc.
CarterexclaimstoCoughlinthathewasservedtheevictionorderbutthenOIc.Carterhastroublein
deIiningwhatserviceactuallymeansthathedoestakecaretoknowtoCoughlinthatquoteyou'renot
thevictimhereunquoteatwhichpointHillcanbeheardchortlinginthebackground.Hillhas
struggledinthepasttoexplainthebasesIorhispositionthatCoughlinwasservedthesummary
evictionorderasHillisonlyabletocitetotheusualcustomandpracticeoItheWashoeCounty
SheriII'soIIiceasthoughthatweresomehowblackletterlawwithrespecttotherequirementsservice
oItheevictionorder.HoweveryouwouldthinkIorthe$60,000HillandBakerchargeDr.Marlys
theywould'vebotheredtonoticethatNRS40.400makesapplicabletheNevadaRulesoICivil
ProcedureandNevadarulesoIappellateproceduretothesummaryevictionproceedingIromwhich
thiscriminaltrespassmatterstems.
- 5 -
Aside Conviction
00455
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
NRS40.400RulesoIpractice.TheprovisionsoINRS,NevadaRulesoICivilProcedureandNevada
RulesoIAppellateProcedurerelativetocivilactions,appealsandnewtrials,soIarastheyarenot
inconsistentwiththeprovisionsoINRS40.220to40.420,inclusive,applytotheproceedings
mentionedinthosesections.
ThereIorethereisabasesIorsettingasidealteringoramendingorotherwisenulliIyingthis
courseconvictionwhetherunderrule59arule60theconvictionisnotsupportedbytheevidencethe
burdenoIprooIisnotbeenmet,andtherewereclearerrorsoIlaw,reversibleerrorsaswellas
conIlictsoIinterestandproceduralandsubstantiveirregularitiesitwasclearerrorIorjudgeWilliam
GardnernottorecuseandselIwherehissisterjudgeLindaGardner'sordersanctionsisasubjective
opiniongrievanceIortheStateBaroINevadaandWarejudgeDorothyNashHolmessuspended
anothermatterinvolvingCoughlinintheRenoMunicipalCourtpendingtheresolutionoIa
competencyevaluationIurtheritwasclearerrorIorthecourttosuaspontecollectaTiburonprintout
tohelpoutthecityattorneyandMr.LoomisandgettingthiscasemovingIorwarddespitejudgeNash
HolmesisprotestationthatCoghlan'scompetencywasclearlyinquestionlikewiserecusalwasin
OregonCoughlinIiledaPetitionIorWritoIMandamusagainstJudgeLindaGardner,thesisteroIthe
judgepresidingoverthiscriminaltrespasscase,JudgeWilliamGardner.Furthertheordershouldbe
undonegiventheapparentIraudincidenttothetestimonybyRichardDalewhereinthevideosand
evidenceIoundinExhibit1whichare24tosomeextentwhereonoIthelabeltothedeIendantand/or
madeunreasonablydiIIiculttopresenttothecourtgiventhemisconductoINevadacourtservices
HillRenoPoliceDepartmentthecityoIRenomarshalsdivisionandothersinattemptingto
impermissiblyleveragestatepowerincludingattemptedbreak-insbyNevadacourtserviceswho
shareoIIiceswithoneoItheappointeddeIendersemployedbytheRenoMunicipalCourt,Lew
Taitel,Esq.,whoatonetimerepresentedCoughlininthismatterandwhoIailedtoabidebyReno
- 6 -
Aside Conviction
00456
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
MunicipalCourtrulesexplainingviawrittenmotionthereasonIorhiswithdrawalCoghlan'scase
wasthenpassedtoRobertapointedtoadmittedheworkedonCagle'scampaignandhisaclose
personalIriendoItitlesandwhomalsohasabusinessrelationshipwithNevadacourtservicesIurther
theconvictionshouldbe.undonegiventheapparentperjuryorIraudbytheWashoeCountySheriII's
oIIiceasdeputymatchthemandthatheIiledanaIIidavitdatedNovember7,2011whereinheswore
thathepersonallyservedtheevictionorder.MatchthemsupervisoratthewashedISheriII'soIIice
civildivisionLizStuchell(seeheremailtoCoughlininExhibit1)hasadmittedinwritingthat
mansiondidnot'personallyserveCoughlin,butrathermerelypostedtheevictionorderonCoghlan
storeandthereaIterIailedtomailCoghlancopyoItheorderatatimewhenCoughlinwasnotatthe
121Riverrockaddress.HilltestiIiedunderpenaltyoIperjurythattheRenoPoliceDepartment
identiIieditselIpriortoDr.Marlyskickingdownthedoortothebasement.
itisnottrespassingiIonehasarighttobethere.Anywarningsnotbetherewhenonehasa
righttobetherearenotwarningsatalltheyarejustidlechatterthecitycouldnotestablishthe
requisiteintentnecessaryIorconvictionundertheonelawmentionedinthecriminalcomplainti.e.
Renomunicipalcodesection8.10.010.Thecasecitedbythecityattorneyiscompletelyinapplicable
hereandIurtherthatcasedoesnotcitetotheRenomunicipalcodesectioninquestionIurtherthat
casedoesnotevencitetoanycorollarysectionoItheNevadarevisedstatutesratheranydiscussion
oIaddictionandservicerequirementsindicateastatetheMcNichols106Nevada651,7909P.2D
550(1990)waspurelydictaandshouldnotoIbeenrelieduponbythiscourtinreachingitsdecision
toissueaconvictionherethatcase,McNichols,dealtwiththelawIulnessoIasearchbythestateand
involveacriminalconvictionIorpossessionoIacontrolledsubstanceitsimplydidnotinvolve
trespassincidenttoacivilevictionoIatenantbylandlordanydiscussionoIaddictionandMcNichols
relatedtoaIoreclosurewasdictanoactualtrespassersstatutewascitedtoanduseoItheterm
- 7 -
Aside Conviction
00457
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
trespasswasasatermoIarttherewasnodistinctionwhetheritwasaciviltrespassercriminal
trespassandMcNicholsandnorealdiscussionbythecourtastowhethertheservicerequirementsare
metandwhetherornottheyeIIectuateditmorningincidenttoanevaluationoItheelementsoIsome
particularevictionstatuteIurtherthecityattorneyIailedtoIillhisdutytodisclosecontraryauthority
whileperhapsthisdutydoesnotextendtomerelypersuasiveauthorityit'stellingoIthepracticesby
thecityattorneyandtheextentwhichtheywillgotoincreaserevenues.Itwaspatentlydishonestto
thecityattorneytorepresentthattheNicholscaserepresentsaninterpretationoIRMCeight.10.010
RMCSec.8.10.010.-Trespassing.
(a)
EverypersonwhogoesuponthelandorintoanybuildingoIanotherwithintenttovexorannoytheowneroroccupant
thereoI,ortocommitanyunlawIulact,orwilIullygoesorremainsuponanylandorinanybuildingaIterhavingbeen
warnedbytheowneroroccupantthereoInottotrespass,isguiltyoIamisdemeanor.IIthepremiseswereatthetimeopen
tothepublic,thewarningmusthavebeengivenwithintheprevioussixmonths.ThemeaningoIthissubsectionisnot
limitedbysubsections(b),(c),(d)and(e)oIthissection.
(b)
EveryownerorotheroccupantoIanylandshallbedeemedtohavegivenasuIIicientwarningagainsttrespassing,within
themeaningoIthissection,whopostsinaconspicuousmanneroneachsidethereoI,uponorneartheboundaryat
intervalsoInotmorethan700Ieet,signs,legiblyprintedorpaintedintheEnglishlanguage,warningpersonsnotto
trespass,orwhoIencesthearea.
(c)
ItisprimaIacieevidenceoItrespassIoranypersontobeIoundonprivateorpublicpropertywhichispostedorIencedas
providedinsubsection(b)withoutlawIulbusinesswiththeowneroroccupantoItheproperty.
(d)
AnentrymanonlandunderthelawsoItheUnitedStatesisanownerwithinthemeaningoIthissection.
(e)
Asusedinthissection,"Ience"meansabarriersuIIicienttoindicateanintenttorestricttheareatohumaningress,
including,butnotlimitedto,awall,hedgeorchainlinkorwiremeshIence.
Lynnv.Desiderio,3rdU.S.CircuitCourtoIAppeals,No.04-4070(2005)The3rdU.S.
CircuithasjurisdictionoverDelaware,NewJersey,Pennsylvania,andtheU.S.VirginIslands.An
accrualoIapproximately$400inbackrentpromptedtheBethlehem(Pa.)YMCAtowriteLynna
letterinFebruary2002.ThatletterstatedthattheYMCAwouldevictLynniIhedidnotpaytheback
- 8 -
Aside Conviction
00458
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
rentbyMarch2,2002.Lynndidnotpaythebackrent,andYMCAstaIImembersandpoliceoIIicers
cametohisroomtodemandthathemoveout.Lynn`sreIusaltoleavepromptedtheoIIicerstoenter
theroomandarresthimonachargeoIdeIianttrespass.Lynn`sinabilitytomakebailresultedinhis
incarcerationuntilhispreliminaryhearing50dayslater.Themagistratewhopresidedoverthe
preliminaryhearingdismissedthedeIianttrespasscharge,chargedLynnwithdisorderlyconduct,and
sentencedhimtotimeserved.LynnthenIiledacivilrightslawsuitthatincludedaclaimthatthe
arrestingoIIicerandtheYMCAstaIIhadviolatedrightsthat42U.S.C.S.Section1983protected.
ThetrialcourtgrantedthearrestingoIIicer`srequesttodismissthelawsuit.Thetrialcourtconcluded
thatLynnhadnotstatedaclaimIorwhichrelieIcouldhavebeengrantedbecausedismissingthe
deIianttrespasschargewasnotareversaloIaconvictionorasentenceondirectappealthatgranting
therequestedrelieIrequired.Consequently,LynnIiledanappealthatchallengedthegrantoIthe
requesttodismissthelawsuit.DECISION:AIIirmed.TheappellatecourtdeterminedthatLynncould
nothaveprevailedbecauseajudgmentinhisIavorwouldhavenecessarilyimpliedthathewas
improperlyconvictedoIdisorderlyconduct.Thatimplicationwouldhavebeenimproperbecause
therewasnoconvictionthatwasreversedonappeal,expunged,declaredinvalid,orquestioned.
FurtherCoughlinsixthamendmentrighttospeedytrialwasviolatedadditionallyitwasclearerror
nottoloveCoughlintoputonargumentorevidenceinsupportoIhiscontentionthatjustIorarises
evictionorderwasillegalnullitygiventheRenojusticecourtwastovestjurisdictionupontheIiling
oIanoticeoIappealhasarguedandpresentedbyCoughlinIormerdeIenseattorneylimitsata
previoushearingparticularlyunIairtonotconsiderthiswordthecourtclearlyreliedupone-mails
neverintroducingtheevidencethatthecityattorneyreIerencedinhisclosingargumentinIactcourts
orderasrenderedIromthebeencitedtothoseverye-mailswhileatthesametimereIusingto
- 9 -
Aside Conviction
00459
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
considertheargumentsrelatedtothedivestiturejudgebrowsesjurisdictionundertheevictionorder
anditconsequenteIIectthatwouldhaveontheIineanycriminaltrespasscharge.
TheOrderallowingPuenteswithdrwasIitsunder"IrregularityintheproceedingsoIthecourt,jury,master,or
adverseparty,oranyorderoIthecourt,ormaster,orabuseoIdiscretionbywhicheitherpartywaspreventedIromhaving
aIairtrial"asPuenteswasatleastommittingkeyinIormationtothecourt,iInotmisleadingitastohisrationaleIor
withdrawing.PlusJudgeGardner'sOrder,respectIullycontains"Errorinlawoccurringatthetrialandobjectedtobythe
partymakingthemotion.OnamotionIoranewtrialinanactiontriedwithoutajury,thecourtmayopenthejudgmentiI
onehasbeenentered,takeadditionaltestimony,amendIindingsoIIactandconclusionsoIlawormakenewIindingsand
conclusions,anddirecttheentryoIanewjudgment."ThelawsimplydoesnotallowIorsuchanunsupportedbyIactsor
speciIicsMotiontoWithdrawtobegranted.
TheOrderorJudgmentisvoidasitextendstomattersIorwhichtheCourtcannotrule,ie,anOrderallowing
withdrawwherenotgoodIaithbasisIorrequestingawithdrawalexists.
prosecutorialmisconduct(suchastheD.A.withholding"exculpatory"evidencethatcould`vehelpedyourdeIense)
judicialerrors(suchasthejudgepermittingevidencethatshould`vebeenexcludedorviceversa)
erroneousapplicationoIalaworregulationimproperjuryinstructions
ineIIectiveassistanceoIcounselorothermalpracticetheevidencedidnotproveyourguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt
FAILURETOAFFORDSIXTHAMENDMENTRIGHTTOCOUNSELORGRANTDEMANDFORJURYTRIAL;
anotherDEMANDFORJURYTRIALHEREBYMADEINEVENTOFNEWTRIAL,SIMILARLYREQUESTFOR
INFORMAPAUPERISSTATUSHEREBYMADEANDSUPPORTEDBYATTACHEDIFPPETITION
Further,hereHazlett-StevensdidasPamRobertsdidin11cr22176byputtingonperjuredtestimonybyRichardHilland
doingniIong,er,nothingtodistancethecityoIrenoIromitorotherwiseseektocorrectwhatwaspresentedtothecourt
byHill'stestimonythatwasindirectcontraventiontothatconveyedintheCityoIReno'sowndiscoverypropounded,
speciIically,thevideosshotbyHillandMerlissandtheentiredcontentsoIthepolicereport.
CONCLUSION
DeIendant/AppelantCoughlinherebyrespectIullyrequestsallOrders,Convictions,
Judgments,ContemptFindings,etc,beamended,setaside,etc.andsoonbecauseSCR111may
requireCoughlinreportthisconviction(moreresearchisrequiredtodetermineiIthis'trespassisa
'seriousoIIenseunderSCR111(6)...within30days,unless,apparently,thiscourtsetsaside,
vacates,orotherwisenulliIiestheOrderitenteredinresponsetotheJune18,2012trialinthismatter.
.Tosayacrimewasprovenbeyondareasonabledoubthere,orthatCoughlinintenaeatovexand
annoytheownerewhilealso,allegedlybeingverysurreptitiousabouteverything,justdoesn'taddup
andincombinationwithalltheotherirregularitiesinthepolicework,prosecution,IilignoIIice
rejections,smartphoneseizuresanddatawiping,brother-sisterJudicialconIlictsoIinterest,
grievancesIiledbyotherRMCjudgeandtheinstantJurist'ssisterwiththeStateBaroINevada,and
prosecutorialmisconduct,well....thisisSoldalvCookCounty,RenoStyle.
- 10 -
Aside Conviction
00460
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
AFFIRMATIONPursuanttoNRS239B.030
TheundersigneddoesherebyaIIirmthattheprecedingdocumentdoesnotcontain
thesocialsecuritynumberoIanyperson.
DATEDthis27
th
dayoIJune2012
/s/ZachCoughlin
ZachCoughlin
DeIendant
- 11 -
Aside Conviction
00461
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
PROOFOFSERVICE
I,ZachCoughlin,declare:
OnjUNE27TH,2012,I,Mr.ZachCoughlinservedtheIoregoingMotion for New Trial,
Motion to Alter or Amend; Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Set Aside Conviction by
emailingandIaxingandorplacinginthemail,ANDPERSONALLYDELIVERINGTOTHE
OFFICEOFTHERENOCITYATTORNEYatruecopythereoIto:
CHRISTOPHERHAZLETT-STEVENS,ESQ.
JOHNKAD.ICESQ.
Company:RenoCityAttorney'sOIIice-CriminalDivisonAddress:P.O.Box1900Reno,NV
89505PhoneNumber:775-334-2050Faxnumber:775-334-2420
DATEDTHIS1JUNE27,2012
BY:
-----------------------------
ZachCoughlin
DeIendant
- 12 -
Aside Conviction
00462
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
Idx Exhibis
1. Exhibi 1: V OF RELEVANT MATERIALS AN VIEOS
- 13 -
Aside Conviction
00463
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
"0../ $
"0../ $
- 14 -
Aside Conviction
00464
file:///D|/...2012%20email%20faxed%20motion%20to%20hazlett-stevens%20in%20cr12-1262%2011%20cr%2026405.htm[8/27/2012 2:49:27 PM]
Close Print
motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, motion to
alter or amend
Sent: Wed 6/27/12 1:53 PM
To: kadlicj@reno.gov; hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov
1 attachment
motion for new trial 11 cr 26405 4 pages submitted for filing 6 26 12 to rmc.pdf (4.3 MB)
PleaseIindattachedthetollingmotionsinthesubjectline
IromZachCoughlin
\(NVBArNo:9473,currentlysuspended)
POBOX3961
RENO,NV89505
Tele:775-338-8118
FAX:9496677402
ZachCoughlinhotmail.com
TO:
RenoCityAttorney'sOIIice
ChristopherHazlett-Stevens,Esq.
00465
John Kadlic, Esq.
Email:
00466
motion for new trial
Sent: Thu 6/28/12 2:13 AM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov
1 attachment
11 cr 25405 soldal version final.pdf (154.9 KB)
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473 (currently suspended)
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se Defendant
regardin 11 cr 22176: Motion for New Trial, etc. (14 pages)
also sent to Hon. Judge William Gardner
1 South Sierra Street, P.O. Box 1900 reno nv
* Fax number:
7753343859
Christopher P. Hazlett-Stevens Company: Reno City Attorney's Office Address: P. O. Box 1900 ~ Reno ,
NV 89505 Phone Number: 775-326-6628 Fax number: 775-334-4226 Email: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov
Dear Judge Gardner and Mr. Hazlett-Stevens,
I attempted to file a tolling motion on June 25th and again on June 26th, 2012. on the 25th Filing office
supervisor Donna Ballard and Court Administrator Cassandra Jackson decided to refuse to accept my
filing, apparently. Then on June 26th, 2012, I ented the court prior to the "timed lockign of the doors"
that I have been educated on previously by court adminstration in relation to seekign to file documents
close to closing time, however, I was again refused in my attempt to file another such tolling motion and
to access justice. I am fax this filing to both of you, with the caveat that I do not wish to violate any
dicate against fax filign that Judge Gardner may have in effect (I am a bit unclear whether that only
applied to pre-trial motions or to anything).
I believe the Whitman, Sullivan, Donoho, and other Nv S. Ct decisions forbid Ms. Ballard and Jackson
from so rejecting my filings, in addition to NRCP 5(e).
Page1 oI2 https://bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids31cI56cd-4311-4148-800I-...
https://bay148.mail.live.com/m... https://bay148.mail.live.com/m... 8/16/2012
00467
Sincerely,
zAch Coughlin
Page 2 of 2 https://bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=31cf56cd-4311-4148-800f-...
https://bay148.mail.live.com/m... https://bay148.mail.live.com/m... 8/16/2012
00468
Outbound fax report
5 messages
Voxox <noreply@voxox.com> Wed, J un 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17753344226).
Your Fax was delivered @ 08:54:28 PM on 2012-06-27.
xoxo,
The Voxox Team
Voxox <noreply@voxox.com> Wed, J un 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17753344226).
Your Fax was delivered @ 09:16:58 PM on 2012-06-27.
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17753344226).
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17753344226).
Page1 oI2 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui2&ik9ab12a5d52&viewpt&searchinbox&th13...
00469
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17753343859).
Page2 oI2 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui2&ik9ab12a5d52&viewpt&searchinbox&th13...
00470
Outbound fax report
Hi zachcoughlin,
( 17753343859).
xoxo,
The Voxox Team
00471
State Bar Of Nevada
file:///D|/1%20downloads%20ie%20and%20firefox/State%20Bar%20Of%20Nevada%20rmc%20gardner.htm[8/17/2012 11:30:39 AM]
Skip to navigation
Member Login
State Bar Of Nevada
image description
FIND A LAWYER
{Back to Search Results }
William L. Gardner
Company:
Address:
1 South Sierra Street
P.O. Box 1900
Reno
,
NV
89505
Phone Number:
7753342297
Fax number:
7753343859
Email:
Website:
Admit Date:
09/29/81
Law School:
U. of Arizona
Specialization:
00472
00473
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel: 775 338 8118
Fax: 949 667 7402
David Clark, Esq., Bar Counsel
Patrick King, Esq., Bar Counsel
complaintsnvbar.org
State Bar oI Nevada
P.O. Box 50
Las Vegas, NV 89125-0050
600 E. Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89104
State Bar oI Nevada OIIice oI Bar Counsel
9456 Double R Blvd. Suite B, Reno, NV 89521
TEL (775) 329-4100 FAX (775) 329-0522
Washoe County District Attorney:
ZYoungda.washoecounty.us
MKandarasda.washoecounty.us
August 21st, 2012
Dear Bar Counsel and Washoe County District Attorney,
Please accept this complaint and grievance against JeII Chandler and Nevada Court Services,
ACG-APMI.com, Northwind Apartments, Dwayne Jakob, Sue King and her company Western Nevada
Management, and Gayle Kern, Esq., and the Park Terrace HOA. Just today I received a bill Irom
Northwind Apartments Ior "legal work" done by their legal counsel Irom Nevada Court Services
(which is apparently a business partner with an actuall attorney Lew Taitel, or otherwise "associated
with" him, as he is their "StaII Attorney" according to their website, oI a substantial amount Ior the
legal work done by unlicensed non-attorneys. Regardless oI the law oI the case or res judiciate/claim
preclusion eIIect oI the various Orders that have been entered in the cases involving myselI and Nevada
Court Services or Northwind Apartments (doign business in 10 states as acg-apmi.com, and the FDCPA
violations such a letter entails, this unauthorized practice oI law has damaged me substantially. I have
had phony protection orders taken out against me by a Northwind Maintenance Man, I have had
Nevada Court Services purporting to trespass me Irom a location where I still had two valid leases, I
have had the RPD violate Soldal v Cook County, etc., etc. and I have had NCS process servers trespass
upon my Iormer home law oIIice with impunity, all while being arrested by RPD OIIicers Ior an
1/14
00474
alleged trespass oI my own, which I reported to Bar Counsel in line with SCR 111. This unauthorize
practice oI law is hurting people, and I hope you will address this problem, even where some RJC
Judges are interpreting NRS 40.253 in a way that goes Iar beyond the simple allowance to have an
"agent" oI the property owner (here is is a corporation, ie, not allowed to appear through a non attorney
individual) serve a 5 day unlawIul detainer notice, but to the point where NCS's JeII Chandler et al are
making complicated legal opinions Ior money on behalI oI clients (is it a NRS 40.780 situation or a
breach oI lease 40.253?). This is particularly bad where NCS and Chandler are also getting paid to
serve process in these same cases and where NCS's R. Wray lied about conducting personal service on
me on June 14th, 2012 in a way that cut my time to Iile a Tenant's Answer short by three days
(regardless, NCS's June 14th, 2012 5 day Notice was deIective in that it listed to wrong Iorum Ior the
tenant to Iile the Tenant's Answer-it listed Sparks Justice Court Ior a property located in Reno). I was
arrested by the WCSO due to the conIusion attendant to the SheriII arriving three days early to perIorm
an eviction (in light oI the lies, in a sworn aIIidavit by NCS's R. Wray) that rested upon a Lockout
Order Irom a diIIerent court than that which was listed as the appropriate Iorum to Iile the Tenant's
Answer, (RJC versus SJC).
In Nevada, a corporation may not proceed in proper person beIore this court. See id.; Guerin v.
Guerin , 116 Nev. 210, 214, 993 P.2d 1256, 1258 (2000). What is Iunny is that now Lew Taitel, whom
is "associated with" NCS and listed as their "StaII Attorney" and whom accepted my case Ior
representation when Richard Hill, Esq. got me convicted oI criminal trespass Irom the same Iormer law
oIIice where NCS trespassed behind my backyard gate and banged on windows and looked through
blinds in teams oI two, ringing door bells Ior 40 minutes at a time 3 times a day (oI course the RPD
chose not to Iollow up on my police reports, natch)...Well, Taitel now works Ior Washoe Legal
Services, even Iurther cutting attorneys and the Sixth Amendment out oI the game in some ECR deal
WLS has been trying to get a piece oI Ior years.
Unger v. Landlords' Management Corp. 114 N.J. Eq. 68, 168 A. 229, In Naimo v. Fleming, 95 Nev. 13,
588 P.2d 1025, the Supreme Court oI Nevada upheld dismissal oI a complaint Iiled in violation oI
NRCP 11, the Nevada rule equivalent oI Rule 55.03(a). Out-oI-state counsel signed the complaint and
Iiled it in Nevada court but apparently did not serve deIendants. Eighteen months later, plaintiII Iiled an
amended complaint signed by a Nevada attorney. DeIendants did not learn oI the lawsuit until the
amended complaint was Iiled. Further, the statute oI limitation expired on the claims beIore the
amended complaint was Iiled. The trial court dismissed plaintiII`s claims upon deIendants` motion
Iinding that plaintiII`s out-oI-state counsel deliberately violated the rules governing signing oI
pleadings and admission oI out-oIstate attorneys 'in an eIIort to keep their lawsuit viable but avoid the
cost oI associating Nevada counsel. Id. at 1026. The trial court also held the case should be dismissed
as the statute oI limitations had run prior to the Iiling oI the amended complaint which was signed by
the Nevada attorney. The Nevada Supreme Court aIIirmed dismissal oI plaintiIIs` claims.
Basic Charging Statute Ior UPL The Unauthorized Practice oI Law is governed by NRS 7.285 'A
person shall not practice law in this state iI the person.Is not an active member oI the State Bar oI
Nevada or otherwise authorized to practice law in this State pursuant to the rules oI the Supreme
Court. First OIIense Misdemeanor Second OIIense Gross Misdemeanor Third OIIense Category
E Felony, punishable by imprisonment oI not less than 1 year and not more than 4 years, and a Iine oI
not more than $5000. The State Bar oI Nevada may bring a civil action to secure an injunction and any
other appropriate relieI.
2/14
00475
I have recently been involved in several landlord tenant matters in which I am a party, summary
eviction proceedings. In those matters, the Reno Justice Court has allowed a property manager Irom
Western Nevada Managment, Sue King, (RJC Rev2012-000374) to appear on behalI oI Park Terrace
Homeowners Associtation (prior to Gayle Kern's entry), and, in another matter, allowed Nevada Court
Services to appear on behalI oI Northwind Apartments (which is owned and operated by ACG-AMPI,
Inc., which does business in ten states, as a corporation, which typically must retain an attorney to
represent it in court.). Nevada Court Services is a process server company, though they list an attorney
as a "StaII Attorney" on their website and as "associated with" their organization. However, in the
summary eviction proceedings in which I was a party, NCS appeared on behalI oI clients, crossing the
bar and arguing in court, and, apparently, draIting Iilings, which they also serve and sometimes
notarize, on behalI oI clients. NCS's JeII Chandler does not have a law license as Iar as I know, nor did
he go to law school. However, his reckless abuse oI court processes resulted in my recently spending
18 days in jail and being arrested twice in a 4 day period. On June 14th, 2012, a R. Wray Irom NCS
attempted to break into my rental #29 at 1680 Sky Mountain Dr. in Reno at Northwind Apartments. He
then Iield a sworn aIIidavit attesting to have eIIectuated personal service upon me at that time oI a 5
day unlawIul detainer notice. There is no way R. Wray could have possibly seen through a metal door
and ascertained that someone oI "suitable age and discretion" was there to receive that notice suIIicient
to eIIectuate "personal service" and thereby cut down the time to Iile a Tenant's Answer by 3 days
(NRCP 6(e) accords three additional days Ior mailing in the computation oI time to respond, etc.).
Further, the 5 day notice that NCS prepared and posted (constructive or substituted service) was
insuIIicient in that it mistakenly listed Sparks Justice Court as the appropriate Iorum Ior the tenant,
myselI, to Iile a Tenant's Answer under NRS 40.253(6).
I conIirmed with the Reno Justice Court that, even iI I did need to Iile a Tenan'ts AIIidavit in
Reno Justice Court despite that insuIIicient notice, that, given the lack oI personal service on June 14th,
2012, I would have until at least noon on June 28th, 2012 to Iile the Tenant's AIIidavit. I submitted one
Ior Iiling with the Sparks Justice Court and may have so submitted one with the Reno Justice Court (I
need to do more research, etc...) but I know I Iurther intended to Iax Iile another Tenant's AIIidavit with
the RJC beIore noon on the June 28th, 2012 just to be sure. I am Iorwarding to you emails I sent the
Sparks and Reno Justice Courts on june 26th, 2012 and July 2, 2012 highlighting the insuIIiciency oI
notice on the 5 day unlawIul detainer notice, etc...
NRS 40.253(3), provides that:
"3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must:
(a) IdentiIy the court that has jurisdiction over the matter; and
(b) Advise the tenant:
(1) OI the tenant`s right to contest the matter by Iiling, within the time speciIied in subsection 1 Ior the
payment oI the rent or surrender oI the premises, an aIIidavit with the court that has jurisdiction over
the matter stating that the tenant has tendered payment or is not in deIault in the payment oI the rent;"
I am writing to request a Iormal opinion as to whether inidividuals who lack a law license (or
someone like myselI, who has one that is currently suspended) can represent parties in landlord tenant
matters and otherwise perIorm legal work, draIt Iilings, appear on behalI oI landlords or tenants, etc.,
and iI they may not, to Iile this written grievance against NCS, Richard G. Hill, Esq., and Casey Baker,
Esq., and Western Nevada Management, Sue King, and Gayle Kern, Esq., and Lewis Taitel, Esq.
Additionally, a basis Ior the grievance against Baker and Hill is that they sought $20,000 worth
3/14
00476
oI attorney's Iees in a summary eviction proceeding, despite NRS 69.030 precluding it and despite
Baker's citing an attorney's Iees statue that related to a complete non-issue, the manuIacture oI a
controlled substance by an evicted tenant. Additionally, Baker and Hill have no managed to be awarded
some $43,000 worth oI attorney's Iees on appeal despite the Iact that much oI that award was
necessitated by the hearing and preparation Ior such a hearing and Iilign oI documents related thereto,
to undo the attorney's Iee/cost award at the summary eviction proceeding level and Baker's submitting a
proposed Order to Judge SIerrazza in RJC Rev2011-001708 that transIerred the right to some $2,275
that I was Iorced to deposit into the RJC as 'rent escrow (despite the dictates against the Court so
requiring Iound in NRS 40.253(6)) to their client, Matt Merliss, despite the Iact that Judge SIerrazza's
Order as rendered expressly stated that that money should be returned to me, subject to being helI Ior
some time as an appeal bond.
Justices in the Reno Justice Court have been allowing this Irom my experience, and I wish to
know iI I am able to perIorm such work while my license is suspended. While NRS 40.253 does seem
to lend some support to the view that a "landlord's agent" is able to do some things (service notices,
etc.), I Iind no support Ior the contention that such a "landlord's agent" non-attorney like JeII Chandler
oI NCS is permitted to cross the bar and represent clients in summary eviction proceedings and
otherwise draIt legal Iilings (some oI which wind up greatly damaging members oI the public, such as
myselI in light oI the two arrests I Iace, much less the civil damages and lost time incident to NCS's err
in listing Sparks Justice Court as the Iorum under NRS 40.253(3)(a)-(b) and in their enabling their
process server R. Wray to lie about eIIecting "personal service" on June 14th, 2012).
Florida has a case on point: However, an exception exist Ior evictions. In those cases, a corporation
may not appear pro se and must be represented by an attorney. Johnstown Properties Corp. v. Gabriel,
50 Fla. Supp. 138 (Fla. Polk Cty. court 1980).
Operating an eviction service by providing inIormation to clients concerning eviction procedures
(People v. Landlords ProIessional Services (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1599); Thus CaliIornia today
deIines law practice as providing 'legal advice and legal instrument and contract preparation, whether
or not these subjects were rendered in the course oI litigation. Birbower, Montalban, Condo & Frank,
P.C . v Superior Court., supra, at 128. Providing legal advice or service is a violation oI the State Bar
Act iI done by an unlicensed person, even iI the advice or service does not relate to any matter pending
beIore a court. (Mickel v. Murphy (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 718, 721.) This deIinition oI law practice is
broad and non-speciIic, but that policy choice is one which the CaliIornia courts have made
consciously. The CaliIornia court oI appeals has summarized the rationale Ior this broad approach as
Iollows: |A|ny deIinition oI legal practice is, given the complexity and variability oI the subject,
incapable oI universal application and can provide only a general guide to whether a particular act or
activity is the practice oI law. To restrict or limit its applicability to situations in the interest oI
speciIicity would also limit its applicability to situations in which the public requires protection. 7
People v. Landlords ProIessional Services (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1599, 1609. In sum, CaliIornia uses a
broad standard Ior deIining law practice to maximize its ability to protect its citizens Irom wrongs
arising Irom the practice or counterIeited practice oI law. It constitutes the unlicensed practice oI
law Ior a nonlawyer to represent a third party in an eviction. Generally speaking, a nonlawyer may not
prepare evictions Iorms Ior another unless the nonlawyer is merely typing the inIormation provided in
writing by the individual or completing a Supreme Court Approved Iorm with the Iactual inIormation
provided by the individual. An exception exists Ior property managers. In The Fla. Bar re: Advisory
Opinion Nonlawyer Preparation oI Landlord Uncontested Evictions, 605 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1992),
4/14
00477
clariIied, 627 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1993) the Court held that a property manager may sign and Iile
complaints Ior evictions and motions Ior deIault in uncontested residential evictions Ior nonpayment oI
rent as long as the property manager is using a Supreme Court Approved Iorm.
JeII Chandler oI NCS and Sue King oI Western Nevada Management are going Iar beyond
giving clients Iorms to Iill out. Chandler is advising his clients on complicated legal distinctions
between NRS 40.780 and NRS 40.253, in addition to suborning perjury by his process server R. Wray,
as well as lying to tenants about the import oI his "criminal trespass" warnings under NRS 207.200.
At Iirst Sue King decides to pursue an eviction under a No Cause Notice, but then the day
comes to Iile the Landlord's AIIidavit and she Iigure out it is more advantageous to pursue an eviction
under a Iailure to pay rent theory. That is Iraud where speciIic notice periods are required Ior each
diIIerent type oI Notice pursued.
In the Iollowing cases involving allegations that a nonlawyer engaged in the unauthorized
practice oI law, the courts held, where it had been asserted that the deIendant speciIically engaged in
conduct involving real estate matters, that the deIendant was in contempt due to such conduct. A
nonlawyer's actions, consisting oI Iiling initial eviction complaints Ior residential landlords, counseling
landlords about legal matters with regard to tenant eviction actions, typing or printing orally
communicated inIormation on tenant eviction Iorms set Iorth in a petition, and appearing in court at
judicial proceedings Ior tenant eviction, constituted the "unauthorized practice oI law" (Iormer Fla.
Stat. Ann. 83.001), punishable by contempt, the court held in The Florida Bar v. Mickens, 505 So. 2d
1319 (Fla. 1987). The Florida Bar Iiled a petition charging a nonlawyer with the unauthorized practice
oI law and contempt oI a previous order that enjoined the nonlawyer Irom the practice oI law, the
matter was reIerred to a reIeree Ior hearing, and the state supreme court, on review, approved the
reIeree's recommended Iindings and discipline and held that the nonlawyer's actions constituted the
"unauthorized practice oI law," and that the unauthorized practice oI law justiIied incarceration, a
$1,000 Iine, assessment oI costs, and an injunction.
Both NCS and Western Nevada Property Management appear to be going beyond using Nevada
Supreme Court Iorms. Indeed, WNM serves a 30 day No Cause Notice then Iiles a Landlord's
AIIidavit, apparently, that alleged Iailure to pay rent (and iI the subtenant was a commercial tenant,
then such an eviction is impermissible under NRS 40.253). Further NCS is seemingly providing legal
counsel to Northwind Apartments, alternatively counseling it to pursue an eviction under NRS 40.253
under a breach oI lease theory, only to subsequently Iile and pursue such an end under NRS 40.760.
I reported by conviction Ior criminal trespass to the USPTO and Bar Counsel in Nevada in
RMC 11 CR 26405. In the summary eviction matter incident to that case RJC Rev2011-001708, NCS,
in my opinion, criminally trespassed into my Iormer home law oIIice's gated backyard on numerous
occasions and otherwise harrassed me in attempting to eIIectuate personal service oI various notices in
the context oI a summary eviction proceeding (one against a commercial tenant where the Iailure to pay
rent was neither plead nor notice, in violation oI the dictates oI NRS 40.253). I realize some oI these
things slide in the day to day oI a Justice Corut, but when a patent attorney's livelihood is taken away
and it gets litigated on a Iederal level, as a result criminal conviction, the result may be diIIerent.
Regardless, in that same criminal trespass case, the attorney who shares an oIIice space with NCS, a
Iax number, apparently a receptionist, and is listed as "associate with" their organization and as their
"StaII Attorney" on NCS's website, Lewis Taitel, Esq., was appointed as my public deIender by the
RMC in 11 CR 26405, despite the Iact that I had attempted to sue NCS just one month prior
5/14
00478
(apparently his conIlicts check Iailed to catch that, and he subsequently Iailed to comply with RMC
Rules related to disclosing via written motion to basis Ior seeking and Order grantign his withdrawal as
attorney oI record, only to pass the case to Roberto Puentes, Esq., whom subsequently admitted a close
personal Iriendship with Taitel and business relationship with NCS).
While Richard G. Hill and others apparently are able to Iile grievances with the State Bar that
are accorded case numbers and Bar Counsel resources Ior months, the greivances I Iiled with respect to
these matters have been rejected, and I would like an explanation oI why iI I may be provided one.
Simply put, I am pretty sure I cannot hang out a shingle to perIorm heart surgeries tomorrow with
impunity, and these non-lawyers should not be permitted to have such a dramatic eIIect on somethign
so primary to the lives oI members oI the public, ie, the real property they rent Ior shelter, business
purposes, or storage, etc.
However, the Washoe County SheriII's OIIice eIIecutated a lockout at 10 am on the morning oI
June 28th, 2012 with an Order Irom the Reno Justice Court. JeII Chandler oI NCS was present at that
time an attempted to serve me a notice inIorming me I was being "criminally trespassed" Irom the
entire Northwind complex at that time. However, I still had two other valid rentals or lease agreements
to units #71 and #45, and as such, do not believe a criminal trespass warning was possible with respect
to the entire complex.
Real estate relatedHeld in contempt
|Cumulative Supplement|
In the Iollowing cases involving allegations that a nonlawyer engaged in the unauthorized
practice oI law, the courts held, where it had been asserted that the deIendant speciIically engaged
in conduct involving real estate matters, that the deIendant was in contempt due to such
conduct.
A nonlawyer's actions, consisting oI Iiling initial eviction complaints Ior residential landlords,
counseling landlords about legal matters with regard to tenant eviction actions, typing
or printing orally communicated inIormation on tenant eviction Iorms set Iorth in a petition,
and appearing in court at judicial proceedings Ior tenant eviction, constituted the "unauthorized
practice oI law" (Iormer Fla. Stat. Ann. 83.001), punishable by contempt, the court held
in The Florida Bar v. Mickens, 505 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1987). The Florida Bar Iiled a petition
charging a nonlawyer with the unauthorized practice oI law and contempt oI a previous order
that enjoined the nonlawyer Irom the practice oI law, the matter was reIerred to a reIeree Ior
hearing, and the state supreme court, on review, approved the reIeree's recommended Iindings
and discipline and held that the nonlawyer's actions constituted the "unauthorized practice oI
law," and that the unauthorized practice oI law justiIied incarceration, a $1,000 Iine, assessment
oI costs, and an injunction.
See New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. Northern New Jersey Mortg. Associates, 22 N.J. 184,
6/14
00479
123 A.2d 498 (1956), where the court held that while the state supreme court has the power to
punish Ior contempt those engaged in the unauthorized practice oI law, here, though an abstract
company was seemingly practicing law in some aspects oI its operations, a record oI injunction
proceedings against the abstract company and its aIIiliate was inadequate to warrant a
general peremptory determination against the deIendant without a complete record oI details
oI their method oI doing business, buttressed by testimony and records relating thereto.
The court held that one engaged in the business oI preparing petitions and precepts in dispossess
cases was practicing law unlawIully and was subject to punishment Ior contempt (
N.Y. Jud. Law 750(7)) in In re Collins, 169 Misc. 234, 7 N.Y.S.2d 188 (Sup 1938).
In a presentment charging a deIendant with engaging in the unauthorized practice oI law,
the state supreme court held that the acts oI the deIendant, who, under debt pooling plans,
gave advice in connection with, inter alia, the execution oI a note and mortgage, and a conditional
sale note, and who undertook to handle litigation against one oI these individuals, constituted
the unauthorized practice oI law by the deIendant, who was not licensed, and who
would be held in contempt Ior such actions, the court held in In re Pilini, 122 Vt. 385, 173
A.2d 828 (1961). By advising his clients in the instant matters, and in the manner as stated,
the deIendant invaded the Iield reserved Ior duly licensed attorneys, and his conduct in giving
this legal advice constituted practicing law, the court declared. Such unauthorized practice oI
law is a criminal contempt in the court, and the instant deIendant would thereIore be adjudged
guilty oI contempt, the court concluded.
See the Iollowing additional cases involving allegations that a nonlawyer engaged in the
unauthorized practice oI law, where the courts held, in cases in which it had been asserted that
the deIendant speciIically engaged in conduct involving real estate matters, that the deIendant
was in contempt due to such conduct, where...
Nevada
Pioneer Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. State Bar oI Nev., 326 P.2d 408 (Nev. 1958)
As stated in Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb, supra |315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E.2d 34|, 'The actual practices oI
the community have an important bearing on the scope oI the practice oI law.'
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
7/14
00480
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
MORE RELEVANT LAW
Landlord's Corner - Evictions and Unauthorized Practice oI Law
A. Right to Proceed Pro Se

In Ohio, a person can always represent himselI in court. This is called appearing "pro se" and is a
common (though unwise) practice where very little is at stake, such as in small claims courts around
the state. Why is it unwise? The two main reasons are that attorneys who regularly perIorm evictions
will be a great deal more Iamiliar with the ins and outs oI the law than the lay person. Secondly, an
attorney will see the case objectively, and a dispassionate eye is a more eIIective observer oI events
than the landlord who may see things subjectively, having his vision clouded by emotions.
B. Representing Other Persons or Entities
But to represent another person or another entity (such as a company, a trust, or an LLC), you must be
certiIied by the Ohio Supreme Court to practice law or you are engaging in the unauthorized practice oI
law. This rule aIIects landlords whose property is owned by a corporation or managed by a rental
company. Owning a property in a corporate Iorm has become very popular lately as a way oI limiting
the landlord's personal liability. This way, iI the landlord is sued because oI an injury at the property,
the most he can lose is the value oI the property (assuming his insurance isn't enough to cover it). His
personal assets cannot be touched.
In the past, some landlords tried to Iile evictions via their employees, or tried to Iile the actions
themselves on behalI oI the corporation owning the property. They reasoned that since they were the
100 percent owners oI all the shares oI the corporation, they should be able to represent it in court. The
problem was that these employees and corporate shareholders were not attorneys.
1. Ruling Irom the Ohio Supreme Court
In the case oI Cleveland Bar Association v. Picklo, (2002), 96 Ohio St.3d 195, Lynn Picklo had been
Iiling complaints in the Cleveland Municipal Court, Housing Division, Ior Iorcible entry and detainer
|evictions|, as well as Ior the recovery oI past due rents. Picklo was not licensed to practice law in the
state oI Ohio, but she nevertheless Iiled these claims and appeared in court on behalI oI the property
8/14
00481
owner since she was the rental manager.
Ms. Picklo argued that R.C. 1923.01(C)(2), which deIines "landlord" Ior the purpose oI invoking a
county, municipal, or common pleas court's jurisdiction in most Iorcible entry and detainer actions as
"the owner, lessor, or sublessor oI the premises |or| the agent or person the landlord authorized to
manage premises or to receive rent Irom a tenant under a rental agreement."
She also cited R.C. 5321.01(B), which, with respect to landlord-tenant remedies in general, similarly
deIines "landlord" as "the owner, lessor, or sublessor oI residential premises, the agent oI the owner,
lessor, or sublessor, or any person authorized by the owner, lessor, or sublessor to manage the premises
or to receive rent Irom a tenant under a rental agreement." She argued that since she was the rental
manager, she was the "landlord" and thus was entitled to bring the lawsuit on behalI oI the owner oI the
property.
It was a clever argument, but in the end, it would not wash with the Ohio Supreme Court. Under the
Constitutional doctrine oI Separation oI Powers, the Ohio Supreme Court has the inherent power to
determine who can practice law beIore the courts oI Ohio. While it was true that the Ohio Legislature
passed laws in conIlict with the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Constitution wins out in the case oI such
conIlicts. The reason Ior this is because the Ohio Constitution is the document that set up the Ohio
Legislature in the Iirst place. The Ohio Legislature draws its ability to pass laws Irom the Ohio
Constitution, and thus it cannot make laws contrary to the Ohio Constitution.
So Ms. Picklo was Iound to be engaging in the unauthorized practice oI law, and since that time, all
evictions Iiled by persons not the owners oI the property require the services oI an attorney licensed to
practice in the state oI Ohio.
II. Eviction Complexities
There are other good reasons to hire an attorney to do evictions, even iI the property is owned in the
landlord's name (thus permitting pro se representation).
A. Three Day Notice Requirement and Issues oI Timing
One is the three day notice requirement. Most landlords in Ohio realize that they must post a properly
worded three day notice to vacate upon the rented property beIore they can Iile an eviction. But Iew
landlords have a good grasp oI the timing issues as they apply to the calculations oI the three days.
Firstly, the three days do not start to run on the day that the three day notice is posted. Secondly, any
day in which the court is not open does not count as a day. Let's look at an example oI how this works.
9/14
00482
1. Example oI Three Day Notice Timing
Larry Landlord has a tenant who has not paid his rent. On January 12, 2006, he posts a properly worded
three day notice to vacate upon the door. The day oI the posting does not count towards the three days.
Friday, January 13, 2006 will be the Iirst day oI the three day period which counts. Saturday and
Sunday will not count. Monday, January 16, 2006 will not count either because it is Martin Luther King
Day, a national holiday upon which the court is closed. So Tuesday, January 17, 2006 will be the
second day, and Wednesday, January 18, 2006 will be the third day.
II Larry Landlord has an attorney, that attorney will know that the eviction cannot be Iiled until the next
Thursday, January 19, 2006, seven days later. But iI Larry does the eviction alone, he might think that
Iiling it on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 would be Iine since more than three days will have passed.
II, at the hearing, the error is pointed out by the tenant, the tenant's attorney, or noted by the court, the
eviction action will have to be dismissed. All oI the Iiling Iees spent on the eviction will be lost, the
eviction will have to be Iiled again, and the tenant will walk away Irom the Iirst eviction hearing with a
new Iound conIidence that he can beat any eviction that the landlord throws at him. Better then to use
an attorney and only have to handle the matter once.
B. Thirty Day's Notice Sometimes Required.
Another timing issue arises in relation to the type oI breach that the landlord is alleging. II the landlord
is alleging a breach oI the rental contract, then all that is necessary to start the eviction process is the
posting oI a properly worded three day notice to vacate. But iI the landlord is alleging that the tenant
breached the tenant's duties under Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.05, then the landlord must Iirst
notiIy the tenant in writing oI the problem and give the tenant 30 days to Iix it. Only then can the three
day notice be posted on the door to start the eviction process.
Some landlords have tried to be too clever by halI. They have inserted the text oI Ohio Revised Code
5321.05's duties oI the tenant into the lease agreement word Ior word, which enables the argument that
any breach oI R.C. 5321.05 would also be a breach oI the lease agreement. But Ohio courts have seen
through this and ruled that iI the violation is a breach oI both the law and the lease, the landlord must
still give the 30 day notice.
Let's look at two examples.
1. Unauthorized Dog
10/14
00483
Larry Landlord has a lease which prohibits the tenant Irom having a dog. Larry Iinds out that the tenant
is violating this portion oI the lease agreement. This is not a violation oI Ohio Revised Code Section
5321.05 which says nothing about dogs. Thus, Larry Landlord does not need to give 30 day's notice
beIore posting the three day notice to vacate.
2. Unsanitary Conditions
Larry Landlord has a lease agreement which says that the tenant shall keep all plumbing Iixtures (sinks,
toilets, tubs, etc.) in a clean and sanitary condition. During an inspection oI the rented premises, Larry
notices that the tenant is living like a complete pig, and that the plumbing Iixtures are in an appallingly
unsanitary condition. Larry would love to post the three day notice and get the eviction process going
right away. But Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.05(A)(3) imposes a duty upon the tenant to "Keep all
plumbing Iixtures in the dwelling unit or used by him as clean as their condition permits . . .".
Thus the tenant is violating both the lease and R.C. 5321.05(A)(3). Ohio Revised Code Section
5321.11(A) requires 30 days written notice Irom the landlord to the tenant to remedy any breach oI the
tenant's duties under Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.05. So Larry Landlord is going to have to give
30 days written notice to the tenant beIore he can post the three day notice to vacate. II the tenant
remedies the problem within those thirty days, then the tenant will have a deIense to the eviction.
C. Tips Ior the Wise Landlord
So the wise landlord hires an attorney to perIorm all oI his or her evictions. In this way you can be
more certain that the eviction will be done right and that possession will be returned to you as soon as
possible.
Where can you Iind such an attorney? There are several places. You can contact your local bar
association and ask to be reIerred to an attorney who regularly perIorms evictions. II you call any large
apartment complex, the rental managers there will more than likely reIer you to the attorney they use. II
you know an attorney personally, even iI he or she does not conduct evictions, he or she will very likely
know someone who does.
Ethics Articles: The Unauthorized Practice oI Law and Landlord Tenant Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/14
00484
Focus on ProIessional Responsibility
MBJ September, 1999
By: Victoria V. Kremski, Assistant Counsel State Bar oI Michigan
The Unauthorized Practice oI Law and Landlord Tenant Cases
Landlord tenant cases comprise a large portion oI the dockets oI the District Courts in Michigan. Given
the relatively rapid pace at which summary proceedings move and the important interests at stake Ior
both parties involved, it is important to have a thorough understanding oI the relationship between
landlord-tenant actions and the unauthorized practice oI law. ConIusion sometimes arises regarding
what types oI landlords may Iile and litigate eviction cases on an in pro per basis, without engaging in
the unauthorized practice oI law.
In Michigan, landlord-tenant law is governed by statute and speciIic court rules. In small claims
actions, MCR 4.302(B)(2) allows a corporation or partnership to appear and prosecute the proceeding
through a lay representative. However, no statute or court rule exists in Michigan allowing corporations
or other business entities to Iile and litigate matters on an in pro per basis in actions other than small
claims court. Accordingly, the general body oI case law addressing what constitutes the unauthorized
practice oI law applies to all landlord tenant proceedings.
Individual, layperson landlords, i.e. those that own rental property in their individual capacity, may Iile
and litigate eviction actions, in pro per, as they are acting on their own behalI and only their individual
interests are aIIected by the proceeding. In contrast, Michigan law views corporations, partnerships and
other legal entities as separate Irom their individual oIIicers, shareholders, and partners. Lay oIIicers,
directors, partners and employees oI corporate or partnership entities may not represent the entity in
court proceedings or sign court documents without engaging in the unauthorized practice oI law. Peters
v. Desnick Broadcasting Co., 171 Mich App 283, 429 N.W. 2d 654 (1988). Detroit Bar Association v.
Union Guardian Trust Co., 282 Mich 707, 282 N.W.2d 432 (1938). See also Ginger v. Cohn, 426 F.2d
1385 (1970). Labato v. Pauline, 304 Mich 668 (1943), 8 N.W.2d 873. Yenglin v. Mazur, 121 Mich App
218, 328 N.W.2d 624 (1982).
Michigan statutes are in accord with this case law. MCL 450.681, MSA 21.311 provides that
corporations may not practice law or oIIer legal services. MCL 660.2051(2); MSA 27A 2051(2)
recognizes partnerships as entities separate Irom their individual partners.
The above restrictions do not prohibit lay employees oI corporations and partnerships Irom draIting
petitions, orders and other papers to be Iiled in court, provided the papers are Iiled under the name oI,
and by, an attorney who becomes personally responsible Ior the Iilings as iI he or she had draIted them
personally. Detroit Bar Association v. Union Guardian Trust Co., 282 Mich 707 (1938).
12/14
00485
Under current statutory and case law, a lay employee oI a corporation or partnership cannot sign and
Iile a complaint Ior termination oI tenancy without engaging in the unauthorized practice oI law.
Further, any attempt to litigate the matter, by appearing in court on behalI oI the business entity, leaves
the individual open to prosecution Ior engaging in the unauthorized practice oI law. MCL 600.916;
MSA 27A916. The Supreme Court empowers the State Bar oI Michigan, with authorization Irom its
Board oI Commissioners, to investigate and prosecute incidents oI the unauthorized practice oI law.
Rule 16 oI the Rules Concerning the State Bar.
Michigan lawyers conIronted with a non-lawyer appearing in court Ior a corporation or partnership
have an ethical duty to bring the Iact to the attention oI the tribunal. InIormal ethics opinion RI-10. The
lawyer may also move Ior disqualiIication oI the lay representative and to strike the pleadings.
Likewise, Michigan judges are also under an ethical duty to prevent the unauthorized practice oI law.
InIormal judicial ethics opinion JI-26 states, in part,
"Administrative responsibilities oI judges require them to instruct court personnel to regularly check
pleadings Iiled with the court Ior signature and proIessional identiIication ("P" number) to assure the
person representing a party is a member oI the State Bar. Judges must instruct court staII to reject
pleadings having no proIessional identiIication unless the person is appearing pro se.
"When unauthorized practice oI law activity occurs within the presence oI a judge, the judge must stop
the proceeding; place as much inIormation on the record as possible; advise the party to seek the
services oI a licensed lawyer; and take other remedial action authorized by law."
Given the important interests at stake Ior both parties in a landlord tenant proceeding, it is important Ior
all involved to be sensitive to the unauthorized practice oI law issue and how it may arise in such cases.
A judge or lawyer who encounters unauthorized practice oI law activity should report the incident to
the State Bar oI Michigan and its Committee on the Unauthorized Practice oI law Ior investigation and
possible prosecution.
Unauthorized practice oI law
The judge cannot hear an eviction case iI your landlord is a corporation unless the corporation is
represented in court by a lawyer. The letters 'Inc. aIter the landlord`s name mean that it is a
corporation. The corporate landlord`s case must be dismissed iI someone who is not a lawyer prepared
the complaint and summons. UnIortunately, some courts may bend the court rules and allow property
managers, stockholders, and others who are not lawyers to act Ior the corporate landlord. This is
improper under New Jersey law (except that a partner in a general partnership may Iile papers and
appear pro se). Cite: Rule 6:10 and Rule 1:21-1(c).
13/14
00486
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. PICKLO. UCite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96 Ohio
St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995.V Unauthorized practice oI la= X Person not licensed to practice la= in
Ohio Iiled complaints in the Cleveland Municipal Court, Housing Division, Ior Iorcible entry and
detainer, as =ell as Ior recovery oI past due rents on behalI oI a property o=ner X Engagement in the
unauthorized practice oI la= enjoined.

14/14
00487

1
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
INTHESECONDSUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
ZACHCOUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
WASHOELEGALSERVICESETAL,
Respondent
CaseNo.:60302
DistrictCourtCaseNo.:cv11-01896
/
MOTIONFORPERMISSIONTOFILEOPENINGBRIEFAFTERDEADLINEHASRUN
ANDOPPOSITIONTOMOTIONTODISMISS
Appellant,ZachCoughlin,IilesonhisownbehalItheabovetitled document.OnJune
27
th
,2012thisCourtissuedaNoticetoFileOpeningBrieIandAppendixwithin15days.
Excusable neglect given Coughlin has been the reluctant crusader for tenants rights andcivil
rightsingeneralinNevada,arrested10timesthisyearinonewayoranotherconnectedtothat
cause,andmostrecentlyarrestedon6/28/12andagainon7/3/12(thelatterresultingina17day
stayinWashoecountyjail,whereAppellantwasdeniedbyjailstaIIinhisattemptstoaccess
justiceandIiledocumentsinvariouscases,includingthisone.Basically,NevadaCourtServices
isaprocessservercompanythatiscommittingtheunauthorizedpracticeoIlaw,especiallyin
representing landlords. That lack of legal training resulted in a defective 5 day unlawful
detainernotice,whichlistedSparksJusticeCourtratherthantheRenoJusticeCourtIorthe
IorumIortheTenanttoIileanAIIidavit.Iwasservedthisnoticeinanattemptedeviction.I
submittedIorIilingsuchanaIIidavittoSparksJusticeCourtandconIirmedwiththeReno
Justice Courts filing office supervisor that I had until June 28
th
,2012atnoontoIileoneinReno
JusticeCourt(eventhoughthe5daynoticelistedSparksJusticeCourtastheplacetoIileone).
NevadaCourtServicesliedaboutthemanneroIserviceoItheJune14
th
,20125daynotice,later
assertingthatRobert Wray personally served that notice.HowRobertWraycouldseethrough
Electronically Filed
J ul 25 2012 04:57 p.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
Clerk of Supreme Court
Docket 60302 Document 2012-23543
00488

2
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
ametaldoorintoarentallackingwindowsIorhimtopeerintoandlackingabackyardIorhimto
trespassthrough,isnotatallclear.WhyRobertWrayandNorthwindApartmentsManager
DwayneJakobIeltentitledtoattempttobreakintothatrentalisnotcleareither.WhytheReno
PoliceDepartmentandWashoeCountySheriIIcontinuallyviolateSOLDALv.COOK
COUNTY,506U.S.56(1992)isnotcleareither,buttheydo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vjQ132q2O7DY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vNDIcPAbVeIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vl3sAyLUINOc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v6SvV59vUJwM&listUUJRiA0LTsRYM4Ol9tWU62mg&in
dex2&Ieatureplcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vslRWyWUdeYI&IeatureBFa&listUUJRiA0LTsRYM4Ol9
tWU62mg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v8-
USIE79kY&listUUJRiA0LTsRYM4Ol9tWU62mg&index4&Ieatureplcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vcptqg51GeiI&listUUJRiA0LTsRYM4Ol9tWU62mg&index
7&Ieatureplcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vgBu9zIlGALE&IeatureBFa&listUUJRiA0LTsRYM4Ol9t
WU62mg\
NRAPRule31(b):
(b) ExtensionsoITimeIorFilingBrieIs.
(1) Telephonic Requests. A party may request by telephone a single 5-
day extension oI time Ior Iiling a brieI under Rule 26(b)(1)(B). A telephonic
request may be made only iI there have been no prior requests Ior extension oI
time Ior Iiling the brieI. Subsequent requests Ior extensions oI time Ior Iiling a
brieImaybemadebystipulationiIpermittedunderRule31(b)(2)orby motion
totheSupremeCourtunderRule31(b)(3).
(2) Stipulations. Unless the court orders otherwise, in all appeals except
child custody, visitation, or capital cases, the parties may extend the time Ior
Iiling any brieI Ior a total oI 30 days beyond the due dates set Iorth in Rule
31(a)(1) by Iiling a written stipulation with theSupreme Court on or beIore the
00489

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
briefs due date. No extensions of time by stipulation are permitted in child
custody,visitation,orcapitalcases.
(3) Motions Ior Extensions oI Time. A motion Ior extension oI time Ior
Iiling a brieI may be made no later than the due date Ior the brieI and must
complywiththeprovisionsoIthisRuleandRule27.
(A) Contents oI Motion. A motion Ior extension oI time Ior Iiling a
brieIshallincludetheIollowing:
(i) ThedatewhenthebrieIisdue;
ThebrieIwasdue15daysIromtheJune27
th
,2012OrderoIthisCourt,samewiththe
Appendix.
`
(ii) ThenumberoIextensionsoItimepreviouslygranted(includinga5-
daytelephonicextension),andiIextensionsweregranted,theoriginaldatewhen
thebrieIwasdue;
Coughlin did not previously request an extension, but the June 27
th
Order did
provideIoroneoI15days.
(iii) Whether any previous requests Ior extensions oI time have been
deniedordeniedinpart;
Nonehavesobeen.
(iv) Thereasonsorgroundswhyanextensionisnecessary;and
Coughlin was arrested twice during the 15 days allowed to Iile the BrieI. The
WashoeCountyJailhasavery,verypoorPCStelephonesystem.Coughlinwasallowed
onephonecallonlyintheinitialwaitingroomduringbooking.ThereaIter,Coughlinwas
denied in his request Ior paper to Iile court documents on numerous occasions, though
Coughlin did submit kites for paper, postage, and envelopes and otherwise requested
variouscourtsbenotiIiedoIhisincarceration.
(v) The length oI the extension requested and the date on which the
brieIwouldbecomedue.
CoughlinrequestandextensionoI15daysormore,especiallyconsideringthathisrecentevict
woes have been further compounded by the jails refusal to transport Coughlintothehearing
on July 5
th
, 2012 on his Motion to Vacate the eviction that lead to Coughlins arrest for
resistinganoIIicerduringtheJune28
th
,2012Lockout,andaIraudulentlyprocuredTemporary
Protection Order by NOrthwind Apartments staff that now makes it nearly impossible Ior
CoughlintoaccessmaterialsnecessarytoIilingtherequiredBrieI.
00490

4
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
(B) MotionsinAllAppealsExceptChildCustody,Visitation,orCapital
Cases. ApplicationsIorextensionsoItimebeyondthattowhichthepartiesare
permitted to stipulate under Rule 31(b)(2) are not Iavored. The Supreme Court
will grant a motion Ior extension oI time Ior Iiling a brieI only upon a clear
showing oI good cause. The court shall not grant additional extensions of
time except upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances and extreme
need.
CoughlinisindigentandhisbailIortheJuly3
rd
,2012distrubingthepeacearrest
wasimproperlyincreased,withoutanynoticeoItheJuly5
th
,2012bailhearingto
Coughlin, when the same Reno Police OIIicers Alan Weave and OIIicer Dye
showed up to the hearing to support the City of Renos Jill Drake in herrequest
Ior the $1,415 bondable bail to be increased to $3000 cash only. The July 3
rd
arrestconsisted of 3 charges, actually: Failure to secure a load on ones vehicle
($175Iine),NoProoIoIInsuranceIorVehicle($800),andDisturbingthePeace
($500 fine). The Reno Justice Court granted the City of Renos request to
increase the bail to $300, cash only, despite the Iact that Coughlin has lived in
theareawithhisentireimmediateIamilyIorover30years,isanattorneyinthe
StateoINevadawhohasaplethoraoIreasonstostayhereandresponsibilitieshe
musttendtoindoingso
NRS 178.498 Amount. II the deIendant is admitted to bail, the bail must be set at an amount
whichinthejudgmentoIthemagistratewillreasonablyensuretheappearanceoIthedeIendant
andthesaIetyoIotherpersonsandoIthecommunity,havingregardto:
1. ThenatureandcircumstancesoItheoIIensecharged;
2. TheIinancialabilityoIthedeIendanttogivebail;
3. ThecharacteroIthedeIendant;and
4. TheIactorslistedinNRS178.4853.
(AddedtoNRSby1967,1452;A1985,809)
NRS178.499 Increaseinamount.
1.AtanytimeaIteradistrictorJusticeCourthasorderedbailtobesetataspeciIicamount,
and beIore acquittal or conviction, the court may upon its own motion or upon motion oI the
district attorney and after notice to the defendants attorney of record or, if none, to the
deIendant,increasetheamountoIbailIorgoodcauseshown.
2.IIthedeIendanthasbeenreleasedonbailbeIorethetimewhenthemotiontoincreasebail
isgranted,thedeIendantshalleitherreturntocustodyorgivetheadditionalamountoIbail.
NRS 178.4853 Factors considered before release without bail. In deciding whether there is
goodcausetoreleaseapersonwithoutbail,thecourtasaminimumshallconsidertheIollowing
Iactorsconcerningtheperson:
1. ThelengthoIresidenceinthecommunity;
CoughlinandhisentireimmediateIamily(mother,Iather,5siblings)havelivedintheRenoarea
Ior30years.
2. ThestatusandhistoryoIemployment;
00491

5
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
Coughlin has been an attorney in Nevada Ior years and passed the 2001 Nevada Bar
examinationwhileinhissecondyearoIlawschoolalongwiththeinauguralclassoItheBoyd
SchooloILaw.CoughlinislicensedtopracticepatentlawbeIoretheUSPTO.
3. Relationships with the persons spouse and children, parents or other family members and
withcloseIriends;
Coughlin testiIied to many strong relationships in the community, including some with those
longaIIiliatedwithLawyersConcernedIorLawyers,etc.,etc.
4. Reputation,characterandmentalcondition;
Coughlinhaspassed3 competencyevaluationsthis yearalone, was at one time Reno Highs
all time leading scorer in basketball, has worked Ior a legal aid organization as a domestic
violenceattorney,etc.
5. Prior criminal record, including, without limitation, any record oI appearing or Iailing to
appearaIterreleaseonbailorwithoutbail;
Coughlin has not failed to appear for any appearances, and ones prior criminal record
shouldnotconsidercurrentlypendingcharges(however,theRJCJudgePearsondidessentially
view Coughlin as convicted Ior charges that are still pending in making Coughlins bail $500,
bondable, which, admittedly, was a more manageable than the $3000 cash only bail the Reno
Municipal Court demanded of Coughlin
6. The identity oI responsible members oI the community who would vouch Ior the
reliabilityoItheperson;
Coughlin mentioned numerous individuals who enjoy extremely strong and long standing
reputationsinthelegalcommunity.
7. The nature oI the oIIense with which the person is charged, the apparent probability oI
conviction and the likely sentence, insoIar as these Iactors relate to the risk oI not
appearing;
NolikelihoodoIconvictionontheprooIoIinsurance,andtheDisturbingthePeacechargeis
extremelysuspect,especiallyinlightoIWheelervcross344Iedappx420(2008).
CoughlinwaschargedwithnothavingprooIoIinsuranceIorhisvehicle,however,Coughlindid
have such prooI, in the Iorm oI a pdI on his smartphone, and Coughlin showed that to OIIicer
Weaver,whoinsisteditmustbeonpaper.
8. The nature and seriousness oI the danger to the alleged victim, any other person or the
community that would be posed by the persons release;
ThedisturbingthepeacechargeresteduponaNOrthwindAptmaintenanceman,23yearold
veteran of the Iraq war lying in the police report by saying Coughlin said dont mess with my
doors anymore or else and it would be a mistake to mess with themNone of that was
said,theNorthwindemployeewasstaringatCoughlinandIilminghimandwentontolieina
TPO application (that, conveniently, took care oI that pesky need to get an eviction) by
making completely false allegations of Coughlin always carrying around a knifewhich is
oddbecauseMilanKrebsdidnotmentionthatinhisstatementIortheJuly3,2012disturbing
the police complaint and witness statement. Odder still is that RPD OIIicer Weaver had
previously attempted to break into Coughlins rental, along with Northwinds Dwayne Jakob,
despite not having a warrant and despite no eviction Order being in place, and then Weaver
proceeded to threaten to use explosives to open the door.then Weaver arrested Coughlin on
July 3, 2012 and had Coughlins car impounded and searched and subjected Coughlin to a
custodial arrest for an alleged misdemeanor that did not take place in the officers presence.
00492

6
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
9. ThelikelihoodoImorecriminalactivitybythepersonaIterrelease;and
TheIactthattheRJCissuedaTPOagainstCoughlinonJuly5
th
,2012,assuredevenmorethat
CoughlinwouldnotbeabletogoonNorthwindApartmentsgrounds.
10. Any other factors concerning the persons ties to the community or bearing on the risk that
thepersonmaywillIullyIailtoappear.
Coughlins career as an attorney insures his need to stayinReno.
Interestingly,theRMCappointKeithLoomis,Esq.todeIendCoughlininconnectionwiththe
July 3, 2012 arrest. While Loomis did not object at the bail hearing to RPD Officers Weaver
and Dye testiIying that the RPD had received some 10 911 or other calls Ior service somehow
related to Coughlin and NOrthwind Apartments and viewed all of them as Coughlins fault,
Loomis refused Coughlins request to subpoena the police records or reports of these calls,
indicatingthathedidnotIeelthatwas relevant.
CJSAppealSec743,EIIectoIFailuretoFileorFileinTime.
Conclusion
CoughlinasksIoratleast15additionaldaystoIinishtheOpeningBrieIandAppendixinthis
case.
Datedthisjuly24
th
,2012by
/S/ZachCoughlin
ZachCoughlin
Appellant,proper
00493

7
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
ProoIoIService
IIileandservedthiselectronicallyon
JoeGarin
AttorneyIorWLSetal
Datedthisjuly24
th
,2012by
/S/ZachCoughlin
ZachCoughlin
Appellant,proper
00494

8
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
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
1. EXHIBIT 1 VARIOUS relevant materials to good cause, excusable neglect analysis, twenty one (21)
pages.
00495

00496
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 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL,
Respondent
Case No.: 60302
District Court Case No.: cv11-01896
/
MOTION TO LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY CONSISTING OF PROPOSED APPELLANT'S
OPENING BRIEF SET FORTH HEREIN
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.
LAW OFFICE OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Telephone: 775.338.8118
Fax: 949.667.7402
Pro se Appellant
1OSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
9080 West Post Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
Telephone: (702) 382-1500
Fax: (702) 382-1512
Attorney for Respondents/Defendants Washoe
Legal Services, Paul E/cano, Todd Torvinen, Karen
Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge, 1on Sasser, Marc
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF 1
Aug 23 2012 10:55 a.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
00497
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
.'%9 *1 *-9 /-%3='/
00498
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
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL,
Respondent
Case No.: 60302
District Court Case No.: cv11-01896
/
The undersigned counsel oI record celiiIies that the Iollowing are persons and entities as
described in NRAP 26.1(a) and must be disclosed. These representations are made in order that
judges oI this court may evaluate possible disqualiIication or recusal. Counsel oI record Ior
Appellant Zachary Barker Coughlin aka Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq., certiIies that Appellant
is an individual with no corporate parents, private or public, and no stock evidencing an
ownership interest in Appellant, other than Appellant, no other party aIIiliated with Appellant
has an interest in the outcome oI this case. The only law Iirm or attorney to appear Ior Appellant
in this appeal and proceedings below is Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.
RespectIully Submitted By:

Nevada Bar No. 9473
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Telephone: 775.338.8118
Fax: 949.667.7402
Pro se Appellant
00499
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ......................................................................... 5
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 5
A. BrieI Nature OI The Case ........................................................................................ 5
B. Procedural History OI The Case .............................................................................. 5
C. Relevant Facts .......................................................................................................... 6
III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 6
A. Summary OI The Argument ......................................... 6
B. The District Court Erred Reversibly In Concluding NRCP 4(g) Requires an
AIIidavit oI Service to the Exclusion oI Allowing a Declaration in Lieu oI
Such an AIIidavit .........................................................................................7
C. The District Court Committed Reversible Error When it Failed to Allow
Coughlin His Right to At Least Amend His Return of Service Pursuant to
Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(h) as No Material Prejudice Could Be Said to Result to the
Substantial Rights of The Party Against Whom the Process Issued and
Where it Ruled that Good Cause Had Not Been Shown Sufficient To Allow
an Extension to Cure Any Alleged Insufficiency or Timeliness of Service of
Process or the Filing of Return Thereof Under NRCP 4 despite suIIicient good
cause having been established by Coughlin. and Where the Trial Court's IFP
Required the WCSO TO EIIect Service, and it Failed to Under Suspicious
Circumstances and Where an Legibility Issues or Basis Ior Finding
InsuIIiciency oI Service oI Process are not Legally or Factually
Supportable May DeIendant's Counsel Purport to OIIer to Settlem the Case Ior
What Remains Under the "Policy Limits", while Indicating His Fees and Any
Such Potential Settlement Amount Come From the Same "Eroding Pool", Whilst
ReIusing to SpeciIy Any Amount With Respoect to What Such a Settlement Ior
What Remains oI the Policy Actually Amounts To, in Actual
Dollars?.............................................................................................8
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 15
V. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................ 17
00500
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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE
CASES
Luckett v. Brother MIg. Corp., Slip Copy, March 8, 2012. .................................................................................12
In re America Derivative Litigation, 252 P.3d 681, 693, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Nev. 2011). ............................12
Bender v. Clark Equipment Co., 897 P.2d 208, 111 Nev. 844 (Nev. Jun 27, 1995) (NO. 24126).......................12
Cardinal v. Zonneveld, 514 P.2d 204, 89 Nev. 403 (Nev. Sep 27, 1973) (NO. 6984);.............................................13
Servatius v. United Resort Hotels, Inc., 455 P.2d 621, 85 Nev. 371 (Nev. Jun 11, 1969) (NO. 5666).................14
Lacey v. Wen-Neva, Inc., 849 P.2d 260, 109 Nev. 341 (Nev. Mar 24, 1993) (NO. 22660) .................................16
Dallman v. Merrell, 803 P.2d 232, 106 Nev. 929 (Nev. Dec 27, 1990) (NO. 20963) ..........................................16
Moore v. Shreck, 717 P.2d 49, 102 Nev. 163 (Nev. Apr 09, 1986) (NO. 16030) ..................................................18
Gassett v. Snappy Car Rental, 906 P.2d 258, 111 Nev. 1416 (Nev. Nov 30, 1995) (NO. 26044) ..........................20
Lacey v. Wen-Neva, Inc., 849 P.2d 260, 109 Nev. 341 (Nev. Mar 24, 1993) (NO. 22660).....................................20
Dougan v. Gustaveson, 835 P.2d 795, 108 Nev. 517 (Nev. Aug 05, 1992) (NO. 21803).......................................20
Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746, 115 Nev. 308 (Nev. Oct 20, 1999) (NO. 31663)...................................................21
Sweeney v. Schultes, 6 P. 44, 19 Nev. 53 (Nev. Feb 25, 1885).............................................................................21
McKenzie v Amtrak M oI E (1990, SD NY) 777 F Supp 1119,.............................................................................22
Baker v. La Cumre, 9 Fed.Appx. 752, 2001 WL 577026 (C.A.9 (Cal.) (2001).....................................................23
Harris v. Ford Motor Co., 487 F. Supp. 429 (W.D. Mo. 1980). ...............................................................................23
Mann v. American Airlines, 324 I.3D 1088, 55 Ied.R.Serv.3D 157,( C.A.9 (Wash.),2003)......................................23
STATUTES/RULES
NRCP 4....................................................................................................................8-14
NRS 40.253...................................................................................................................12
NRCP 6.............................................................................................................................10
NRS 40.400........................................................................................................................11
00501
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.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
This is an appeal oI the District Court's Order dismissing, with prejudice, Appellant
Zachary Barker Coughlin's Complaint WrongIul Termination, etc., against DeIendant Washoe
Legal Services. Appellant Coughlin (hereinaIter reIerred to as "Coughlin") identiIies the
Iollowing issues on appeal:
1. Whether the District Court committed an error oI law in concluding NRCP 4(g)
requires an AIIidavit oI Service to the exclusion oI allowing a declaration in lieu oI such an
aIIidavit and errors oI Iact where the District Court Ruled that the various Returns oI Service
Were InsuIIicient and or not Timely Were the Facts Show they Were SuIIicient and Timely?
2. Whether the District Court committed an error oI law when It Iailed to allow coughlin
his right to at least amend his return oI service pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(h) as no material
prejudice could be saiddespite suIIicient good cause having been established by Coughlin. to
result to the substantial rights oI the party against whom the process issued and where it ruled
that good cause had not been shown suIIicient to allow an extension to cure any alleged
insuIIiciency or timeliness oI service oI process or the Iiling oI return thereoI under NRCP 4(h),
despite suIIicient good cause having been established by Coughlin. and Where the Trial Court's
IFP Required the WCSO TO EIIect Service, and it Failed to Under Suspicious Circumstances
and Where an Legibility Issues or Basis Ior Finding InsuIIiciency oI Service oI Process are not
Legally or Factually Supportable, and Further, May DeIendant's Counsel Purport to OIIer to
Settlem the Case Ior What Remains Under the "Policy Limits", while Indicating His Fees and
Any Such Potential Settlement Amount Come From the Same "Eroding Pool", Whilst ReIusing
to SpeciIy Any Amount With Respoect to What Such a Settlement Ior What Remains oI the
Policy Actually Amounts To, in Actual Dollars?
II.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Brief Nature of The Case
00502
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
This case was improperly dismissed by the District Court, Second Judicial District Court,
Ior based upon insuIIiciency oI service oI process under NRCP 12(b)(3)-(4) and Ior Iailure to
move Ior an extension oI time to perIorm service under NRCP 4(i). This is an wrongIul
termination case alleging a variety oI wrongs, such as retaliation, hostile work environment,
various Iorms oI discrimination, breach oI employment contract, etc.
B. Procedural History of The Case
Coughlin Iiled his IFP along with a Propsed Complaint in the Second Judicial District
Court, Washoe County, Nevada, on June 27th, 2011, just prior to the expiration oI the 90 day
deadline to Iile suit as measured Irom Coughlin's "receipt" oI the EEOC's Right To Sue Letter.
The calculation oI such deadlien was blurred due to no Iault oI Coughlin's....Coughlin updated
the EEOC in writing as to an address change, however, the EEOC mailed the Right to Sue Letter
to an outdated address Ior Coughlin. That, combined with the vagaries expressed by the Second
Judicial with respect to how Iiling dates are accorded to Complaints submitted under IFPs,
resulted in uncertaintly suIIicient to reasonably allow Coughlin to Iile another, extremely similar
case, also now on appeal, with his last $260 to his name paying the Iiling Iee cash, to avoid the
chance that the Iiling date accorded the Complaint submitted with the IFP would be too late,
should the IFP be denied and the "relation back" doctrine not implemented vis a vis the Iiling
date oI the Complaint (ie, the Iiling date being interpreted as the date one pays the Iee aIter
receiving an IFP denial, versus, a Iiling date oI the day the proposed Complaint is submitted,
provided the party cures the Iiling Iee deIiciency in a reasonable period oI time....). Coughlin
was extremely concscientious in this regard, brieIed these issues extensively, provided incredibly
accurate research on these very speciIic issues, and moved both trial courts to consoldiate these
matters, to no avail.
01-FEB-2012 12:19 AM Mtn Alter or Amend Judgment Coughlin, Esq.,
Zachary Entry: MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT; OR, PLED IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER 02-FEB-2012 02:06 PM
Summons Filed Coughlin, Esq., Zachary Entry: Complaint served on
Todd Torvinen and Paul Elcano on 10/27/11 08-FEB-2012 03:24 PM Ord Granting Mtn ...
00503
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
Entry: CARYN STERNLICHT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 08-FEB-2012
07:48 PM Opposition to Mtn ... Coughlin, Esq., Zachary 07-FEB-2012 12:55 AM
Opposition to Mtn ... Coughlin, Esq., Zachary Entry: PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT OR
WHOEEVER'S MOTION TO DISMISS Entry: OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S
MOTION TO DISMISS; OR PLEASE IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND TO ORDER 13-FEB-2012 02:15 PM Opposition to Mtn ... Garin, Esq., Joseph P.
Entry: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET
ASIDE ORDER
C. Relevant Facts
The relevant Iacts are those Irom the Complaint. CV11-01896.. Those Iacts, which must
be accepted as true, are as Iollows:
1. Coughlin had Paul Elcano, and thereIore WLS, served in satisIaction oI NRCP 4 on December
9th, 2011 by Travis Sherman (Declaration oI Service Iiled the Iollowing day on December 10th,
2011) and Torvinen, and thereIore, WLS were appropriately served on October 27th, 2011 by
Jerome Fitzhenry (Declaration oI Service Iiled on November 2, 2011), and timely Iiled an
eIIective Return oI Service the Iollowing day. The WCSO timely served various other named
parties to one extent or another, any deIicienciey inherent thereto being the Iault oI the WCSO,
not Coughlin, particularly where the IPF required the WCSO to do so.
2. The WCSO was ordered to make such service oI the Summons and Complaint as well in the
IFP, and did in Iact.
III.
ARGUMENT
Coughlin's Complaint should not have been dismissed based upon any insuIIiciency oI
service oI process under Nev. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)(4). SpeciIically, the Court's Order Iinding
Coughlin did not timely or substantively meet the service requirements Ior the Summons and
Complaint is clear error, met the applicable standards, at times, on multiple occasions. The
District Court also committed a clear error oI law when it reIused to allow Coughlin to amend
00504
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
his Return oI Service, as allowed pursuant Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(h). As such, the Court's Order
dismissing his Complaint, with prejudice, should be overturned. At a minimum, the Court's
Order reIusing to allow Coughlin to amend his Return oI Service or even to recognize it as just
Iine to begin with, pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(g)-(i), should be overturned to at least allow
Coughlin the chance to cure any (still unexplained) supposed deIects in his Service oI Process
and Return oI Service. And, thereIore, any attorney's Iees award should be void, particularly
where the law oI the case had already ruled that the merits oI the Complaint were not reached
prior to the dismissal on insuIIicienciency oI service grounds.
A. Summary Of The Argument
The District Court improperly committed an error oI law, by dismissing Coughlin's
Complaint Ior insuIIiciency oI service oI process or return oI service or timeliness thereoI or Ior
some Iailure to request an extension prior to the expiration oI the 120 day deadline set out in
NRCP 4(i). The Court Iurther committed an error oI law by reIusing to allow Coughlin the
chance to allow Coughlin to amend his Return oI Service or even to recognize it as just Iine to
begin with, pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(g)-(i).
For these reasons, the Court's January 11th, 2012, and March 13th, 2012, April 26th,
2012, and the May 7th, 2012 Order in CV11-01896 (and any other Orders sanctioning Coughlin
in any way or charging Coughlin with anyone's attorney's Iees or denying Coughlin's request Ior
the same) should be overturned, in their entirety. Alternatively, the Court should overturn the
Court's Order and allow Coughlin the right to amend his Return oI Service or allow Ior an
extension to cure any insuIIicienciency oI service or return thereoI to cure any (still
unexplained) deIiciencies in his service oI process oI the Summons and Complaint or the Return
oI Service thereoI.
B. The District Court Erred Reversibly In Concluding NRCP 4(g) Requires an
Affidavit of Service to the Exclusion of Allowing a Declaration in Lieu of
Such an Affidavit
The standard oI review applied in such circumstances is well established, as quoted
earlier tthis year in Luckett v. Brother MIg. Corp., Slip Copy, March 8, 2012. In Luckett, the
00505
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
Court held: "This Court reviews de novo an order granting an NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss,
accepting all Iactual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing 28, 181 P.3d 670, 672
(2008)". Luckett v. Brother Mig. Corp., (Nev. Sup. Ct. Slip Copy March 8, 2012). "A district
court order granting a motion to dismiss 'is rigorously reviewed. '" In re America Derivative
Litigation, 252 P.3d 681, 693, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Nev. 2011). 'This court applies de novo
review to the district court's legal determinations". In re America, 252 P.3d at 693 (citing Buzz
Stew, 124 Nev. at 228). Based on Luckett (and Buzz Stew) all Iacts in Coughlin's Complaint
must be accepted as true at this stage. Moreover, the District Court's legal interpretations
regarding the suIIiciency oI service oI process or return oI service or the extent to which good
cause was shown under NRCP 4(i) are reviewed de novo, and thus not entitled deIerence. It is
inexplicable how the District Court could have concluded service was not timely given the Iilign
oI a Declaration oI Personal Service by Travis Sherman alleging such service was eIIected on
December 9th, 2011, the very day by which the Trial Court's Order indicates such service need to
have occurred.
Appeal provided permissible method Ior review oI matter in which trial court had
quashed service oI process, where court entered a Iinal order dismissing complaint which vested
jurisdiction in appellate court. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 4(i); Rules App.Proc., Rule 3A(b)(1). Abreu
v. Gilmer, 1999, 985 P.2d 746, 115 Nev. 308. Under 1 Comp. Laws, 1134, providing that the
court shall disregard any deIect in pleadings or proceedings which does not aIIect the substantial
rights oI the parties, and a judgment shall not be reversed thereIor, a palpable deIect in the
summons, and a reIusal to set the summons aside thereIor, do not require reversal oI the
judgment, where the summons and complaint were served together, and deIendant demurred to
the complaint, and all subsequent proceedings were had on the complaint alone. Sweeney v.
Schultes, 1885, 6 P. 44, 19 Nev. 53, aIIirmed 8 P. 768, 19 Nev. 53.
This issue was exhaustively brieIed by Coughlin's counsel, both in the Opposition to
DeIendants' Motion to Dismiss as well as in the variosu Motions to Alter, Amend or Set
Aside/Reconsideration that Coughlin Iiled.
00506
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
Footnote 2 on Page 2 oI the January 11th, 2012 Order in CV11-01896 makes
clear the dismissal occurred without reaching the merits oI Coughlin's case, and, accordingly,
WLS et al's Motion Ior Sanctions or Attorney's Fees were denied. That Iootnote reads:
"2 Although CIS sought dismissal with prejudice, the Court may dismiss an
action without prejudice when service is untimely. See N.R.C.P. 4(i). In addition,
CIS's request Ior attorney's Iees and costs is denied at this time because the Court
dismissed this action on procedural grounds without analyzing the merits oI
PlaintiIIs case."
Curiously, by the time the March 13th, 2012 Order Denying Coughlin's Motion to Set
Aside, etc. was rendered, the Trial Court seems to have decided the merits oI the litigation were
actually addressed in choosing to then award attorney's Iees Ior Coughlin's alleged
vexatiousness, despite the Iact that Coughlin had, by then, shown the Court the error in its earlier
Order oI January 11th, 2012 with respect to the measuring oI the deadline to eIIect service under
NRCP 4 in light oI the manner in which Iiling dates are accorded to Complaints upon the
granting oI an IFP, particularly where there is some delay in having such an IFP approved,
especially where an intervening 90 days Irom receipt oI EEOC Right to Sue Letter limitations
period may be read into such a scenario.
March 13th Order in CV11-01896 denying Coughlin's Motion to Set Aside, etc. (on page
3-4):
"II. PlaintiII's Motion to Set Aside the Order Entered January 11, 2012 I Denied.
The evidence advanced by PlaintiII does not meet the standard Ior setting
aside 0 vacating the Court's dismissal order entered January 11,2012. See
N.R.C.P. 60. Essentially, PlaintiII is seeking reconsideration oI the dismissal
order. PlaintiII ha not demonstrated that the order was clearly erroneous.
00507
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
Masonry and Tile Contractor. Ass'n oIS. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd., 113
Nev. 737,741,941 P.2d 486, 489 (1997).
PlaintiII's complaint was received on June 27, 2011 and Iiled on August
11, 2011. Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 4(i) PlaintiII had 120 days, until December 9,
2011, to serve th summons and complaint on DeIendants. ThereIore, the Court
had to determine whethe PlaintiII served DeIendants Elcano, Torvinen, Sasser,
Ashley, Sabo, Breckenridge, WL and CIS within the mandated time period.
The Court Iound that PlaintiII had not timely served DeIendants.
However, becaus PlaintiII submitted an application Ior in Iorma pauperis status,
the one-hundred and twent (120) days began to run on August 11,2011.
On October 27, 2011, PlaintiII attempted to serve DeIendant Elcano by
leaving process under a mat on DeIendant Elcano's Iront porch. Although timely,
PlaintiII' attempted service is insuIIicient. Leaving process under someone's mat
is not an approve method oI service oI process. See N.R.C.P. 4(d)(6).
On October 27, 2011, PlaintiII attempted to serve DeIendant Torvinen
with thirty-Iiv (35) pages worth oI documents relating to the instant case.

N.R.C.P. 4(d) provides:
"The summons and complaint shall be served together. The
plaintiII shall Iurnish the person making service with such copies
as are necessary. Service shall be made by delivering a copy oI
the summons attached to a copy oI the complaint ... "
Process was insuIIicient since the "copy" oI the summons and the
complaint wer illegible.2 As a result, PlaintiII Iailed to eIIectuate proper process
on DeIendant Torvine and the complaint against him is dismissed pursuant to
N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).3
On November 16, 2011, PlaintiII attempted to serve DeIendant Sabo with
summons. Once again, PlaintiII Iailed to eIIectuate proper process on DeIendant
Sabo b Iailing to serve her with a copy oI the summons and complaint. See
N.R.C.P. Accordingly, the complaint against her is dismissed pursuant to
N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).
On November 15, 2011, PlaintiII attempted to serve DeIendant
Breckenridge b serving eighty-nine (89) pages worth oI documents, some related
to the present lawsuit and others related to CV11-01955. Although a copy oI the
summons was attached to th complaint, once again, the complaint was illegible.
As a result, PlaintiII Iailed to eIIectuat proper process on DeIendant
Breckenridge by Iailing to serve her with a "copy" oI th complaint. See N.R.C.P.
4(d). The complaint against DeIendant Breckenridge is dismisse pursuant to
N.R.C.P. 12(b)(3).
PlaintiII made no attempt to serve DeIendants Sasser and Ashley with a
copy oI th summons and complaint by December 9, 2011. PlaintiII did not show
good cause Ior hi Iailure to serve DeIendants Sasser and Ashley. Because
PlaintiII Iailed to serve both DeIendants within one-hundred and twenty (120)
00508
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
days aIter Iiling the complaint, PlaintiII' complaint against DeIendants Sasser
and Ashley are dismissed. See N.R.C.P.4(i).
On December 9,2011, PlaintiII attempted to serve DeIendant WLS via its
registered agent, DeIendant Elcano. Although timely, PlaintiII Iailed to comply
with N.R.C.P. 4(g) b not Iiling an aIIidavit with the Court to evidence proper
service oI process. Accordingly, th complaint against WLS is dismissed.
PlaintiII's motion to set aside the order entered January 11,2012 is
denied."
NRCP 4(g)-(i) provides:
" (g) Return. The person serving the process shall make prooI oI service thereoI
to the court promptly and in any event within the time during which the person
served must respond to the process. ProoI oI service shall be as Iollows:...
(2) If by any other person, his affidavit thereof; or...
(4) The written admission oI the deIendant. In case oI service otherwise than by
publication, the certiIicate or aIIidavit shall state the date, place and manner oI
service. Failure to make proof of service shall not affect the validity of the
service.
(h) Amendment. At any time in its discretion and upon such terms as it
deems just, the court may allow any process or proof of service thereof to be
amended, unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to
the substantial rights of the party against whom the process issued.
(i) Summons: Time Limit Ior Service. II a service oI the summons and complaint
is not made upon a deIendant within 120 days aIter the Iiling oI the complaint and
the party on whose behalI such service was required cannot show good cause why
such service was not made within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to
that deIendant without prejudice upon the court's own initiative with notice to
such party or upon motion."
Troubling is the Iact that the Court is in the above Order, sua sponte, makes arguments
and rulings that none oI the DeIendant's managed to make, such as reading into NRCP 4(i) a
00509
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
bright line rule that a Declaration in lieu oI an AIIidavit will not cut it, but rather that an
AIIidavit is required. However, the Second Judicial District Court's own Iorms were used,
downloaded Irom the Court's own website, and held out to the public Ior the purpose oI
providing a ProoI oI Service oI the Summons and Complaint and the pre-printed boilerplate
therein makes clear that a Declaration, a la NRS 53.045, made under penalty oI perjury, will
suIIice. This is the case with courts throught Nevada, including in the Eighth Judicial District
Court Ior Clark County and ther Las Vegas and Reno Justice Courts.
The April 26th, 2012 Order in CV11-01896 present clear error where it denied
Coughlin's Motion Ior Extension oI Time to PerIorm Service, where on page 1-2, it rules that
Coughlin did not show good cause Ior his Iailure to timely move Ior an extension oI the 120
day deadline, ruling thusly:
"I. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process is Denied.
PlaintiII Iiled a motion to englarge time Ior service oI process. DeIendant
opposed the motion.
NRCP 4(i) provides in relevant part:
"II the party on whose behalI such service was required
Iails to Iile a motion to enlarge the time Ior service beIore
the 120-day service period expires, the court shall take
that Iailure into consideration in determining good cause
Ior an extension oI time. Upon a showing oI good cause,
the court shall extend the time Ior service and set a
reasonable date by which service should be made."
PlaintiII's complaint was received on June 27, 2011 and Iiled 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. PlaintiII Iailed to Iile a motion to enlarge the
time Ior service and did not show good caus Ior his Iailure to do so. Accordingly,
PlaintiII's motion to enlarge time Ior service is denied."
00510
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
Coughlin presented suIIicient evidence to grant an extension Io time. Regardless,
Coughlin presented a Declaration oI Personal Service on the very Iorm Ior service oI a
Complaint and Summons held out to the public on the Second Judicial District Court's website
year round, by a non-party (see the December 10th, 2011 Iiling in CV11-01896 oI that provies
that on December 9th, 2011, Travis Sherman Declaring under penalty oI perjury on the Second
Judicial's own Iorm, that he is over 18 years oI age, served the Summons and Complaint on
Elcano at WLS's address oI 299 S. Arlington in Reno NV). Sherman's Declaration oI Personal
Service even adds Sherman's telephone number next to his printed name and original signature.
It is completely uneccesary to get to the question oI whether good cause was shown to award an
extension beyond the 120 day deadline set Iort in NRCP 4(i), as service was eIIected within that
120 day deadline. To the extent anyone Iinds any problem with the Return oI Service, NRCP
4(i)-(h) provide that: "Failure to make proof of service shall not affect the validity of the
service.
(h) Amendment. At any time in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, the
court may allow any process or proof of service thereof to be amended, unless it clearly
appears that material prejudice would result to the substantial rights of the party against
whom the process issued." This is not a close case, it is reversible error, plainly.
Amendment of defects: Bender v. Clark Equipment Co., 897 P.2d 208, 111 Nev. 844
(Nev. Jun 27, 1995) (NO. 24126); Cardinal v. Zonneveld, 514 P.2d 204, 89 Nev. 403 (Nev. Sep
27, 1973) (NO. 6984); Servatius v. United Resort Hotels, Inc., 455 P.2d 621, 85 Nev. 371 (Nev.
Jun 11, 1969) (NO. 5666).
Involuntary dismissal 75 Lacey v. Wen-Neva, Inc., 849 P.2d 260, 109 Nev. 341 (Nev.
Mar 24, 1993) (NO. 22660) 76 Dallman v. Merrell, 803 P.2d 232, 106 Nev. 929 (Nev. Dec 27,
1990) (NO. 20963) 77 Moore v. Shreck, 717 P.2d 49, 102 Nev. 163 (Nev. Apr 09, 1986) (NO.
16030) 34.
00511
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
Void judgment: Gassett v. Snappy Car Rental, 906 P.2d 258, 111 Nev. 1416 (Nev. Nov
30, 1995) (NO. 26044) .
Waiver of defects and objections: Lacey v. Wen-Neva, Inc., 849 P.2d 260, 109 Nev.
341 (Nev. Mar 24, 1993) (NO. 22660); Dougan v. Gustaveson, 835 P.2d 795, 108 Nev. 517
(Nev. Aug 05, 1992) (NO. 21803).
Review, generally: Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746, 115 Nev. 308 (Nev. Oct 20, 1999)
(NO. 31663); Sweeney v. Schultes, 6 P. 44, 19 Nev. 53 (Nev. Feb 25, 1885).
Simply put, the deIendant's did not make the arguments necessary to support the ruling
by the Trial Court, which was a sua sponte assist to the deIedants that is impermissible under
Polk., and rather unseemly given the Iact that the plaintiII is a pro se legal aid attorney Iired,
allegedly over any Order by Family Court Judge Linda Gardner, whom Elcano had claimed
owed him a Iavor, and whom Elcano had just a short time prior to the April 2009 Order For
Sanctions by Gardner leading to Coughlin's Iiring given Coughlin's perIormance a Iavorable
review to Elcano upon his inquiring. To the extent RMC Judge William Gardner, the brother oI
Family Court Judge Gardner, reIused ot recuse himselI Irom a recent criminal trespass case in
which Coughlin was convicted, which involved WLS's new Sixth Amendment denying ECR
attorney Lew Taitel, whom is business partners, apparently with Nevada Court Services, which
regularly trespassed into Coughlin's gated back yard oI his Iormer law oIIice, continues to
practice the unauthorized practice oI law Ior landlords, and managed to get Coughlin arrest at
least once, iI not several times in the past year, through its Iraudulent abuse oI process, then there
is the DA continuing to prosecute Coughlin where probable cause is lacking and Elcano's
previous statements that the DA viewed Elcano as "the only person he would trust with" an ECR
program such as that recently put in place in the Second Judicial District Court. Oh, and the
same WCSO Deputy, Machen, would WCSO Supervisor Stuchell admits Ialsely attested to
having "personally served" the Summary Eviction Order upon Coughlin a Coughlin v Merliss
(now on appeal beIore this Court as well)...well Deputy Machen arrested Coughlin on July 3rd,
2012, with Taitel's partners Nevada Court Services into (and NCS just happened to drive by on
November 12th, 2011 when Coughlin was arrested Ior criminal trespass an in a patrol car, at the
00512
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
Iormer home law oIIice he was impermissibly evicted Irom in a summary procedure, given the
non-payment oI rent was neither pled nor alleged oI such a commercial tenant, etc...NRS 40.253.
Oh, also, it was WCSO Deputy Machen who managed to Iail to comply with the Trial
Court's IFP Order requiring the WCSO to perIorm service oI process oI the Summons and
Complaint in this matter. The WCSO demonstrated a willIul Iailure to perIorm its duty in
curiosu proximity to Coughlin's complaints regarding the Ialacious AIIidavit oI Service Iiled by
Machen vis a vis the "personally served" Summary Eviction Order at Coughlin's Iormer home
law oIIice and the concomitant custodial arrest and conviction oI Coughlin Ior criminal trespass,
and all the Soldal v. Cook County and Wheeler v.Cross distasteIullness present herein. The Iact
that the circumstances detailed in the SCR 117 Petition Garin tackily reIers to involved a traffic
citation for a California Roll (Iailure to come to a complete stop) incident to Coughlin's
attempting to retrieve his wallet and driver's license Irom Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s law oIIice upon
Coughlin being released Irom three days in jail subject to a custodial arrest Ior criminal trespass
at his Iormer home law oIIice, despite Hill, Merliss, and the WCSO Iailing to Iollow the law
under NRS 40.400, NRCP 6(e)
C. The District Court Committed Reversible Error When it Failed to Allow
Coughlin His Right to At Least Amend His Return of Service Pursuant to
Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(h) as No Material Prejudice Could Be Said to Result to the
Substantial Rights of The Party Against Whom the Process Issued and
Where it Ruled that Good Cause Had Not Been Shown Sufficient To Allow
an Extension to Cure Any Alleged Insufficiency or Timeliness of Service of
Process or the Filing of Return Thereof Under NRCP 4 Where the Trial
Court's IFP Required the WCSO TO Effect Service, and it Failed to Under
Suspicious Circumstances and Where an Legibility Issues or Basis for
Finding Insufficiency of Service of Process are not Legally or Factually
Supportable May Defendant's Counsel Purport to Offer to Settlem the Case
for What Remains Under the "Policy Limits", while Indicating His Fees and
Any Such Potential Settlement Amount Come From the Same "Eroding
Pool", Whilst Refusing to Specify Any Amount With Respoect to What Such
a Settlement for What Remains of the Policy Actually Amounts To, in Actual
Dollars?....
00513
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
Failure to make legible copy oI complaint Ior service In the Iollowing case the court
Iound that the Iailure oI court personnel to make a legible copy oI the complaint Ior service on a
deIendant supported its apparent holding that there was good cause under Rule 4(j) oI the
Federal Rules oI Civil Procedure Ior a plaintiII's Iailure to timely serve process. Where a
complaint, alleging employment discrimination, photocopied by court personnel Ior service on
an employer on behalI oI a Iormer employee proceeding pro se and in Iorma pauperis, proved
too Iaint Ior the employer to read, the court in McKenzie v Amtrak M oI E (1990, SD NY) 777 F
Supp 1119, Iound that the Iailure oI court personnel to make a legible copy oI the complaint Ior
service supported its implicit holding that there was good cause under Rule 4(j) oI the Federal
Rules oI Civil Procedure Ior the plaintiII's Iailure to timely serve a legible copy oI the complaint.
The court stated that, although the argument that service should not be deemed eIIective unless
the complaint is legible is ordinarily a strong one, there was little justiIication Ior dismissing the
plaintiII's complaint on that ground, because the deIect in service was attributable to court
personnel. The court also noted that the employer, who had advised the employee oI the
illegibility oI the complaint but had Iailed to so advise the United States marshal or the court,
notwithstanding the employer's knowledge that the employee was proceeding pro se, was partly
to blame Ior the delay in service.
It simply would not be all that Iair to say NRCP 4(i) give the PlaintiII 120 days to
eIIectuate service oI process when the Complaint was not even given a Iiling date in the docket
Ior CV11-01896 until August 11 (Department 4 took Irom the submission oI the IFP on July
27th, 2011 until August 9, 2011 to issue the Order Granting IFP, and this occurred during a
period where the WDC was changing the IFP Iorm it makes available to the public and the Iiling
oIIice actually reIused to accept an earlier attempted submission oI the Petition Ior IFP and
00514
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
proposed Compliant, citing rationale both vague and contradictory and related to WDCR 10.
This Court January 11th, 2012 Order indicates that the expiration oI 120 days (Irom the June
27th date when the Complaint was stamped "received" by the Iiling oIIice as the proposed
pleading called Ior under NRS 12.015) would be October 25th, 2011.
Action oI court or clerk oI court as constituting or supporting Iinding oI "good cause," under rule
4(j) oI Federal Rules oI Civil Procedure, Ior Iailure to timely serve process upon deIendant. 108
A.L.R. Fed. 862 (Originally published in 1992). Title VII's 90-day statute oI limitations period
was equitably tolled between time that Iormer employee Iiled his application to proceed in Iorma
pauperis and the time the Court ruled on the application. El v. Belden, 360 F. Supp. 2d 90
(D.D.C. 2004). Period oI 90 days, during which claimant under Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) must Iile suit upon receipt oI right to sue letter Irom Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), was equitably tolled, where claimant submitted timely complaint, together
with request to proceed in Iorma pauperis, court returned complaint, asking Ior additional
inIormation in support oI Iorma pauperis request to be submitted within 15 days, and claimant
submitted inIormation within that deadline but outside oI 90 day period. LeClair v. Wells Fargo
Bank Iowa, N.A., 291 F. Supp. 2d 873 (S.D. Iowa 2003). Employee timely Iiled Title VII
complaint by submitting it along with application to proceed in Iorma pauperis within 90-day
period aIter receiving right-to-sue letter Irom Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), even though he did not pay Iiling Iee until aIter period had expired. 28 U.S.C.A.
1914: Civil Rights Act oI 1964, 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-5( I)( 1). Baker v.
La Cumre, 9 Fed.Appx. 752, 2001 WL 577026 (C.A.9 (Cal.) (2001).
Harris v. Ford Motor Co., 487 F. Supp. 429 (W.D. Mo. 1980). 45C Am. Jur. 2d Job
Discrimination 1929 Action oI court or clerk oI court as constituting or supporting Iinding oI
00515
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
"good cause," under Rule 4(j) oI Federal Rules oI Civil Procedure, Ior Iailure to timely serve
process upon deIendant, 108 A.L.R. Fed. 862 (1992)(F.Supp.). Federal Procedure, Lawyers
Edition s 65:108, Failure to make legible copy oI complaint Ior service (2011).
"This appeal requires resolution oI two issues. First, we address whether Mann's
Iailure to serve process within the initial 120day period prescribed by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) caused the statute oI limitations to start to run again. We
conclude that it did not. Once a complaint is Iiled, the statute oI limitations is
tolled unless and until the district court dismisses the action. See 4 Charles A.
Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d 1053 (3d
ed. 2002).FN1 FN1. Neither party disputes that Mann Iiled his complaint within
the 90day statute oI limitations. And, neither party disputes that the statute oI
limitations initially is tolled upon Iiling oI a complaint. See Sain v. City oI Bend,
309 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.2002). |5| Second, we address whether the district
court had the discretion to extend the time to serve process even aIter the 120day
period had expired. We conclude that it did. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) provides: II
service oI the summons and complaint is not made upon a deIendant within 120
days aIter the Iiling oI the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own
initiative aIter notice to the plaintiII, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as
to that deIendant or direct that service be eIIected within a speciIied time;
provided that iI the plaintiII shows good cause Ior the Iailure, the court shall
extend the time Ior service Ior an appropriate period. FN2 Page 4 324 F.3d 1088,
55 Fed.R.Serv.3d 157, 14 A.D. Cases 433, 25 NDLR P 245, 03 Cal. Daily Op.
Serv. 2806, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3557 (Cite as: 324 F.3d 1088) FN2. Rule
4(m) replaced Iormer Rule 4(j) in the 1993 amendments. The current rule requires
a district court to grant an extension oI time iI good cause is shown and permits
the district court to grant such an extension even absent good cause. Henderson v.
United States, 517 U.S. 654, 662, 116 S.Ct. 1638, 134 L.Ed.2d 880 (1996). This
diIIers Irom Iormer Rule 4(j), which did not permit extensions absent good cause.
Id. at 66162, 116 S.Ct. 1638. On its Iace, Rule 4(m) does not tie the hands oI the
district court aIter the 120day period has expired. Rather, Rule 4(m) explicitly
permits a district court to grant an extension oI time to serve the complaint aIter
that 120day period. CI. Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 661, 116 S.Ct.
1638, 134 L.Ed.2d 880 (1996) (concluding that 'the 120day provision operates
not as an outer limit subject to reduction, but as an irreducible allowance). The
district court's discretion is not diminished when the statute oI limitations would
bar re-Iiling oI the suit iI the district court decided to dismiss the case instead oI
grant an extension. To the contrary, the advisory committee notes explicitly
contemplate that a district court might use *1091 its discretion to grant an
extension in that very situation: 'RelieI may be justiIied, Ior example, iI the
applicable statute oI limitations would bar the re-Iiled action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4,
Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendments, Subdivision (m). See also De
Tie v. Orange Cty., 152 F.3d 1109, 1111 n. 5 (9th Cir.1998) (recognizing that an
extension may be warranted iI the statute oI limitations has run). |6| Here, even
00516
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
though the district court properly used its discretion to extend the time Ior Mann
to serve process, the district court later dismissed the action aIter concluding the
statute oI limitations had not been satisIied. As there was no other apparent basis,
we must assume that the district court believed that the statute oI limitations began
to run upon Mann's Iailure to serve process within the 120day period.FN3 But
the Iailure to serve process within Rule 4(m)'s 120day period does not aIIect the
tolling oI the statute oI limitations unless the Iailure to serve process causes the
district court to dismiss the action. CI. Henderson, 517 U.S. at 656, 116 S.Ct. 1638
(holding that once a Iederal suit is commenced in compliance with the governing
statute oI limitations, 'the manner and timing oI serving process are generally
nonjurisdictional matters oI procedure` ); Pardazi v. Cullman Med. Ctr., 896
F.2d 1313, 131516 (11th Cir.1990) (holding that service oI process requirements
are not bound up with the statute oI limitations under 42 U.S.C. 2000e5(I)(1)).
The district court did not dismiss Mann's action but rather extended the 120 day
service oI process period, a decision perIectly within its discretion. FN4 FN3. The
district court's reliance on Wilson v. Grumman Ohio Corp., 815 F.2d 26 (6th
Cir.1987), is misplaced in part because that case concerned the re Iiling oI a
complaint aIter it had already been dismissed by the district court Ior Iailure to
prosecute. FN4. We reject DeIendant's claims that the grant oI a 30day extension
was prejudicial. Having concluded that the district court's dismissal oI this case
was error, we reverse and remand Ior Iurther proceedings." Mann v. American
Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 55 Fed.R.Serv.3d 157, 14 A.D. Cases 433, 25 NDLR P
245, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2806, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3557( C.A.9
(Wash.),2003).
IV.
CONCLUSION
The District Court improperly committed an error oI law, by dismissing Coughlin's
Complaint Ior insuIIiciency oI service oI process or return oI service or timeliness thereoI or Ior
some Iailure to request an extension prior to the expiration oI the 120 day deadline set out in
NRCP 4(i). The Court Iurther committed an error oI law by reIusing to allow Coughlin the
chance to allow Coughlin to amend his Return oI Service or even to recognize it as just Iine to
begin with, pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(g)-(i).
For these reasons, the Court's January 11th, 2012, and March 13th, 2012, April 26th,
2012, and the May 7th, 2012 Order in CV11-01896 (and any other Orders sanctioning Coughlin
00517
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 any way or charging Coughlin with anyone's attorney's Iees or denying Coughlin's request Ior
the same) should be overturned, in their entirety. Alternatively, the Court should overturn the
Court's Order and allow Coughlin the right to amend his Return oI Service or allow Ior an
extension to cure any insuIIicienciency oI service or return thereoI to cure any (still
unexplained) deIiciencies in his service oI process oI the Summons and Complaint or the Return
oI Service thereoI.
Dated this day 23rd day oI August, 2012.

Nevada Bar No. 9473
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Telephone: 775.338.8118
Fax: 949.667.7402
Pro se Appellant
00518
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
V.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certiIy that this brieI complies with the Iormatting requirements oI NRAP 32(a)
(4), the typeIace requirements oINRAP 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements oINRAP 32(a)
(6) because:
|x| This brieI has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeIace using OpenOFIice in 12
Times New Roman; I Iurther certiIy that this brieI complies with the page- or type- volume
limitations oI NRAP 32(a)(7) because, excluding the parts oI the brieI exempted by RAP 32(a)
(7)(C), it is either:
| | Proportionately spaced, has a typeIace oI 14 points or more and contains words; or
| | Monospaced, has 10.5 or Iewer characters per inch, and contains words or lines oI text; or
|X| Does not exceed 30 pages
Finally, I hereby certiIy that I have read this appellate brieI, and to the best oI my
knowledge, inIormation, and belieI, it is not Irivolous or interposed Ior any improper purpose. I
Iurther certiIy that this brieI complies with all applicable Nevada Rules oI Appellate Procedure,
in particular, NRAP 28( e)(1), which requires every assertion in the brieI regarding matters in the
record to be supported by a reIerence to the page oI the transcript or appendix where the matter
relied on is to be Iound. I understand that I may be subject to sanctions in the event that the
accompanying brieI is not in conIormity with the requirements oI the Nevada Rules oI Appellate
Procedure.
/
/
/
00519
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
Dated this day 23rd day oI August, 2012.

Nevada Bar No. 9473
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Telephone: 775.338.8118
Fax: 949.667.7402
Pro se Appellant
00520
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
I am a resident oI the State oI Nevada, over the age oI eighteen years. My business
address is PO BOX 3961. On August 23rd, 2012, the Iollowing document(s) were served on the
party(ies) below:
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
X By United States Mail- a true copy oI the document(s) listed above Ior collection and
mailing Iollowing the Iirm's ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
Iully prepaid Ior deposit in the United States mail at Reno, Nevada addressed as set Iorth below.
X By Facsimile Transmission - the transmission was reported as complete and without
error. A copy oI the transmission report, properly issued by the transmitting machine, is attached
to the hard copy. The names and Iacsimile numbers oI the person(s) served are as set Iorth
below.
1OSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
9080 West Post Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
Telephone: (702) 382-1500
Fax: (702) 382-1512
Attorney for Respondents/Defendants Washoe
Legal Services, Paul E/cano, Todd Torvinen, Karen
Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge, 1on Sasser, Marc
Ashley, and Caryn Sternlicht
I declare under penalty oI perjury that the Ioregoing is true and correct.

Pro se Appellant
00521
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
DocumentCode:
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
NevadaBarNo:9473
POBOX3961
Reno,NV89505
tel:7753388118
Iax:9496677402
ProSeDeIendant
INTHEJUSTICECOURTOFRENOTOWNSHIP
INANDFORTHECOUNTYOFWASHOE,STATEOFNEVADA
STATEOFNEVADA;
PlaintiII,
vs.
ZACHARYCOUGHLIN;
DeIendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CaseNo:11CR26405
DeptNo:JudgeGardner
Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, 1CRCP 59, 1CRCP 60, Motion for
Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Publication Of Transcript at Public Expense,
FACTS
1.RichardG.Hill,Esq.(opposingcounselinthecivilevictioncaseIromwhichthiscriminaltrespass
trialstems)testiIied,underoath,thattheRenoPoliceDepartmentidentiIiedthemselvespriorto
enteringthedoorthatHill'sclientMerlisshadkickeddown.
2.HillalsotestiIiedthatMerlisshadnotbeenatthe121RiverRockpropertyintheweekpreceding
thearrest,despiteOIIicerCarter'sreportindicatingotherwise.rmc11cr26405renoattorneyzach
coughlin,esq.chargedwithcriminaltrespassincidenttocivilevictionbyDr.MatthewJoelMerliss,
MD,nuerosurgeonandhisattorneyRichardG.Hill,Esq.andCaseyBaker,Esq.whomallegethe
- 1 -
Aside Conviction
00522
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
chargedMerliss$60K(approximately,Iromstartthroughcurrentappeal)toevictattorneyCoughlin
Iromhiscommericaltenancy,baseduponaNoCauseEvictionnotice,eventhoughNRS40.253
expresslyIorbidsusingsummaryevictionsagainstcommercialtenantsunlessthenon-paymentoI
rentisallegedandaNon-Paymentevictionnoticeisserved.
3.FurtherWashoeCountySheriII'sOIIiceIiledIalseaIIidavit,byDeputyMachem,alleging
Coughlinwas"personallyserved"evictionorder,howeverWCSOIASupervisorLizStuchellhas
admittedinwriting(seeheremailtoCoughlininExhibit1)that"personallyserved",totheWCSO
civildivision,meansjusttapinganoticetoadoorwhennooneishome,andStuchellconIirmedin
writingthatWCSODeputyMachemindicatedtoherthatnoonewashomeat121RiverRockwhen,
onNovember1,2011,heperIormedalockoutonCoughlin'slawoIIiceandallegeshepostedthe
OrderIorSummaryEvictiononCoughlin'sdoor.
4.TheCityIailedtoputonanyevidencethatanybody(nottheRenoJusticeCourt,nottheWCSO,
notopposingcounselHillorBaker,etc)actuallymailedCoughlinacopyoItheOrderoISummary
EvictionpriortotheillegallockoutoINovember1,2011,thereIoremakinganysuchlockoutalegal
nullity,andvoid,andatrespass,actually,doneundercoloroIstatelaw42USCSec1983,seeLynnv
Desiderio....however,NRCPismadeapplicabletolandlordtenantmattersinNevada,andthereIore,
substitutedorconstructiveserviceisrequired(ie,3daysIormailingwherepersonalserviceisnot
done).ThereIore,RichardHillandMerlisswerethetrespassers,inadditiontotheRenoPolice
DepartmentOIIicerChrisCarterandSargentMonicaLopez.
JudgeWilliamGardneroItheRenoMunicipalCourtreIusedtorecusehimselIdespitehavingworked
IortheRenoCityAttorney'sOIIicejust2yearspriortothiscase,anddespitehisownsister,Second
JudicialDistrictCourtFamilyJudgeHon.LindaGardnerbeinginvolvedinaStateBargrievance
- 2 -
Aside Conviction
00523
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
againstCoughlinbaseduponherOrderIorSanctionsagainstCoughlinthreeyearspriorinadivorce
trial.CoughlinIiledaPetitionIorWritoIMandamuschallengingJudgeLindaGardner'sOrderIor
Sanctions.CoughlinwasIiredIromhisjobatWashoeLegalServices,accordingtoWLSExecutive
DirectorPaulElcano,strictlybecauseoIJudgeLindaGardner'ssanctionsagainstCoughlin.
http://caseinIo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID22746
TheRenoPoliceDepartmentalsoarrestedattorneyCoughlinIorjaywalkingand"misueoI911"
despiteCoughlinbeinggrantedtwoprotectionordersIromhisroommatesatthetime.Further,the
RenoJusticeCourtorderCoughlintodeposit$2,275ina"rentescrow"accounttomaintainhisright
tolitigatehabitabilityissuesinasummaryevictionproceeding,despitethereexistingnocorollaryto
JCRLV44intheRJC,anddespiteJCRCP84expresslyIorbiddingtheRJCIromapplyinganysuch
ruleswhereNRS40.253(6)expresslyIorbidssucharentescrowdepositbeingrequired.So,theRJC
didnotgiveCoughlinaStayoIEviction,despiteNRS118.380onlyrequiring$250togetone,while
atthesametime,theRJCconvertedtoitscoIIers$2,275oICoughlin'smoney,indirectviolationoI
thelaw.ThentheRPDsubjectsCoughlintoacustodialarrest,withoutwarninghimtoleavethe
propertyorissuingacitation,thenRPDOIIicerCarterliesinhispolicereportbyallegingthat
CoughlinreIusedtoleave,andthereIorewasnoteligibleIoracitation,despitethevideostakenby
RichardHill,duringtheNOvember12th,2011arrestclearlyshowingCoughlinaskingRPDOIIicer
CarterwhyawarningorcitationwouldnotbegiveninlieuoIacustodialarrest.Further,OIIicer
Carter'sstatementsatthesceneoIthearrestandinhisreportclearlyshowCartermaintainingthat
Coughlinhadbeen"served"theevictionorder,despiteCarter'sclearlackoIunderstandingastowhat
such"service"entails.
POINTSANDAUTHORITIES
- 3 -
Aside Conviction
00524
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
NRS40.760SummaryevictionoIpersonusingspaceinIacilityIorstorageasresidence.
1.WhenapersonisusingastoragespaceataIacilityasaresidence,theownerortheowner`sagentshallserveorhave
servedanoticeinwritingwhichdirectsthepersontoceaseusingthestoragespaceasaresidencenolaterthan24hours
aIterreceivingthenotice.Thenoticemustadvisethepersonthat:
(a)NRS108.475requirestheownertoaskthecourttohavethepersonevictediIthepersonhasnotceasedusingthe
storagespaceasaresidencewithin24hours;and
(b)Thepersonmaycontinuetousethestoragespacetostoretheperson`spersonalpropertyinaccordancewiththerental
agreement.
2.IIthepersondoesnotceaseusingthestoragespaceasaresidencewithin24hoursaIterreceivingthenoticetodoso,
theowneroItheIacilityortheowner`sagentshallapplybyaIIidavitIorsummaryevictiontothejusticeoIthepeaceoI
thetownshipwhereintheIacilityislocated.TheaIIidavitmustcontain:
(a)ThedatetherentalagreementbecameeIIective.
(b)Astatementthatthepersonisusingthestoragespaceasaresidence.
(c)Thedateandtimethepersonwasservedwithwrittennoticetoceaseusingthestoragespaceasaresidence.
(d)AstatementthatthepersonhasnotceasedusingtheIacilityasaresidencewithin24hoursaIterreceivingthenotice.
3.UponreceiptoIsuchanaIIidavitthejusticeoIthepeaceshallissueanorderdirectingthesheriIIorconstableoIthe
countytoremovethepersonwithin24hoursaIterreceiptoItheorder.ThesheriIIorconstableshallnotremovethe
person`spersonalpropertyIromtheIacility.
4.ForthepurposesoIthissection:
(a)'Facilitymeansrealpropertydividedintoindividualstoragespaces.Thetermdoesnotincludeagarageorstorage
areainaprivateresidence.
(b)'StoragespacemeansaspaceusedIorstoringpersonalproperty,whichisrentedorleasedtoanindividualoccupant
whohasaccesstothespace.
(AddedtoNRSby1989,213;A2011,1830)
simplyputtowhateverextentCoughlinwasnotalreadylegallyentitledtobewherehewasat
thetimeoIthearrestinviewoItheleaseagreementwhereinhiscommercialuseoIthepremiseswas
expresslyapproved,acriminaltrespasschargewasstillnotappropriateheregiventhedictatesoI
NRS40.760RichardHilltestiIiedthatheexpressedtoCoughlinbothinwritingandverballyandin
IactavideoexistsoIthisseeExhibit1thathenotiIiedCoughlinthatHillandMarlyswouldbe
seekingtochartCoughlinthesamerenttheywerecharginghimpriortoanyallegedevictiontaking
placesome$900amonthHillnowallegesthatthatwastheIullrentalvalueoIthepropertyattrial
HillseeminglymadeaFreudianslipandannouncedthathewaschargingthatmuchinviewoI
CoughlinbeingatthepropertythelaterattemptedtosayhemisspokenthathemeantinviewoI
Coughlin'spropertybeingatthepropertysuchaslipwastellingbecauseevensomeonelikeHill
- 4 -
Aside Conviction
00525
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
knowsthatitswrongtochargesomeonethesameamountIortheIulluseandoccupancyoIa
propertyasoneischargingIorquoteunquotestorageoIsomeone'smaterialsatthepropertyhillsides
toNRS118A.480asallowinghimtochargesuchstorage.WelltotheextentHillwaschargingIor
storageNRS40.760clearlyprovidesthatacriminaltrespasschargeandconvictionisnotappropriate
andthatthiscourtdidnothavethejurisdictiontosoentergiventhatasummaryevictionoIperson
usingspaceinIacilityIorstorageisaresidencepreemptsanyabilitytomakeacriminaltrespass
chargeIurtherdespitethecityattorneyschortlingatthenotionoIactuallyapplyingsomepublic
policyratherthanjustgeneratingrevenueIorthecityintheRenoMunicipalCourtisclearlyandvery
verybadtasteIortheRenoMunicipalCourttheRenoPoliceDepartmentandthecityattorneytobe
seekingtoglomcriminaltrespasschargesonthecivilevictionsparticularlywheretheWashoe
CountySheriII'soIIicehasadmittedtoIilingIalseaIIidavitsunderoathattestingtopersonalservice
oIevictionorderswhereinIactnosuchpersonalservicewasactuated.ClearlyinthevideosRichard
HilltookIoundinExhibit1evenHillstrugglestoexplainthisasdoesOIc.CarterinthevideoOIc.
CarterexclaimstoCoughlinthathewasservedtheevictionorderbutthenOIc.Carterhastroublein
deIiningwhatserviceactuallymeansthathedoestakecaretoknowtoCoughlinthatquoteyou'renot
thevictimhereunquoteatwhichpointHillcanbeheardchortlinginthebackground.Hillhas
struggledinthepasttoexplainthebasesIorhispositionthatCoughlinwasservedthesummary
evictionorderasHillisonlyabletocitetotheusualcustomandpracticeoItheWashoeCounty
SheriII'soIIiceasthoughthatweresomehowblackletterlawwithrespecttotherequirementsservice
oItheevictionorder.HoweveryouwouldthinkIorthe$60,000HillandBakerchargeDr.Marlys
theywould'vebotheredtonoticethatNRS40.400makesapplicabletheNevadaRulesoICivil
ProcedureandNevadarulesoIappellateproceduretothesummaryevictionproceedingIromwhich
thiscriminaltrespassmatterstems.
- 5 -
Aside Conviction
00526
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
NRS40.400RulesoIpractice.TheprovisionsoINRS,NevadaRulesoICivilProcedureandNevada
RulesoIAppellateProcedurerelativetocivilactions,appealsandnewtrials,soIarastheyarenot
inconsistentwiththeprovisionsoINRS40.220to40.420,inclusive,applytotheproceedings
mentionedinthosesections.
ThereIorethereisabasesIorsettingasidealteringoramendingorotherwisenulliIyingthis
courseconvictionwhetherunderrule59arule60theconvictionisnotsupportedbytheevidencethe
burdenoIprooIisnotbeenmet,andtherewereclearerrorsoIlaw,reversibleerrorsaswellas
conIlictsoIinterestandproceduralandsubstantiveirregularitiesitwasclearerrorIorjudgeWilliam
GardnernottorecuseandselIwherehissisterjudgeLindaGardner'sordersanctionsisasubjective
opiniongrievanceIortheStateBaroINevadaandWarejudgeDorothyNashHolmessuspended
anothermatterinvolvingCoughlinintheRenoMunicipalCourtpendingtheresolutionoIa
competencyevaluationIurtheritwasclearerrorIorthecourttosuaspontecollectaTiburonprintout
tohelpoutthecityattorneyandMr.LoomisandgettingthiscasemovingIorwarddespitejudgeNash
HolmesisprotestationthatCoghlan'scompetencywasclearlyinquestionlikewiserecusalwasin
OregonCoughlinIiledaPetitionIorWritoIMandamusagainstJudgeLindaGardner,thesisteroIthe
judgepresidingoverthiscriminaltrespasscase,JudgeWilliamGardner.Furthertheordershouldbe
undonegiventheapparentIraudincidenttothetestimonybyRichardDalewhereinthevideosand
evidenceIoundinExhibit1whichare24tosomeextentwhereonoIthelabeltothedeIendantand/or
madeunreasonablydiIIiculttopresenttothecourtgiventhemisconductoINevadacourtservices
HillRenoPoliceDepartmentthecityoIRenomarshalsdivisionandothersinattemptingto
impermissiblyleveragestatepowerincludingattemptedbreak-insbyNevadacourtserviceswho
shareoIIiceswithoneoItheappointeddeIendersemployedbytheRenoMunicipalCourt,Lew
Taitel,Esq.,whoatonetimerepresentedCoughlininthismatterandwhoIailedtoabidebyReno
- 6 -
Aside Conviction
00527
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
MunicipalCourtrulesexplainingviawrittenmotionthereasonIorhiswithdrawalCoghlan'scase
wasthenpassedtoRobertapointedtoadmittedheworkedonCagle'scampaignandhisaclose
personalIriendoItitlesandwhomalsohasabusinessrelationshipwithNevadacourtservicesIurther
theconvictionshouldbe.undonegiventheapparentperjuryorIraudbytheWashoeCountySheriII's
oIIiceasdeputymatchthemandthatheIiledanaIIidavitdatedNovember7,2011whereinheswore
thathepersonallyservedtheevictionorder.MatchthemsupervisoratthewashedISheriII'soIIice
civildivisionLizStuchell(seeheremailtoCoughlininExhibit1)hasadmittedinwritingthat
mansiondidnot'personallyserveCoughlin,butrathermerelypostedtheevictionorderonCoghlan
storeandthereaIterIailedtomailCoghlancopyoItheorderatatimewhenCoughlinwasnotatthe
121Riverrockaddress.HilltestiIiedunderpenaltyoIperjurythattheRenoPoliceDepartment
identiIieditselIpriortoDr.Marlyskickingdownthedoortothebasement.
itisnottrespassingiIonehasarighttobethere.Anywarningsnotbetherewhenonehasa
righttobetherearenotwarningsatalltheyarejustidlechatterthecitycouldnotestablishthe
requisiteintentnecessaryIorconvictionundertheonelawmentionedinthecriminalcomplainti.e.
Renomunicipalcodesection8.10.010.Thecasecitedbythecityattorneyiscompletelyinapplicable
hereandIurtherthatcasedoesnotcitetotheRenomunicipalcodesectioninquestionIurtherthat
casedoesnotevencitetoanycorollarysectionoItheNevadarevisedstatutesratheranydiscussion
oIaddictionandservicerequirementsindicateastatetheMcNichols106Nevada651,7909P.2D
550(1990)waspurelydictaandshouldnotoIbeenrelieduponbythiscourtinreachingitsdecision
toissueaconvictionherethatcase,McNichols,dealtwiththelawIulnessoIasearchbythestateand
involveacriminalconvictionIorpossessionoIacontrolledsubstanceitsimplydidnotinvolve
trespassincidenttoacivilevictionoIatenantbylandlordanydiscussionoIaddictionandMcNichols
relatedtoaIoreclosurewasdictanoactualtrespassersstatutewascitedtoanduseoItheterm
- 7 -
Aside Conviction
00528
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
trespasswasasatermoIarttherewasnodistinctionwhetheritwasaciviltrespassercriminal
trespassandMcNicholsandnorealdiscussionbythecourtastowhethertheservicerequirementsare
metandwhetherornottheyeIIectuateditmorningincidenttoanevaluationoItheelementsoIsome
particularevictionstatuteIurtherthecityattorneyIailedtoIillhisdutytodisclosecontraryauthority
whileperhapsthisdutydoesnotextendtomerelypersuasiveauthorityit'stellingoIthepracticesby
thecityattorneyandtheextentwhichtheywillgotoincreaserevenues.Itwaspatentlydishonestto
thecityattorneytorepresentthattheNicholscaserepresentsaninterpretationoIRMCeight.10.010
RMCSec.8.10.010.-Trespassing.
(a)
EverypersonwhogoesuponthelandorintoanybuildingoIanotherwithintenttovexorannoytheowneroroccupant
thereoI,ortocommitanyunlawIulact,orwilIullygoesorremainsuponanylandorinanybuildingaIterhavingbeen
warnedbytheowneroroccupantthereoInottotrespass,isguiltyoIamisdemeanor.IIthepremiseswereatthetimeopen
tothepublic,thewarningmusthavebeengivenwithintheprevioussixmonths.ThemeaningoIthissubsectionisnot
limitedbysubsections(b),(c),(d)and(e)oIthissection.
(b)
EveryownerorotheroccupantoIanylandshallbedeemedtohavegivenasuIIicientwarningagainsttrespassing,within
themeaningoIthissection,whopostsinaconspicuousmanneroneachsidethereoI,uponorneartheboundaryat
intervalsoInotmorethan700Ieet,signs,legiblyprintedorpaintedintheEnglishlanguage,warningpersonsnotto
trespass,orwhoIencesthearea.
(c)
ItisprimaIacieevidenceoItrespassIoranypersontobeIoundonprivateorpublicpropertywhichispostedorIencedas
providedinsubsection(b)withoutlawIulbusinesswiththeowneroroccupantoItheproperty.
(d)
AnentrymanonlandunderthelawsoItheUnitedStatesisanownerwithinthemeaningoIthissection.
(e)
Asusedinthissection,"Ience"meansabarriersuIIicienttoindicateanintenttorestricttheareatohumaningress,
including,butnotlimitedto,awall,hedgeorchainlinkorwiremeshIence.
Lynnv.Desiderio,3rdU.S.CircuitCourtoIAppeals,No.04-4070(2005)The3rdU.S.
CircuithasjurisdictionoverDelaware,NewJersey,Pennsylvania,andtheU.S.VirginIslands.An
accrualoIapproximately$400inbackrentpromptedtheBethlehem(Pa.)YMCAtowriteLynna
letterinFebruary2002.ThatletterstatedthattheYMCAwouldevictLynniIhedidnotpaytheback
- 8 -
Aside Conviction
00529
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
rentbyMarch2,2002.Lynndidnotpaythebackrent,andYMCAstaIImembersandpoliceoIIicers
cametohisroomtodemandthathemoveout.Lynn`sreIusaltoleavepromptedtheoIIicerstoenter
theroomandarresthimonachargeoIdeIianttrespass.Lynn`sinabilitytomakebailresultedinhis
incarcerationuntilhispreliminaryhearing50dayslater.Themagistratewhopresidedoverthe
preliminaryhearingdismissedthedeIianttrespasscharge,chargedLynnwithdisorderlyconduct,and
sentencedhimtotimeserved.LynnthenIiledacivilrightslawsuitthatincludedaclaimthatthe
arrestingoIIicerandtheYMCAstaIIhadviolatedrightsthat42U.S.C.S.Section1983protected.
ThetrialcourtgrantedthearrestingoIIicer`srequesttodismissthelawsuit.Thetrialcourtconcluded
thatLynnhadnotstatedaclaimIorwhichrelieIcouldhavebeengrantedbecausedismissingthe
deIianttrespasschargewasnotareversaloIaconvictionorasentenceondirectappealthatgranting
therequestedrelieIrequired.Consequently,LynnIiledanappealthatchallengedthegrantoIthe
requesttodismissthelawsuit.DECISION:AIIirmed.TheappellatecourtdeterminedthatLynncould
nothaveprevailedbecauseajudgmentinhisIavorwouldhavenecessarilyimpliedthathewas
improperlyconvictedoIdisorderlyconduct.Thatimplicationwouldhavebeenimproperbecause
therewasnoconvictionthatwasreversedonappeal,expunged,declaredinvalid,orquestioned.
FurtherCoughlinsixthamendmentrighttospeedytrialwasviolatedadditionallyitwasclearerror
nottoloveCoughlintoputonargumentorevidenceinsupportoIhiscontentionthatjustIorarises
evictionorderwasillegalnullitygiventheRenojusticecourtwastovestjurisdictionupontheIiling
oIanoticeoIappealhasarguedandpresentedbyCoughlinIormerdeIenseattorneylimitsata
previoushearingparticularlyunIairtonotconsiderthiswordthecourtclearlyreliedupone-mails
neverintroducingtheevidencethatthecityattorneyreIerencedinhisclosingargumentinIactcourts
orderasrenderedIromthebeencitedtothoseverye-mailswhileatthesametimereIusingto
- 9 -
Aside Conviction
00530
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
considertheargumentsrelatedtothedivestiturejudgebrowsesjurisdictionundertheevictionorder
anditconsequenteIIectthatwouldhaveontheIineanycriminaltrespasscharge.
TheOrderallowingPuenteswithdrwasIitsunder"IrregularityintheproceedingsoIthecourt,jury,master,or
adverseparty,oranyorderoIthecourt,ormaster,orabuseoIdiscretionbywhicheitherpartywaspreventedIromhaving
aIairtrial"asPuenteswasatleastommittingkeyinIormationtothecourt,iInotmisleadingitastohisrationaleIor
withdrawing.PlusJudgeGardner'sOrder,respectIullycontains"Errorinlawoccurringatthetrialandobjectedtobythe
partymakingthemotion.OnamotionIoranewtrialinanactiontriedwithoutajury,thecourtmayopenthejudgmentiI
onehasbeenentered,takeadditionaltestimony,amendIindingsoIIactandconclusionsoIlawormakenewIindingsand
conclusions,anddirecttheentryoIanewjudgment."ThelawsimplydoesnotallowIorsuchanunsupportedbyIactsor
speciIicsMotiontoWithdrawtobegranted.
TheOrderorJudgmentisvoidasitextendstomattersIorwhichtheCourtcannotrule,ie,anOrderallowing
withdrawwherenotgoodIaithbasisIorrequestingawithdrawalexists.
prosecutorialmisconduct(suchastheD.A.withholding"exculpatory"evidencethatcould`vehelpedyourdeIense)
judicialerrors(suchasthejudgepermittingevidencethatshould`vebeenexcludedorviceversa)
erroneousapplicationoIalaworregulationimproperjuryinstructions
ineIIectiveassistanceoIcounselorothermalpracticetheevidencedidnotproveyourguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt
FAILURETOAFFORDSIXTHAMENDMENTRIGHTTOCOUNSELORGRANTDEMANDFORJURYTRIAL;
anotherDEMANDFORJURYTRIALHEREBYMADEINEVENTOFNEWTRIAL,SIMILARLYREQUESTFOR
INFORMAPAUPERISSTATUSHEREBYMADEANDSUPPORTEDBYATTACHEDIFPPETITION
Further,hereHazlett-StevensdidasPamRobertsdidin11cr22176byputtingonperjuredtestimonybyRichardHilland
doingniIong,er,nothingtodistancethecityoIrenoIromitorotherwiseseektocorrectwhatwaspresentedtothecourt
byHill'stestimonythatwasindirectcontraventiontothatconveyedintheCityoIReno'sowndiscoverypropounded,
speciIically,thevideosshotbyHillandMerlissandtheentiredcontentsoIthepolicereport.
CONCLUSION
DeIendant/AppelantCoughlinherebyrespectIullyrequestsallOrders,Convictions,
Judgments,ContemptFindings,etc,beamended,setaside,etc.andsoonbecauseSCR111may
requireCoughlinreportthisconviction(moreresearchisrequiredtodetermineiIthis'trespassisa
'seriousoIIenseunderSCR111(6)...within30days,unless,apparently,thiscourtsetsaside,
vacates,orotherwisenulliIiestheOrderitenteredinresponsetotheJune18,2012trialinthismatter.
.Tosayacrimewasprovenbeyondareasonabledoubthere,orthatCoughlinintenaeatovexand
annoytheownerewhilealso,allegedlybeingverysurreptitiousabouteverything,justdoesn'taddup
andincombinationwithalltheotherirregularitiesinthepolicework,prosecution,IilignoIIice
rejections,smartphoneseizuresanddatawiping,brother-sisterJudicialconIlictsoIinterest,
grievancesIiledbyotherRMCjudgeandtheinstantJurist'ssisterwiththeStateBaroINevada,and
prosecutorialmisconduct,well....thisisSoldalvCookCounty,RenoStyle.
- 10 -
Aside Conviction
00531
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
AFFIRMATIONPursuanttoNRS239B.030
TheundersigneddoesherebyaIIirmthattheprecedingdocumentdoesnotcontain
thesocialsecuritynumberoIanyperson.
DATEDthis27
th
dayoIJune2012
/s/ZachCoughlin
ZachCoughlin
DeIendant
- 11 -
Aside Conviction
00532
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
PROOFOFSERVICE
I,ZachCoughlin,declare:
OnjUNE27TH,2012,I,Mr.ZachCoughlinservedtheIoregoingMotion for New Trial,
Motion to Alter or Amend; Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Set Aside Conviction by
emailingandIaxingandorplacinginthemail,ANDPERSONALLYDELIVERINGTOTHE
OFFICEOFTHERENOCITYATTORNEYatruecopythereoIto:
CHRISTOPHERHAZLETT-STEVENS,ESQ.
JOHNKAD.ICESQ.
Company:RenoCityAttorney'sOIIice-CriminalDivisonAddress:P.O.Box1900Reno,NV
89505PhoneNumber:775-334-2050Faxnumber:775-334-2420
DATEDTHIS1JUNE27,2012
BY:
-----------------------------
ZachCoughlin
DeIendant
- 12 -
Aside Conviction
00533
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
Idx Exhibis
1. Exhibi 1: V OF RELEVANT MATERIALS AN VIEOS
- 13 -
Aside Conviction
00534
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
"0../ $
"0../ $
- 14 -
Aside Conviction
00535
Close Print
motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, motion to
alter or amend
Sent: Wed 6/27/12 1:53 PM
To: kadlicj@reno.gov; hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov
1 attachment
motion for new trial 11 cr 26405 4 pages submitted for filing 6 26 12 to rmc.pdf (4.3 MB)
PleaseIindattachedthetollingmotionsinthesubjectline
IromZachCoughlin
\(NVBArNo:9473,currentlysuspended)
POBOX3961
RENO,NV89505
Tele:775-338-8118
FAX:9496677402
TO:
RenoCityAttorney'sOIIice
ChristopherHazlett-Stevens,Esq.
00536
John Kadlic, Esq.
Email:
00537
00538
You will the full and the of
Municipal Court in your pursuit of Mr. Coughlin has positioned himself as a
litigant in our court, antagonizing the and even our pro temp on the most
and misdemeanor matters. I do think this is a case of some and I
apologize taking two days to this to you; our IT person was ill and could not
make the copies of the audios of Mr. Coughlin's hearings until today, and I felt it was important
that the audios included in the materials to be considered by the State Bar. On February 27,
201 Mr. Coughlin told me was practicing law and had appointments with clients. I
do not know if that was true, but if so, he could be causing serious harm to the practice of law in
Northern Nevada and could be jeopardizing someone's freedom or property interests.
Please contact me if you need any other information. My direct line is 775-334-3823 and
my cell phone is 775-250-0330 (not tor public dissemination). My email is
My Judicial Assistant is Marilyn Tognoni and she can reach me at any time.
334-3822 and her email is

Thank for your attention to this matter.
truly,
00539
r en RE
NV
BAR NO: 9473
1422 e. 9TH sT. #2
RENO, nv 89512
TEL: 949 667 7402
FAX: 949 667 7402
ATTORNEY FOR PRO SE DEFENDANT DENI ED SI XTH AMENDMENT RI GHT
AND FOR APPT
COUNSEL
AND TO WAI VE FI LI NG FEE AND TRANSCRI PT FEE FOR APPEAL
11 TR 26800
3
ZACH COUGHLI N
O MUNI CI PAL
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CI TY OF RENO
REQUEST FOR AUDI O RECORDI NG OF FEBRUARY 27TH, 2012 TRI AL
00540
-
II
III
ill
.Jl
III
"
"il
..
II
III
II
11
III
III
..
III
II
II
III
"l1li
..
..
II
..
III
..
I
III I"
III
-

1St--"

00541

I
II
..
II
II
I"
iii
III
!liIJ
!Iil
iii
Ii
III
III
III
l1li
III
!II
III
l1li
III

II
II
!!lII

III
11.
111
..
-
-
-
....

~
................ & TT

~ _ I ' t , , '
~ I I
I il

00542
file:///D|/...xed%20and%20personally%20delivered%20to%20Hazlett%20Stevens%20cr12-1262%2011%20cr%2026405.htm[8/27/2012 4:15:52 PM]
Close Print
motion for new trial
Sent: Thu 6/28/12 2:13 AM
To: hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov; kadlicj@reno.gov
1 attachment
11 cr 25405 soldal version final.pdf (154.9 KB)
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473 (currently suspended)
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se Defendant
regardin 11 cr 22176: Motion for New Trial, etc. (14 pages)
also sent to Hon. J udge William Gardner
1 South Sierra Street, P.O. Box 1900 reno nv
* Fax number:
7753343859
Christopher P. Hazlett-Stevens Company: Reno City Attorney's Office Address: P. O. Box 1900 ~ Reno
, NV 89505 Phone Number: 775-326-6628 Fax number: 775-334-4226 Email: hazlett-
stevensc@reno.gov
Dear J udge Gardner and Mr. Hazlett-Stevens,
I attempted to file a tolling motion on J une 25th and again on J une 26th, 2012. on the 25th Filing
office supervisor Donna Ballard and Court Administrator Cassandra J ackson decided to refuse to
accept my filing, apparently. Then on J une 26th, 2012, I ented the court prior to the "timed lockign of
the doors" that I have been educated on previously by court adminstration in relation to seekign to
file documents close to closing time, however, I was again refused in my attempt to file another such
tolling motion and to access justice. I am fax this filing to both of you, with the caveat that I do not
wish to violate any dicate against fax filign that J udge Gardner may have in effect (I am a bit unclear
whether that only applied to pre-trial motions or to anything).
I believe the Whitman, Sullivan, Donoho, and other Nv S. Ct decisions forbid Ms. Ballard and J ackson
from so rejecting my filings, in addition to NRCP 5(e).
Sincerely,
zAch Coughlin
00543
file:///D|/...xed%20and%20personally%20delivered%20to%20Hazlett%20Stevens%20cr12-1262%2011%20cr%2026405.htm[8/27/2012 4:15:52 PM]
00544
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
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN;

Appellant.
vs.
MATT MERLISS, MD; MATTHEW J.
MERLISS LIVING TRUST;

Respondents
.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Supreme Court No: 60331
District Court No: CV11-03628
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO PAY FILING FEE
Appellant Coughlin submits this Motion on his own behalI requesting the above titled relieI.
FACTS
1. The Trial Court in RJC Rev2011-001708 granted Coughlin's Motion to Proceed on Appeal
IFP.
LAW
NRAP RULE 24. PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(a) LeavetoProceedonAppealinFormaPauperis.
(1) MotionintheDistrictCourt. Except as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), a party to a district court
action who desires to appeal in Iorma pauperis shall Iile a motion in the district court. The party
shall attach an aIIidavit that:
- 1/5 -
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR FOR AN EXTENSION OF
Aug 27 2012 09:17 a.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
00545
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
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 in the Appendix oI Forms the party`s
inability to pay or to give security Ior Iees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.
(2) ActionontheMotion. II the district court grants the motion, the party may proceed on
appeal without prepaying or giving security Ior Iees and costs. II the district court denies the
motion, it must state its reasons in writing.
(3) PriorApproval. Apartywhowaspermittedtoproceedinformapauperisinacivil
districtcourtactionmayproceedonappealinformapauperiswithout Iurther authorization,
unless the district courtbeIore or aIter the notice oI appeal is IiledcertiIies that the appeal is not
taken in good Iaith or Iinds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in Iorma pauperis and
states in writing its reasons Ior the certiIication or Iinding.
(4) NoticeofDistrictCourt`sDenial. The district court clerk shall immediately notiIy the
parties and the Supreme Court when the district court does any oI the Iollowing:
(A) denies a motion to proceed on appeal in Iorma pauperis;
(B) certiIies that the appeal is not taken in good Iaith; or
(C) Iinds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in Iorma pauperis.

(5) MotionintheSupremeCourt. A party may Iile a motion to proceed on appeal in Iorma
pauperis in the Supreme Court within 30 days aIter service oI the notice prescribed in Rule 24(a)
(4). The motion shall include a copy oI the aIIidavit Iiled in the district court and a copy oI the
district court`s statement oI reasons Ior its action. II no aIIidavit was Iiled in the district court, the
party shall include the aIIidavit prescribed by Rule 24(a)(1).
(b) Reserved.
(c) LeavetoUseOriginalRecord. A party allowed to proceed on appeal in Iorma pauperis
may request that the appeal be heard on the original record without reproducing any part.
Any Order by the District Court certiIying that Coughlin is not otherwise entitle to proceed in Iorma pauperis di
dnot suIIiciently state the rationale, or a supportable rationale Ior such a certiIication in writing, in any sort oI detail
suIIicient to statisIy the above rule Further, it is unconconstitutional to deny parties an opprotunity to appeal such denails
under NRS 12.015.
Dated this day 26th day oI August, 2012.
LAWOFFICEOFZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLIN,ESQ.
ZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLIN,ESQ.
NevadaBarNo.9473
P.O.Box3961
Reno,NV89505
Telephone:775.338.8118
- 2/5 -
00546
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
Fax: 949.667.7402
Po se Appellant
- .CD -
APPEANT5S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR FOR AN E6TENSION OF
TIME TO PA FIIN FEE
00547
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
PROOFOFSERVICE
I am a resident oI the State oI Nevada, over the age oI eighteen years. My business address is
PO BOX 3961. On August 26th, 2012, the Iollowing document(s) were served on the party(ies)
below:
APPELLANT'SMOTIONTOPROCEEDINFORMAPAUPERIS
X By United States Mail- a true copy oI the document(s) listed above Ior collection and mailing
Iollowing the Iirm's ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage thereon Iully prepaid
Ior deposit in the United States mail at Reno, Nevada addressed as set Iorth below unless the recipient
can technically be served electronically, then they were so served electronically.
X By Facsimile Transmission - the transmission was reported as complete and without error. A
copy oI the transmission report, properly issued by the transmitting machine, is attached to the hard
copy. The names and Iacsimile numbers oI the person(s) served are as set Iorth below.
RICHARDG.HILL,ESQ.
652ForestSt.
Reno,Nevada89509
Telephone:(775)348-0888
Fax:(775)348-0858
AttorneyforRespondentMerliss
ZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLIN,ESQ.
ProseAppellant
- 4/5 -
00548
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
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
1. EXHIBIT 1: DRAFT OF APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF APPELLANT WISHES TO
HAVE FILED thity six (36) pages
- DCD -
APPEANT5S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR FOR AN E6TENSION OF
TIME TO PA FIIN FEE
00549

00550
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

Appellant.
vs.

Respondents
.
)
)
)
)
)
)
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF SET FORTH HEREIN
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Telephone: 775.338.8118
Fax: 949.667.7402
Pro Se Appellant
RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.
652 Forest St.
Reno, Nevada 89509
Telephone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858
Attorney for Respondent Matthew 1. Merliss
- 1/36 -
00551
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

Appellant.
vs.

Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
The undersigned counsel oI record certiIies that the Iollowing are persons and entities as
described in NRAP 26.1(a) and must be disclosed. These representations are made in order that
judges oI this court may evaluate possible disqualiIication or recusal. Counsel oI record Ior Appellant
Zachary Barker Coughlin aka Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq., certiIies that Appellant is an individual
with no corporate parents, private or public, and no stock evidencing an ownership interest in
Appellant, other than Appellant, no other party aIIiliated with Appellant has an interest in the
outcome oI this case. The only law Iirm or attorney to appear Ior Appellant in this appeal and
proceedings below is Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 9473
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Telephone: 775.338.8118
Fax: 949.667.7402
- 2/36 -
00552
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ......................................................................... 5
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 5
A. BrieI Nature OI The Case ........................................................................................ 5
B. Procedural History OI The Case .............................................................................. 5
C. Relevant Facts .......................................................................................................... 6
D. Standard oI Review..................................................................................................6
III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 6
A. Summary OI The Argument ......................................... 6

B. THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN ISSUING/UPHODLING A SUMMARY
EVICTION ORDER IN THE FACE OF ESTABLISHED LEGAL DEFENSES, CLEAR
JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS, PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
DEFICIENCIES, MISTAKES OF LAW, ETC., ETC. .................................7
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 15
V. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................ 17
VI. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING...................................................................... 20
didn't get to Iile Reply to Respondent's Answering BrieI oI 2 24 12 because RMC Judge Nash
Holmes (whom Iiled grievance against Coughlin with State Bar Iormign the basis oI pending SCR
117 Disability Petition) Iinding Coughlin in "summary criminal contempt" second aIter Coughlin
testiIied that a RPD Sargent lied in connecdtion with Couighlin being issued three traIIic citations
immediately aIter being told by the RPD to leave Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s law oIIice, where Coughlin
went to request Irom Hill the return oI Coughlin's driver's license and wallet and client Iiles Iollowing
Coughlin spending three days in jail pursuant to Hill's having the RPD arrest Coughlin Ior criminal
trespass at the Iormer law oIIice, despite a Iraudulent AIIidavit oI Service by the WCSO Machen
claiming he "personally served" the Eviction Order, Iailure ot comply with NRCP 6(e), NRS 40.400,
and where the RPD OIIicer arresting Coughlin admitted to Coughlin that he took bribes Irom Hill
(that RPD OIIicer may have been being sarcastic or not, but arresting an attorney Ior criminal trespass
incident to an eviction Irom his home law oIIice is hardly time to make jokes)...Coughlin served a 5
day jail stay, incident to that traIIic citation Trial beIore Judge Nash Holmes in 11 TR 26800,
- 3/36 -
00553
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
wherein, at one point, Judge Nash Holmes stated to Coughlin, "II you say Richard Hill's name one
more time I am going to put you in jail Ior contempt!"
n a later case in which oIIicers assisted a landlord in a dispute with a tenant, the court Iound that
they were not entitled to qualiIied immunity on a Ialse arrest claim. In Radvansky v. Olmsted Falls,
#03-3798, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2005), police arrested a man...Soldal v. Cook County, Illinois, #91-
6516, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) involved a Iamily that lived in a mobile home that they owned, which stood
on rented land in a trailer park. While Iormal eviction proceedings were pending, the owners oI the
land and their agent proceeded to Iorcibly evict the tenants. At the request oI the landlord`s agent,
deputies Irom the SheriII`s Department were there at the eviction. The Iamily claimed that the
deputies knew that the eviction was illegal and that there was no eviction order Irom a court, but that
they reIused to take their complaint Ior criminal trespass or interIere with the eviction process. They
allegedly told the Iamily that it was 'between the landlord and the tenant.
PAGE
Cases
Marcuse v. Del Webb Communities, 123Nev. 278, 163 P.3d 462 (2007).
Pine v. Leavitt, 1968, 445 P.2d 942, 84 Nev. 507.
Sawyer v. Sugarless Shops, Inc., 1990, 792 P.2d 14, 106 Nev. 265, rehearing denied.
Tschabold v. Orlando, 1987, 737 P.2d 506, 103 Nev. 224.
Gomez v. Independence Management oI Delaware, Inc., 967 A.2d 1276 (D.C. 2009)
Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland, 631 A.2d 354, 368 (D.C.1993)
Edwards, supra note 18, 130 U.S. App. D.C. at 141, 397 F.2d at 702
Hollins v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n, 760 A.2d 563, 579-80 (D.C.2000)
Hamilton v. Howard University, 960 A.2d 308, 315-16 (D.C.2008); Wallace v. Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, 799 A.2d 381, 386 (D.C.2002); Hollins, 760 A.2d at 571.
Bantz. v. Montgomery Estates, Inc. 163 Wis.2d 973, 978, 473 N.W.2d 506,508 (Ct.App. 1991)
State Industrial Ins. Sys. v. United Exposition Servs. Co., 109 Nev. 28, 30 (1993).
Dredge Corp. v. Husite Co., 1962, 369 P.2d 676, 78 Nev. 69,
Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 2002, 57 P.3d 82, 118 Nev. 706,
Sarpy v. de la Houssaye, 217 So.2d 783 (La.App., 1969).
NGA #2 Ltd. Liability Co. v. Rains, 1997, 946 P.2d 163, 113 Nev. 1151.
Walker v. American Bankers Ins. Group, 1992, 836 P.2d 59, 108 Nev. 533.
Paullin v. Sutton, 102 Nev. 421,724 P.2d 749 (1986).
In re America, 252 P.3d at 693 (citing Buzz Stew, 124 Nev. at 228).
Anvui, LLC v. G.L. Dragon, LLC, 123 Nev. 212,215,163 P.3d 405 (2007).
NJCRCP 76A.
Mack-Manley v. Manley, 122 Nev. 849, 138 P.3d 525 (2006).
Gibelliniv. Klindt, HONev. 1201, 1204,885 P.2d 540 (1994) (emphasis added).
- 4/36 -
00554
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
Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Bibb, 76 Nev. 332,335,353 P.2d 458 (1960).
Schuck v. Signature Flight Support oINevada, Inc., 126 Nev. (Adv.Op. 42),245 P.3d 542,544-545
(Nov. 4, 2010)
Statutes/Rules/Law Reviews
NRCP 6(e)
NRS 40.400
NRS 118A.355...
NRAP RULE8
NJCRCP 72A.
NRS 118A.490
JCRCP 110
JCRLV 44,
NRS 40.253(6).
NRS 118A.490
NRCP Rule 11
NRS 69.050
NRS 7.085
NRS 118A.510
118A.290
NRS 118A.360
NRS 118A.380
NRS 118A.210
NRS 108.475
NRS 40.760
See Kimberly E. O'Leary, The Inadvisability oI Applying Preclusive Doctrines to Summary
Evictions, 30 U. Tol. L. Rev. 49, 72 (1998) ("|T|he realities oI landlord-tenant practice make the use
oI preclusive doctrines in these actions especially problematic."); Rosemary Smith, Locked Out: The
Hidden Threat oI Claim Preclusion Ior Tenants in Summary Process, 15 SuIIolk J. Trial & App.
Advoc. 1, 25 (2010).
Gagliardi v. Williams, 834 F.2d 81 (1986).
Sellers v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Ct., 119 Nev. 256, 71 P .3d 495 (2003)
Awarding Attorney's Fees to Pro Se Litigants Under Rule 11, June, 1997, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 2308,
Jeremy D. Spector.
I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Amongst the issues in this appeal is whether the Reno Justice
Court erred in granting a summary eviction oI appellant, ZACHARY COUGHLIN ("COUGHLIN")
by its Findings oI Fact, Conclusions oI Law, and Order Ior Summary Eviction ("FFCL&O") dated
December 27, 2012. See Record on Appeal ("ROA") at Vol. II, pp. 75-80. EXHIBIT 1 hereto, and,
whether the District Court in CV11-03628 similarly erred in Iailing to upholding the Summary
Eviction Order and ruling, by its Order oI June 25th, 2012 in CV11-03628 in Iavor oI Respondent
- 5/36 -
00555
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
MATT MERLISS' s ("Merliss") Motion for Attorneys Fees, awarding $42,050 in attorney's Iees against a
pro se litigant Ior an appeal oI a Summary Eviction Oraer..
1. Whether the lower court erred in Iinding, as a matter oI law, that Appellant tenant had
raised no legal deIense whatsoever and granted summary eviction pursuant to NRS 40.253 where
Appellant established a material issue oI Iact or law in meeting the summary judgment standard vis a
vis the deIenses oI retaliation and habitability, and Iurther where tenant plead and established that he
was a commercial tenant (p. 240 oI ROA, Tenant's Answer identiIies rental as "PlaintiII's home law
oIIice", etc...and that Respondent Iailed to allege the non-payment oI rent, and impermissibly Iorced
Appellant to make a "rent escrow deposit" with the Lower Court. ?
2. Whether the District Court committed an error oI law when it continued to hold a "Trial"
despite Iailing to accord the Notice Ior a Trial called Ior by JCRCP 110?
whether the RJC Filing OIIice handing Coughlin a Notice oI Appeal Iorm in response to his
speciIic request Ior one to appeal in this particular summary eviction proceeding vitiates any
attorney's Iee award, to whatever extent one is permissible anyways, given the $15.00 limitation
preprinted on that RJC Notice oI Appeal Iorm.
3. Whether the District Court and Justice Court erred in ruling that, since Coughlin's retaliation
deIense was based , in part, on alleged "habitability" issues, the court was within its jurisdiction when it
required him to deposit, pursuant to NRS 40.355(5), the amount oI rent Coughlin claimed he had withheld Ior
those reasons, beIore he would be allowed to substantiate them with evidence, even where the Reno Justice
Court has not published and had approved a corollary to JCRLV 44, and thus, under JCRCP 84, may not so
require a rent escrow deposit, in violation oI NRS 40.253(6).5
4. Whether, whats good Ior the goose is good Ior the gander, ie, iI Respondent can beneIit
Irom Coughlin being Iorced to deposit a "rent escrow" into the RJC (even where Respondent did not
- 6/36 -
00556
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
plead the non-payment oI rent), was it permissible Ior the Lower Courts to prevent Coughlin Irom
bringing his counterclaims pursuant to NRS 118A.490?
5. Whether a pro se attorney litigant can recover attorney's Iees under an NRCP Rule 11
sanctions Motion.
6. Whether the Lower Court was divested oI jurisdiction upon the Iiling oI a Notice oI Appeal
(marked "r
eceived" in docket on October 18th and Iiled October 19th, 2011) in the interim between
the Summary Eviction Hearing on October 12th, 2012 and the "Trial" on October 25th, 2011
7. Does Rule 11 apply to a Summary Eviction notice under the 'causing to be Iiled language
attached to Irivolous litigation constraints in cases like that Iound in the 834 F.2d 81 Gagliardi v.
Williams (1986).
8. Can a pro se litigant, who happens to be an attorney licensed in the state where the action is
brought, be sanctioned under NRS 7.085, even where some prohibition may apply against an attorney
representing himselI receiving attorney's Iees? Is that not an untenable situation where someone like
Baker can 'have it both ways? Sellers v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Ct., 119 Nev. 256, 71 P .3d 495
(2003), but, see: NOTE. Awaraing Attorneys Fees to Pro Se Litigants Unaer Rule 11, June, 1997, 95
Mich. L. Rev. 2308, Jeremy D. Spector.?
9. Whether attorney's Iees sanctions are recoverable under NRS 69.050 and or NRS 7.085 on
an appeal Iroma Summary Eviction Order.
10. Whether Respondent's attorneys impermissibly redacted portions oI their bills submitted
alogn with and Motion Ior Attorney's Fees Sanctions, and whether Respondent need have "actually
incurred" such bills Ior the purposes oI recovering them under a sanctions Motion (particularly, iI
Respondent had actually engaged counsel on a Ilat Iee basis or otherwise would not actually be
subject to collection Ior any such bills incurrea).
- 7/36 -
00557
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
11. Whether, by invoking a habitability/retaliation NRS 118A.510 and 118A.290 deIense in a
No Cause Summary Eviction subjects a tenant a requirement to deposit "rent escrow" with a Justice
Court a la NRS 118A.355?
12. Whether it was reversible error Ior the Lower Court to apply NRS 118A.355(5) and
require tenant in Summary Eviction to make rent escrow deposit where Justice Court had yet to
"establish by local rule a mechanism by which tenants may deposit rent withheld...", in violation oI
both NRS 40.253(6), and JCRCP 83, especially where no corollary to LVJCR Rule 44 did not exist in
the Reno Justice Court at the time, and especially where tenant was denied his right to pursue
counterclaims under NRS 118A.490 and where tenant had already appropriately Iixed and deducted
such amounts under NRS 118A.360 and 118A.380?
13. Whether is was reversible error to award Respondnet a pro rata award Ior "storage" costs
under NRS 118A.460 that was oI a value equal to the amount previously charged Ior "Iull use and
occupancy", under NRS 118A.210, especially where tenant was then subject to custodial arrest and
conviction Ior criminal trespass, despite the import oI NRS 108.475: Use oI storage space Ior
residence prohibited; eviction; nature oI Iacility; eIIect oI issuance oI document oI title Ior property;
and NRS 40.760: Summary eviction oI person using space in Iacility Ior storage as residence, and
where Respondent Iailed to respond to appropriately respond to tenant's requests Ior an opportunity to
retreive his personal property.
14. Whether the Lower Court erred in reIusing to allow tenant to pursue counterclaims (even
those expressly permitted under the Lease Agreement with regard to the landscaper's property
damage) under NRS 118A.490:
"Actions based upon nonpayment oI rent: Counterclaim by tenant; deposit oI rent
with court; judgment Ior eviction.
1. In an action Ior possession based upon nonpayment oI rent or in an action Ior
rent where the tenant is in possession, the tenant may deIend and counterclaim Ior
any amount which the tenant may recover under the rental agreement, this chapter, or
other applicable law."
15. Whether NRS 118A.355 is even implicated (assuming the Iailure oI the RJC to create a
local rule is not dispositive) to the extent Appellant invoked NRS 118A.360 appropriately multiple
times over the tenancy, which exceeded one year, and Ior amounts up to those allowed under that
- 8/36 -
00558
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
section and where any bar to litigating habitability Iound in NRS 118A.355(5) does not extend to
those proceeding under other sections oI 118A, such as 118A.360, 118A.390, and 118A.510?
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Brief Nature of The Case: This is an appeal Irom an Second Judicial District Court,
Washoe County, order granting summary eviction in Iavor oI Respondent Matthew Joel Merliss, MD.
The Honorable Patrick Flanagan presided.
B. Procedural History of The Case: The Lease Agreement ("LEASE") Ior the home at 121
River Rock, Reno, Nevada (the "PROPERTY") can be Iound at ROA, Vol. V, pp 129-132. EXHIBIT
6 hereto. There was one hearing on October 13th, 2011 and a Trial on October 25th, 2011. The Iirst
hearing was on October 13, 2011, and lasted 90 minutes. A continuation oI that hearing that was
reIerred to as a Trial, noticed as a Trial, in writing by the RJC, occurred on October 25, 2011, and
lasted several hours. The purpose oI the Iirst hearing was to be a summary eviction proceeding an see
iI a genuine issue oI meterial Iact or law existed, ie, to "determine the truthIulness and suIIiciency
oIthe tenant's and the landlord's aIIidavits," to determine whether there is any "legal deIense as to the
alleged unlawIul detainer," and whether "the tenant is guilty oI an unlawIul detainer". On October
13th, 2011 PlaintiII, represented by CASEY BAKER, ESQ. DeIendant, ZACHARY COUGHLIN
appeared Ior a Summary Eviction hearing beIore Judge SFERRAZZA. Hearing held. Tenant's Motion
to Continue Denied. II tenant posts rent oI$2,275.00 by 9:00 am, Monday (so says the Docket at page
2 oI ROA, Vol. 1. Coughlin did so deposit pretty much all the money in the world available to him as
such a rent escrow. Coughlin submitted Ior Iiling a Notice oI Appeal on October 18th, 2011, which
the RJC Iiled on October 19th, 2011, divesting it oI jurisdiction when consiering the RJC also had
more than enough oI Coughlin's money to cover any Iees, bonds, etc. Then, Respondent arranged Ior
another one oI his ex parte "lets get an Order allowing us to barge in an inspect a law oIIice
unnoticed" deals. October 26th, 2011 Motion to Set Aside Eviction Order Iiled. mm SUBMITTED
- 9/36 -
00559
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
and DENIED. November 1, 2011 Emergency Appeal and Motion to Stay Eviction Iiled and
SUBMITTED. Letter requesting last hour oI CD Iiled., November 3rd, another Notice oI Appeal
Iiled. ROA, Vol. 1, page 2.
Coughlin Iiled a whole diIIerent appeal in Irom that Justice Court case, which may well make
CV!1-03628 completely void: CV11-03051 ZACH COUGHLIN VS. MATT MERLISS ET AL (D1)
19-OCT-2011
C. Relevant Facts: The relevant Iacts are those Irom the Complaint. CV11-
01896.. Those Iacts, which must be accepted as true, are as Iollows:
1. Contrary to the assertion in Repondent's Answering BrieI in CV11-03628 at page 5 (ie, that
"Coughlin aIIirmatively waived any argument that NRS Chapter 118A does not apply by basing his entire
defense (retaliation/habitability) on what he alleged were violations oI that chapter...." (Coughlin Note: one,
there is more to the deIense, and two, Coughlin didn't say 118A didn't apply, just that NRS 40.253 is not
permissible against commercial tenant's where the non-payment oI rent is not pled, particularly Ior the events
under which this matter rose at the times oI relevant import and consdering what law then applies).
Respondent continued: "Additionally, since Coughlin never timely raised the argument below, it cannot
Iorm the basis Ior any relieI on appeal..." But, the Iact is, Coughlin did raise that argument, in his October
17th, 2011 Iiling (see page 97-99 oI ROA, Vol. 1), and at the hearing, and in other Iilings. It is Respondent
who nows must Iact the Iact that his Iailure to raise his arguments in opposition to that position put Iorth by
Appellant bar him Irom now so doing. (See Respondent's Opposition, Iailing to so counter Coughlin's
argument, at page 108, ROA, Vol.1). But "|p|arties `may not raise a new theory Ior the Iirst time on appeal,
which is inconsistent with or diIIerent Irom the one raised below.'" Dermody v. City oI Reno, 113 Nev. 207,
210, 931 P.2d 1354, 1357 (1997) (quoting Powers v. Powers, 105 Nev. 514, 516, 779 P.2d 91, 92 (1989)). This
rule is not meant to be harsh, overly Iormalistic, or to punish careless litigators. Rather, the requirement that
parties may raise on appeal only issues which have been presented to the district court maintains the eIIiciency,
Iairness, and integrity oI the judicial system Ior all parties. Boyers v. Texaco ReIining and Marketing, Inc., 848
- 10/36 -
00560
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.2d 809, 812 (7th Cir.1988). This is the case becaue Coughlin plead and established that he was a
commercial tenant even beyond the October 17th, 2011 Iiling....(p. 240, 248 oI ROA, Vol. 1,
Tenant's Answer identiIies rental as "PlaintiII's home law oIIice", etc...:"especially in light oI the
recent bad Iaith attempts to inspect with recording equipment plaintiff's home law office hours aIter
having the power shut oII at plaintiff's home law office where landlord had, apparently, a delinquent
utility bill assigned to the property tenant rents, and where no notice was provided to tenant oI the
impending interruption oI essential services, causing attorney tenant Coughlin's law practice
damages." Additionally, at page 11 oI the Answering BrieI, Respondent admits that the REntal
Agreement permitted Coughlin's commercial use oI the property, regardless oI Respondent's attempts
to make arguments in the record based upon what Respondent's think some witness who never
testiIied might have said had she done so.... Also, in the ROA Vol 2. page 86-110, 125, 130-135.
Coughlin put into the record and evidence prooI related to a City oI Reno housing/building code
ordinance being violated by the overly tall weed growth in the law at the Iormer home law oIIice
(Iurther, under Anvui, complicated issues oI contractual interpreation not well suited to summary
judgment). "Reno City Charter reIerence; Reno Municipal Code (20 rages)- Authority to adopt
uniIorm codes, ~ 2.110. Sec. 14.04.100. - International ReSidential Code. The 2006 Edition oI the
International Residential Code including Appendix Chapters G and H Copyright 2006 by the
International Code Council marked as "Exhibit C"; together with such changes to the Residential
Code, as are necessary to make the same applicable to the conditions in the city which arc marked
"Exhibit B"; all oI which is adopted by reIerence and incorporated herein and made a part hereoI as iI
set Iorth in Iull. (Ord. No. 6092, ~ 3, 2-11-09)". Further, the ROA, Vol 1. at pages 209 -230 presents
photographic evidence put into the record by Coughlin supporting his habitability, retaliation, and
other claims, including photos oI the overgrown weeds and toxic mold on the insulation, the perosnal
- 11/36 -
00561
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
property oI Coughlin's damaged by Respondnent's agent (Ior which Respondnet is expressly liable
under the Lease Agreement), crumbling steps, broken window, etc., etc. Additionally, emails
between Coughlina and Merliss conIirming the habitability notice and Iailure to cure and submission
oI itemized bills to Respondent are Ioudn therein at ROA Vol 1. page 248.. Evidence supporting the
urine sludge wax toilet ring problem, page 98 ROA, vol. 1. Further, the record is complete with these
emails between Appellant and Respondent at ROA, Exhibits A-I and 1-9, pages 107-115. and
Especially Tenant's Exhibit 8 at pages 158-172 oI ROA, Exhibits A-I and 1-9, which clearly reveal
that Respodent was notice on all the various issues alleged and Iailed to adequately cure or responde
thereto, and ultimately, retaliated against Coughlin Ior pointing that out and asserting the rent
deductions he was entitled to or damages pursuant to the Lease Agreement, particularly when
reviewing the audio cd oI the cross examination Io Merliss that will be provided to this Court.
2. On page 242-243 oI the ROA, Vol. 1, in his Tenant's AIIidavit Coughlin alleges that: "3 In an
email to the exact address listed Ior Richart Hill, Esq. at nvbar.org and Irom which an email was
received, Zach Coughlin sent to Richard Hill, Esq. (the attorney whom both Hill and Merliss directed
tenant to, in writing, Iorward all Iuture correspondences) date August 17
th
, 2011 (21 day harbor beIore
Iiling Motion Ior Sanctions on September 6, 2011), the tenant wrote 'HopeIully Matt has copied you
on all our previous correspondences...but knowing Matt, he probably has Iorgotten about them or
doesn't realize they were ever delivered, etc. Anways, I probably have copies oI all oI them, many oI
which are notices to Iix things, etc., ...We are both attorneys and I wish to do my part to avoid getting
into court and looking like we haven't done the leg work necessary to pin down the areas oI
contention and eliminate doubt with regard to things that are easily established, such as the written
notices I have sent Matt that have gone without response, Ior things like, a broken window, broken
sprinkler system, fallen insulation, etc. Further, Matt approved things like repairing the
- 12/36 -
00562
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
crumbling front steps, etc. He provided directions such as "get two estimates and choose the
cheapest one and deduct it Irom the rent..." Well, repairing crumbling steps is not super cheap. Matt
seems to have Iorgotten about these written deals entirely... where does that leave Matt's estimate oI
what I owe? The steps have been repaired. As has the garbage disposal and other items. The
window is still broken, Matt never responded to requests Ior the cost oI noxious weed ordinance
Iine avoiding landscaping the previous season (I would, Ior now, take the same $350 I agreed to this
season, which is surely less than Matt paid the crew oI 4 men to service the neighboring house Ior 8
hours recently) with jagged edges of glass exposed, and an entryway with grip strips and wooden
planks that are in disrepair. I have a law oIIice to run and cannot both pay rent and be the pro bono
handyman Ior the absentee landlord while he is oII traveling to Amsterdam and Bangkok. I made a
very reasonable oIIer to Matt to Iix it. I made an incredibly reasonable oIIer to Matt to have the
seasonal noxious weed ordinance Iine avoiding weeding taken care oI Ior $350, which he
enthusiastically agreed to, then a landscaping crew promptly came and ripped up a faux grass
installation that had cost me a great deal of time and money to put in place, then refused to put
that personal property back on my rental property at all, leaving it on the sidewalk and in the
street. 700 square Ieet oI Iaux grass (actually high density woolen green carpet that is Iar more
expensive than simple "astroturI") is not something you want to just leave out in the street, and it is
deIinitely something you don't want to have to move and install twice, especially while your landlord
is apparently so well oI that he can agree to a a $350 rent deduction Ior the exact same thing he later
hires a landscaping crew to do while he is in the Phillipeans, again.... Coughlin alerted landlord on
several occasions oI a serious problem with insulation that had Iallen in the basement under the
house, Irom the ceiling, and in some cases, onto ground, which did not have a vapor barrier and thus
cultivated some mold on the insulations. Coughlin incurred $500 expense in removing the
- 13/36 -
00563
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
offending fallen mold ridden insulation and dealing with higher heating and air conditioning
costs as a result, thereby entitling Coughlin to such a rent deduction of $500 at the very least, iI
not more in associated damages, some oI which are likely unknown at this point due to Merliss's
inattentive nature as a landlord..." See page 242-243 oI the ROA, Vol. 1.
3. ROA Vol 1, p. 244: "On August 26, 2011, the Baker received a telephone call Irom
Coughlin. During that telephone conversation, Mr. Coughlin mentioned, aIter painstakingly polite
attempts to get Baker to actually converse with his client and ascertain whether or not the amounts
Merliss was alleging were owed, were in Iact, owed , and to otherwise diligently review all the
written materials sent between landlord and tenant to ascertain the validity oI those debts and the
likely deIenses thereto, in accordance with Baker's responsibilities as a lawyer representing Merliss,
and that, should Baker Iail to do so, tenant might be Iorced to Iile a Rule 11 sanctions motion against
the Baker and Merliss iI Merliss did not retract the aIorementioned notices or otherwise agree to some
extension oI time devoted to avoiding the waste oI judicial resources. Coughlin urged Baker to be
careIul representing Merliss, noting that Merliss had been rather absent minded as a landlord, was
apparently not very detail oriented, and oIten gave oII an air oI entitlement as iI to say 'you, tenant,
are my pro bono property manager and shall handle all the little details oI having things Iixed,
arranging Ior inspections and estimates, etc, that is, iI you are lucky enough to receive a response
Irom me at in regard to the various little people problems you Ieel I should address, as I am oIt out oI
the country, in places like Bangkok and Amsterdam, and really can't be bothered with anything more
than having you pay my mortgage entirely and thank me Ior the hospitality I have oIIered you in
allowing you to do so. Coughlin noted to Baker that such clients oft-times get attorney's in
trouble, particularly with regard to Rule 11 violations, especially when a litigation involves
something of such primary importance to a litigant as his home/office. Coughlin queried Baker
- 14/36 -
00564
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
as to what, exactly, Baker had done to veriIy that the debts Merliss was alleging were 'based in law
or Iact. Baker was curiously evasive and or non responsive in the various questions Coughlin posed
in this respect when he was not displaying a complete an utter lack oI knowledge with regard to the
disputes between landlord and tenant, including whether his client had agreed to any rent deductions,
had been made aware oI any property damage caused by the landlord's agents or employees, had
Iailed to cure any habitability issues his client had been inIormed oI in writing Ior a period over 14
days since past, etc..."
4. ROA, Vol. 1, p 245: "8. Tenant Coughlin has been damaged personally, proIessionally, and
economically, and emotionally by DeIendant's actions. 9. Coughlin alerted Green Action, Darlene
Sharpe and Landlord Merliss oI the property damage done to Coughlin's personal property by Green
Action in or around June, 2011. The Lease Agreement between Coughlin and Merliss speciIies that
Merliss will be liable Ior property damage he causes to tenant's property."
5. Tenant's AIIidavit, ROA, Vol. 1, p 245: "Coughlin obtained the directed estimates Ior the
repair oI the crumbling stairs/steps/risers at the home/oIIice's entryway steps. Following Merliss's
instructing yielded a cost oI $1,250 Ior the repair oI the stairs. A $350 rent deduction Ior one seasons
oI noxious weed ordinance was agreed to in writing by Merliss, another was agreed to implicitly Ior a
total yard work rent deduction oI $750. This is all detailed in painstakingly clear emails to and Irom
the landlord and tenant attached to the original Tenant's Answer. Similarly, the disposal repair came
to $125. Coughlin's law practice, and liIe in general, has been adversely impacted a great deal by
Merliss's misdeeds as a landlord. Somehow, however, globe trottin' CaliIornian With a Trust Fund
Merliss thinks Coughlin has exhibited an 'attitude oI entitlement in this situation. Merliss has
curiously reIrained Irom holding all non white males at all involved in this action accountable Ior
- 15/36 -
00565
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
their acctions, including Iormer co-tenant, Green Action Lawn Service, and Darlene Sharpe. This
may entail a housing discrimination claim..."
6. Contrary to the assertions oI Respondent's Counsel in Respondent's BrieI in CV11-03628,
Coughlin did in Iact invoke NRS 118A.490 in his Tenant's AIIidavit, at p.262, ROA, Vol. 1.
(Respondent's Answering BrieI, page 8, in CV11-03628: " Coughlin complains that it was reversible
error Ior the "trial court" to apply NRS 118A.490. He does not cite to anywhere in the ROA to support his
allegation that that statute was ever applied by the court."
7. Tenant provided respondent Iix and deduct notices and itemized statements under NRS 118A.290,
118A.360, and NRS 118A.380, 118A.390, and 118A.510. CITE TO ROA regarding mold (insulation heating
and Iilth), toilet ring plumbing (Iilth and plumbing), back door lock, broken window, crumbling stairs, weed
ordinance, criminal law violations oI landscapers...
8. At one hearing, RJC Judge SIerrazza admitted, on the record, that the RJC Judges had a meeting in
response to arguments brought up by Coughlin concerning the lack oI an established local rule vis a vis NRS
118A.355(5), and NRS 40.253(6), admitting that no such rule, technically, had been promulgated, published,
and approved by the Nevada Supreme Court.
9. Coughlin clearly preserved his objection to the lower court exceeding the jurisdiction accord it
under NRS 40.253(6) at ROA, Vol. 1, p 95-96, clearly invoked NRS 118A.290 (page 98 oI ROA,
Vol.1), Respodent clearly only served a 5 day unlawIul detainer notice oI the No Cause Eviction
variety and thereIore Iailed to allege non-payment oI rent against this commercial tennant (p. 269
ROA Vol.1) and Coughlin clearly pled that he was a commercial tenant (p. 160-164, 196, 240, ROA
Vol. 1, and page 9-11, ROA Vol. 2, and as set Iorth previously above). It is patently dishonest an
violative oI the Rules oI ProIessional conduct regarding candor to a tribunal and Iairness to opposing
counsel Ior Respondent's counsel to suggest they are blind sided by the argument that this summary
evicdtion involved a commercial tenant. However, Respondnent's counsel does just that in its
- 16/36 -
00566
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
Answering BrieI in CV11-03628 (p. 6 oI that Answering BrieI): "3. Granting a no-cause summary
eviction against a "commercial" tenant Coughlin now argues that he was a "commercial" tenant, and
thereIore not subject to summary eviction. He Iirst raised this argument in his "opposition to motion
Ior order to show cause," which he Iiled on December 5, 2011, six weeks aIter the eviction was
granted 31. ROA, Vol. IV, pp. 253-261. (That is not true Coughlin raised the issue in the Justice
Court case, both in the hearing and in his Iiling oI October 17th, 2011, plead as a commercial tenant,
and cited to the law Iorbidding the use oI summary eviciton procedures against commercial tenants
where the non-payment oI rent is not noticed or alleged...Iurther NRCP 60(b)(4) will allow Ior
challenging the Eviction Order as void Ior lack oI subject matter jurisdiction (NRS 40.400 makes
NRCP applicable). Merliss addressed it in his reply Iiled the Iollowing day.32 First, Coughlin has
the law wrong. Summary evictions are available against a tenant oI any property that is subject to
NRS Chapter 118A, which Merliss' property unquestionably was.33 (well, actually, not against
commercial tenant's where the non-payment oI rent is not pled or noticed, as here).
And, actually, and this is awesome, really, Coughlin did in Iact raise the whole issue oI NRS
40.253 Iorbidding the use oI a summary eviction procedure against a commercial tenant where the
non-payment oI rent is not alleged in his Emergency Motion Iiled October 17th, 2011, page 99, ROA,
Vol. 1: "In most cases, the landlord can choose whether to lile a summary or I011l1al eviction action.
However, there are circumstances under which summary eviction cannot be used. For instance.
summary eviction is not available for: 2) Eviction of commercial tenants for other than
nonpayment of rent (See NRS 40.254) Using location for a "commercial" law practice, you Iiled
a no cause, ie, "Ior other than nonpayment oI rent. not based in law or Iact, Rule 11, plus this escrow
thing gets put asunder." Plus, at page 108-115 oI the ROA Vol. 1, Respondent Iailed to ever address
Coughlin's argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed under a summary eviction statute
- 17/36 -
00567
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
against a commercial tenant where the non-payment oI rent was not notice or pled....So, under Polk,
Respondent's Iailure to Iile any opposition to that argument is taken as an admission. At some point,
Court's sua sponte chipping in arguments on behalI oI this tag team oI Respondent's attorney's and
their phalanx oI legal assistants who make enough to push Mercedes SL600 sport couples equipped
with V12 engines, when considering all that is in opposition to lil' ol crazy Zach Coughlin's legal
dribble....well, it all just seems kind oI unIair, doesn't it. Also, page 259 oI Vol. 4. oI the ROA makes
clear that Coughlin preserved his arguments related to the voidness oI any summary eviction order
where the "service" thereoI was as deeply Ilawed as the attempted service in this matter oI such an
Order.
10. Page 97-98 oI the ROA, Vol. 1 show Coughlin established materials issues respecting the
discrimination claim and retaliation Ior reporting criminal law violations and code violations: "also
complained about the workers he was hiring, noxious weed ordinance, mold inIestation, window is
essential service, saIety hazards, oh, and the landscaping crew came on my property and committed
the taking and carrying away oI property which was mine, that is arguably tantamount to theIt, so I
complained oI a criminal law. Hiring unlicensed and or undocumented workers is similarly a
violation. Insulation is an essential service and a habitability issue."....Also, Page 9-12, ROA Vol. 2:
"NRS l 18a.510 prevents Dr. Merliss Irom relaliating against the undersigned Ior seeking redress Ior
these complaints the undersigned is protection Irom retaliation Ior reporting include: criminal
mayhem, destruction oI property, toxic mold inIestation, insuIIicient and damaged insulation, a
broken window that has exposed sharp shards oI glass remaining attached to the caulking, broken
kitchen sink disposal, a Iallen ceiling light Iixture. Additionally, a washing machine that twice
Ilooded the living room carpet, when repaired by and Ilooded again by "
Antonio" (who did not clean up the water that Ilooded the Iloors, the undersigned did, with the
- 18/36 -
00568
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
undersigned's wet/dry shopvac in addition to placing Iour Ians out to dry the Iloors and prevent
molding oI the carpet and its underlayment),...additional protected complaints included crumbling
stairs to the Iront entrance oI the home law oIIice, rotting wood and peeling grip strips on the wooden
deck directly beIore the Iront door, crumbling brick steps in the backyard, extreme noxious weeds
sprouting up on both properties owned by Dr. Merliss (which also create extremely painIul goatheads
dried out weed carcasses that are real hazard to dog's paws). Dr. Merliss remarked in writing about
how much more he like dealing with the undersigned's Iormer co-tenant,...(who took Coughlin's share
oI the Final two months she lived at the residence and Iailed to Iorward it on to Dr. Merliss, but who
did subsequently arrange to make payments with Dr. Merliss, an interesting double dipping scenario
being created whereby Dr. Merliss could potentially recoup much more than he Ieels he is owed).
(Former Co-Tenant) is halI Mexican, ...the undersigned has made a protected complaint that he is
being discriminated against on the basis oI his inclusion in several protected class, ie, his race,
national origin, and sex, where Dr. Merliss Iinds (Coughlin's Iormer Co-Tenant) a Iresh breeze, he
Iinds the undersigned an "entitled" thorn in his side, "keeping him away Irom the important work he
is doing in his medical practice." Similarly, Dr. Merliss is unable to hold Darlene Sharpe, a Iemale,
or the Green Action Lawn Service crew and its owner, all Hispanic, accountable Ior the property
damage they caused and which ms. sharpe encouraged, despite the Iact that the Green Action Lawn
Service crew was aware oI the lawn carpeting at the undersigned's residence prior to making their bid
to work on the landscaping/weeds at that residence. That crew was well aware oI the lawn carpeting
Irom the entire day 6 oI them spent weeding the house Dr. Merliss owns next door to the
undersigned's residence ... the Green Action crew admitted to Coughlin (and Coughlin was
prevented from submitting video and audio recordings into the record by 1udge Sferrazza,
despite the salient importance to Coughlin's counterclaims any statements they made would have as to
- 19/36 -
00569
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
whether Dr. Merliss is responsible Ior or ratiIied the property damage to coughlin careIul wool green
law carpet installation, which was laid, cut, and notched around the house and exterior Ience in a very
exacting manner, only to be converted by the green action crew and leIt in the street and sidewalk
near the house, creating a theIt hazard and exigent situation in which the undersigned's law practice
suIIered economic damages and Coughlin was required to take immediate action to mitigate the
damages." Further, the retaliation and discrimination claim is preserved and supported a ROA Vol. 2,
page 13: "The time-line oI Coughlin's written complaints, established in excruciating detail in the
attached chronological collection oI time stamped emails between landlord and tenant clearly
establishes a retaliatory motive and intent on Dr. Merliss's part. indeed, Dr. Merliss on numerous
occasions reIerred to the undersigned as "entitled". A retaliatory animus is clearly evinced in such
statements, and as such the actual damages allowed under nrs 118A should be granted..."
11. Coughlin clearly preserved Ior appeal his objection to being denied the right to assert
counterclaims within the summary eviction proceeding, much less within the "Trial" oI October 25th,
2011. See. ROA, Vol. 1, page 133-136. See Kimberly E. O'Leary, The Inadvisability oI Applying
Preclusive Doctrines to Summary Evictions, 30 U. Tol. L. Rev. 49, 72 (1998) ("|T|he realities oI
landlord-tenant practice make the use oI preclusive doctrines in these actions especially
problematic."); Rosemary Smith, Locked Out: The Hidden Threat oI Claim Preclusion Ior Tenants in
Summary Process, 15 SuIIolk J. Trial & App. Advoc. 1, 25 (2010).
D. Standard of Review
"|A|n order granting summary eviction under NRS 40.253(6) should be reviewed on appeal based
upon the standard Ior review oI an order granting summary judgment under NRCP 56 because these
proceedings are analogous. Anvui. Purpose oI summary judgment rule is not to deprive litigants oI
their right to trial on merits iI they really have issues to try. NRCP 56(c). Pine v. Leavitt, 1968, 445
P.2d 942, 84 Nev. 507; Summary judgment is drastic remedy. NRCP 56(c). Pine v. Leavitt, 1968, 445
- 20/36 -
00570
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
P.2d 942, 84 Nev. 507. Documentary evidence, hearing and determination on a motion for
summary judgment, documentary evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, and all of the nonmoving party's statements must be accepted as true and a
district court may not pass on the credibility of affidavits. Sawyer v. Sugarless Shops, Inc., 1990,
792 P.2d 14, 106 Nev. 265, rehearing denied. Genuine issue oI material Iact precluding grant oI
summary judgment in Iavor oI employer ...presented by employer's evidence that employee was
injured in a Iight ... and testimony by the injured employee... Tschabold v. Orlando, 1987, 737 P.2d
506, 103 Nev. 224.
Trial court's jurisdiction in summary proceeding Ior eviction oI a tenant was divested, and
jurisdiction oI court oI appeal attached, upon timely Iiling oI appeal bond, and trial court thereaIter
had no jurisdiction in matter except as to certain matters not pertinent to appeal and to test surety on
appeal bond. Sarpy v. de la Houssaye, 217 So.2d 783 (La.App., 1969); Mack-Manley v. Manley,
122 Nev. 849, 138 P.3d 525 (2006).
Gomez v. Independence Management oI Delaware, Inc., 967 A.2d 1276 (D.C. 2009): "In 19.
We have said in another context that a claim oI 'a retaliatory motive is a question oI Iact Ior the jury
(or the judge in a non-jury trial), and, like other types oI claims in which motive or intent is in issue,
is not well suited to disposition on a motion Ior summary judgment. Arthur Young & Co. v.
Sutherland, 631 A.2d 354, 368 (D.C.1993) (reIerring to a claim oI retaliatory action under the
DCHRA); see Edwards, supra note 18, 130 U.S. App. D.C. at 141, 397 F.2d at 702 ('The question oI
permissible or impermissible purpose is one oI Iact Ior the court or jury). We have said the same
thing about claims oI discrimination, see, e.g., Hollins v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n, 760 A.2d
563, 579-80 (D.C.2000), but we have, on occasion, upheld a trial court grant oI summary judgment in
Iavor oI a deIendant accused oI discrimination. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Howard University, 960 A.2d
- 21/36 -
00571
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
308, 315-16 (D.C.2008); Wallace v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, 799 A.2d 381, 386
(D.C.2002); Hollins, 760 A.2d at 571. We thereIore do not Ioreclose the possibility that, on a properly
supported record, the trial court may dispose oI a deIense oI retaliatory eviction at the summary
judgment stage. When the statutory presumption oI retaliatory action has been triggered, however, the
record would have to establish, under the standards that govern summary judgment, that the landlord
has rebutted it by clear and convincing evidence." Whether a particular set oI Iacts gives rise to a
legal deIense is a question oI law. See Bantz. v. Montgomery Estates, Inc. 163 Wis.2d 973, 978, 473
N.W.2d 506,508 (Ct.App. 1991) (whether Iacts IulIill a particular legal standard is a question oI law).
Questions oI law are reviewed de novo. State Industrial Ins. Sys. v. United Exposition Servs. Co., 109
Nev. 28, 30 (1993). A motion Ior summary judgment may be supported not only by the pleadings but
by discovery procedures, demand Ior admissions, aIIidavits and depositions. NRCP 56. Dredge Corp.
v. Husite Co., 1962, 369 P.2d 676, 78 Nev. 69, certiorari denied 83 S.Ct. 39, 371 U.S. 821, 9 L.Ed.2d
61. On a motion Ior summary judgment, non-moving party's statements must be accepted as true, all
reasonable inIerences that can be drawn Irom the evidence must be admitted, and neither the trial
court nor Supreme Court may decide issues oI credibility based upon the evidence submitted in the
motion or the opposition. Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 2002, 57 P.3d 82, 118 Nev. 706,
rehearing denied, reconsideration en banc denied, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 82, 540 U.S. 817, 157
L.Ed.2d 34. In deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate, evidence must be viewed in light
most Iavorable to party against whom summary judgment is sought, and Iactual allegations, evidence,
and all reasonable inIerences in Iavor oI that party must be presumed correct. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule
56(c). NGA #2 Ltd. Liability Co. v. Rains, 1997, 946 P.2d 163, 113 Nev. 1151. In considering
motion Ior summary judgment, district courts must construe evidence presented in light most
Iavorable to party against whom summary judgment is sought; all oI nonmovant's statements must be
- 22/36 -
00572
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
accepted as true, and district courts may not pass on credibility oI aIIidavits. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule
56(c). Walker v. American Bankers Ins. Group, 1992, 836 P.2d 59, 108 Nev. 533. "Evidence
supported Iinding that landlord's eviction oI tenant was retaliatory Ior her complaints concerning
persistent plumbing problems and condition oI common areas. n.r.s. 118a.510. Paullin v. Sutton, 102
Nev. 421,724 P.2d 749 (1986).
III. ARGUMENT; A. Summary Of The Argument:
The lower court erred when it issued an order oI summary eviction. Coughlin presented
suIIicient evidence to raise the legal deIense oI habitability and retaliation, and ambiguous questions
oI Lease interpretation. Coughlin also presented ample evidence oI a genuine legal dispute between
the parties centering on the interpretation oI what constituted damages caused by "agents" oI the
landlord (Ior which the Lease Agreement calls Ior the landlord's liability, which engendered a
retaliatory eviction here upon a rent oIIset being properly asserted) under the lease. Once this legal
deIense was raised, the lower court should have declined to issue a summary eviction order under
NRS 40.253.
B. THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN ISSUING/UPHODLING A SUMMARY
EVICTION ORDER IN THE FACE OF ESTABLISHED LEGAL DEFENSES, CLEAR
1URISDICTIONAL DEFECTS, PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
DEFICIENCIES, MISTAKES OF LAW, ETC., ETC.
'10.SUBLEASING: Resident may not assign, sublet, or transIer his interest, no any part
thereoI without prior written consent oI management, which will not be unreasonably withheld.
Resident further may use the premises for any commercial enterprise, but not for any purpose
which unlawful.
'11. OCCUPANCY: Occupancy oI the premises is limited to 2 adults ? Children, and shall be used
Ior a residence and Ior other purposes....
'13. UTILITIES: Resident agrees to pay Ior the Iollowing utilities: Gas x Electricity x Oil, Light
x, Heat x, Energy x, Other, Resident's responsibility Ior these begins at the commencement oI
this agreement. See attached transIer oI account Addendum (note: there is no such TransIer oI
- 23/36 -
00573
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
Account Addendum attached to the Lease Agreement). Utilities not payable by the Resident will be
paid by the Management.
Further, ambiguity exists with respect to Sections 3 and 20 oI the Lease Agreement and state
law concerning retaliation and the voiding oI lease terms that are unconcionable. As such, the import
oI Section 20 is vitiated in light oI Section 3 and the retaliatory conduct oI the landlord. That being
the case, NRS 40.360(3)'s dictates that 5 days elapse Irom entry oI order (Ior leases that have not
terminated by their terms) made this order and the lockout void and present reversible error, as well
as a lack oI subject matter jurisdiction.
'20 TERMINATION: This Agreement and the tenancy hereby granted may be terminated by
either party within 30 days oI the deIined termination date (reIer to Paragraph 2), or any time
thereaIter by giving the other party not less than thirty (30)day prior notice in writing or as otherwise
allowed by the laws oI the State oI Nevada (ReIer to Paragraph 1 and 9 Ior monetary liabilities).
Amibiguity suIIicient to deIeat summary judgment was argued and supported by evidence
(includign RMC Code on a noxious weed ordinance, weed height, and pictures clearly showing the
weeds exceeded the permissible weed heights, in conjunction with the Iollowing Lease Agreement
section:
'22 MAINTENANCE, REPIARS, OR ALTERATIONS:...Tenant will irrigate and maintain any
surrounding grounds, including lawns and shrubbery, if they are for the tenant's exclusive
use. ... Owner will be responsible for the cost of any retrofitting required by governmental
agencies.
Respondent put on absolutely no evidence, authority, or argument, really, that the weeds
should be considered tenant's problem in light oI the above. Regardless, Respondent waived any such
claim by agreeing to pay Tenant to do the weeding, only Respondent or his 'property manager
messed that up by also hiring Green Action Lawn Service to do the same (and Respondent actually
testiIied under oath that he paid that crew $2,000 to do the same thing he paid Appellant $350 to
do...). The only problem is that landscaping crew damaged Appellant's personal property and cause
lost business, proIits, and consequential damages, all supported by testimony and documentary
- 24/36 -
00574
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
evidence. And the Lease Agreement makes Respondent liabile Ior such, or at least suIIicient
ambiguity exists in that regard to preclude the summary judgment on that issue the Trial Court made:

'23. DAMAGES TO PREMISES: II the premise are damaged by time or through any other cause
which renders the premises untenantable, either party will have the right to terminated this Agreement
as the date on which the damage occurs.
Written notice oI termination will be give to the other party within IiIteen (15) days aIter occurrence oI such damage.
Should such damage or destruction occur as the result oI negligence oI Tenant, or his/her invitee, then only the Owner will
have the right to terminate. Should this right be exercised by her Owner or Tenant, the rent in the current month will be
prorated between the parties as oI the date the damage occurred. Any prepaid rent and unused security deposit will be
reIunded to Tenant. II this Agreement is not terminated, then Owner will prompt;y repair the premises and there will be a
proportionate reduction oI rent until the premises are repaired and ready Ior Tenant's occupancy. The proportionate
reduction will be based on the extent which repairs interIere with Tenant's reasonable use oI the premises.
-2. Whether the tenancy was 'expired or 'terminated such that NRS 40.360(3) would be
implicated? The Lease Agreement is actually strongly in support oI a Iinding contrary to that made
by Judge SIerrazza, where, at Subsection 3 it reads:
'3. HOLDOVER: Under Nevada law this Rental Agreement and any changes properly
agreed to will remain in effect on a monthly basis after the initial term. A 30 day
written notice to vacate must be issued by the Resident prior to vacating anytime during or
aIter the initial term oI this agreement. IF improper notice or no notice to vacate is given
by Resident, Resident is liable Ior prorated rent until lawIul termination and Management
may deduct this Irom the Security Deposit on hand, or collect any money due by other
lawIul means.
The Lease Agreement expressly provides that Appellant could use the premises Ior any
purpose. Further, the previous tenant used the premises Ior a commercial purpose (a drug and alcohol
rehabilitation counseling service, Basic Addiction Services), and the zoning Ior the premises allows
Ior the same. There did exists some ambiguity with respect to whose responsibility it was to tend to
the 'noxious weed ordinance violating (and Ior which a proper habitability complaint was made
under NRS 118A.290, and Appellant testiIied that he reported to 'Reno Direct the violation oI RMC
three-times yearly weeds, as the Lease Agreement states that 'the tenant shall take care oI the lawn
and surrounding premises. However, the term 'lawn traditionally connotes grass. There was no
grass at the premises, rather a poor mixture oI dirt and diIIuse decomposed granite. Clearly, the
- 25/36 -
00575
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
Lease Agreement is not clear with respect to whose responsibility it was to pay Ior or to tend to weed
care. Another instance oI ambiguity in the Lease Agreement as issue in this matter related to whether
the tenancy 'terminated upon the expiration oI one year or whether the Lease Agreement
automatically renewed.

Additionally, Appellant respectIully submits that the October 27
th
, 2011 Order is not in
compliance with Nevada Law inasmuch as it calls Ior execution oI the eviction within 24 hours oI
service oI it. NRS 40.360 states that "When the proceeding iI Ior an unlawIul detainer aIter the deIault
in the payment oI rent, and the lease agreement under which the rent is payable has not by its terms
expired, execution upon the judgment shall not be issued until the expiration oI 5 days aIter entry oI
the judmgent...." 'NRS 40.360 (3). Execution and enIorcement. When the proceeding is Ior an
unlawIul detainer aIter deIault in the payment oI the rent, and the lease or agreement under which the
rent is payable has not by its terms expired, execution upon the judgment shall not be issued until the
expiration oI 5 days aIter the entry oI the judgment, within which time the tenant, or any subtenant, or
any mortgagee oI the term, or other party interested in its continuance, may pay into court Ior the
landlord the amount oI the judgment and costs, and thereupon the judgment shall be satisIied and the
tenant be restored to the tenant`s estate; but, iI payment, as herein provided, be not made within the 5
days, the judgment may be enIorced Ior its Iull amount and Ior the possession oI the premises. In all
other cases the judgment may be enIorced immediately. So, to the extent the RJC chose to read into
Respondent's case what was not plead or argued (the RJC seemed to want to create a non-payment oI
rent Order where such a claim was not plead, in which case, turnabout is Iair play, and the October
27
th
, 2011 Order is void Ior lack oI jurisdiction in that is goes against the dictates oI NRS 40.360 (3)
regarding execution and enIorcement. Further, NRCP 62(d), NRS 40.385, and NRAP 7 provide that
- 26/36 -
00576
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
execution oI an Order shall be stayed pending appeal as long as a bond or equivalent security in the
sum oI $250 to cover costs oI appeal is Iled with the district court. The RJC held on to $2,275 oI
Appellants money, more than enough to cover the $250 appeal bond and any reasonable supersedeas
bond (and NRS 40.385 strongly asserts that a supersedeas bond oI only $250 was all required oI
Appellant where his rent was less than $1,000, as here). Appellant may obtain a stay pending appeal
by complying with the provisions oI NRS 40.385. This statute (at the relevant time in question)
provided that iI an appeal is taken Irom an order oI summary eviction entered pursuant to NRS
40.253, "a stay oI execution may be obtained by Iiling with the trial court a bond in the amount oI
$250 to cover the expected costs on appeal." NRS 40.385(1). The statute Iurther provides that iI the
subject lease is Ior commercial property and the monthly rent exceeds $1,000, the district court "may,
upon its own motion or that oI a party, and upon a showing oI good cause, order an additional bond to
be posted to cover the expected costs on appeal." Id. Judge SIerrazza's November 7, 2011 Order,
purporting to release to Appellant what had earlier been classiIied as satisIying both the appeal bond
and supersedeas bond, in addition to resetting the amount such a supersedeas bond would entail to an
impermissibly high Iigure, outside the jursidiction available to the RJC where the Appellant's rent was
under $1,000, and also where the appellant was a commercial tenant and non-payment oI rent was not
alleged.
NRS 118A.360 :" the tenant may deduct from his or her rent the
actual and reasonable cost or the fair or reasonable value of the work, not
exceeding the amount specified in this subsection."

NRS 118A.380 Failure of landlord to supply essential items or services.
1. II the landlord is required by the rental agreement or this chapter to supply
heat, air-conditioning, running water, hot water, electricity, gas, a functioning
door lock or another essential item or service and the landlord willIully or
negligently Iails to do so, causing the premises to become unIit Ior habitation, the
tenant shall give written notice to the landlord speciIying the breach. II the
landlord does not adequately remedy the breach, or use his or her best eIIorts to
remedy the breach within 48 hours, except a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday,
- 27/36 -
00577
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
aIter it is received by the landlord, the tenant may, in addition to any other
remedy:
(a) Procure reasonable amounts of such essential items or services during
the landlord`s noncompliance and deduct their actual and reasonable cost
from the rent;
(b) Recover actual damages, including damages based upon the lack oI use oI
the premises or the diminution oI the Iair rental value oI the dwelling unit;
NRS 118A.290 Habitability of dwelling unit.
1. The landlord shall at all times during the tenancy maintain the dwelling unit
in a habitable condition. A dwelling unit is not habitable iI it violates provisions
of housing or health codes concerning the health, safety, sanitation or fitness
for habitation of the dwelling unit or if it substantially lacks:
(a) EIIective waterprooIing and weather protection oI the rooI and exterior
walls, including windows and doors.
(b) Plumbing facilities which conformed to applicable law when installed
and which are maintained in good working order.
(c) A water supply approved under applicable law, which is:
(1) Under the control oI the tenant or landlord and is capable oI producing
hot and cold running water;
(2) Furnished to appropriate Iixtures; and
(3) Connected to a sewage disposal system approved under applicable
law and maintained in good working order to the extent that the system can be
controlled by the landlord...
(d) Adequate heating facilities which conIormed to applicable law when
installed and are maintained in good working order....
(g) Building, grounds, appurtenances and all other areas under the landlord`s
control at the time oI the commencement oI the tenancy in every part clean,
sanitary and reasonably Iree Irom all accumulations oI debris, filth, rubbish,
garbage, rodents, insects and vermin.
(h) Floors, walls, ceilings, stairways and railings maintained in good repair.
(i) Ventilating, air-conditioning and other Iacilities and appliances, including
elevators, maintained in good repair iI supplied or required to be supplied by the
landlord."
Coughlin presented evidenc Iound in the ROA and Exhibits as set Iorth herein that
present a material issue oI Iact as to the above statutory sections and the emails and testimony and
other circumstances indicate relatiation and discrimination.
- 28/36 -
00578
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
C. The District Court Committed Reversible Error When it Failed to...
IV. CONCLUSION: The Lower Courts committed reversible error by summarily evicting
Coughlin's in a manner that denied Coughlin a multitude oI statutorily required protections, while at
the same time, impermissibly remixing the law to the utter beneIit oI landlord and his counsel.
Dated this day 26th day oI August, 2012, RespectIully Submitted By:

Nevada Bar No. 9473
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Telephone: 775.338.8118
Fax: 949.667.7402
Pro se Appellant
- 29/36 -
00579
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
ENDNOTES
1.See FFCL&O at 1
2.NRS 40.253(6). FFCL&O at 4, ~3.
3.See FFCL&O at 3, ~9 et seq. See, also, ROA, Vol. I, pp. 238-266; ROA, Vol. V, pp. 194-198.
4.NRS 40.253(6).
5.ROA, Vol. I, p. 153.
6.ROA Vol. III, pp. 229-233.
7.ROA, Vol. III, pp. 18-33.
8. Anvui, LLC v. G.L. Dragon, LLC, 123 Nev. 212,215,163 P.3d 405 (2007).
1.Torrealba v. Kesmitis, 124 Nev. 95, 178 P.3d 716 (2008).
2.NJCRCP 76A.
3.Gibelliniv. Klindt, HONev. 1201, 1204,885 P.2d 540 (1994) (emphasis added).
4.NJCRCP 72(c).
5.Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Bibb, 76 Nev. 332,335,353 P.2d 458 (1960).
6. Anvui.
7. NRS 40.253
8.CI., Schuck v. Signature Flight Support oINevada, Inc., 126 Nev. (Adv.Op. 42),245 P.3d 542,544-545 (Nov. 4, 2010)
9.CI., NJCRCP 74(b).
18.Id.
1.See NRS 40.253(6).
2.ROA, Vol. I, p. 153.
1.See, NJCRCP 104 ("Prior to the holding oI a hearing Ior summary eviction, the justice shall determine the method oI
service oI notice oI the hearing on both parties.")
1.NRS 40.253(6).
2. NRS 40.253
3.Accord, Lee v. GNLVCorp., 116 Nev. 424,427,996 P.2d 416 (2000) (the important inquiry is on "what the order or
judgment actually does, not on what it is called.")(emphasis in original).
4.ROA, Vol. III, pp. 230-233.
5.NRS 1 18A.355(l)(d). ROA, Vol. I, pp. 238-266.
27.Id.
1.See FFLC&O at ~~11-11.1.
2. Anvui.
30. FFCL&O at ~~12-12.l.
1.ROA, Vol. IV, pp. 253-261.
2.See, "Supplemental Justice Court Appeal Proceedings," at 2
3.NRS 40.254.
4.See FFCL&O beginning at ~9. See, also, ROA, Vol. I, pp. 238-266.
5.Marcuse v. Del Webb Communities, 123 Nev. 278, 163 P.3d 462 (2007).
6.Schuck. ROA, Vol. VI, p.183.
37. Schuck.
1.ROA, Vol. III, pp. 153-160.
2.ROA, Vol. IV, pp.2, 22-23.
40. ROA, Vol. III, p. 5. 4!. Reno Newspapers, Inc.
1.ROA, Vol. I, pp. 274-275.
2.NRS 12:015. Casper v. Huber, 85 Nev. 474,456 P.2d 436 (1969).
3.NJCRCP 73A(a).
4.ROA, Vol. II, pp. 85, 2.
5.ROA, Vol III, pp. 218-219; Vol. II, pp. 4, 27.
47. Marcuse.
1.ROA, Vol. II, p. 3.
2.ROA, Vol. II, pp. 4, 27
3.ROA, Vol. IV, pp. 210-211.
- 30/36 -
00580
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
4.CI., Schuck.
5.ROA, Vol. II, p. 85.
6.CI., Schuck
1.CI., Schuck.
2.CI., Gibellini.
56. NJCRCP 76A, Reno Newspaper, Inc.; NRS 40.253(6). "
CV11-03051 ZACH COUGHLIN VS. MATT MERLISS ET AL (D1) 19-OCT-2011 03:06 PM AIIidavit ...
COUGHLIN, ZACHARY Entry: AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY (DEFENDANT) - NOTICE OF
APPEAL FROM RENO JUSTICE COURT19-OCT-2011 03:06 PM Request Ior Submission
COUGHLIN, ZACHARY Entry: DOCUMENT TITLE: MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (DEFENDANT) (PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) PARTY SUBMITTING: ZACH
COUGHLIN DATE SUBMITTED: 10/19/2011
19-OCT-2011 05:06 PM Mtn Proceed Forma Pauperis COUGHLIN, ZACHARY Entry: NOTICE OF
APPEAL FROM RENO JUSTICE COURT 01-NOV-2011 03:29 PM Motion ... COUGHLIN,
ZACHARY Entry: AMENDED MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 01-NOV-2011 03:29 PM Request Ior Submission
COUGHLIN, ZACHARY Entry: DOCUMENT TITLE: AMENDED MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (NO PAPER
ORDER) PARTY SUBMITTING: ZACH COUGHLIN DATE SUBMITTED: 11/01/11
SUBMITTED BY: DJ DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:08-NOV-2011 10:19 AM Ord Deny in
Forma Pauperis; 08-NOV-2011 10:25 A 08-NOV-2011 02:38 PM Ex-Parte Mtn... COUGHLIN,
ZACHARY Entry: EX PARTE EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY AND SET ASIDE SUMMARY
EVICTION ORDER 3-NOV-2011 04:51 PM Mtn Proceed Forma Pauperis COUGHLIN, ZACHARY
Entry: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF IFP; OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO
PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS08-DEC-2011 12:03 PM Ord Denying Motion Entry: Transaction
2634258 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 12-08-2011:12:04:1320-DEC-2011 05:09 PM Ord Denying
Motion Entry: FOR RECONSIDERATION OF IFP; OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPER
Regarding the inspection oI the premises just prior to the lockout (and NRS 40.253(6) does not allow
such an Order, yet, again Judge SIerrazza does some yoga Ior Richard Hill, Esq., despite the October
27
th
, 2011 hearing not being notice Ior a Motion Ior Inspection), Respondent's eviction was
retaliatory, with Respondent lawyering up, ceasing communication with Appellant less than 24 hours
aIter Appellant asserted his rights under the Lease Agreement to notice oI such inspection or entry by
the landlord or his agents...:
'25. INSPECTION: Resident agrees to grant management the right to enter the premise as all
reasonable times and Ior all reasonable purposed including showing to the perspective residents,
buyers, loan oIIicers or insurance agents or others with lawIul business therein and Ior east one
maintenance inspection each month. In accordance with NRS requirements, Managements agrees to
give Resident twice the twenty (24) hour notification requirement for entry.

- 31/36 -
00581
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
'28. LIABILITY: management shall not be liable Ior any damage or injury to Resident or any other
person or to any property occurring on the premises or any part thereoI, or in common ares thereoI,
unless such liability is based on the negligent acts or omission of management, his agent, or
employee, but Resident will not agree to hold management harmless Irom any claims Ior damages
iI caused by the negligent acts or omissions oI the Resident or his guests.
Yet, Baker and Hill wasted everybody's time and money subpoening handymen and others to
testiIy about their attempts to enter the premises with less than 24 hours notice given. Further,
Section 28 oI the Lease Agreement makes clear that Respondent bore liability Ior the torts and or
property destruction oI Green Action Lawn Service upon Appellant's property, and associated
damages, or at least provides enough support to beat a summary judgment motion. The Trial Court
ruled otherwise and doing so was reversible error. Further, video evidence was introduced wherein
the supervisor Ior Green Action Lawn Service admits to taking orders Irom Darlene Sharpe oI
Dickson Realty vis a vis Respondent's wishes and intentions.
Further the 10/27/11 Order Ior Summary Eviction is void in that is attempts to undue that
which was agreed to in the Lease Agreement:
'30. TENANCY TERMINATION:. Resident shall allow Management to inspect the premises in
the Resident's presence to verify the condition of premises and contents....32. INSURANCE: It
is agreed that TENANT may obtain RENTERS INSURANCE AS LANDLORD'S or his Agent's
insurance supplements cover oI TENANT'S Property.
Appellant was aIIorded no such opportunity.
Further, Appellant alleged violations oI NRS 118a.510's anti-retaliation dictate. Respondent's
testimony was extremely unconvincing. In Iact, he contradicted himselI several times and was Iorced
to admit that he did receive the May 14, 2010 email and high resolution photographs Irom Appellant
detailing the moldy insulation (which qualiIies, according the the Trial Court, as a habitability issue
under NRS 118a.Appellant alleged discrimination in this matter and Respondent Iailed to rebut the
presumptions such allegations created:
- 32/36 -
00582
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
V. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: I hereby certiIy that this brieI complies with the
Iormatting requirements oI NRAP 32(a)(4), the typeIace requirements oINRAP 32(a)(5) and the type
style requirements oINRAP 32(a)(6) because:
|x| This brieI has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeIace using OpenOFIice in 12 Times
New Roman; I Iurther certiIy that this brieI complies with the page- or type- volume limitations oI
NRAP 32(a)(7) because, excluding the parts oI the brieI exempted by RAP 32(a)(7)(C), it is either:
| | Proportionately spaced, has a typeIace oI 14 points or more and contains words; or
| | Monospaced, has 10.5 or Iewer characters per inch, and contains words or lines oI text; or |X|
Does not exceed 30 pages
Finally, I hereby certiIy that I have read this appellate brieI, and to the best oI my knowledge,
inIormation, and belieI, it is not Irivolous or interposed Ior any improper purpose. I Iurther certiIy that
this brieI complies with all applicable Nevada Rules oI Appellate Procedure, in particular, NRAP
28( e)(1), which requires every assertion in the brieI regarding matters in the record to be supported
by a reIerence to the page oI the transcript or appendix where the matter relied on is to be Iound. I
understand that I may be subject to sanctions in the event that the accompanying brieI is not in
conIormity with the requirements oI the Nevada Rules oI Appellate Procedure.
Dated this day 24th day oI August, 2012.

Nevada Bar No. 9473
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Telephone: 775.338.8118
Fax: 949.667.7402
Pro se Appellant
- 33/36 -
00583
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
- 34/36 -
00584
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
I am a resident oI the State oI Nevada, over the age oI eighteen years. My business address is
PO BOX 3961. On August 26th, 2012, the Iollowing document(s) were served on the party(ies)
below:
X By United States Mail- a true copy oI the document(s) listed above Ior collection and mailing
Iollowing the Iirm's ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage thereon Iully prepaid
Ior deposit in the United States mail at Reno, Nevada addressed as set Iorth below.
X By Facsimile Transmission - the transmission was reported as complete and without error. A
copy oI the transmission report, properly issued by the transmitting machine, is attached to the hard
copy. The names and Iacsimile numbers oI the person(s) served are as set Iorth below.
RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.
652 Forest St.
Reno, Nevada 89509
Telephone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858
Attorney for Respondent Merliss
I declare under penalty oI perjury that the Ioregoing is true and correct.

Pro se Appellant
- 35/36 -
00585
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
DECLARATION OF ZACH COUGLIN IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT
1. This Declaration is made pursuant to the provisions oI NRS 53.045, I am presently in the State oI
Nevada and I declare under penalty oI perjury that the Ioregoing is true and correct.
2. Declarant is the PlaintiII in the above title action.
3. Declarant avers that the Iactual statements set Ior above in the Ioregoing document are, to the
best oI his knowledge and understanding, accurate.
4. I, Zach Coughlin, am available to testiIy, iI necessary, as to these matters. I declare under penalty
oI perjury that the Ioregoing is true and correct.
Dated this August 26th, 2012
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
Appellant
- 36/36 -
00586

- Ii ''i*''iiI
00587
00588
i
=
00589
00590
00591

~
~
00592
From:Washoe County Crime Lab
775 328 2831
March 19,2012
TO: Zack Coughlin
Fax Number 949-667-7402
FROM: Trish Beckman, Admin Secretary Supervisor
Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Forensic Science Division
RE: WCSO 12-1805; C-47951
03/20/2012 07 :45
#344 P.001/001
Michael Haley
Sheriff
Per our telephone conversation this afternoon, attached is a list of items submitted to the Washoe
County Sheriff's Office I;vidence/Property Room. The following items as described by Deputy Yonker
who submitted them are the only items in evidence listed under Washoe County Sheriffs Office Case
Number 12-1805. These items were received by our secured evidence/property room clerk on February
29,2012. Since receiving them into our custody, they have not been released to anyone and remain in
secure evidence.
$AMSUNG CELL PHONE, T"MOBIL CELL PHONE; BRAUN ELECTRIC RAZOR
I can only respond to your inquiry for the items listed above and as of the date the items were received
by our division. The incidents prior to our receiving the items as you describe them in your email dated
March 19, 2012 are unknown to this division. The incident on March 14th as you described it did not
take place; as these items have not been out of our custody.
It is my understanding that these items were submitted to evidence at the behest of Judge Nash-
Holmes. To release these items we will need a written release from Judge Nash-Holmes.
The rest of your inquiries are outside the purview of this Division. Please contact the court and request
Judge Nash-Holmes authorize the release of these items. The release may be submitted to the Washoe
County Sheriffs Office Forensic Science Division via fax at 775-328-2831.
Any future Inquiries regarding these items need to be made in writing. They may be submitted to me
via the email addresstbeckman@washoecountv.us orto the US Postal Address of Washoe County
Sheriffs Office, Forensic Science Division, 911 E Parr Blvd, Reno, NV 89512.
00593
RE: Missing property
From: Campbell, Debra (DCampbell@washoecounty.us)
Sent: Tue 3/13/12 10:49 AM
No, a micro sd card is not listed on the evidence envelope.

Debi Campbell, Detention Operations Manager
911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)
dcampbell@washoecounty.us
WCSO MISSION STATEMENT
To serve the residents of Washoe County, consistently earning the public's confidence by providing a
safe and secure community using the highest quality law enforcement, detention, and support services
possible within the resources entrusted to us.
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION AND WORK PRODUCT: This communication, including
attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email,
delete this communication and destroy all copies.

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:29 AM
To: Campbell, Debra
Subject: RE: Missing property
Didtheseitemsthatwereplacedintoevidenceincludeamicrosdcard?
ZachCoughlin,Esq.,1422E.9thSt.#2,RENO,NV89512,tel:7753388118,Iax:9496677402;
ZachCoughlinhotmail.comNevadaBarNo:9473
HotmailPrintMessage http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsce3...
1oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00594
Subject: Missing property
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:14:59 -0700
From: DCampbell@washoecounty.us
Mr. Coughlin:
Your email regarding your missing secure property was forwarded to me for response. I apologize for the delay
in responding to you but it took me a little while to figure out the issue.
Your two cell phones and electric razor were put into evidence at the request of Judge Nash-Holmes on
February 28, 2012. In order for us to release them to you, we will need an order from Judge Nash-Holmes that
the evidence can be released to you.
To make this matter smoother for you all documentation should reflect Washoe County Sheriffs Office case
number 12-1805 and evidence number C-47591. The court case number corresponding to this issue is
11TR26800.
If you have any questions all of my contact information is listed below.
911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)
2oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00595
FW: missing property from my secured property
From: Cummings, Tami (TCummings@washoecounty.us)
Sent: Mon 3/05/12 8:43 AM
Cc: Sheriff - Bkg_CC Supervisors (SO-BKG-CC-SUPV@washoecounty.us)
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

Thank you for your email. We are forwarding your email to our Detenon Booking Supervisors for their
review and response. Should you need to contact them by phone, you can call Detenon Administraon at
328-2971.

Regards,

Community Relations| Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:40 PM
To: SheriffWeb
Subject: missing property from my secured property
DearWashoeCountySheriII'sOIIiceandJail,
ThesecuredpropertyreturnedtometodaydidnotincludeeitheroImycell
phonesorthemicrosdcardthatwerelistedonmycheckinsheet.Myagent,
PeterEastman,didcomeandretrievemykeysandwallet,etc.(tohelpmake
suremydogwouldnotstarvetodeath,andIamsothankIultoyouIorletting
himdothatasanimalcontrolwouldhavelikelycostmuchmoneyandIalready
hada$300towingbillIormycaruponbeingreleaseIromjailandIam
literallyIlatbroke,andjusthadtopaymy$450peryearbarduesandpayIor
twelvecreditsoIcontinuinglegaleducationandmyyearlyCLEdues....soit
3oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00596
reallyhelpedthattheSheriII'sOIIiceletMr.EastmangetmykeystoIeedmy
dog,thankyou!).
However,Mr.Eastmanindicatestomethathedidnotreceiveeithercellphone
orthemicrosdcarduponpickingupmysecuredproperty.
IIpossiblepleasereplybyIaxoremailasI,obviously,donothavemyphones
andthereisaproblemrightnowwithmyuspsmailbox.
Sent: Tue 3/13/12 1:57 PM
Yes, a micro sd card was listed on the inventory at intake and was released with the rest of your property on
2-29-12 to Peter Eastman. I will scan and email you a copy of the intake property form and the release form
signed by Mr. Eastman.

911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)
4oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00597

To: Campbell, Debra
Is a micro sd card listed on the property sheet at intake?
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:48:59 -0700

911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)
5oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00598

To: Campbell, Debra
Did these items that were placed into evidence include a micro sd
card?
Zach Coughlin, Esq., 1422 E. 9th St. #2, RENO, NV 89512, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402;
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Nevada Bar No: 9473
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:14:59 -0700
Mr. Coughlin:
11TR26800.
911 Parr Blvd
6oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00599
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)
Sent: Tue 3/13/12 2:50 PM
1 attachment
Coughlin Property Docs 0312.doc (2.6 MB)
The two documents I referred to in my last email are aached.

911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)
7oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00600

To: Campbell, Debra
Is a micro sd card listed on the property sheet at intake?
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:48:59 -0700

911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)
8oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00601

To: Campbell, Debra
card?
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:14:59 -0700
Mr. Coughlin:
11TR26800.
9oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00602
911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)
Sent: Wed 3/14/12 6:52 AM
I am saying that two cell phones and an electric razor were placed into evidence at the instrucon of Judge
Nash-Holmes and the evidence envelope states that is what is in the envelope. As I do not work in or have
access to the evidence unit, I am relaying what they told me when they checked the envelope.

In response to your prior email, the property record form stated that there was a micro sd card. The
Authorizaon for Release of Property/Money was dated 2-29-12 and signed by Mr. Eastman. The statement
he signed states that he acknowledged that he received the items listed on the property record form. I can
only assume that is the case as he signed the form and you authorized him to pick up the property.

Since I am not an aorney I will send your last two emails to the Assistant District Aorney assigned to the
Sheris Oce for response.
10oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00603

911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:23 PM
To: Campbell, Debra; Kandaras, Mary
So,areyousayingyouoryouroIIicecurrentlyhavean"evidenceenvelope"thatcontains
theseitemsplacedinto"evidence".Doyouwhetherthatcomprotswithprevious
assertionsmadebyyouroIIiceoragents,or,iI,inIact,itcontradictsrepresentationsasto
whomcameandtookwhat?IIyoustillhaveanyoIthispropertyinyourpossession,
pleaseconsiderwhetheritislegalIoryoutoallowtheRMCortheRenoMarshaltocome
checkitoutlikeabookIromthelibrary,orwhetheryouhavesomeliabilityiI,oopsie,
something"disappears".PleaseaskDeputyCheungaboutalloIthesecircumstances
detailedinourcorrespondencesandprovidewrittendocumentationdetailinghis
responses.Further,pleaseprovidepicturesoItheevidenceenvelopeandallthe"evidence"
withinsuchanenvelope,includingwhetheramicrosdcardinwithinsuchmaterialsor
whethersuchacardissomehowcontainedinoneoIthephonesorotherwiseinstereted
intothesame.Additionally,pleaseindicatewhetheraphonebatteryortwoispresent.
PleaseaskyourselIwhoisrunningwhatandwhetherthatisappropriate.
Sincerely,
11oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00604
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:48:59 -0700

911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)

To: Campbell, Debra
card?
12oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00605
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:14:59 -0700
Mr. Coughlin:
11TR26800.
911 Parr Blvd
Reno, NV 89512-1000
(775) 328-2893 (Office)
(775) 328-6305 (FAX)
13oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00606
RE: request for written response regarding property being
held in evidence
From: Beckman, Trish (TBeckman@washoecounty.us)
Sent: Tue 3/20/12 8:49 AM
Mr. Coughlin, Aached is the wrien response to your email. Per our phone conversaon a copy of this
response has been sent to the fax number you gave me (949-667-7402).

Trish

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:58 PM
To: Beckman, Trish
Subject: request for written response regarding property being held in evidence
DearMs.Beckman,
AWCSODeputyinIormedmethatmypropertywasbeingheldinevidence,includinga
Ilipphonestylecellphone,andanHTCg2smartphoneinadditiontoamicrosdmemory
card,andanelectricshaved.Heindicatedtheitemswerebookedintoevidenceon
2/27/12,thentakenbytheCityoIRenoMarshalDivisionon2/28/12.AWCSODeputy
alsoindicatedtheseitemsinevidencewerereleaseagaintotheCityoIRenoMarshal
Divisionon3/14/12because"itsjusteasiertogetitbacktoyouthatway"....However,now
itappearsonceagainyouroIIicehastheproperty.
IwouldlikeawrittenresponsedetailingthechainoIcustodyoIallthepropertyIorall
timessincethearrest,anditemizedlistingoItheproperty,andanindicationoIwhen,iI
ever,IwillbeinIormedoIwhyitisbeingheldandwhen,iIever,itwillbereturnedtome,
14oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00607
RE: request for written response regarding property being
held in evidence
andandindicationoIwhatexactlyhasbeendonewiththisproperty,includingwhetheran
viewingorcopyingoIthecontentshasbeenundertakenorwillremaininanyone's
possessionotherthanmine.
Sincerely,
From: Beckman, Trish (TBeckman@washoecounty.us)
Sent: Tue 3/20/12 11:12 AM
1 attachment
COUGHLIN.docx (145.4 KB)

To: Beckman, Trish
Subject: RE: request for written response regarding property being held in evidence
DearMs.Beckman,
Therewasnothingattachedtoyouremail.WouldyoupleaseresendandattachtheIile
youreIerencedbelow?
Thanks,
15oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00608
Subject: RE: request for written response regarding property being held in evidence
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:49:52 -0700
From: TBeckman@washoecounty.us
Mr. Coughlin, Aached is the wrien response to your email. Per our phone conversaon a copy of this
response has been sent to the fax number you gave me (949-667-7402).

Trish

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:58 PM
To: Beckman, Trish
Subject: request for written response regarding property being held in evidence
Dear Ms. Beckman,
A WCSO Deputy informed me that my property was being held in evidence,
including a flip phone style cell phone, and an HTC g2 smartphone in addition to a
micro sd memory card, and an electric shaved. He indicated the items were booked
into evidence on 2/27/12, then taken by the City of Reno Marshal Division on
2/28/12. A WCSO Deputy also indicated these items in evidence were release again
to the City of Reno Marshal Division on 3/14/12 because "its just easier to get it
back to you that way"....However, now it appears once again your office has the
property.
I would like a written response detailing the chain of custody of all the property for
all times since the arrest, and itemized listing of the property, and an indication of
when, if ever, I will be informed of why it is being held and when, if ever, it will be
returned to me, and and indication of what exactly has been done with this
property, including whether an viewing or copying of the contents has been
undertaken or will remain in anyone's possession other than mine.
Sincerely,
16oI17 3/29/20122:18PM
00609
Hotmail Print Message http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=ce3...
17 of 17 3/29/2012 2:18 PM
00610
RE: cases being randomly assigned in RJC FW: attempt
to file prior to 5pm denied
From: Tuttle, Steve (stuttle@washoecounty.us)
Sent: Fri 2/17/12 10:40 AM
Cc: Sferrazza, Pete (psferrazza@washoecounty.us)
Thatisyoursole,complexinterpretationofa(two)simplemeetingrequeststodiscusscourtstaff
relatedissues,whichyoudeclinedboth.
Steve Tuttle
CourtAdministrator
RenoJusticeCourt

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:09 AM
To: Tuttle, Steve
Subject: RE: cases being randomly assigned in RJ C FW: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Oh, you must be referring to when Ms. Stancil called and indicated you told her to tell me I would need
to come in and meet with you and the Bailiff prior to the RJ C agreeing to set for the Hearing on Motion
to Contest Personal Property Lien?
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
Page1 oI17 HotmailPrintMessage
2/22/2012 http://by148w.bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsc9614I81-5996-11e1...
00611
``Notice``ThismessageandaccompanyingdocumentsarecoveredbytheelectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.2510-2521,
andmaycontainconIidentialinIormationintendedIorthespeciIiedindividual(s)only.IIyouarenottheintendedrecipientoranagent
responsibleIordeliveringittotheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotiIiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorandthatanyreview,
dissemination,copying,orthetakingoIanyactionbasedonthecontentsoIthisinIormationisstrictlyprohibited.This message is
confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work
product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this
information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s),
please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately.
Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other
applicable privilege.
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:46:06 -0800
From: stuttle@washoecounty.us
Mr.Coughlin:
Iaminreceiptonyoursixpageemail,whichagainisriddlewithaccusationsandunfoundedclaims.I
donotseeanynewissuesthatnecessitateareply.However,Idofeelcompelledtoaddressone
accusationregardingyourperceptionofmymanagementresponsibilities.YouclaimIdidnotproperly
investigateyourallegationsofsexualassaultbecauseIdidnotinterviewyouthusbeinginviolationof
U.S.law.Pleasecheckyouremailsonorabout11/30/11whereyouwereaskedtwice(oncebyKaren
Stancilformeandoncebymedirectly)forameetingtodiscussyourissueswithcourtstaff.You
declinedbothinvitations.Steve
Steve Tuttle
Court Administrator
Reno J ustice Court

Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:58 PM
To: Tuttle, Steve
00612
Dear Court Administrator Tuttle,
I feel that you have misunderstood my import. Please consider that you and
others in the court are only human, whereas Richard G. Hill, Esq. is clearly a
lycan, who has also somehow managed to fashion himself and his brethren
into a sophisticated commercial law firm capable of distorting reality in ways
not commonly seen absent the administration of extremely potent
psychotropic drugs. There were no "assertions regarding "J udges Sferrazza,
Clifton and the Court's integrity" in anything I wrote you. There is a
difference between an "appearance" and a "reality", however, I think you will
find that "appearances of impropriety" are given considerable attention in the
Rules of Professional Responsibility, the Code of J udicial Conduct, and the
Model Code of Conduct for J udicial Employees in the State of Nevada.
Further, I think you will find that, contrary to your retaliatory assertions, my
duty to my client includes making a reasonably diligent effort to attempt to
access justice, and any subsequent excusable neglect analysis may, in fact,
call for making an attempt to inquire with court personnel or Sheriff's
Deputies in an attempt to address my concerns vis a vis the doors locking.
While you indicate the videos are the property of the Sheriff (quite a bit of
power for the Sheriff alone to own those videos) you do not make clear how
it is that you are able to review them, while at the same time, seemingly
disclaiming any liability for the negligent hiring, training, or supervision of the
various Deputies you supervise and or work with at the RJ C, especially, vis a
vis their propensity to tell litigants that they will have objects forcibly inserted
into their anuses should such litigants in any way question the cold, hard,
authority of these Sheriff's Deputie's jackboot.
What is not clear is why J udge Clifton would handle all the other cases on the
stacked docket of 2/13/12, beginning at 8:30, but then, after Chief Bailiff
Sexton came into the Court Room with Bailiff Reyes (whom I have been
forced to file for a Protection Order against just recently) and made some
phone calls, J udge Sferrazza replaced J udge Clifton. Further, while J udge
Sferrazza explained the non-appearance of J udge Lynch by indicating that
J udge Lynch was instead scheduled to do traffic court that day, Chief Civil
Clerk Stancil indicated today that, in fact, J udge Lynch was hearing matters
00613
on a criminal calendar.'
Regardless, I certainly have not impugned the credibility of any of the fine
judges of the RJ C. However, your jumping to being "insulted" and failing to
ask me anything about these incidents involving threats to insert objects
inside of my anus leaves a bit to be desired, in my humble opinion, from the
perspective of a member of the public appearing in your court as a litigant.
You wrote: "You were not denied by this Court your right to file these
documents yesterday. You were, however, denied by Washoe County Sheriff
Court Security Unit access to the building after closing time; the same as
anyone else would be denied. You were not here before 5:00pm and trying
to gain access into the facility by coming through an exit only door is not
permissible."
I don't agree with your assessment, but I apologize for the annoyance this
seems to have caused. I hope you will consider that the date on which this
occurred was the last day to file a pre-trial motion (under NRS 174.125, such
motions, including a "motion to suppress" the fruits of an unlawful search by
law enforcement) in a matter for which I am a criminal defendant, and for
which a conviction could result in me being disbarred as an attorney, in
addition to fairly substantial criminal penalties, including incarceration. There
are a lot of things that can go wrong on the way to an innocent man being
convicted of a crime. One key area involves the failure to preserve for appeal
important issues. Such were the content of the documents I sought to filed
on February 14th, 2012. Additionally, only yesterday was I finally informed
by the RJ C, criminal division, that I may file by fax. I have previously been
told that I may not file by fax. Further, today Ms. Stancil, Chief Civil Clerk,
informed me that I may also file by fax in the Civil Division. I am quite
certain I have requested permission to do this before in both the civil and
criminal divisions and have been told I may not every single time. This
relates to your recent commentary on "favoritism" and applying the rules
evenly to all litigants. I am sure I have heretofore been disallowed from filing
by fax. Indeed, I have spent countless hours of my time travelling out of my
way, down to the Reno J ustice Court, to file each and every document that I
have filed in the few cases I have had in your court (and most any lawyer
00614
will tell you that their "time" is the only thing a lawyer is much able to sell to
anyone for the purpose of making a living, something which, I assure, has
been an enormous struggle for me this past few years). You are aware of
just how enormous the file is in RJ C Rev2011-001708. I guess some would
say that is my fault, though I would counter that the law is rather clear that
NRS 40.253's summary eviction proceedings are forbidden against
commercial tenants where the non payment of rent is neither alleged nor
Notice of such is posted or served, as here.
Mr. Tuttle, you know as well as I do that there is a turnstile that only turns
one way that would obviously present any such attempt to gain access.
Further, the door you are referring to is not marked "exit only", and your
assertions that I was "trying to gain access to the facility" is so transparent
that it is disturbing considering your position with the court. I clearly knocked
on the window and waived to Deputies in an attempt to ask them my
questions. Surely, the video you reference easily show this. Additionally, you
do not mention exactly what time "after 5 pm" the video showed, and I find
that curious. Further, you do not mention any system in place to assure that
the time stamping on the video is in accord with the official United States
time at www.time.gov. Indeed, the RJ C or the Sheriff are not the only one's
in the this world with cameras and clocks, and it might be very interesting to
see a documentary of several days worth of footage of just when exactly the
doors lock, synced to a visual time stamping verified to be accurate vis a vis
www.time.gov. If such a video did exist, you don't sound like you would be
too interested in seeing it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You further wrote: "Because your actions could be consider trespassing is the
reason why Reno J ustice Court Chief Bailiff Michael Sexton again asked you
to leave. Fair and equal access to justice applies not only to discrimination,
but also to favoritism. Allowing one party to file documents after a deadline is
unethical and without question unfair." Your interpretation of the crime of
"trespassing" is interesting. I guess, under your approach, Richard G. Hill,
Esq. would be guilty of trespassing where, at the 12/20/11 Hearin on
Tenant's Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien, after the Tenant invoked
the Rule of Exclusion, and J udge Sferrazza ordered Hill and other prospective
witnesses to leave the court room, where Hill surreptiously snuck back in the
court room, found time during a recess to announce to myself Bailiff Reyes
and Chief Bailiff Sexton that Hill too would like to "put his boot up Coughlin's
ass", and then manage to sneak back into the court room during the
proceeding, and have Bailiff Sexton pass post-it notes from behind the Bar to
00615
a struggling Casey Baker, Esq., whom was attempting to apply and unlawful
rent distraint under the guise of "reasonable storage" expenses.
At $30 a day for "reasonable storage" expenses, J udge Sferrrazza's Order
was more in line with what one gets in a room at the Sand's for a day,
complete with the full use and occupancy of the room, heat, plubming, light,
and premium cable television, and wi-fi access. $30.00 a day for "reasonable
storage" of that which could fit in a 10 by 30 foot storage shed (which
typically cost $125 per month, or about 1/8th of what J udge Sferrazza ruled
would be a reasonable daily storage charge, in the great Reno area). This
$30.00 a day storage charge is made all the more questionable by the fact
that the locations where all these items were being "stored" (and for which a
bill for $1,060 to "secure" this "storage" was filed with the RJ C) was actually
burglarized on December 12th, 2011, while under Hill and Baker control, and
many valuable were stolen, though neither Hill nor Baker ever provided
anything close to a reasonable detailed inventory of what was there prior to
the burglary and what remained after the burglary. The did manage to notice
that a 62 inch Television was missing, though.
I agree with your assessment that it would be unethical and without question
unfair for the criminal division filing office to ask a "red headed step child"
litigant "who is calling" on the phone when they inquire with court personnel
as to whether the court will, in fact, remain open, all the way up to the
posted 5pm closing time, and then for the door's to the court to, ever so
curiously, be locked prior to 5 pm when said redhead presents to access
justice, and even more so where a court administrator and Chief Bailiff then
arrange a version of the facts to explain away their actions and decisions,
replete with menacing allusions to retaliatory prosecution, etc., etc. You are
right about that, Sir.
You further wrote "Informing Chief Bailiff Sexton of your intention to wait
outside for Reno J ustice Court employees to leave so you could force them to
take your filings is a form of harassment and needs to stop immediately. If
this aggressive behavior continues, the Court will consider a protective order
against you, which will result in your ability or privilege to access Reno
J ustice Court." Well, it does seem somewhat untoward that you are now
00616
threatening to file a protective order merely because a litigant asked to speak
with a supervisor regarding the court's doors locking prior to 5 pm. This is
particularly troublesome where you make accusations of such a litigant
engaging in "aggressive behavior" when, in fact, it is your own Chief Bailiff
Sexton and Bailiff Reyes who have both engaged in bullying behavior
towards litigants, replete with the ever so professional threats to forcibly
insert objects into a litigants anus, and other menacing commentary related
to a litigants "ass", particularly where such commentary occurred while said
litigant was attempting to access justice in the most basic way (by presenting
documents to be filed with the filing office, during hours for which the court
holds itself out as open for business).
You further wrote: "In addition, I have looked into your assertions of sexual
assault by the Reno J ustice Court Bailiffs and found these allegations to be
without merit." However, in your "looking into" these "assertions of sexual
assault" you have neither met with me nor interviewed me or otherwise
conducted anything close to a reasonably diligent inquiry, something which
you may have a duty to perform with respect to any negligent hiring,
training, or supervision claim or other 42 USC Sec 1983 claim a member, or a
class of members of the public may have. But you seem to suggest that you
do not bare any responsibility for the actions of the WCSO Court Security
Unit's actions. However, if that is the case, one must wonder why you would
have "looked into your assertions of sexual assault by the Reno J ustice Court
Bailiff's" or why you refer to said Bailiff's alternatively as "Reno J ustice Court
Bailiffs", while elsewhere using the designation Washoe County Sheriff
Court Security Unit.
You went on to write in another recent correspondence: "1) The locking of
the front doors to the Courthouse is the responsibility of the Sheriffs Office,
so all your questions regarding this issue will need to be directed to them.
However, I will state that the surveillance videos, which are dated and time
stamped, clearly shows that you were here after 5:00pm on 2/14/2012."
Well, the videos may technically show I was "here after 5 pm", but it is
curious you do not write that the videos show that I "did not arrive until after
5 pm"...or otherwise get very specific.
00617
Please be aware that this correspondence places you on a LITIGATION HOLD
NOTICE with respect to any and all recordings made in conjunction with this
matter, and further, with regard to any recordings made concerning me
whatsoever. PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH A COPY OF THE VIDEO YOU
REFERENCE, COMPLETE WITH THE TIME STAMPING AND A WRITTEN
ATTESTATION AS TO THE PRACTICE IN PLACE TO ASSURE THE ACCURACY
OF THE TIMESTAMPING.
You go on to write: "3) I am not sure what your question is regarding your
11/16/11 filing - Motion to Contest Personal Property." By all means, let me
elucidate this matter for you more clearly. Please see the attached 1/5/12
Reply to Opposition in the appeal from this matter, in CV11-03628 wherein
the RJ C's liability for failing to appropriately carry out the dictates of black
letter Nevada law found in NRS 40.253(7)-(8) is quite clearly pronounced.
Further, I was never provided or served a copy of (until the filing of the
Record on Appeal, well after the 12/15 and 12/17/11 entries in the docket,
which preceded the 12/20/11 Hearing on Tenant's Motion to Contest
Personal Property Lien) the two statements the RJ C seemingly order Deputy
Clerk J ocelyn J onas and Chief Civil Clerk Karen Stancil to place in the file in
RJ C REV2011-001708.
In that Reply, in page 7 of 24, one' finds the following: 4. Funny thing about the
Reno J ustice Court: when it comes to setting a hearing within 10 days of my filing Motion to Contest
Personal Property Lien on November 16th, 2011, the RJ C is all "oh, we needed your permission, Mr.
Coughlin, to set such a hearing, its your fault that we couldn't get it on within the 10 days required by
statute under NRS 40.253(7-8); however, when Coughlin went in to file something on November 3,
2011 at 4:58pm, RJ C filing office Chief Clerk Karen Stancil didn't need no permission to serve personally
on Coughlin Notice of a Hearing to take place on Monday, November 7, 2011. Well, actually,
allegathetically, another clerk (Deputy Clerk Christine Erickson) had to sneak that Notice of the Hearing
on November 7, 2011 into a stack of papers she slipped Coughlin when she was pretending to be helpful
for a change, rather than sullen, and overly opinionated for someone who cares so little of the import of
the Whitman, Donoho, Byrant, and Sullivan decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court with respect to court
employees legislating from the filing office desk and refusing to accept filings because they just aren't
feeling it that day.... You see, somebody at the RJ C figured out that it probably was not legal to hold on
to Coughlin last $2,275 on earth if it was not granting him a stay (especially where NRS 40.385 entitles
Coughlin to one, for his posting a bond as little as $250 (instead the RJ C kept Coughlin's $2,275, and if
you believe Hill, did not grant a stay) as, in J udge Sferrazza's words, that would be "conversion". So,
how again is it Mr. Hill's outrageous allegations of Coughlin living here or there during this or that period
(something which Hill never bothers to support with anything other than his own bluster, hot air, and
conjecture, and apparent willingness to to incur NRCP Rule 11 sanctions if it means milking a willful
neurosurgeon good and dry in the process) are reasonably based in fact or law and therefore not worthy
00618
of NRCP 11 sanctions?
Regardless, the RJ C did set a Hearing on Tenant's Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien, and Tenant
did show up for it, in face, he checked in with Chief Bailiff Sexton prior to that Hearing, which was set
for November 22, 2011. However, Tenant was the only one who showed up. Should that not yield a
default victory?
However, more troubling is the RJ C's conduct in forcing two of its filing office personnel to sign
unsworned "statements", one month after some alleged conversation incident to a litigants visit to the
filing office, and further, where Deputy Clerk J ocelyn J onas was called to testify by J udge Sferrazza,
would conducted a leading examination of the Court's witness, in a matter where the Court was not
even a party. Most troubling of all, however, it the fact that Ms. J ones, on cross-examination had to
admit matters that show here statement of December 15th, 2011 to be misleading, at best, and wholly
deficient in fulfilling the RJ C's duty to maintain an appearance of impartiality towards all litigants. It is
simply impermissible for the RJ C to have Ms. J onas sign and unsworn "statement" (truly a new one to
me, being neither a notarized Affidavit, nor a Declaration made under "penalty of perjury" in lieu of an
Affidavit. However, when Ms. J onas did get sworn in at the 12/20/11 Hearing, a few unpleasant truths
emerged. One, Ms. J onas was forced to admit that she did recall having a discussion with Tenant
Coughlin in RJ C REV2011-001708 about the requirement that the RJ C comply with NRS 40.253(8) which
reads:
"NRS 40.253(8): Upon the filing of a motion pursuant to subsection
7, the court shall schedule a hearing on the motion. The
hearing must be held within 10 days after the filing of
the motion. The court shall affix the date of the hearing to
the motion and order a copy served upon the landlord by
the sheriff, constable or other process server. At the hearing,
the court may:
(a) Determine the costs, if any, claimed by the landlord
pursuant to NRS 118A.460 or 118C.230 and any accumulating
daily costs; and
(b) Order the release of the tenants property upon the
payment of the charges determined to be due or if no charges
are determined to be due.
One thing you may notice about the jurisdiction granted to the Court, above, in NRS 40.253(8), is that
there is decidedly not any language allowing for an Order "Resolving" Motion to Contest Personal
Property Lien like that J udge Sferrazza entered on 12/21/11, and for which the RJ C filing office has
refused to allow me to file a Notice of Appeal for, and has further refused to even mark as "received" my
attempts at so filing Such a Notice Appeal and Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (to the
extent that would even be necessary considering the previous IFP status given the Tenant in that
00619
matter, RJ C REV201-001708). That 12/21/11 Order is included following this corrspondence.
Coughlin is also the Defendant in this criminal matter, which is also before J udge Sferrazza, RCR11-
063341....J udge Sferrazza is now seemingly being placed onto another landlord tenant matter where
Coughlin is a named party, despite J CRRT 2 calling for a random assignment of cases (J udge Lynch was
randomly assigned to the case originally, RJ C2012-074408, Coughlin v. Park Terrace HOA, and, also,
J udge Sferrazza is now set to also take jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer matter that shall soon be
filed upon Coughlin filing a Tenant's Affidavit upon the proper service of a 5 day Unlawful Detainer
Notice to Quit). This is not about impugning J udge Sferrazza as a jurist. Its about criticizing and seeking
redress for the appearance of impropriety created where WCSO Bailiff's engage in conduct that is
impermissible (threatening to forcibly insert objects up a litigants anus) and then create an unduly
suspicious appearance of "judge shopping by Bailiff" (Why these Bailiff's seem to want to insult an
esteemed jurist like J udge Sferrazza, one who has an extraordinary depth and breadth of experience
throughout all three branches of government in Washoe County, is puzzling and unfortunate). It would
not take much for these Bailiff's to gather an opinion on which judges have which approach on landlord
tenant matters. It would be impermissible to allow Bailiff's go grudge based judge shopping to retaliate
against litigants asserting their consitutional rights, as Coughlin clearly does, much to their totalitarian
dismay. J udge Sferrazza has an approach to landlord tenants matters that is his own, as all judges
invariably will. That does not make him and impartial arbiter or imply any impropriety. However, to allow
RJ C Bailiff's to "gerrymander" what is supposed to be a random assigning of cases, would clearly be
impermissible. Even if that is not what is occurring here, a reasonable person could concluded that the
appearance of such is evident. This is particularly true where J udge Clifton was on the bench and heard
every other case set for the 8:30 stacked docket in court room "B" on 2/13/12. Mr. Tuttle did not get
where he is by being foolish or dim. He must work day in day out with these Bailiffs. Mr. Coughlin is but
a minor occasional litigant/attorney in the Reno J ustice Court. Reasonable minds may feel it would be
foolish for Mr. Tuttle to take any action which would appear to undermine his belief in the
reasonableness and justness of these Bailiff's actions, particularly where these brave men are called to
perform the heroic in truly dangerous circumstances at times. That is where rules get to be the "bad
guy" rather than judges or administrators. J CRRT 2 is the bad guy here, and it is only appropriate for
J udge Lynch to hear both this new Complaint for Unlawful Interruption of Essential Services, in addition
to any Summary Eviction and or Unlawful Detainer matter that may arise between those parties and
within a common nexus of circumstances and facts.
Also: "The justices' judgment obligation to pay attorneys' fees is based (1) on
their having followed a procedural rule (J CRCP 106) enacted by this court
and (2) on their having made several erroneous judicial decisions." Lippis v.
Peters, 112 Nev. 1008, 921 P.2d 1248 (Nev. Aug 16, 1996); G.C. Wallace,
Inc. v. Eighth J udicial Dist. Court of State, ex rel. County of Clark, 262 P.3d
1135, 1140+, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 64, 64+ (Nev. Oct 06, 2011) (NO. 56773) "
HN: 2,3,4 (P.2d) 2 Schneider v. Elko County Sheriff's Dept., 17 F.Supp.2d
1162, 1165 (D.Nev. Aug 06, 1998) (NO. CV-N-96-548-ECR) Mentioned 3
Cheung v. Eighth J udicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 124 P.3d 550,
552, 121 Nev. 867, 869 (Nev. Dec 15, 2005) (NO. 42212) HN: 1 (P.2d); "42
U.S.C. 1988 (1991). This federal statute permits the state courts to award
attorneys fees to successful civil rights litigants in civil rights actions brought
in the state courts under 1983. The cited code provision, section 1988,
00620
allows for an award of fees to the prevailing party when that party has
sued to enforce a provision of ... 42 USCS 19811983. Even if we were
to recognize the tenants as the prevailing party in this litigation, it is more
than clear that this action was in no way designed or pleaded to enforce a
provision of ... 42 USCS 19811983. In their points and authorities in
support of their application for *1015 attorney's fees the tenants agree that
[i]n order to state a claim under 1983, Plaintiffs must allege a person has
deprived him or her of a federal right and the person so depriving acted
under color of state law. In no instance did plaintiff tenants ever allege
[that] a person has deprived him or her of a federal right. Lippis v. Peters
112 Nev. 1008, 921 P.2d 1248.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
2510-2521, and may contain confidential information intended for the specified individual (s) only. If you are not the intended
recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited. This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain
information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt fromdisclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient(s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this message in
error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from your computer, and destroy
any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any
attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:46:45 -0800
CC: psferrazza@washoecounty.us
00621
1) Questionsregardingclocksaskedandanswered.
2) Assertionsofacountywideconspiracyareunfoundandinsulting.
3) Casejudgeassignmentsarerandom,buthearingjudgeassignmentsareatthediscretion
ofthecourtandcaseswillbemovedforavarietyofreasons,mostlytoensurecontinuity
andcaseflowefficiency.
4) Statementsregardingyourassaskedandanswered.
5) AssertionsregardingJudgesSferrazza,CliftonandtheCourtsintegrityareunfoundand
insulting.
Steve Tuttle
Court Administrator
Reno J ustice Court

Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:29 PM
To: Tuttle, Steve; Lynch, Patricia
Subject: cases being randomly assigned in RJ C FW: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Dear Mr. Tuttle,
Would you please confirm that the clocks in the court are
accurate, and indicate how the doors are locked, and
how they were locked yesterday. It is my position that I
was there prior to 5 pm, further the appearance given by
the fact that the person I spoke with on the telephone
from the criminal division filing office (she made sure to
ask for my name, as though that would affect the content
of her answer to my questions-contrary to your a
ssertions, I am seeking no special privilege, but rather,
seeking to avoid any special prejudice) made sure to ask
00622
my name, and it was provided is troubling when viewed
in conjunction with the events before my 2/ 13/ 11
Hearing in the RJ C in Coughlin V. Park Terrace
Townhomes HOA. As you know, J CRRT Rule 2 requires
cases be assigned randomly. However, though J udge
Lynch was assigned to hear my Complaint for
Interruption of Essential Services, shortly before the
hearing, the court room was popuplate by two different
Deputies who have both made menacing statements to
me involving my "ass", one of which involved forcible
putting an object up my "ass". Chief Deputy Sexton
entered the court room and made a few calls, and he is
one of the two Deputies to which I refer when
mentioning this "ass" situation. Next thing I know,
J udge Sferrazza is hearing the case, and now I am told
J udge Sferrazza is "attached" to the case instead of
J udge Lynch. While hearing the case, before it was
continued, J udge Sferrazza apparently granted a license
to practice law to a property manager on behalf of
another named party, the Park Terrace Townhomes
HOA. I feel this case should be heard by J udge Lynch.
This is not a statement against J udge Sferrazza, it is a
statement with respect to the appearance created by the
above facts. This, combined with the unexplained
October 19th, 2011 fax to J udge Clifton seeking an ex
parte Order allowing inspection of my law office by Casey
Baker, Esq. of the Law Offices of Richard G. HIll, Esq.,
despite J udge Clifton not being Chief J udge at that time
in consideration of J CRCP 84.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
00623
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
To: stuttle@washoecounty.us
Subject: RE: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:15:02 -0800
Dear Mr. Tuttle,
Your correspondence contains numerous inaccuracies that I am
too pressed for time to counter at this point. I appreciate your
response though. Can you confirm that the clocks in your court
are correct? Deputy Sexton agreed to get a supervisor and it
was agreed I would wait outside to speak to one. You, of
course, have been informed numerous times previously of WCSO
Court Security efforts to deny the access to justice prior to the
5pm closing time. I am still waiting for some response from you
regarding the various statements concerning my "ass" by those
you have some supervisory position over. Further, can you
please indicate why I was, apparently, provided some demand
whereby I would perform the duty placed upon the WCSO
incident to my 11/16/11 filing of a Motion to Contest Personal
Property Lien vis a vis the service and scheduling dictates found
in NRS 40.253(7)-(8), especially considering the holding in Lippis
and NRS 42.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
00624
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
Subject: RE: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:57:32 -0800
CC: J Goodnight@washoecounty.us
Mr.Coughlin:
ThedocumentsthatyouemailedandfaxedtoRenoJusticeCourtat6:40pmonFebruary14,2012were
filedstampwithtodaysdate(February15,2012)andplacedinthefilefortheJudgesreview.Itwillbe
notedthatthesedocumentswerereceivedbytheCourtafternormalbusinesshoursonFebruary14,
2012.
YouwerenotdeniedbythisCourtyourrighttofilethesedocumentsyesterday.Youwere,however,
deniedbyWashoeCountySherriffCourtSecurityUnitaccesstothebuildingafterclosingtime;the
sameasanyoneelsewouldbedenied.Youwerenotherebefore5:00pmandtryingtogainaccessinto
thefacilitybycomingthroughanexitonlydoorisnotpermissible.Becauseyouractionscouldbe
considertrespassingisthereasonwhyRenoJusticeCourtChiefBailiffMichaelSextonagainaskedyou
toleave.Fairandequalaccesstojusticeappliesnotonlytodiscrimination,butalsotofavoritism.
Allowingonepartytofiledocumentsafteradeadlineisunethicalandwithoutquestionunfair.

00625
InformingChiefBailiffSextonofyourintentiontowaitoutsideforRenoJusticeCourtemployeesto
leavesoyoucouldforcethemtotakeyourfilingsisaformofharassmentandneedstostop
immediately.Ifthisaggressivebehaviorcontinues,theCourtwillconsideraprotectiveorderagainst
you,whichwillresultinyourabilityorprivilegetoaccessRenoJusticeCourt.
Inaddition,IhavelookedintoyourassertionsofsexualassaultbytheRenoJusticeCourtBailiffsand
foundtheseallegationstobewithoutmerit.
Lastly,yourpracticeoffilinghundredsofdocumentsonmultiplecasesandthenrepeatedlyaskingfor
copiesofthecasefilesfreeofchargewillnolongerbegrantedbytheCourt.RenoJusticeCourtwill
provideyouonefreecopyofyouroriginalcasefilesandonefreecopyofanyfuturefilings,butyouwill
bechargedappropriatelyforalladditionalcopies.
Steve Tuttle
Court Administrator
Reno J ustice Court

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:40 PM
To: Tuttle, Steve; Goodnight, J oseph W; Young, Zach; RJ CWEB
Subject: attempt to file prior to 5pm denied
Dear Reno J ustice Court Administration and Filing Office, DDA Young and DPD Goodnight,
Hello, I am emailing and faxing the document and one exhibit you will find herein as I was denied my
right to file it today. I presented to the court prior to 5pm today but was prevented from filing this
document (and today is the last day to file these pretrial motions absent receiving leave of court to do
so prior to the February 29th, 2012 Trial in Department 2 before J udge Sferrazza. J udge Sferrazza has,
in the past, expressed displeasure with regard to any attempt to file by email, and I do not wish to upset
J udge Sferrazza here, and accordingly am not copying him on this correspondence. However, I believe
the "excusable neglect"/"deprivation of rights under color of law" analysis may dictate that I promptly
attempt to make some record of my attempt to file and in that regard I am submitting this to you now.
Incidentally, I did call the criminal division RJ C filing office today shortly before 5pm alerting them to my
imminent attempt to access justice and received confirmation that they would not close prior to 5pm.
HOwver, the doors of the court house were locked prior to 5pm. I have witness timers/clocks in the
court to be set approximately 5 minutes fast in that past. I attempted to ask a supervisor about this by
00626
alerting Chief Deputy Sexton, and while he initially refused to get a supervisor, he then finally indicated
he would, however, no supervisor ever appeared. Chief Deputy Sexton, along with another Deputy has
sexually assaulted me in that past, and as such, of course, the was a very unusual and uncomfortable
situation.
Additionally, I had another landlord tenant hearing involving myself on Monday, 2/3/12. AS per J CRRT
my case was randomly assigned to J udge Lynch. However, just prior to my case being heard, Deputy
Sexton entered the court room, made some calls, and J udge Sferrazza appeared to hear my case.
J udge Sferrazza then proceeded to grant a property manage a license to practice law on behalf of Park
Terrace Homeowners Associations (PTHOA). I, of course, am very uncomfortable having the Deputy
who sexually assaulted me appear in the court room at all my appeances, as Deputy Sexton seems to do
(in fact, he glowered over me at the 12/21/12 Hearing on my Motion to Contest Personal Property lien)
in such a menacing fashion that I was unable to think clearly, much to the detriment of my case.
Further, I am uncomfortable at the appearance given off by the curious changing of the J udge assigned
to my hearing after Deputy Sexton entered the court room and made a few calls. It may be
inappropriate to give off the appearance that Deputy Sexton is able to control the assignment of J udges
to certain cases rather than having cases randomly assigned pursuant to J CRRT. I believe this filing and
one exhibit you find herein should be accorded a filing date for 2/14/12, as I was prevented from
appropriately accessing justice, and in that regard, I don't believe this is a request to "bend" the rules or
allow a special exception, though I do believe one is able to file a motion seeking such an exception for
cause. Deputy SExton has sexually assaulted me in the past in similar situations where I attempt to use
all of the hours available to filing accorded to any other member of the public.
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9th St. #2
RENO, NV 89512
tel: 775 338 8118
fax: 949 667 7402
Nevada Bar No: 9473
00627
NCAA and Dwayne jakob
Nevada court services attack and attempted break in
respectfully submitted
Sent: Fri 6/22/12 9:36 AM
To: weavera@reno.gov
Keep turning light off attempting break in malicious abuse of process claiming color of law
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Sent: Fri 6/22/12 9:34 AM
To: weavera@reno.gov
NCA and northerns mgmt tried to break again on June 14th.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Sent: Fri 6/08/12 4:41 PM
To: weavera@reno.gov; barnesm@reno.gov
6 attachments
20120605_101513 Northwind manager handy man attacks from golf cart 6 5
12.mp4 (3.1 MB) , landlord tenant law manual for police in minnesota.pdf (735.1
KB) , Police_manual_-_final_as_adopted_by_State's_Attorney.pdf (263.7 KB) ,
trespass criminal civil evictdion.pdf (69.8 KB) , 6 8 12 fax to northwind with page
numbers.pdf (50.7 KB) , northwind fax 6 4 12 habitability retaliation etc.pdf (45.8
KB)
DearOIIicerWeaverandOIIicerBarnes,
IamrespectIullysubmittingthissupplementarymaterialtothepolicereportI
submittedtoyouinpersononJune6,2012regardingtheassaultIwasthe
victimoIatthehandsoImaintenancestaIImemberLukeoINorthwind
HotmailPrintMessage https://bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsa57532c6-I...
1oI2 8/7/201211:19PM
00628
ApartmentsonJune5th,2012,andtheattemptsatunlawIulentrycommittedby
NorthwindManagerDwayneJakobonoraboutJune4,2012.
IamattachinganarticleyoumayIindoIinterestregardingtheintersectionoI
landlordtenantlawandpolicework,visaviscriminal/civilmattersandthe
Iinedistinctionsthatsometimesarise.Ididn'tseeanythinginthereonOIIicer
WeaversIinehypotheticalregardingentrywithoutpermissionwhenaburglary
maybeoccurring.ThatsituationprobablydoesnotcomeupthatoItenbecause
hardlyanybodybutthepolicewouldbebraveenoughtoentersucha
dangeroussituation.
IappreciatethebraveservicebothoIyouprovide.Iamattachingthis
materialsjustbecausetheyareinterestingtomeandmaybetoyouandinno
waywishIorsoattachignthesetobeinterpretedasacriticismoIeitheroIyour
policework.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin
HotmailPrintMessage https://bay148.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpidsa57532c6-I...
2oI2 8/7/201211:19PM
00629
Reno eviction noticed for Sparks Justice Court
Sent: Tue 6/26/12 7: 58 AM
To: sheriffweb@washoecounty.us; Istuchell@washoecounty.us; kstancil@washoecounty.us;
chansen@washoecounty.us; milllerr@reno.gov
Dear Sparks Justice Court, WCSO, RPD, and Reno Justice Court.
Page lof2
I have received (though not personally served) what appears to be an eviction notice (5 day unlawful
detainer?) for rentals located at 1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Reno, 89523, but the notice indicates that I
must file a Tenant's Answer with the Sparks Justice Court.
Am I mistaken in viewing this matter to be outside the jurisdiction of the Sparks Justice Court, and
rather, a matter to be handled in Reno Justice Court?
Given Sparks Justice Court is open 5 days a week (closes at noon on Fridays) and Reno Justice Court
has 4 judicial days a week, the deadline for filing a special appearance (to contest jurisdiction) and or a
Tenant's Answer of Affidavit is difficult to measure.
I spoke with a Reno Police Department who identified himself as Sargent Miller last week and he
indicated the WCSO planned to come effectuate an eviction on this date, June 26, 2012. I believe that
would be premature, as Nevada Landlord Tenant law provides for filing a Tenant's Answer or Affidavit
by noon after the fifth fUl/day (judicial days) and Fridays in Sparks Justice Court are not ful/ days in that
sense, and regardless, Sparks Justice Court, I believe, is not the appropriate forum where, as here, the
situs is located in Reno (Ward 1-nap?)
Sincerely,
Zach Coug hlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
tel 775 338 8118
fax 949 667 7403
Civil Division
630 Greenbrae Drive
Sparks, Nevada 89431
(775)353.7603 Phone
(775)352.3004 Fax
Civil Department Supervisor
Chris Hansen
chansen@washoecountv.us
The Civil Division of Sparks Justice Court is made up of three major functions:
Civil
Civil Complaints for damages in excess of $5000 or if a suit involves a breach of contract, punitive
damaqes, an action to obtain possession of property, a writ of restitution, or other like actions, leqal
00630
Clerk Accepted: 08-27-2012:16:41:45
Case Title:
(D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Mtn Alter or Amend Judgment
-**Continuation
COUGHLIN
RENO
00631
CODE: 1775 FllEO
, , . "
, ,[' -:. ~ ~ ~ I ; ~
7
***
8 ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
9
CASE NO: CR12-1262
vs.
DEPT. NO.: 10
corporation,
Respondent,
/
GENERAL RECEIPT FORM
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Pursuant to Court Order, this case is remanded to (D) Reno Justice Court, (D) Sparks
17 Justice Court, ~ ) Reno Municipal Court, (D) Sparks Municipal Court, or (D) Incline Justice
18 Court
19 Following is a detailed listing of the document(s) being remanded:.
20 Certified copy of Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
21 City's exhibits 1,2 and 3.
Dated this I d-- day of 5' e.of .

,2012 .
Signature of Receiving Party
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Instructions: Please sign, date and return the attached document to:
Clerk of the Court
Second Judicial District Court
POBox 30083
Reno, Nevada 89520-3083
-\-
00632
7
8
9
10
,? -.i: j': i; I
;t, .

OR\G\NAL
Code 1180
2m llOV 29 AM /I: 50
Appellant,

Case No. 12CR-1262
II vs.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITY OF RENO,
Respondent.
--------------------------,/
Dept. No. 10
APPEAL PROCEEDINGS FROM MUNICIPAL'S COURT
I
00633
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
RENO
MUNlUPALCOURT

Reno, NV1I9505
(775) 334_22900

Document Code 1375
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, Nevada 89505
775 334-2290

ORIGINAL
ZACHARY B. COUGHLlN Case No. CR12-1262
Appellant, Dept. No. 10
vs.
CITY OF RENO
Respondent.
____________________ 1
CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET
24 October 2012: Motion for New Trial, or, Alternatively, Motion to Vacate
Judgment or Conviction, or Alternatively Notice That RMC Failed to File Coughlin's June
28
th
, 2012 Notice of Appeal, Which Was Served Upon Reno City Attorney Within 10 Days of
June 18
th
, 2012 Conviction Being Rendered, and Motion for Arrest 0 Judgment file by
defendant
13 November 2012: Order Denying Motion signed by Judge Willianl 1. Gardner.
20 November 2012: Notice of Appeal filed by defendant.
20 November 2012: Motion for New Trial Date filed by defendant.
Municipal Judge.
Department Two
RMC33
--=[ 1 ]=--
00634

1
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMITTAL OF COMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL
2
I, Cassandra Jackson, Court Administrator of the Reno Municipal Court, do hereby
3
certify that the attached documents include full, true and correct copies of all papers relating
4
5
to Case Number 11 CR 26405 21. Further, said documents have been transmitted to and filed
6
with the clerk of the Washoe County District Court.
7
8
Cassandra Jackso
9
Court Administrat,()i..._
10
11
12
13
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE
this day ___ , 20 G-.
14
15
NOTARY P BLIC
16
STATE OF EV ADA - COUNTY OF WASHOE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
><ENO
MtJNKIPAL COURT
P.O Box 1900
R""n_ NV 89$05
Approved October 11, 2004 RMC33
(775) 33422900
--=[ 2]=--
00635
1
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
27
28
R1:NO
MUNICIPAL COURT
PO 80'<1'100
R"", NV 89505
(7JS)J34-229!Xl

Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I hereby certifY that I am an employee of the Reno Municipal
Court and that on this date I deposited for mailing at Reno, Nevada a true copy of the
foregoing document addressed to:
CHRISTOPHER HAZLETT -STEVENS
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 1900
RENO, NEVADA 89505
and
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
P.O. Box 3961
RENO, NV 89505
DATED this day __ , 201..
1. WAGNER
Judicial Assistant
Department Two
Approved October II, 2004
RMC33
--=[ 3 ]=--
00636
v,
II clZ- 2bcbs-
0
00637

F I LED
1 Case No. 11 CR 26405
012
2 Dept. No.2
RenoMur,
3
4
5
6
7
By .
Deputy Clerk
8 THE CITY OF RENO,
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
Defendant.
-----------------------,
On June 18,2012, the defendant above-named was found guilty of trespassing after
trial and sentenced to a fine of $310.00 in addition to the time the defendant spent in jail. The
defendant appealed his conviction to the Second Judicial District Court. On August 27, 2012, an
Order was signed by Judge Steven P. Elliott dismissing the defendant's appeal.
On October 24, 2012, the defendant filed in the Reno Municipal Court a Motion for
New Trial, or, Alternatively, Motion to Vacate Judgment or Conviction, or Alternatively Notice that
RMC Failed to File Coughlin's June 28, 2012 Notice of Appeal, Which Was Served Upon Reno City
Attorney Within 10 Days of June 18
th
, 2012 Conviction Being Rendered; and motion For Arrest of
Judgment.
On October 29, 2012, the defendant filed in the Reno Municipal Court a Notice of
Errata and Revised Supplemental Motion for new Trial, or, Alternatively, Supplemental Motion to
Vacate judgment or Conviction, or in the Alternative, Motion for Arrest of Judgment.
00638
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 motion filed by the defendant on October 24, 2012, and the Notice of Errata and
Supplemental Motion filed October 29,2012, are without merit and are hereby denied.
Dated this 13th day of November, 2012.
2
JUDGE ILLIAM . GARDNER
Department Two
00639
' '
-
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
RENO
MUNICIPAl. COURT
POBoJr.l900
limo, NV J950S
(701) 3]4-'2l90

x
--
x
Placing said document in a sealed envelope placed for collecting and mailing
business practices.
Facsimile (FAX).
Personal Delivery to City Attorney
--
Zach Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
DATED this 13th day of Nov em er,2012.
00640
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2S
26
27
28

Document Code:
Zach Coughlin
Nevada Bar No: 9473 (temporarily suspended)
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
tel: and fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se Defendant Denied Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
IN THE RENO MUNICIPAL COURT
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, ST ATE OF NEVADA
STATE OF NEV ADA; )
)
) Case No: II CR 26405
)
vs. ) Dept No: 2 Han. Judge William Gardner
)
ZACHARY COUGHLIN; )
)
Defendant. )
)
,
,'I '
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OR
CONVICTION, OR ALTERNATIVELY NOTICE THAT RMC FAILED TO FILE COUGHLIN'S
JUNE 28TH. 2012 NOTICE OF APPEAL. WHICH WAS SERVED UPON RENO CITY
ATTORNEY WITHIN 10 DAYS OF JUNE 18TH, 2012 CONVICTION BEING RENDERED; AND
MOTION FOR ARREST OF JUDGMENT
FACTS
I.When Coughlin was in the quasi-"basement" (it isn't a room fit for habitation or use under the Housing
Code (only one exit, ceiling are about 5 feet high in most places, noor was dirt when Coughlin first rented
it, but he fixed it up very nicely over time and it certainly looked like someone could have been living in
- 1/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. etc ...
00641
.-
1 there well prior to the eviction, but Judge Gardner ruled all that stuff about "using it as a residence" was
2
irrelevant, except for the fact he mentioned it in his Order and Hazlett let it creep into his closing
3
arguments_ ... ) there was not any voices calling to him (certainly the videos filmed by Hill and Merliss,
4
propounded to the City and the court appointed defenders who refused to subpoena Merliss despite Hill's
5
and the RPD's obvious motive and bias ... show that neither Hill nor Merliss, as confirmed by Hill's Trial
7
testiony, made any verbal incantations to Coughlin, but rather, retreated upstairs to wait for the RPD ... )
8
prior to what was ultimately revealed to be the RPD arriving. As shown with a lot more indicia of
9
reliability than Hill's lie filled June 18th, 2012 sworn testimony at trial, in his November 2 1st, 2011
10
Declaration, Hill fails to assert that the RPD "identified themselves as law enforcement" and issued a
11
12
lawful order to emerge from the basement (which is not necessarily lawful, even if they identify themselves
l3
as law enforcement, if they were not given the authority to issue it by someone having such authority, and
14
its not clear! that either Merliss or Hill did ... ). Regardless, the RPD definitely DID NOT "identifY
15
themselves as law enforcement" prior to Merliss kicking the door down. Rather, it is telling that in HIll's
16
November 21st, 2011 Declaration he merely mentions the RPD attempting to (see this dissected in glorious
17
18
detail in the attached Bar grievance) "coax Coughlin to emerge from the basement". And the RPD did just
19
that. Only, they didn't identify themselves as law enforcement at any time prior to the door being kicked
20
down. So, if you are Coughlin, and you have a real strong claim ofright defense to any allegation of
21
trespass, then just hearing some random voices "coaxing" him to talk to them like they are therapists or
22
some other crap like that is not tantamount to a "lawful order to emerge from the basement" or warning to
23
24
leave the premises else be cited or arrested for criminal trespass. (Hill told Coughlin he was billing him the
25
same $900 a month as when Coughlin was there under a lease allowing for "full use an occupancy"; any
26
eviction order was void for lack of jurisdiction, Coughlin was entitled to a stay Coughlin had yet to receive
27
back from the RJC the "rent escrow" $2,275 that Judge Sferrazza, on October 27t, 2011, announced would
28
- 2/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAl .. etc ...
00642

1 be held onto by the RJC as Coughlin's "bond on appeal" (meaning the supersedeas bond, as appeal bond's
2
are set statutorily at $250 in such matters and supersedeas bond's are the ones teh RJC typically makes in an
3
amount worth "three month's rent" (ie, the RJC can't keep the money for the stay, and call it that, and deny
4
the stay ... its like calling it a summary eviction hearing, but ruling on more than possession, then ruling
5
6
Coughlin established a genuine issue of material fact and noticing the October 27th, 2011 date as a "Trial"
7
in writing (Baker says on the record in lhat case "the use of the term "Trial" was unfortunate, Your
8
Honor .... ", then ordering an impermissible rent escrow deposit...not giving the 20 days to respond to a
9
Complaint called for by JCRCP 109 .... basically giving HIll and Merliss all the benefits of the quick and
10
easy summary eviction proceeding (Coughlin was precluded from making counterclaims or bringing in
11
12
third pruty defendants like Dickson Realty or NV Energy or Green Action Lawn Service, etc), and
13
Coughlin none of the procedural protections of a plenary unlawful detainer, while also attempting to affor
14
HIll and Merliss the benefits of a plenary unlawful detainer (awarding back rent, attorney's fees, landlord
15
was able to bring a summary eviction proceeding against a commercial tenant based only on a No Cause
16
Notice, verboten under NRS 40.253 ... ). Further, and this is shown on the videos Hill and Merliss filmed,
17
18
the RPD at no time gave Coughlin a warning to leave where Coughlin could have heeded it and left, or
19
otherwise been issue a citation in lieu of a custodial arrest. The RPD wanted to make the big rich landlord
20
and attorney happy here, and neither the RPD (which was mad at Coughlin for filing a police misconduct
21
complaint incident to the wrongful August 20th, 20 II arrest of Coughlin that ain't lookin' good for the State
22
now that Coughlin got WCPD Jim Leslie booted from the case in RCR20 11-063341) nor Hill or Merliss
23
24
were going to be satisfied with just issuing Coughlin a "warning" to leave the premises, as they figure
25
Coughlin would just heed any such warning .... The RPD and Merliss/HIll were all jacked up on revenge
26
powder and wanted Coughlin arrested. Dr. Merliss is practically frothing at the mouth (demanding "more
27
eye contact!" ii'om Coughlin in the video "Zach's arrest 0010" just before Dr. Merliss commits a crime in
28
- 3/38 -
00643

1 lying to the RPD in response to Coughlin's querying those there as to who warned him against trespassing
2
and when, whereupon Dr. Mer/iss lies in order to get Coughlin arrested, and Hill co-signs it:
3
Richard G. Hill, Esq. (opposing counsel in the civil eviction case from which this criminal trespass trial
4
stems) testified, under oath, that the Reno Police Department identified themselves as law enforcement and
5
6
issued a lawful order to leave prior to the RPD entering the door that Hill's client Merliss kicked down
7
after such identification and issuance of a lawful order or warning to leave the premises was issued by the
8
RPD. Additionally, beyond the impermissible extent to which RMC D2 Judicial Assistant Lisa Wagner
9
failed to file Coughlin's June 28th, 2012 Notice of Appeal (fax filing allowable under RMC Rules, any
10
Order by Judge Gardner to the contrary spoke to pre-trial Motions only), the Washoe County Detention
11
12
Center impermissibly refused to timely file Coughin's additional Notice of Appeal in a timely fashion while
13
Coughlin was wrongfully incarcerated incident to a wrongful arrest by the RPD, buttressed upon an
14
impermissible bail increase (suppOlied in Judge Gardner's rationale by a "public health and safety"
15
rationale not providing a basis for bail under Nevada Law), at an unnoticed impromptu bail hearing on July
16
5th, 2012 wherein the RMC and court appointed defender Keith Loomis, Esq. coerced from Coughlin an
17
18
impermissible invasion of Coughlin's medical records under extremely coercive circumstances made worse
19
by the fraud committed upon the court by RPD Sargent Dye and Officer Weaver (the arrest in that matter
20
12 CR 12420 was pretextual and fraudulent, and compounded by Sargent Oliver Miller and Officer Weaver
21
subsequent misconduct incident to another Soldal v. Cook County violation on their part involving
22
Coughlin and Superior Mini Storage in an RJC eviction matter stemming from police misconduct by Miller
23
24
and Weaver on or about September 22nd, 2012.
25
There was an Order For Competency Evaluation by Judge Clifton in RCR2012-065630 entered
26
February 27th, 2012, and the Order in CRI2--03 76 adjudging Coughlin competent and remanding
27
jurisdiction back to the lower court was not entered until May 9th, 2012, yet Loomis and Hazlett-Stevens
28
- 4/38 -
00644
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
persisted in seeking to ramrod the criminal trespass case in RMC 11 CR 26405 through ... and both were
well aware of the February 27th, 2012 Order for Competency Evaluation and the import ofNRS 178.405,
requiring the suspension of all proceedings during the pendency of such an Order, made applicabel via
NRS 5.010 and the various rationale set forth in the attached materials. Further, the RMC failed to file the
timely Notice of Appeal I submitted for filing on June 28th, 2012, and which was served by delivering to
the City Attorney's Office on June 27th, 2012 (timely within 10 days underNRS 189.010) resulting in the
dismissal of the appeal. The fraud of the WCSO, RPD, City Attorney and others prevented Coughlin from
having an appropriate chance to file as complete and thorough a Motion for New Trial as he intended,
including a wrongful arrest on June 28th, 2012, the WCDC denying Coughlin even a phone call for no
reason for 20 hours, until after the RMC had closed on Friday, June 29th, 2012, and then another wrongful
arrest on July 3rd, 2012 by the RPD, with an impermissibly bail increase by the same Judge William
Gardner whom should have recused himself from the June 18th, 2012 Trial in 11 CR 26405 in the RMC,
violating of most provision found in the NRS related to bail.
010.mp4
Transcript of video taken by Hill and Merliss propounded to City Attorney: Zach's arrest
RPD Officer Carter (Carter): Come on, get on up here, this is stupid. Come on, okay, well bring
your dog with you. (Carter and Sargent Lopez walk from the stairway to the "basement", up the
stairs through the back door of the house, through the kitchen, past Hill, whom is filming with
his handheld video camera, followed by Coughlin holding his Pekingnese dog (featured in the
December 2012 Nevada Lawyer Animal Law issue) where a sitting landlord Merliss is on the
couch in the living room, whereupon Coughlin is directed to sit in the chair next to the couch
and the police begin questioning Coughlin as Hill joins them in the living room.
Carter: Why are we going through all this headache? Huh? This is where you say something!
Coughlin: What do you want to know?
Carter: Why are you still here?
Coughlin: I don't agree to be filmed, Rich.
Richard HIll (Hill): Nobody asked you.
Carter: Why are you still here?
Coughlin: I'll have to talk to my lawyer
Sargent Lopez: Do you have some place or body to take the dog?
- 5/38 -
00645
1
2
3
4
5
7 ;
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.-
Coughlin: Yeah.
Lopez: somebody we can call for the dog?
Coughlin: Why?
Lopez: Because, you are gonna probably go to go to jail.
Coughlin: Why? For what?
Lopez: Trespassing.
Coughlin: Where')
Carter: Here. . ,
Lopez: Here, you have been evicted.
Coughlin: hhhhhmmnf.
Carter: hhhhmmmnf.
Hill: You also have breaking and entereing ...
Carter:No ... we have trespassing, that's all we have.
.-
Coughlin: Well, if you feel! am trespassing, couldn't you just tell me to leave?
Carter: We tried .... we actually feel that your are playing games ...
Lopez: You were toldonot to come back .... um. uh RETURN!, uh. um .. and that's, that's
.... when. urn. you were told to leave and not to come back
Hill: ! told you.
Coughlin: Who told me to leave?
Hill: Me.
Coughlin: When?
Merliss: We told you to leave, Zach! I deserve some eye contact, Zach!
Carter: You sittin' over there splittin' hairs? (to Coughlin).
Hill: We changed the locks!
Merliss: You sorry about all of this?
Coughlin: I am sorry that you are upset, Dr. Merliss.
Merliss: You are sorry, Zach? You know how much you have cost me, for nothing? $20,000!
You are going to be arrested!
Hill: You're gonna be arrested!
Coughlin: Excuse me, I'm sorry, ! don't believe that they have established that I was warned or
served ...
Carter: ! don't believe that we need to establish that...we are not in court anymore! M'kay?
Coughlin: Well, you have to have probable cause to arrest me ...
Carter: I do have probable cause to arrest you, and if you don't like it my name will be on your
arresting sheet..
Coughlin: I understand, sir.
Carter: Okay, why don't you stand up and put your hands behind your back.
Lopez: What can we do with the dog (refering to Coughlin'S dog, Jackson Pawluck).
Merliss: ! have two dogs, Zach.
Coughlin: What are you talking about taking him back to Chico?
Merliss : Yeah.
Coughlin:! would rather just my family get the dogs.
Merliss: Okay, then call your family from jail! This isn't your dog's fault, Zach! You did this!
Your dog is not responsible for this!
- 6/38 -
\
\
00646
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

Carter: (whispering in the background to Richard Hill while Merliss hold Coughlin's Pekingnese
dog in his hands, standing two feet from Coughlin's face) breaking and entering is
( unintelligible)
Hill: No, breaking and entering would be better because its a felony ...
Carter: Look, Rich, come on ... he's trespassing ...
Hill: Alright, let's start with that...
Carter: That's all we have ...
Hill: Well, you can't blame a guy for trying .. .! don't do any criminal work ...
Sargent Lopez gets caught trying to play along with the lie that Merliss and HiIl try to get over, and
all of this is reiterated by Carter's statement that "we actually feel that you are playing games" ... which
suggests that Merliss, Hill, and the RPD are playing a game of their own ... And Carter's other statement to
Coughlin ("you're sittin' over there splittin' hairs" certainly betrays the fact that Carter knows Coughlin has
a point here, ie, that the RPD is making a very, very suspect arrest for trespassing where neither the RPD,
nor Hill, nor Merliss told Coughlin to leave or warned him against a trespass charge at any time on that
day, and that they only other "warnings" Hill or Merliss could possibly argue here relate to civil eviction
notices that were not served appropriately, and that do no warn one against a criminal trespass charge (and
Hazlett's reinterpretation of the October 27th, 2011 Order attempts to mislead the court in his tortuous
effort to make the language therein say something it simply does not) one where they want to arrest an
attomey who has either angered them by complaining of police misconduct recently (Coughlin filed a
complaint with the RPD on September 7th, 2011, and more shortly thereafter) or by contesting a summarey
eviction of a commercial tenant where the non-payment of rent was not plead (for good reason, Merliss's
case was really bad on retaliation, habitability issues, and all the set-offs or fix and deducts that had acrued,
not to mention the property damage caused by his negligence in agreeing to a weed maintenance
arrangment with Coughlin (that Coughlin chose to address through articial grass coverings of the dirt lawn)
while also, apparently, agreeing to a deal with Green Action Lawn Care (which came to the law office and
tore up the articifical grass installation Coughlin had spent at least 3 days and hundreds of dollars
- 7/38 -
,MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, otc ...
00647
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
meticulously installing, and threw it in the street, then refused to put it back, all of which Mcrliss is
responsible for under paragraph 23 of the Standard Rental Agreement, which, by the way, allows for
Coughlin's commercial use of the premises, and given the Hill failed to plead the non-payment of rent
(because there was advantages to proceeding that way, or so Hill thought) the whole summary eviction
order that Merliss had just apparently paid Hill $20,000 to procure was likely void in light of the fact that
the RIC mixed too many plenary unlawful detainer hallmarks in favor of the landlrod into what it later
remixed as a "summary eviction proceeding" sufficient to make void for lack of jurisdiction the October
25th, and October 27th, 2011 Orders, and further, the October 13th, 2011 Order was void under NRS
40.253(6) to the extnet is purported to rule on more than possession (ie, it ordered a rent escrow deposit of
the last $2,275 Coughlin had to his name, then held on to that, and proceeded to expect Coughlin to hire a
team of movers and rent a u-Haul and pay for a new place, or at least storage, all within days of the
conclusion of an exhausting six weeks of preparation for what was essentiall y an unlawful detainer Trial-
lite, rather than a mere summary eviction proceeding. Additionally, Coughlin's filing of a notice of appeal
on October 18th, 2011 divested the RJC of jurisdiction, even further making suspect the October 27th, 2011
Order Hill and Merliss so cling to. Add to that the fact that the "receipt" of the Order beyond the "within
24 hours" allowable under the statute, by the WCSO, in relation to the November 1, 20 II 4:30 pm lockout
(Baker testified to October 28th, 2011, though some clarification may be in order there (not that a relevancy
objection wouldn't have been sustained by Judge Gardner anywhere that Coughlin sought to inquire into
aspects of civil landlord tenant law bearing on service, notice, constructive service, and void [or iack of
jurisdiction or claim of right issues (however, City Attorney Hazlett got the green light on anything he
wanted or needed to poach from civil eviction law during the criminal trespass trial, and even where
Coughlin's objection to Hazlett's tacky "you were living there" type questions was sustained, that didn't
prevent Judge Gardner from relying on the "you were living there" accusations in his order, nor did it stop
- 8/38 -
,MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. etc.
00648

~
1
Hazlett from going there on closing argument, all misconduct requiring a new trial (and timeliness of the
2
motions arguments are undone by the RPD and WCSO two frauduluent arrests of Coughlin shortly after the
3
June 18th, 2012 trial in RMC 11 CR 26405, compounded by a bail increase by Judge Gardner that isjust
4
not supportable.
5
6
Further evidence ofthe fraud the RPD, Merliss and Hill were successful in perpetrating this
7
wrongful arrest is Hill's statement: "we changed the locks!" in response to Coughlin querying him as to
8
who warned him against a trespass charge and when? To the extent the RPD, Merliss and Hill then (in
9
sworn testimony, Carter's Supplemental Declaration, and other materials, including Hill's November 21st,
10
2011 Declaration and Baker's Opposition to Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien that Declaration is
11
12
an exhibit to) fraudulently assert that they identified themselves as law enforcement and issued a lawful
13
order or warning to leave prior to the door being kicked down, they should face criminal prosecution. Its
14
either them or, some might say, somebody else here should be facing some misconduct allegations ... And
15
please be sure to remember that Reno City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens had all these videos and still put on all
16
that perjured testimony .... And, a review of Coughlin's Motion to Dismiss and the Criminal Complaint
17
18
signed by Hill reveal that the information in the Complaint does not support a probable cause analysis to
19
satisfY Hazlett's RPC 3.8 duty, and should have been dismissed. There is no mention of an "warning"
20
legally sufficient to support a criminal trespass prosecution. That Complaints rads "That said defendant on
21
or about Nov. 13,2011 in the City of Reno, State of Nevada at 121 River Rock sl. the def. found on the
22
properly after being evicted, all of which is a violation of 8.1 of the Reno Municipal Code. I therefore
23
24
request that said Defendant be dealt with according to law. I hereby declare upon information and belief
25
under penalty of perjury pursuant to NRS 17 1.102, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
26
knowledge". And it is signed by Richard Hill, Esq., oppossing counsel in a summary eviction matter that
27
was then on appeal in CV 11-03628. Why didn't RPD Carter or Lopez sign it, especially if what Carter
28
- 9/38 -
00649
1 asserts in his unsworn Supplemental Declaration is true? Regardless, Carter nevers avers that he issued
2
Coughlin a warning to leave, and the City Attorney's certainly did not want Carter or Lopez showing up to
3
be cross-examined, for they would have been completely exposed. Upon information and belief, the
4
licensed attorney had served on Carter and Lopez an attorney's subpoena, that was or should have been
5
6
served upon them by Coughlin having it delivered to the front desk of the RPD downtown headquarters.
7 Coughlin moved for a continuance upon their failure to show, and one should have been granted.
8
Regardless, the fact that RPD Carter had Richard Hill sign the Complaint says it all... Carter and Lopez
9
know they did not issue Coughlin as lawful order to leave, or provide Coughlin any such chance to heed
10
such a warning, nor did they identify themselves as law enforcement prior to Merliss kicking the door
11
12
down ("we think you are playing games" "you're splitting hairs over there" and the fact that these RPD
l3
knew they weren't on solid enough ground to be kicking anything down says it all). Further, Carter's
14
probable cause sheet lies where it indicates "Defendant was found inside the house after being serve".
15
Coughlin was "under" the house in an enclosure that never had a lock and that is not technically even a
16
"basement" given the 5 foot ceiling and the fact that it has one exit door, and had a dirt floor before
17
18
Coughlin laid a vapor barrier and carpet down there (there was a bed there, a nice Tempurpedic one for
19
over a year, the whole things was decked out, and HIll admits as much, there was 14 luxury sedan 14 way
20
power car seats, Coughlin is a tinkerer patent attorney and its nobody's business what he collects, and he is
21
no more a "hoarder" than Richard Hill with his fourteen Porsches). Further, upon information and belief,
22
prosecutorial misconduct was committed by the City failing to turn over exculpatory dispatch logs, audio
2J
24
tapes of dispatch calls and 911lrpd calls by Hill and between teh officers and dispatch/emergency services,
25
particularly to the extent they shed light on Hill and Merliss' lies regardin their having warned Coughlin to
26 leave that day.
27
28
- 10138 -
00650
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~
Let's compare Hill's assertions in the video above, with his written witness statement in the
police report, and Hill's November 21st, 2012 Declaraton (attached to Baker's equally suspect
Opposition to Coughlin's Personal Property Lien ofthat date in RJC Rev2011-001708, and with
HiU's January 14th, 2012 grievance letter against Coughlin to the SBN:
-1114112 greivance against Coughlin in Letter to Patrick King, Esq. January 14,2012 Page 3:
"Someone had been in there since I had last been in several days before. Dr. Merliss discovered that
the baselnent door was barricaded (not locked) fronl the inside. The Reno Police Department was
summoned. They tried to coax whoever was in the basement out, without success. After Dr. Merliss
had to kick the door down, it "vas discovered that Mr. Coughlin had broken in and was in the
basement. He was arrested and is presently facing criminal trespass charges in Reno Municipal
Court. See case no. 11 CR 2640521."
Transcript of video: Zach's arrest 01 l.mp4:
Carter: (continuing his conversation with Hill) Rich, when and where was he served the
paperwork?
Hill: Um ... on November 1st, I believe ...
Coughlin: Where was I served?
Hill: They put it on the front door because you ran away (odd, given Baker testified Hill was
not there on November 1 st with the WCSO Deputies conducting the lockout, and Coughlin was
at the Washoe County Law Library)
Carter: The paper was left on the 1st?
Coughlin: Sir, Officer, I don't believe you've established that 1 was served ...
Cartel': That doesn't matter.
Coughlin: Or that 1 received any Lockout Order.
Hill: (chortle, chortle) Note taken.
Carter: So, October 1 st, you believe?
Hill: No, November 1 st.
Coughlin: By who?
Hill: Washoe County Sheriff...
Coughlin: Was it in person?
Lopez; It doesn't need to be in person, actually ...
Hill: You knew you were evicted! You were in Court!. You heard what the Judge said!
Carter: They just tape this stuff to the front door ...
Hill: And you took it down off the front door!
Carter: Allegedly ...
Coughlin: I am not carro berating anything you are accusing me of.
- 11/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, etc ...
00651
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I
17
18
19
20
2]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hill: That's fine,
Carter you don't need to .... When was he supposed to be out?
Hill: by the I st...(at this point Dr. MerIiss takes the video camera from Rich and starts doing
some weird zoom in close up camera work of Coughli's wrists and hands in handcuffs, with an
inescapable homeoerotic bondage type physician control freak air to it all)
Carter: (to Hill) come on, we'll do that in the car. ...
Carter: Hey, Rich, do you have his social security number?
Hill: Yeah, out in my car. (Coughlin then makes a phone call by having Sargent Lopez hold a
phone up to his head, trying to arrange for someone to care for his dog)
Merliss: You need to call her, Zach, about the dog!
Coughlin: You aren't an Officer, are you Dr. Merliss?
Merliss: I am not going to take care of your dog?
Coughlin: (to Carter) its kind of disrespectful for him to be jumping in where an officer ...
Carter: Well it's disrespectful for you to be here. You are not the victim, here!
Hill: Ha!
But, actually, the United States Supreme Court, in Soldal v. Cook County, might beg to differ with
Judge Carter's analysis ... Russell v. Kalian, 414 A.2d 462 R.I.,J980 Where execution, which was issued
on May 23, specified that it was valid for 20 days, landlord and constable acted unlawfully in evicting
tenant on the execution on June 13, and landlord and constable had thereby subjected themselves to
liability for trespass, State v. Fanger, 665 A.2d 36 Vt., 1995 There was sufficient evidence to prove that
defendant, an apartment manager, entered tenant's residence knowing he was not licensed or privileged to
do so to sustain trespass conviction, although defendant stated he entered tenant's residence to make sure
heat was on, given tenant's testimony that defendant's only acts with respect to the heat was to disconnect
the heat, defendant made clear he was there to evict tenant, and defendant pushed open door while tenant
was attempting to keep it shut, knocking over her child in the process.
And it is in Officer Carter's Supplemental Declaraton where his lying really shines through,
especially after viewing the videos filmed by Merliss and Hill, which form a nice counterpoint to the
remixed chronology of events and statements (with a tough of just flat out imagining things by Carter)
found in that writing of Carters, which reads in relevant part: "Matthew has been to the house several times
over the past week and has observed evidence of someone coming and going. Today he was at the house
- 12/38 -
MOTION fOR NEW TRIAL. e(c ...
00652
~
1 and found the basement door to be locked from inside. Matthew contacted Richard who responded and
2' called the police. Sgt Lopez and I knocked on the basement door and announced loudly "Reno Police" and
3
called out for Zachary to open the door. We were met with no response. Matthew decided he would kick
4
the door open, and did so. I entered the doorway of the basement and found Zachary standing at the rear of
5
6
the room holding a small dog. He was hesitant to come out and eventually did so. Zachary came upstairs
7
and instantly started arguing his legal standing in the house, asking me "hypothetically speaking" type'
8
questions. He then told me I was making a false arrest due to the fact that I am on Richard Hill's payroll and
9
he was going to sue me. I tried to explain to Zachary that he was served eviction papers and he asked me
10
what I could do about it if he hypothetically didn't get them. He then told me that he had worked a deal with
11
12
Matthew to continue paying rent and that the legal eviction was no longer valid. I again tried to explain to
13
Zachary that a judge had signed an order forcing him to leave the property and all he did was cite civil case
14
law to me (I'm unsure if any of the cases he was rambling on about even exist) and tell me that I was
15
making a bad arrest. Due to Zachary not believing he has done anything wrong that the fact he believes he
16
still has standing there is reasonable grounds to believe Zachary will return to the house. Therefore he did
17
18
not qualify for a misdemeanor citation. Richard completed a statement on Matthews' behalf and signed a
19
criminal complaint."
20
State v. Lovins, 2009 WL 4723392, City Attorney Hazlett managed to find just about the only one
21
case in American jurisprudence that found an evicted tenant guilty of trespass, but that case is inapplicable
22
to this one, becuase in the instant case, no express indication exists in the record that tenant was "told not to
23
24
return to the property", which was a requirement in Lovins, and where the City's citation and Judge
25
Gardner's reliance thereupon is predicated upon more than mere service or "constructive service" (and
26
while Judge Gardner's Order specifically found Coughlin had "constructive service" of the eviction order,
27
and, apparently, therefore, sufficient warning to support a criminal trespass charged (despite Judge Gardner
28
- 13/38 -
00653
1 ruling irrelevant Coughlin's evidence, testimony, and legal argument directed to just what rules apply in
2
order to figure out if one has been "constructively served" an eviction order in Nevada in light of AB226,
3
the testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary on March 31 st, 20 II, etc" etc, and the dicates ofNRS
4
40.400, NRCP 6(e), and NRCP 5(b)(2) vis a vis NRS 40.253(5). Tenn,Crim.App.,2009 Sufficient evidence
5
6
supported defendant's conviction for criminal trespass. The evidence showed that defendant worked and
7
lived on the homeowner's farm property. The homeowner's termination of defendant and subsequent
8
eviction notice ordering him off the property indicated that the homeowner's did not want the defendant on
9
their property. Defendant indicated he knew that he was not welcome on the property, Thus, when the
10
defendant repeatedly drove onto the homeowner's property yelling at them, he had already been expressly
11
12
told not to return to the property, State v, Lovins, 2009 WL 4723392.
13
But any timeliness arguments are further undone by the newly discovered evidence aspect,
14
and here is one part of it. RPD Officer Travis Warren was there in January 2012 at a RPD response
15
to Coughlin's 911 call regarding domestic violence against him by his then housemates on E. 9th St..
16
Warren was there to witness Coughlin video record Lopez and goad her into admitting that the RPD
17
18
neither identified themselves as law enforcement or issued Coughlin a lawful warning or order to
19
leave. And Sargent Lopez has some integrity, so it is and was difficult for her to play along with Hill
20
and Merliss' fraudulent non-sense. But, add on to the the fact that Coughlin only just discovered
21
this weekend that RPD Warren and another officer, and two social worker types met secretly with
22
Coughlin's father, local family practionern at Coughlin's medical practice's office at some point in
23
24
the last six months or so. This likely violates Palmer v. Pioneer, and further underscores the
25
impermissible conflicts that exist here, made worse by the violations of NRS 178.405 where
26
convenient for various parties involved here. Further, Dr. Coughlin is Reno City Attorney John
27
Karllic's longtime personal physician and Dr. Coughlin (known as "the Judge Whisperer" in some
28
- 14/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. etc.
00654
1 circles for being involved with numerous local jut=\ver the last 25 years(in
2
addition to his work with the Impaired Physicians Committee and other diversion programs) has in
3
the past demonstrated a complete and utter incapability to grasp the concept of boundaries when it
4
comes to his son, Zach Coughlin, calling up Deans oflaw schools (Coughlin was deposed by the State
5
6
Bar of California regarding an ill advised call by Dr. Coughlin to then Dean of UNL V"s Boyd School
7
of Law, Richard Morgan, in 2007), State Bars, etc., etc., and offering his various contradictory
8
diagnosis, all of which tend to border on Munchausen by Proxy at times (a slight exaggeration,
9
perhaps), though he is a wonderful father otherwise, and a very good man, however, he is, like all
10
doctors, deeply jealous of any lawyer and wishing he could be one, as is, apparently, Dr. Merliss (who
11
l2
tried to take over Judge Sferrazza's court room with an impromptu cross examination of Coughlin
13
while Merliss was on the witness stand). And, to say, they are both complete and utter
14
control freaks of the highest order. Dr. Coughlin married the daughter of the neurosurgeon in
15
Morelli v. Morelli (Dr. Coughlin's sister in law is a lawyer who sued her physician father, and that
16
published opinion is oft cited for some third party beneficiary point of law incident to marital
17
18
settlement agreements in Nevada). So, adding up the behind the scenes sabotage of Coughlin's life,
19
his ability to defend in this matter (or even get to trial with the video exhibits or proof of subpoenaing
20
the various material witness (Merliss, Sargent Lopez, Officer Carter, the latter two being under
21
supboena by the City of Reno and therefore, Coughlin arguably deserved a continuance in response
22
to his request given their failure to appear, to the extent Coughlin's attempts at subpoenaing them
23
24
did not technically comply with applicable rules (which Coughlin si not even sure of given the arrest,
25
bail, withhold medications, violat Soldal v. Cook Co., get no love from the Justice Court, rinse and
26 repeat Washoe County and the City of Reno, WCSO, RPD, RMC, RJC, City Attorney's Office, SBN,
27
Richard Hill, and WCDA Office have had Coughlin on in the last 14 months or so ....
28
- 15/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, etc ..
00655
~
1
2
Regardless, justice dictates at least a hearing on this Motion for New Trial, and or to Vacate
3
Judgement, or Arrest Judgment, etc ... RPD Officer Carter, Sargent Lopez, Officer Warren and a
4
few others (Officer Weaver, Sargent Dye, Sargent Miller) need to answer some question, under
5
6
oath ... and Richard Hill and Casey Baker have a lot of , splain in' to do ... and add to that Dr. Merliss.
7 Otherwise ... Some of the "peculiarities" attendant to this and other trials involving Coughlin in the
8
RMC shall, perhaps, get a bit more retrospection ...
9
Bagwell v. Jamison, 25 S.C.L. 249, S.C.App.L.,1840 In trespass against a bailiff, for levying
10
under a distress warrant alleged to be void, defendant justified by plaintiffs admissions that rent was
11
12
due. Acknowledgments by the landlord, deceased, of partial satisfaction, were admitted in reply.
13
State v. Riddell, 21 P.3d 128 Or.App.,2001 In prosecution for criminal trespass in the second degree,
14
defendant should have been allowed to attack underlying exclusion ordcr that precluded him from
15
appearing in courthouse square, which defendant contended was invalid on ground that it prohibited
16
his constitutionally protected activity of expressive "freeze modeling" in a public area. Hayes v.
17
18
State, 79 S.E. 761 Ga.App.,1913 A tenant who in good faith claims possession of land under a bona
19
fide claimant of title and right of possession cannot be convicted of trespass. O'Banion v. Com., 519
20
S.E.2d 817 Va.App.,1999 The statutory offense of criminal trespass requires a willful trespass; thus,
21
one who enters or stays upon another's land under a bona fide claim of right cannot be convicted of
22
trespass.O'Banion v. Com., 519 S.E.2d 817 Va.App.,1999 A "bona fide claim of right," which may
23
24
serve as a defense to a trespass charge, is a sincere, although perhaps mistaken, good faith belief that
25
one has some legal right to be on the property; the claim need not be onc of title or ownership, but it
26 must rise to the level of authorization.
27
28
- 16/38 -
00656
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 proposed amendment was not the type of an amendment which should have been allowed
under Section 157 of the Justice Court Act. A summary proceeding is a statutory remedy and the
petition must be strictly construed. The service of a proper notice against a tenant holding over, is a
jurisdictional fact, which must be properly *805 pleaded and proved. If the notice is defective or
insufficient, the proceeding falls. The notice cannot be amended upon the trial and no facts can be
included as a jurisdictional ground for the proceeding, which are not included in the original notice.
Under the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law Section 8585 of the Unconsolidated Laws as
amended by the Laws of 1951 and the regulations of the Temporary State Housing Rent Commission
thereunder, the facts constituting the nuisance are additional requirements of a notice to a tenant
holding over. The facts upon which the landlord bases his claim of nuisance, are jurisdictional and a
summary proceeding cannot be successfully maintained without full compliance with the statute. A
jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment. Ferber v. Apfel, 113 App.Div. 720, 99 N.Y.S.
215. If the judgment in this case rested upon a verdict of a jury, I would consider the reception of the
evidence of loud and profane language by the tenants and the submission of that issue to a jury under
the present circumstances, reversible error. However, the Trial Court, in his decision finds, that the
tenants maintained a clothesline approximately five feet from the ground across the rear of the
premises in such a position that it was hazardous and dangerous to the landlords and to the members
of his family who were obliged to pass this clothesline in walking from the garage to the rear
entrance of the portion of the premises occupied by the landlords. He also finds, that the tenants
persisted in maintaining the clothesline in this location contrary to the wishes of the landlords. In his
decision, the Trial Court calls attention to the ... N.Y.Co.Ct. 1952 Blozevich v. Tasber 116 N.Y.S.2d
801
- 17138 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. ele ..
00657
1 Tenant's failure to raise notice issue in his initial dismissal motion or to plead it with
2
specificity in his answer did not relieve landlord of its trial burden to establish compliance with
statutory requirements for notice to cure in summary eviction proceeding.N.Y.Sup.App.Term,2006.
4
W 54-7 LLC v. Schick 14 Misc.3d 49, 829 N.Y.S.2d 399,2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 26499
5
6
Is was reversible error to rule as irrelevant Coughlin's materials on a "claim of right"
7
defense: License from the owner to access the premises, within meaning of statutory affirmative
8
defense against prosecution for criminal trespass, is satisfied by showing license from any owner or
9
other person authorized to license access to the premises. West's Neb.Rev.St. 28-522. State v.
10
McCave, 282 Neb. 500, 805 N.W.2d 290 (2011). Further, see NRS 40.760 and 108.475.
11
12
At the time of Coughlin's arrest, he was a licensed attorney. It would not be reasonable to
13
expect one to litigate, basically, a plenary unlawful detainer Trial (remixed and recharacterized as a
14
summarey eviction proceeding over half way through) then expect them to move out practially
15
overnight, and expect a USPS change of address to adequately allay any concerns about that
16
attorney's mail being forward in time to avoid any damage to his client's cases. It is unreasonable to
17
18
suggest that the RPD can then tackle some attorney stepping foot on the property to get his mail.
19
And where Judge Garner ruled all the nonsense about pajamas (don't look like pajamas in the videos
20
to me, Chris, or Rich) and slippers and "you were living there (in a civil pleading HlII admits that the
21
stuff in the basement was probably there well before the eviction, then HlII goes on to ponder about
22
Coughlin preferring to "spider hole" himself in the basement, even prior to the eviction ... Hill has
23
24
continually demeaned Coughlin throughout these matters and caused his client to needlessly incur
25
fees).
26
Further, Judge Gardner's Order of Conviction was so thin, he almost immediately started to
27
reach for guidance given by the legistIature or city counsel of something regarding posting at
28
- 18/38 -
00658
1
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
intervals of this or that ... there was zero testimony or evidence about the posting of no trespassing
signs ... and zero testimony or citation to the effect that post an eviction notice is tantamount to posting
a no trespassing sign. They are legally distinct.
VIOLATIONS OF NRS 178.405 AND NRS 5.010 BY RENO CITY ATTORNEY AND WASHOE
COUNTY PROSECUTORS AND RMC AND WCPD COURT APPOINTED DEFENDERS
September 8th. 2011 Order for Competency Evaluation by Judge Schroeder in RCR2011-063341
September 9th, 2011: Coughlin arrested at Wal-Mart in RMC II CR 22176 for petty larceny
October 10th, 2011: Coughlin arraigned in RMC II CR 22176 for petty larceny charge
October 26th, 2011 (or a short time after depending upon entry of order) Judge Sferrazza declares
Coughlin competent in RCR2011-063341
Fehruary 27th, 2012: file stamped at 1:31pm in RCR2012-065630 Judge Clifton signs an Order for
Competency evaluation of Coughlin
-February 27th, 2012: despite being present at the "clandestine status conference" (Dogan's client Coughlin
was noticed, in writing, that it had been reset to March 29th, 2012) DDA Young filed an Opposition to
Motion 10 Continue Trial Date and Motion to Appoint Co-Counsel on 2/27112 at 2:55 pm in a companion
case that he was also prosecuting, RCR2011-063341 in violation ofNRS 178.405. In her March 13th, 2012
grievance against Coughlin, Judge Nash Holmes admits to communications in this regard between her and
the Washoe County Public Defender's Office.
-February 27th, 2012: At 3:00 pm, despite the communications she admits to with the WCPD, Judge Nash
Holmes holds a trial where Coughlin is forced to appear as an indigent criminal defendant proceeding with
self representation in II TR 26800, which is suspened upon Judge Nash Holmes finding Coughlin in
"summary criminal contempt" seconds after he testifies that RPD Sargetn Tarter lied in connection with a
retaliatory traffic citations incident to Tarter telling Coughlin to leave the law office of Richard O. Hill,
Esq. on November 15th, 2012 after Coughlin was released from 3 days injail incident to a criminal trespass
custodial arrest upon Hill lying to officers and signing a criminal complaint in 11 CR 26405 for criminal
trespass on November 13th, 2012. Tarter ordered Coughlin to leave after Hill refused to give Coughlin his
state issued drivers license or identification, his hard drives/client's files, his keys, or his wallet.
-Judge Nash Holmes proceeds to file numerous Orders
-March 5th, 2012: in RMC I I CR 26405, the criminal trespass case from Coughlin's former home law
office the Certified Copy of Docket done by the Judicial Assistant, D2's Lisa Wagner, who couldn't quite
seem to find or remember the fact that Coughlin faxed in a Notice of Appeal on June 28th, 2012, and her
failure to docket that led to the dismissal of Coughlin's appeal in CR12-1262, despite Coughlin having
electronic confirmation of receipt of that fax delivering his Notice of Appeal to the RMC and to City
Attorney Hazlett-Stevens (whom coyly tries to assert he didn't get it or the paper copy Coughlin personally
delivered to the offices of the City Attorney within the 10 days set forth in NRS 189.010) Trial date set for
April 10, 2012 by Court.
- 19/38 -
MOTION POR NEW TRIAL. etc ...
00659
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~
e-
-05 March 2012: Notice Of Appearace As Co-Counsel And Motion To Dismiss filed defendant. 20 March
2012: Order #1 denying defendant's motion filed I 3 ,February 2012 signed Judge William Gardner. RMC
II CR 26405
-21 March 2012: Order #2 denying defendant's motion filed 5, March 2012 signed by Judge William
Gardner. RMC II CR 26405
-21 March 2012: Motion To Strike Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Complaint filed by Deputy City
Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens. RMC 11 CR 26405
-10 April 2012: Defendant appeared for trial with counsel Keith Loomis, Judge William Gardner presiding.
Present on behalf of the City was Christopher Hazlett-Stevens. Several pre-trial motions were heard. An
Order Suspending Proceedings was signed. All proceedings suspended until the question of competence is
determined. Case Status Hearing scheduled for 8, May 2012. RMC II CR 26405. See attached emails
demonstrating the knowledge of and complicity between the Washoe County Public Defenders, the court
appointed Reno Municipal Court defenders, the City of Reno Prosecutors, Washoe County District
Attorney's Office, RMC, RJC, and both court's filing office's staff and administrators respecting the
existence of these Orders for Competency Evaluation and the brazen violation ofNRS 178.405 and NRs
5.010 by these individuals. Further, on April 19th, 2012, DDA Young again violated NRS 178.405 where
he moved to have Coughlin remanded to custody (whereupon Coughlin could again have his medication
suddenly withheld from him, all while RMC Judge Nash Holmes seeks to leverage jail staff to get Coughlin
to sign some waiver of his medical records privacy rights and where WCPD Biray Dogan announces
confidential HIPAA protected medical information relating to his client Coughlin into the public record, in
front of 40 members of the public gathered in D1O, a transgression which WCPD Jeremy Bosler later
refused to seek to ameliorate or strike from the record in any manner whatsoever).
-May 7th, 2012 in RCR2011-063341 WCPD Goodnight and DDA Young violate NRS 178.405 by
attempting TO HOLD A TRIAL in that matter during the pendency of an Order for Competency directored
towards Goodnight's client, Coughlin. Goodnight manages to jam Coughlin into an ill-advised Mental
Health Court sign-up in MH 12-0032, which ends badly when the MHC's Reno Biondo commits fraud in
asserting that Coughlin was removed from the MHC for "failing to following MHC policies" similar to the
arguments put forth by Sharon Dollarhide, despite the MHC, and perhaps Goodnight too, having given
Coughlin a list of medications it prohibits, and a contract for entry into the MCH, after having informed
Coughlin he was accepted into the MCH upon entering the contract. The MCH subsequently threatened
Coughlin with incarceration for taking a medication is only after the fact objected to, then, upon having the
bargained for consieration, offer and acceptance pointed out to it, the MCH lied and disparaged Coughlin to
the RJC and others, causing Coughlin reputational damage, and Coughlin's case was remanded to the RJC
at a later date. During this period of time, DIO Judge Elliot forced Coughlin back into custody at the
WCDC, where Coughlin has been denied his medication every single one of his 10 trips to jail this year,
with no titration down of dosing whatsoever, even where Coughlin was willing and able to arrange for
delivery of the medication at his own expense, etc.
-08 May 2012: Case Status hearing held before Judge William Gardner. Present on behalf of the City was
Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, for the defense Keith Loomis and defendant Zachary
Coughlin. Defendant was found to be competent. Defendant's motion to remove Keith Loomis as counsel
granted. Trial date set by the court for June 18,2012. RMC II CR 26405. Strangely, despite Coughlin
still being subject to an as yet to be ruled upon Order For Competency evaluation and despite
Coughlin having just the previous day been accepted into Mental Health Court and the RJC case
RCR201I-063341 transferred there, RMC Judge William Gardner jammed Coughlin both into
- 20/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, elc ...
00660
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
proceeding without the Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel and into some trial setting, evcn though
NRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010 forhids it, and even though Judge Gardner admitted to being aware of
Judge Nash Holmes, his fellow RMC Judge, seeking to have Coughlin's law license taken away based
upon a SCR 117 Disahility Petition (Judge Nash Holmes, in her March 14th, 2012 letter/grievance to
the State Bar of Nevada, wherein she purports to speak for Judge William Gardner and managed to
pass on to the SBN the April 2009 Order For Sanctions by Judge William Gardner's sister Family
Court Judge Linda Gardner, that Judge William Gardner passed to Judge Nash Holmes after
receiving from his sister sometime in the first quarter of 2012). Incidentally, Coughlin was previously
a domestic violence attorney at Washoe Legal Services until Family Court Judge Linda Gardner's
April 2009 Order sanctioning Coughlin $1,000 personally for the arguments he made in representing
a domestic violence victim in a divorce trial were cited by WLS Executive Director Paul Elcano as
the "sole reason" for Coughlin being fired. Coughlin filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in
respone to that Order with the Nevada Supreme Court in 54844. Coughlin filed a Notice of Appeal
of the dismissal for insufficient service of process of his wrongful termination case against Washoe
Legal Services on February 27th, 2012, and that matter is currently on appeal with the Nevada
Supreme Court in 60302. Oh, and Reno City Attorney John Kadlic is a patient of Zach Coughlin's
father, Dr. Timothy Coughlin, and the City of Reno and or the RPD have sought to pressure
Coughlin's parents into having him "committed", despite the fact that the numerous (about 8-10 ish)
wrongful arrests Coughlin has been subjected to this year (most of which violate Soldal v. Cook
County and have been captured on video tape, amazingly) all kind of give Mr. Kadlic a bit motivation
to quiet and or discredit Coughlin (and and arrest on June 28th, 2012 by the WCSO and various instances
this year where fraudulent Affidavits of Service by the WCSO have been involved in arrests of Coughlin
give the WCDA Office its own motivations).
Given that this trial setting and denial of Coughlin's Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel occurred during
the pendency of an Order for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin that the RMC, Judge Willianl Gardner,
court appointed defender Keith Loomis, Esq. and City Attorney's Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, Esq. were
well aware of, the following are void: 05 June 2012: Notice Of Appearance As Counsel; Motion To
Dismiss; Motion To Suppress; Motion For A Continuance Of Trial And Transfer To Mental Health Court
filed by defendant. 18 June 2012: Defendant appeared for trial pro-per, Judge William Gardner presiding.
Present on behalf of the City was Christopher Hazlett-Stevens. Several pre-trial motions were heard.
Motion to Continue filed by defendant denied. Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant denied. Motion to
Suppress denied. Motion to Recuse denied. Motion to Transfer to Mental Health Court denied. Case tried
on its merits and the Defendant was found guilty of the charge of Trespass, a violation ofR.M.C 08.10.010.
,,"'Y25'2012 The Defendant was sentenced as follows: Trespass, a violation ofR.M.C 08.10.010. : Time
Served (3 days at usual $100 a day, and a $310.00 fine for a total of $61 0 raked in by the RMC on a first
offense trespass charge where typically the fine is $305. Also, Richard G. Hill, Esq. lied under oath at that
June 18th, 2012 criminal trespass Trial where he testified that the RPD identified themselves as law
enforcement and issued a lawful order or warning for Coughlin to leave the premises prior to the landlord
kicking down a door to a quasi "basement" under the fonner law office. The videos of the arrest filmed by
Hill demonstrate that Coughlin was never given an opportunity to heed any warning to leave given that day
prior to a custodial arrest being effectuated, contrary to the Supplemental Declaration by RPD Officer Chris
Carter, .Tr. RPD Sargent Marcia Lopez subsequently admitted that the RPD neither identified themselves as
law enforcement nor issued a lawful order to emerge from the basement prior to landlord Merliss kicking
down the basement door on November 13th, 2012. WCSO Civil Supervisor Liz Stuchell has admitted in an
email to Coughlin that Deputy Machen's November 7th, 2011 Affidavit of Service swearing to have
"personally served" the RJC REV2011-0017D8 Summary Eviction Order on November 1st, 2011 was
- 21/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. elC ...
00661
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
~ ~
"incorrect" in that to Machen "personally served" means "posting it to the door when no one is home.
However, given NRS 40.400 makes applicable NRCP 5(b)(2) and 6(e) to summary evictions (even those
that are noticed by the RJC, in writing, as a "Trial" and even where, at the October J 3th, 2011 "summary
eviction proceeding" the RJC ruled that Coughlin "had met his burden of establishing there is a genuine
issue of material fact concerning his retaliatory eviction defense" and the matter was then" set for trial on
October 25th, 2011 provided Coughlin deposits $2,275 into the court's rent escrow account", all of which
violates JCRCP Rule J 09 and NRS 40.253(6)) the lockout Deputy Machen oversaw on November 1st, 2011
was based upon a void Eviction Order and Decision of October 25th, 20J I and an October 27th, 2011
Findings of Fact. .. that Hill's associate Baker testified as to having apparently provided receipt thereof to the
WCSO on October 28th, 2011, and which RJC Chief Civil Clerk Karen Stancil indicates were transmitted
to the WCSO via fax according to the usuaJ custom and practice of the RJC ... meaning, the WCSO failed to
effectuate a lockout "within 24 hours" of "receipt" of either of those Orders ... meaning Hill and Merliss
were trespassing on November 13th, 2011, not Coughlin, and they brought the RPD along for the ride,
whereupon the RPD effected a wrongful arrest (based upon lies by neurologist Merliss and his attorney Hill
to the effect that they warned Coughlin to leave that day prior to the RPD showing up, which is clearly
show to be false by the videos filmed by Hill and Merliss themselves and Hill's subsequent testimony at the
June 18th, 2012 criminal trespass trial in II CR 26405).
May 9th, 2012: Order finding Coughlin competent in CR12-0376, by Judge Elliot of Department 10
resolving the February 27th, 2012 Order for Competency Evaluation signed by RJC Judge Clifton
and file stamped at 1:31 pm on that date.
September 5th, 2012: Order for Competency Evaluation of Coughlin by Judge Sferrazza in
RCR2011-063341
October 2, 2012: WCPD Leslie and Dogan and DDA Young violate NRS 178.405 by swapping the
October 15th, 2012 Trial continuation/Competency Hearing Date in RCR201 1-063341 with RCR2012-
065630, and setting/stipulating to a new hearing on October 22nd, 2012, and resetting the Trial date to
November 19th, 2012, but not before attempting to cram RCR2012-067980 onto the calendar with
RCR2012-063341 for October 22nd, 2012 (and Leslie and Dogan lied to Coughlin about whether
"mandatory status conference" was held on August 6th, 2012 in RCR2012-065630, and RCR2012-067980,
the latter at which Leslie set a Trial date of September 18th, 2012 despite his legal assistant Linda Gray
admitting to Coughlin that Coughlin was provided no notice whatsoever of the August 6th, 2012 hearing
date in those cases. Also, Dogan and Leslie again violated NRS 178.405 on October 2nd, 2012 where tehy
reset for October 30th, 2012 a Motion Hearing on DDA Young's impennissible Motion to Amend the
Complaint in RCR2012-065630 (six months after the arrest, no specific facts pled in either to support either
charge, really). Further, Dogan failed to alert Coughlin in any way to the fact that, in his July 31 st, 2012
Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint, DDA Young attempted to, in violation ofRPC 3.8, amend the
"misue of emergency services" charge (where Coughlin is accused of using 911 to report police
misconduct) to a charge that would provide the District Attorney more leverage against Coughlin, a
retaliatory prosecution, for a crime that would damage Coughlin'S law license given the import of SCR
111(6), despite DDA Young lacking probable cause to so amend his charge. Dogan and Young previously
conspired to retaliate against Coughlin incident to their "clandestine status conference" of February 27th,
2012, which just so happened to be the date that Coughlin filed a Notice of Appeal in his case against
- 22/38 -
00662
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
~
Washoe Legal Services 60302 and the date that Judge William Gardner transferred jurisdiction from RMC
DI Judge Dilworth to RMC D3 Judge Nash Holmes in 12 CR 000696, a case where Coughlin was subject
to a custodial arrest for jaywalkign on January 12th, 2012 incident to Coughli's peacefully filming Richard
G. Hill, Esq.'s contractor's crew from a public sidewalk, disposing of property left at Coughlin's former
horne law office due to Hill locking a gate thereto during the time Coughlin was afforded to remove such
property and where Hill had boarded up on of the entrances to the property as well, in addition to remove
the only ladder to the upstairs attic/storage space at the property. On February 27th, 2012 in 11 TR 26800
Judge Nash Holmes told Coughlin she would have him thrown injail ifhe mentioned Richard G. Hill's
name one more time. On January 31 st, 2012, at an extension hearing on the TPO Richard Hill received
against Coughlinf or Coughlin's alleged jaywalking on January 12th, 2012, RlC Judge Schroeder roared at
Coughlin "do you want to go to jail!" when Coughlin broached the subject of Hill's abuse of process. Judge
Schroeder is listed in the Rle docket as presiding over the February 27th, 2012 "clandestine status
conference" that ultimately resulted in Judge Clifton signing the Order for Competency Evaluation. It is
unclear ifany actual hearing before a judge even took place that day, however.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
NEW TRIAL OR MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT: NRS 176.515 ARREST OF JUDGMENT
NRS 176.525 Arrest of judgment: NRS 176.565 Clerical mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments.
orders or other parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission may
be corrected by the court at any time and after such notice. if any. as the court orders. The RMC
failed to file Coughlin June 28th, 2012 Notice of Appeal, and that resulted in the appeal cr12-1262 being
dismissed._NRS 178.589 Use offacsimile machine. The Reno Municipal Court has sought to apply rules to
Coughlin it does not apply to others, even where NRS 178.608 and NRS 178.610 forbid it from doing so.
Further, Coughlin's rights to file the best Motion for New Trial that he could and to ensure that the RMC
did in fact file his June 28th, 2012 Notice of Appeal were prejudiced by an impermissibly bail increase by
Judge Gardner, unnoticed (Coughlin did not have an attorney of record at the time and was not
appropriately noticed as to the July 5th, 2012 impromptu bail hearing at which the RPD committed fraud,
and further, the "safety of other persons and of the community" argument does not accord the RPD the right
to violate Soldal v. Cook County. NRS 178.498 Amount. If the defendant is admitted to bail, the bail must
be set at an amount which in the judgment of the magistrate will reasonably ensure the appearance of the
defendant and the safety of other persons and of the community, ... having regard to: 1. The nature and
- 23/38 -
00663
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
~
circumstances of the offense charged; 2. The financial ability of the defendant to give bail; 3. The character
of the defendant; and 4. The factors listed in NRS 178.4853. NRS 178.499 Increase in amount. 1. At any
time after a district or Justice Court has ordered bail to be set at a specific amount, and before acquittal or
conviction, the court may upon its own motion or upon motion of the district attorney and after notice to
the defendant's attorney of record or, ifnone, to the defendant, increase the amount of bail for good cause
shown. 2. If the defendant has been released on bail before the time when the motion to increase bail is
granted, the defendant shall either return to custody or give the additional amount of bail A 2012 published
and publicly disseminated Reno Municipal Court Bail Schedule indicates criminal trespass under teh RMC
8.10.010 Trespassing carries a fine of $ 305. Coughlin's first offense criminal trespass charge incident to a
civil eviction was fined $610 by Judge William Gardner, twice the normal amount, considering the three
days of incarceration Coughlin served (typically credited at $100 a day) and the $310 "fine" that Judge
Gardner kept from Coughlin's cash bail for the RMC. Another indication of the impropriety offailing to
recuse himself.
Further, Loomis and Puentes deprived me of my right to supboena witnesses to defend myself in
RMC 11 CR 26405, a criminal trespass matter resulting in a criminal trespass conviction on June 18th,
2012, which I reported to Bar Counsel in compliance with SCR 111. SBN Bar Counsel King has the audio
from two of the pre-trial hearings and I am attaching the audio of the trial or linking to it herein. It
demonstrates the fact that Dr. Merliss was a percipient, material eye witness (in fact Dr. Merliss lied to the
RPD in effectuating this wrongful arrest, and Sargent Marcia Lopez has admitted to me, contrary to RPD
Officer Chris Carter's police report and Richard Hill's June 18th, 2012 sworn testimony and Casey Baker,
Esq's (whom was not even there on November 13th, 2011) NRCP Rule 11 violating (given he possessed the
video's taken by Dr. Merliss and his supervisory attorney, Richard G. Hill, Esq, which were propounded to
the Reno City Attorney's Office and which both Loomis and Puentes had, which further demonstrate their
- 24/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW fRIAL. etc ...
00664
~
1 culpability. There is a suggestion that these "contract" court appointed defenders put their own profit
2
motive above their client's rights to subpoena witnesses and gather evidence to defende their cases (similar
3
to the refusals by WCPD Jim Leslie, Loomis refused to procure and provide the audio of two extremely
4
relevant court proceedings in the RJC, necessary to the defense of RMC case, which led to 18 days
5
6
wrongful incarceration of me from July 3, 2012 to July 21st, 2012 in RMC 12 CR 12420. The two RJC
7
matters are the Milan Krebs TPO hearing in RJC RCP2012-000287 (particularly necessary to the defense
8
of that matter, in addition to the matter Leslie represent me on incident to a wrongful June 28th, 2012 arrest
9
by the WCSO in RCR20 12-067980, incident to a fraudulently procurred Summary Eviction Order
10
(stemming from the fraudulent Declaration of Personal Service by license process server Robert Wray for
11
12
Nevada Court Services, which was committing the unauthorized practice oflaw (deeming themselves an
13
"eviction consulting and process service company" in RJC rev20 12-00 1 048, where Wray lied about
14
"personally serving" me a June 14th, 20125 day unlawful detainer notice (he tried to break and enter my
15
rental #29, which had not windows and which had a locked front door at the time that he and Northwind
16
Apartments Manager Duane Jakob attempted to break and enter and committ another trespass (as they had
17
18
done previously, when they failed to get the City of Reno Code Enforcement to do their bidding in seeking
19
to subvert the summary eviction process, and where the RPD, though making threats to arrest me for
20
criminal trespass violative of Soldal v. Cook County, was taking too long to "help" Northwind out. WCPD
21
Leslie failed to inform me or notify me in any way as to the fact that the WCDA filed, on August 23rd,
22
2012, a document listing Jakob as a witness it intends to call in its prosecution of me in RCR2012-067980.
23
24
Further, WCPD Biray Dogan failed to inform me in any way of the fact that, on July 31st, 2012, DDA
25
Young filed a Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint wherein he, lacking a RPC 3.8 probable cause basis to
26
do so, seeks to amend his charge in RCR20 12-065630 to a charge that would invoke, upon a conviction, the
27
reporting requirements of SCR 111 (6), rather than maintain the difficult task of prosecuting one for "misue
28
- 25/38 -
00665
~
1 of91 I" where 911 was allegedly utilized to report police misconduct, whereupon 91 I operators
2
purportedly efused to document such a complaint or report in any way. Additionally, Henry Sotelo, similar
3
to Loomis, refused to procure and provide to his client, Coughlin (once Loomis received his second Order
4
granting his withdrawal as court appointed counsel for Coughlin, once in RMC 1 I CR 26405 (now a SCR
5
6
111(4) petition, filed by Bar Counsel against Coughlin on October 15th, 2012) and again in RMC 12 CR
7
12420 (Loomis also refused to send a request for discovery or subpoena duces tecum to the City of Reno or
8
RPD for the various police reports Sargent Dye and Officer Weaver reference during an impermissible,
9
unnotice, impromptu bail hearing (wherein Jill Drake, Esq. committed professional misconduct) on July
10
5th, 2012 (at which RMC Judge Gardner again failed to recuse himself despite the pending grievances filed
11
12
on his behalf by Judge Nash Holmes, NG12-0434 and NG 12-0435, the latter of which resulted from Judge
13
W. Gardner's sister passing to him, her brother, her April 2009 Order After trial sanction Coughlin, to RMC
14
Judge Nash Holmes, whom filed it on March 14th, 2012 with Bar Counsel, along with her admission to to
15
communications with the WCPD's Office, which the WCPD'S Office, including Bosler, Dogan, and Leslie,
16
have refused to comment on to Coughlin in any way, aside from Leslie's dubious assertion that he is
17
18
completely unaware of such.
19
Regardless, given the import ofNRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010, the June 18th, 2012 Trial in RMC 11
20
CR 26405 should have never taken place, should have never been set on May 8th, 2012 (particularly where
21
the 2/27112 Order for Competency Evaluation in RCR20 12-065630, to which Loomis admits to have been
22
aware of, was not ruled upon by D I 0 ("Tiburon" prinout sua sponte gathered by Judge Gardner aside,
23
24
where Loomis didn't manage to get one, though he did argue that an unofficial online "docket" was
25
somehow capable of providing judicial notice of an Order Finding Coughlin competent on May 8th, 2012,
26
which is clearly violative ofNRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010). Additionally, it is preposterous to find that
27
Coughlin was able to make the decision to proceed without Loomis or other court appointed, Sixth
28
- 26/38 -
00666
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
~
Amendment satisfying representation, on May 8th, 2012, given the Order by 010 in CR12-0376 finding
Coughlin competent did not get signed and entered until May 9th, 2012. This is reminiscent of DO A
Young filing an Opposition to Coughlin's Motion to Appear as Co-Counsel in RCR20 11-063341 after the
entry of the 2/27/12 Order for Competency Evaluation by Judge Clifton in RCR2012-065630 (though the
docket lists Judge Schroeder as presiding over that "clandestine" status conference, so deemed in light of
Coughlin being notice in writing that it had been vacated to March 29th, 2012, in light of the scheduling
conflict presented by the RMC II TR 26800 traffic citation trial set for I :00 pm on 2/27112 before Judge
Nash Holmes, which she held anyways, despite the dictates ofNRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010 and the
communicatiosn Judge Nash Holmes admits to in the March 14th, 2012 grievance she filed on behalf of all
RMC Judges (including pro tempore ones) on March 14th, 2012, and for which Judge William Gardner
admits to being aware of, as does City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens, whom makes ridiculously mincing
arguments respecting the difference in being "competent" to practice law versus being "competent" to stand
trial, even where he was aware ofRCR2012-065630 and CRI2-0376. Further, upon information and
belief, Hazlett-Stevens demonstrates a lack of candor to tribunals where he argues he was not "served"
documents that he recieved via email and or fax where the RMC Rules allow for such transmissions to
constitute service upon "governmental attorneys". I reserve my right to supplement this grievance further
at a later date. Additionally, Mr. Sotelo violated NRS 178.405 and NRS S.D10 on September 30th, 2012
where he filed a Motion to Withdraw as Coughlin's Counsel of Record in 12 CR 12420 during a period in
which a September 5th. 2012 (though it might be file stamped September 7th, 2012) Order for Competency
Evaluation of Coughlin in RCR201 1-063341 was entered (and which the RMC, City Attorney Sooudi, and
RMC defender Sotelo recognized as requiring a stay of a Motion Hearing in 12 CR 12420 on September
18th, 2012 ... ). Sotelo compounds his misconduct by making spurious and vague allegations against his
then client Coughlin in that Motion alluding to some "repugnant" course he alleges Coughlin wishes to
- 27/38 -
MOTION fOR NEW TRIAL. etc ...
00667
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
maintain, though, predictably, Sotelo fails to provide any support for his egregiously prejudicial statement,
damaging of his client's interests and defense, all while violating NRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010.
Further, given the correspondences admitted to between Puentes and Loomis with the Washoe
County Public Defender's Office, and in light of the fact that both Loomis and Puentes are employed by the
RMC, the various Orders for Competency Evaluation filed since the first one of September 8th, 20 II
regarding Coughlin, in RCR20 11-063341, vitiate the import of all subsequently void Orders predicated
upon any part of any proceeding not stayed during the pendency of such an Order for Competency
Evaluation. That means, the conviction in RMC II CR 22176 underpinning the SCR 111(6) petition in
60838 resulting in Coughlin's current temporary suspension of his law license, is necessarily void,
particularly where the arraignment took place at a time (October 10th, 20 I 1) when Coughlin's competency
was put into question, particularly where RMC defender Lew Taitel, appointed at Coughlin's court ordered
defense counsel beginning on November 19th, 20 II, was aware of the pending Order for Competency
Evaluation in RJC RCR2011-063341 at the time of the November 30th, 2011 Trial in RMC II CR 22176.
resulting in Coughlin's conviction for petty larceny. Included in such misconduct is Pamela Robert, Esq.,
City of Reno prosecutor as well, in addition to her coworker Allison Ormaas, particularly where she
appeared and offered argument both at the 2/27112 Trial in II TR 26800 in the RMC, but as well as the
February 12th, 2012 continuation of that Trial. In that regard, all of Judge Nash Holmes purported Orders,
including those finding Coughlin "by clear and convincing evidence" to be guilty of "summary criminal
contempt" and other violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct incident to the traffic citation trial in
II TR 26800 on 2/27/12 that Judge Nash Holmes, despite the mandates ofNRS 178.405 and NRS 5.010,
transmogrified into a disciplinary proceeding against a pro se attorney indigent criminal defendant denied
his Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel in a proceeding wherein jail time was ultimately ordered, are also
void, to the extent they are not already void given the divesting of her jurisdiction incident to Coughlin
- 28138 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. ctc ...
00668

1 tiling, on March 7th, 2012, a Notice of Appeal of that summary contempt order as rendered (especially
2
where the March 28th,2 2012 written Order by Judge Nash Holmes was mailed to an address for Coughlin
3
that the RMC knew was no longer good).
4
The Summary Eviction Order incident to a "Trial" (that's what the notice says it is, and that is what
5
6
Judge Sferrazza characterized it as on both October 13th, and October 25th, 20 II, contrary to Baker's
7
assertions, in addition to Baker's misrepresenting the fact that Judge SFerrazza also ruled that Coughlin met
8
the "summary judgment" standard required of him already at the October 13th, 2011 "proceeding", and
9
thereby, with the filing of a Notice of Appeal by Coughlin on Octobe 18th, 2011, the RJC was divested of
10
jurisdiction to hold a "Trial" on October 25th, 2011, to the extent it lacked jurisdiction to begin with in
11
12
failing to comply with JCRCP 109 respecting the number of days to respond to a "Complaint" incident to
13
an unlawful detainer "Trial" and the notice requirements incident thereto, much less the unlawful forced
14
rent escrow depositing, or the denial of a stay, even where the RJC held onto the $2,275 "rent escrow"
15
deposit" under the auspices of holding is as Coughlin's 'bond on appeal" (necessarily meaning the
16
"superseadeas bond, given the appeal bond is statutorily set as $250 and only a supersedeas can be
17
18
adjudicate in such a manner to be "three times the monthly rent" ... never mind the fact that, given
19
Coughlin's monthly rent was under $1,000, NRS 118A.385 dictates such a "supersedeas bond" be $250,
20
unless the COUli find's Coughlin a commercial tenant, but in that case, given the non-payment of rent was
21
not pled, a summary eviction is verboten under NRS 40.253 anyways, so ... NRCP 60(b)(4) void for lack of
22
jurisdiction, and therefore, to the extent the criminal trespass conviction does not falter on any of these
23
24
numerous other grounds .. .it shall there as well.
25
2. Coughlin submitted for filing with the RMC, both in person in June 27th, 2012 and by fax on
26
June 28th, 2012 a Notice of Appeal, timely under NRS 189.010, which Coughlin also timely served on the
27
City of Reno via personally delivering it to their office and emailing and faxing to the City Attorney as
28
- 29/38 -
00669

1 well, all timely. Coughlin in person attempt to file on June 27th, 2012 was rejected, though he beat the "on
2
a timer" locking of the door to the court house prior to 5:00 pm attested to by the WCSO. Coughlin fax
3
filed the Notice Appeal to Judge Gardner's fax number as held out to the public by the RMC and on the
4
www.nvbar.org website (and has electronic confirmation of a successful transmission thereof) on June
5
6
28th, 2012 (Coughlin was prevented from filing in person on June 28th, 2012 a Notice of Appeal due to a
7
wrongful arrest in RCR20 12-067980 by the WCSO based upon a fraudulent affidavit of service by Nevada
8
Court Services (which is partners with RMC defender Lew Taitel, Esq.) licensed process server Robert
9
Wray, and a defective 5 day unlawful detainer notice, violative ofNRS 40.253 (which required such a
10
notice to list the court to file a Tenant's Affidavit) in that it listed the wrong court to file a Tcnant's
11
12
Affidavit in the 6114112 Notice by citing Sparks Justice Court (to which Coughlin submitted such a
13
Tenant's Affidavit, along with several "heads up" calls to the RJC and a 6/26/12 email to the WCSO and
14
RJC alerting them to the jurisdictional deficiencies and concomitant voidness of any RJC lockout order
15
stemming from such a defective notice. (see Exhibit 1), Hill also testified that Merliss had not been at the
16
121 River Rock property in the week preceding the arrest, despite Officer Carter's report indicating Hill or
17
18
Merliss told him otherwise. Coughlin was prevented from presenting his case at the June 18th 2012 trial in
19
light of fraud by the Mental Health Court (which went back on a written contract with Coughlin), an
20
wrongful imprisonment by Judge Elliot incident to an April 19th, 2012 hearing in CR12-0376 (incident to
21
fraud by Lake's Crossing's psychologists Sally Farmer, Ph.D. and Bill Davis, Ph.D. in an April 18th, 2012
22
letter filed with D lOin that matter, in addition to the fraud committed by the MHC's Reno Biondo in lying
23
24
about the reasoning for Coughlin's being removed from the MHC in MHI2-0032. Regardless, Coughlin
25
was denied his Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel by City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens, and
26
RMC contract court appointed defenders Lew Taitel (whom violated RMC rules in failing to specifY the
27
rationale for his withdrawal, in addition to failing to own up to his professional misconduct in taking on
28
- 30/38 -
00670
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

.-
Coughlin's representation at a time when conflict existed in light of Coughlin filing suit against Taitle's
business partners, Nevada Court Services, in CVII-030S1 on October 19th, 2011), Roberto Puentes and
Keith Loomis, with Loomis and the RMC D2 violating NRS 178.405 and NRS 5.D10 in failing to abide by
statutory dictates respecting the staying of proceeding during the pendency of an Order for Competency
Evaluation (the RMC and D2, in addition to Loomis were well aware of the clandestine status conference
between WCPD Biray Dogan and DDA Zach Young, communicated to and or joined in on by RMC Judge
Nash Holmes, as admitted to in her March 14th, 2012 grievance to the State Bar of Nevada, filed on behalf
of D2's Judge William Gardner and his sister Judge Linda Gardner (whom's April 2009 Order for Sanctions
now forms the basis for an SCR 105 Complaint against Coughlin in NGI2-043S, which was filed by Judge
Nash Holmes on behalf of Judge William Gardner and his sister, Washoe District Family Court Judge
Linda Gardner along with the NG 12-0434 grievance RMC Judge Nash Holmes filed on behalf of all RMC
Judges against Coughlin on March 14th, 2012.
3. Further Washoe County Sheriffs Office filed false affidavit, by Deputy Machem, alleging Coughlin was
"personally served" eviction Sorder, however WCSO IA Supervisor Liz Stuchell has admitted in writing
(see her email to Coughlin in Exhibit I) that "personally served", to the WCSO civil division, means just
taping a notice to a door when no one is home, and Stuchell confirmed in writing that WCSO Deputy
Machem indicated to her that no one was home at 121 River Rock when, on November 1,2011, he
performed a lockout on Coughlin's law office and alleges he posted the Order for Summary Eviction on
Coughlin's dOOL
Nevada Revised Statutes Section 176.515 - Procedure in Criminal Cases New trial
NRS 178394 No person to be compelled to be witness against himself or herself in criminal
action, or to be unnecessarily restrained. By the RMC in Judge Nash Holmes and possibly through Judge
Gardner refusing to provide Coughlin appropriate court appointed counsel, and then refusing to allow
- 31/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL etc."
00671
1 Coughlin to self represent without making everything he says as a defense attorney or on his own behalf
2
subject to being declared testimonial, and necessarily sworn under oath, Coughlin ws deprived his rights
3
under the Fifth Amendment and the above statute. Regardless, it is unreasonable to expect Coughlin to feel
anything other than terrified to make arguments on his own behalf (particularly those exposign this police
5
6
misconduct) where the two previous RMC trial he was forced to appear pro se in resulted in summary
7
contempt convictions and incarcerations (which he had to report the USPTO and SBN).
8
The City failed to put on any evidence that anybody (not the Reno Justice Court, not the WCSO, not
9
opposing counsel Hill or Baker, etc) actually mailed Coughlin a copy of the Order of Summary Eviction
10
prior to the illegal lockout of November 1, 2011, therefore making any such lockout a legal nullity, and
11
12
void, and a trespass, actually, done under color of state law 42 USC Sec 1983, see Lynn v
13
Desiderio .... however, NRCP is made applicable to landlord tenant matters in Nevada, and therefore,
14
substituted or constructive service is required (ie, 3 days for mailing where personal service is not done).
15
Therefore, Richard Hill and MerIiss were the trespassers, in addition to the Reno Police Department Officer
16
Chris Carter and Sargent Marcia Lopez, whom admitted to Coughlin that RPD Officer Chris Carter and
17
18
Richard Hill and Dr. Merliss lied when they allege that she and Officer Carter identified themselves as law
19
enforcement and issued Coughlin a lawful order or warning to leave prior to Merliss kicking the
20
"basement" door down on November 13th, 2011, and where Hill and Officer Carter allege Coughlin was
21
given any chance to leave in response to any such warning or that Coughlin indicated he was refusing to
22
take the RPD upon on any such chance to heed any such warning. This is clearly proven by the videos Hill
23
24
and Merliss took, propounded to City Attorney Hazlett-Stevens, indicative of professional misconduct on
25
his pari in offering perjured testimony at trial that he knew to be false, and further failing to propound
26
exculpatory dispatch and 911/RPD recordings revealing the extent to which Hill and Merliss are shown
27
lying in the videos propounded wherein they lie in asserting that they warned Coughlin of a criminal
28
- 32/38 -
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. ctc ...
00672
1 trespass charge prior to Coughlin's arrest on November 13th, 2011. Further, where both RJC Civil Division
2
Supervisor Karen Stancil and Casey Baker (in his June 18th, 2012 sworn testimony at Trial) indicate that
3
pursuant to Baker's admitted October 28th, 20 II transaction with the WCSO and Stancil's admission as to
4
the "usual pattern and practice" of the RJC vis a vis the transmission and, therefore, receipt of the Eviction
5
6
Decision and Order of October 25th, 2011 and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of
7
Summary Eviction of October 27th, 2011 in REV2011-001708 (City's Exhibits 1 through 3) by the wCSO
8
occurred too soon here, and therefore these "Lockout Orders" were stale, invalid, void, and ineffective for
9
all purposes, A claim of right defense is particularly prevailing in this regard, and the admission by Hill at
10
Trial that he communicated to Coughlin that he was charging the same "fair market value for full use and
11
12
occupancy", some $900 per month, to Coughlin that was regularly charged under the Standard Rental
13
Agreement makes clear reversible error occurred where a relevancy objection was sustained directed to
14
such a claim of right defense. Further, Hazlett-Steven's and Baker demonstrated a lack of candor to the
15
tribunal where they assert the October 27th, 2011 Order indicated "shall" or some other language sufficient
16
to support their contentions where it did not.
17
18
Judge William Gardner of the Reno Municipal Court refused to recuse himself despite having
19
worked for the Reno City Attorney's Office just 2 years prior to this case, and despite his own sister,
20
Second Judicial District Court Family Judge Hon. Linda Gardner being involved in a State Bar grievance
21
against Coughlin based upon her Order for Sanctions against Coughlin three years prior in a divorce trial.
22
Coughlin filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus challenging Judge Linda Gardner's Order for Sanctions.
23
24
Coughlin was fired from his job at Washoe Legal Services, according to WLS Executive Director Paul
25
Elcano, strictly because of Judge Linda Gardner's sanctions against Coughlin.
26
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/case View .do? csIID=22 7 46
27
28
- 33/38 -
Mo nON FOR NEW TRIAL. etc ...
00673
1 Please see attached the May 2009 letter from WLS informing Coughlin of his firing in light of
2
Judge Linda Gardners April 2009 Order for sanctisn in the Joshi divorce case.
3
Hazlett misleads the court in citing to State v. Nichols 106 Nevada 651, 790 9P. 2D 550 (1990) was
4
purely dicta and should not of been relied upon by this court in reaching its decision to issue a conviction
5
6
here that case, McNichols, dealt with the lawfulness of a search by the state and involve a criminal
7
conviction for possession of a controlled substance it simply did not involve trespass incident to a civil
8
eviction of a tenant by landlord any discussion of addiction and McNichols related to a foreclosure was
9
dicta no actual trespassers statute (in fact, there is nothing in the opinion to distinguish between whether a
10
civil trespass or criminal trespass is distinguished in that dicta) was cited to and use of the term trespass
11
12
was as a term of art there was no distinction whether it was a civil trespass or criminal trespass and
13
McNichols and no real discussion by the court as to whether the service requirements are met,
l4
Further grounds for new trial are revealed in the extent to which Judge Gardner is bullying
15
Coughlin throughout the trial to avoid key areas of inquiry, to shorten, limit, and narrow every aspect of
16
everything, and in going back on his pre lunch attestations about limiting the scope of cross, after "giving
17
18
you an hour to think about it", Judge Gardner commences the post lunch resumption ofth Trial with an
19
entirely new stance on the matter, wherein he is clearly attempting to prevent Coughlin from putting
20
testimonial evidence on the record with the threat of yet another summary contempt incarceration or worse
21
(and clearly, given Judge Nash Holmes hit piece in II TR 26800 and the "work" put in by Judge Howard,
22
the RMC Judges are willing to put on a real show just in case their message hasn't been heard loud enough.
23
CONCLUSION
24
25
Please grant this Motion for New Trial or Vacate the Judgement of Conviction and or reinstate
26
Coughlin's appeal and apprise Dl 0 in CRI2- 1262 of Coughlin's timely filing a notice of appeal on June
27
28
- 34/38 -
00674

1 28th, 2012 and timely serving the City Attorney. Defendant! Appelant Coughlin hereby respectfully
2
requests all Orders, Convictions, Judgments, Contempt Findings, etc, be amended, set aside, etc.
3
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 2398.030
4
5
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain
6 the social security number of any person. And I declare the bit about RPD Offier Travis Warren and others
7
is true to the best of my knowledge under NRS 53.045. The rest? Well, one, tape dont lie. Two, if Hazlett
8
don'! have to sign a declaration in putting in all his unsworn hearsay pajama-centric tacky testimony, I
9
shouldn't have tao
10
11
DATED this October 24th, 2012
~ J
12
(J
./ _-'t7/
L--
13
14
15
Zach Coughlin
16
17
Defendant
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
- 35/38 -
00675
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
I, Zach Coughlin, declare:
On this date, I, Mr. Zach Coughlin served the foregoing Motion for New Trial, Motion to Alter
or Amend; Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Set Aside Conviction by emailing and or faxing
and or placing in the USPS mail, AND PERSONALLY DELIVERING TO THE OFFICE OF THE RENO
CITY ATTORNEY a true copy thereofto:
CHRISTOPHER HAZLETT-STEVENS, ESQ.
JOHN KADLLC ESQ.
hazlett -stevensc@reno.gov
kadlicj@reno.gov
Company: Reno City Attorney's Office - Criminal Divison
P.O. Box 1900 Reno, NV 89505
Phone Number: 775-334-2050 Fax number: 775-334-2420
courtesy copies filed with the RMC either by fax filing, emailing and or paper filing
DATED THIS October 24th, 2012
BY:
Zach Coughlin
Pro Se Defendant Denied Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel and
Subpoenas
- 36/38 -
00676

1 Index to Exhibits
2
3
1. Exhibit 1: RELEVANT MATERIALS AND VIDEOS on a CD
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
- 37/38 -
00677

1
EXHIBIT 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
EXHIBIT 1
28
- 38/38 -
00678
IN THE COURT OF THE OF RENO
CITY OF RENO (Plaintiff / Demandante) vs.
'/' / 1,1-
i?! _______ _
Name (First, Middle, Las,!) (Nombre Completol
lUll e rli\ Sf,

Address (Direccion)
iKe YlO -+fiJI '7:S:;!'L
City, State, Zip (Ciudad, EStado, Codigo postal)
_________ ___ 1Lj 1 6
CASE NO.
INa. DE CASO)
DElyr. NO.3 __ _
DEPT. NO.4 ____ _
Phone Number I
/7
6
Date of Birth (Fecha N iImento) 7
?G-.{ l\ c N) ([hi, n {f. A"jdlqr/ et:Ji'/\
Email address (Direcci<\n!eJectr6nica)
MOTION IPETICION A LA CORTE
Comes now the undersigned and here makes the following request:
1 /, .
New Trial Date (Nueva Fecha de Jnicio) __ Change of Plea (Cambio de Declaracion)
__ New Arraignment Date (Nueva Fecha de Lectura de Cargos)
__ Other (Otro): __ _
ORDER/ ORDEN
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion be: ___ Granted (OIIJIgada) __ Denied (Negada)
(Hahicndo jusm raz6n, eS ordenado que fa so/icirud sea)
__ ______________________________________________ ___
DATEDTHIS ___ dayof __ _ ___ ,20_.
(Fecha de dial (mes) Municipal Court Judge Guez de La Corte Municipal)
October 8,2011
00679
[j
7
fI

AFFIRM A nON
Pursuant to NRS 2398.030
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document, _____ ._._
2..Nk7
ar
v CoU@h I! rJ <tj:JPf-ai
-----------"..------------_._----
(Title of Document)
U filed in case number: _____ .:..-_______________ --,-_
10

15
10
17
III
1[.)

21
n

21i
n
211
[j(j Document does not contain the social number of any person
-OR- ;
o Document contains the socIal security number of a person as required by:
Date:
o A specific state or federal law, to wit:

I
-or-
C] For the administration of a public progmm
-or-
o For an application for a federal or state grant
-or-
r I Confidential Family Court Information Sheet
(NRS 125.130, NRS 125.230 and NRS 1258.055)
Wrrf/
r
(Print wag ng(
tAl/DUley 161) --.-:::
. .
00680
Request Denied:
Failed to retrieve requested document: Error in building: Ill-formed XML document (multiple root elements
detected): Ill-formed XML document (multiple root elements detected)
User Manual | terms of use | privacy policy | payment policy | support | contact us | about Tybera Development
Group, Inc.
2001-10 Tybera Development Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
00681
F I L E D
Electronically
06-11-2013:03:41:32 PM
Clerk of the Court
CODE:
2
3
4
5
8
Case No. CRll-2064 9
ZACHARY BARI<ER COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
10 Dept. No. 10
11
vs.
12
CITY OF RENO, a municipal corporation,
13
Respondent.
/
14
15 THE STATE OF NEVADA, Case No. CR12-0376
16
Plaintiff,
Dept. No. 10
17 vs.
18
ZACHARY BARI<ER COUGHLIN,
19 Defendant.
/
20
21
Case No. CR12-1262
22
Appellant,
Dept. No. 10
23
vs.
24
CITY OF RENO,
25
Respondent.
26
/
27
28
00682
2
00683
1
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Case No. CVll-01896
2
Plaintiff,
Dept. No. 6
3
vs.
4
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada
5
Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE,
6
Individually and in her capacity as Board
President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN,
7 Individually and in his capacity as WLS, Board
8
Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually and in
his capacity as Executive Director of WLS, DOES
9 1-100, Individually and in their capacity as
members of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
10
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, CARYN
11
STERNLIGHT, Individually and in her capacity
12
as WLS attorney, JON SASSER, Individually and
in his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO,
13
Individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney,
14
MARC ASHLEY, Individually and in his capacity
as WLS attorney, ZANDRA LOPEZ; Individually
15
and in her capacity as WLS employee;
Defendants.
16
I
17
18
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Plaintiff, Case No. CVll-01955
19
Dept. No. 10
20
vs.
21
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, a Nevada
22
Corporation, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE,
Individually and in her capacity as BOaTd
23
President of WLS, TODD TORVINEN,
24
Individually and in his capacity as WLS Board
Member, PAUL ELCANO, Individually and in
25
his capacity as Executive Director of WLS, DOES
26
1-100, Individually and in their capacity as
members of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
27 WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, CARYN
28
STERNLICHT, Individually and in her capacity
as WLS attorney, JON SASSER, Individually and
3
00684
in his capacity as WLS agent, KAREN SABO,
2 Individually and in her capacity as WLS attorney,
MELISSA MANGIARACINA Individually and in
3 her capacity as WLS attorney, MARC ASHLEY,
4 Individually and in his capacity as WLS attorney,
ZANDRA LOPEZ; Individually and in her
5 capacity as WLS employee; DOES and ROES 1-
6 100, COMMITTEE TO AID ABUSED WOMEN,
TAHOE WOMEN'S SERVICES,
18
vs.
19
MATT MERLISS, MD; MATTHEW J. MERLISS
20 LIVING TRUST; LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD G.
21
HILL, ESQ., individually and in his capacity as an
employee of the Law Office of Richard G. Hill,
22 Esq.; GREEN ACTION LAWN SERVICE AND
23 ITS OWNER NERY R. MACAL-CRUZ;
DARLENE SHARPE, REALTOR, personally and
in her capacity as an employee of DICKSON
REALTY; DICKSON REALTY; NEVADA
ENGERGY PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATION;
NEVADA COURT SERVICES; JOEL DURDEN,
individually and in his capacity as a process
server for NEVADA COURT SERVICES,
24
25
26
27
28 Defendants.
---------------------,/
4
Case No. CVll-03051
Dept. No. 1
Case No. CVll-03126
Dept. No. 4
00685
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
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
MATTHEW MERLISS,
Respondent.
MELISSA L. ULLOA
Applicant,
vs.
ZACH COUGHLIN,
Adverse Party.
/
/
ORDER
Case No.
Dept. No.
Case No.
Dept. No.
CVll-03628
7
FV13-01604
DM1
The Chief Judge of the Second Judicial Distriet Court has authority to make
adminish'ative decisions pertaining to the business of the judicial dishict. SCR 16(3). This
includes the authority to assign cases within the dish'ict, adopt rules for the orderly
conduct of court business, and supervise case flow management. NRS 3.025; WDCR 2.
Mr. Zach Coughlin is a litigant in each of the above-entitled cases. Cause appeaxing, all of
the above-captioned cases shall be h'ansferred to Department 8 for mther proceedings.
This order does not direct a consolidation of the actions; it merely orders the co-location of
the actions in one deparhnent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June _1_1_,2013.
Chief Dish-iet Court Judge
5
00686
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 Dishict Co:u"t of the State of
Nevada, in and for the County of Washoe; that on the _1_1_ day of JIINr ,2013,
I elechonically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court system which will send a
notice of elechonic filing to the following:
Pamela Roberts, Esq. for City of Reno
Gary Fuller, Esq. for CAA W
James Olson, Esq. for CAAW
Richard Hill, Esq. for Matt Merliss
Joseph Garin, Esq. for Washoe Legal Services, Paul Elcano, Todd Torvinen,
Karen Sabo, Kathleen Breckemidge, Jon Sasser, Melissa Mangiaracina, Marc
Ashley, Caryn Sternlicht.
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 hue copy of the foregoing
addressed to:
Washoe County Dishict Attorney - interoffice mail
Washoe County Public Defender - interoffice mail
Honorable Elliott Sattler - hand delivery
Honorable Brent Adams - hand delivery
Honorable Pahick Flanagan - hand delivery
Honorable Lidia Stiglich - hand delivery
Honorable Janet Berry - hand delivery
Honorable Connie Steinl1eimer - hand delivery
Domestic Violence Master -hand delivery
Melissa Ulloa
Confidential Adchess
Brian A. Gonsalves, Esq. - for Crisis Intervention Services
P.O. Box 907
Kings Beach, CA 96143
Zachary Coughlin
1471 E. 9
th
Street
Reno, NV 89512
00687
Judge: ELLIOTT SATTLER
Clerk Accepted: 06-11-2013:15:42:12
Case Title:
(D10)
Document(s) Submitted: Order...
Filed By: Kaili Lane
COUGHLIN
RENO
00688

I'll 29

Name:
Address: UJU,J< 1/
9
10 ,
J
Plaintiff.
\
II
I CASE
: DEPT. N
I
," C;), te i-frtL q eI(
. Defendant. : [( -- 2 06
1
I ,\ -co <-
------.--.----- . CI\ 1"( -k tz rv\ rt ,
12
\3
14
Cn hi MOTION TO PR C E INF RMA PAUPERIS , ,,- AI1J
J
07.t''/
lv.-ev v rc",-
16 _I \Pursuanl 10 NRS I
R
.OI5j and b$ed 01'\' tIl\! fo owi ffH Poverty. I move }oJ .\
I
tAl \ \v?oJ<--<,> {tvlctl') Qsf-.. OvV) I( .c\ (.:.f e.,.ltA." A'J'P-i"tfc, t:::10
17 I p rmission from Ihis-Coun 10 proceed without filing fees or COS! :11 am requesting \be L,,;: . "
15
. . . . -s:..ti-1c\
l8 allow me 10 ISSlie an} necessary "TIt. process. pleadmg or paper wllhout charge, wIth the
I :
19 ! exception of jury fees. ns provided in NRS 12.015 because I lack sufficient financial ability to '
I
10 , proceed without Ihis waiver. This motion is based on the attached Affidavit of Poveny
21
23
24
I
25
26 I
27
28
DATED thO
,. rCl"Tfl r('vlStd October 19. ::(111
II
,
00689
2
cJ r f' rJtJt()
IV AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY IN SUPPORT OF h;
MOTION TO PROCEED INFORMA RAUPERIS \
State of Nevada ) v"\.U.
y
!A/
) 55.. r . J 3
County of Washoe )
4 J / 1/ \'
5 I I, {[ 1[pf.-ql[f I/\, (Full Name), do hereby penalty of perjury
6 ! that the assertions of this !rfidavit are true, according }o law. in support of my Motion to Proceed
7 Infonna Pauperis: l (t::.eV 4- c{. W\I
8
1"/1 \
I. I am the Plainti efendant (circle one that you are) in the above entitled case .
. _.'
9 . 2. I am unable, b . of my financial poverty, to pay the costs and fees this
10 I and unable to give security fJlr d t;ees jn this lJ\atlc;r'" et.7' i fYl V
eiJ;y PcI/1t /2 f!.,.)L t:c,/('t(1 fe/pVle:( t
11/,' j. I cannot pa) the 1iling fe bec se I lack sufficient indome, assets, or other
12 reSOurces 10 the amount necessary.
13

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

d
28
I
I
'.

I
t

I
I
4.
I wish the Court to consider this Affidavit of Poverty in Suppon of my Motion to
Proceed Inf"rma Pauperis. 1
5. Including myself. there are (number) adults and (number)
child(ren) in my household. The child(ren) age(s) is/are ______ ., and __ .
Alimony
Stare/County B(nefits. etc . .
All otner bousehold income from
AnO(her member of the household:
2
00690
. .
The foUowin
2
3
4
Mobile Home. House, Other Real Estate
5
6
(Pnnl [he Slze.f)"p(". MdlO( year 01 pmpC'ny)
$_--
7
&
10 I (Real or P
j
e1<>nal) () ,,' II
" )t-S 1-/1/ct.--24/d ,tv.!);? rr-
II I' JIP
12 ,''''Iy tOlal monthly expenses are:
1 3 Renl or Mongage
I,
14 !
(
15
25 l
26
I
!
27
2X
I
I
Phone, Gas, Electricity. and other Utilities
Food
SIGNATURE
PRINTEDNAM
SCBSCRIBED AND SWORN 10 before nle
this _ day or ______ , __
----NOTARy Pi.:BUC
3
00691
7
9
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
::

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00692
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jl
12
13
14
15
23
24
25
26
I'
Code:
Name:
Address:
-m
hone
:
-6,/
"
" I, , declare that:
1. I have read the con ts of this Application to Waive Fees and Costs, I am competent to
testilY about its contents, Id I know its contents arc true based upon my own knowledge, except for
27
28 those matters stated u n information and belief, d as 0 t70se I believe them to be true.
F-<I R,vmd OBIIl511lB Bel
r,uh'U
+
h\.l',r...n . =-- fQ '),...0 V) CV' r , I
I v ") '/f;;;; v f/Z .... p_ '2. 0 7 S' -+ CJ2J7 - (5/ f VJ
00693
"

2
3
4
5
6
7
&
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. I am unable, because of my financial poverty, to pay the costs and fees of this case, and I
am unable to give security for the costs and fees in this mat ter.
3. 1 wish to file with this Court the pleading submi tted with this Application. I cannot pay the
'"
cost of filing because I lack sufficient income, assets, or oth er resources. Including myself, there are
_I
adults and children in my household. Their a
ge(s) is/are _--' __ .... __ -" and
My total monthly income before taxes is:
From all sources including
employment, self-employment, ,
social security, child support,
I
arOny, Statehd County .. j' .R:
t't,.1 M;j,
Any olbe ousehold income from ,.e
another member orthe household: .....................
List you W
your Job title: I "
\ ""'"<' c
The following rel!resents a list of my assets and their value:
'"
Automobile

lqtl a.cc.c.d
(Print the year and type of car.)
Value Loan Balance '
;/S?JCIrd $
..
Mobile Home, House, or Other Real
(Print size, type, anellorye .. ofpro(erty.)
$_-- $_---
Bank Accounts
fJ
Other
$,---- $,----
$_------- $. -'--",
F-6'Revi><d wosllla BeL 2 Application (0 Waive Fees and Cosrs Plge 2 or l
00694
5
6
7
12
"
Child Care ...................................................................... .
Insurance.. rl-14/J!"" }"eV'V}
Medical ...
I request the Court hold a hearing on this if the Court is inclined to deny so
that I may testifY as to my indigent stalus., I )c1) i,J:J
15 Dated this _ay of ,li6 ; , . __ . . -\-"'"
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SIgnature:
___ .... """""'" ".'''''
Printed Name: (
I declare under pIli/a/tv of per jury. under the law ofthe State of Nevada, that the foregoing
statements are true and correct. *
2.$') 2=1]'
'<.
Datcd
Application fO Walve Fees aDd COS" r.JC 3 of J
00695
00696
/
/)
00697
I '
(
/ 1) .
vIo ,
------------
VO/IO&S
/ '
lfctf!-(J /
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
-----J
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
. j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
00698
EXHIBIT
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
EXH, BIT
23
24
25
26
27
28
00699
r
I
I
,-
,
0 ,
lJ' "r.

,
"'''l!;

;0 'I ! ii!
'".
:"il.-
,-

!:t
)!
i
d'
dt

:. 5.fi' :l I' :=';<
e'<":l P;

! - _."-;

!Jl' 'Hi
::U
!l: 'M, a"

i

!
!i .. 'l
;,;i f:.?-
fH

f

t
1
iiH!

..

,,::;:
.i-
qt' l
j
o
'

i
111
'.
Go !

,
. .t
"
.'o:!o 0
"
-Q"
HI

i
! - .

hi
2:2.>
0 1:''"l3 5"ii! ffll:".

gI

Gp.r!lflH -
"
.,
;-Sl

I
i
ii
r
!! .
:;
li
h ..
-, t

L ;oH_,
!
if
1

if

1 ,

:1
,
.oJ If"''''
,
i H
,
"
.: a.

p
,
,!!.

--------------------
0 n
.\1:
t] :i
iii
",;

r'} :q,f ,
'h

,-;
n;:
'!-un!a
.,

H
E

l'

ifF!

!,-
t
r;
:a =
RU
IHHliH
-1" H

:;

<, -.
H

t' ,
!O;r!.
I
'I

,
!

'i'
k
:
, ).;:. '! ,
!ii

,H
m
U
, , .
"'. if
..

ji ,
rH

if'
;.
,
; .
,
lIt
"'1::'

,,;; $
i
F1"
iF p:
"

1;; ;
ti
I

i!'"li' I" ,

,,,
uTi

!!
,
hi

1
,-

Ii!
{

,
r

Hi

iH
"

;fl
l:

'.

!

6
l
F!

I
!II ' , !
,tf
H
i
} 'H

, I,

'j
hi'
"
;
B!
?tl

h
"

f "

. , ,
H
L:::'-S hri
j'

H
' i a
.. ;!.li- _ ;

,
th
.,
! H1 if;
.F

,
e'"
'.
, .
1 ______
i
>
'"
n

::.:;

SH .....

-,

-, '
j
,
[I!
,,1.1

;.; i!

:.!;l>
[=.:;.;
"
..
ii

, ,

[:U

""t
i

Ip
:i ia

ih
M

;; .

Jm
-.:.,.: t
I
'it
"

, <,
".;1;_ 'i:! ..
,
t
I.
lr
,;.
,.
:u ..

i;'iI

iH.
,.

I Ii
-,
f
,
,
i

in

'I'!ll.
;11'
Hi
,

...
2.; ;
a.H

,

f
I

io.'l!HliK!!.,
f
I"
Sii!!:
;;
['-"'t
1
2 t

.. ; ;;

!U
""'['

...
>

!t

='li

,
li5'" .!l .... 5' c..

I
.h

"1
... ;rl
lHlHU

i

, ..
..
[ii
It
f
fi]

Hl
,

li
f
ij:S rF .. -"!
,-
.a:.. , .... 'ii
f;
'"

,
if"lr 1-'

"
a
-,
-,.
It
i
,
p
.q
; u
, , ,

i
_1 ___ -
"

;0;..: i'

S'

"

!1

-<
,
,

,..,.!:
>:1'::<
.,
"

"
,
<

?
-'
,

,
,

0
,
'c
lH!

5i! !
s,..
"
-

.-
-I. I !!.,z.

"I'
t>
':';:di
lHf

I
n,
,.

J.,;=
i

"
g

..
i"
'I

,>,
_ri
l" ,

l:H
,

.
"
5H
[n;
,

H'ii
i
iHt

'rijl!.ft
.,1:'-

, 2.;; if

i:p ...

to,

I;!l
."
.,"
Hi
7.;i
i"
,
i
H 1 ,.
,

p,
.,. if

"'
,
I' ,

fil
it
,
i f

,
=2

-<
iii;..

0
)!
23
< ,.
1
, ,

,
,
,

}

" 0
,
i
v
,

n
o{
Ii':
>
..

' j!
,

" ion t
;" ..
,

-.1
! .'

i'-
, if
rl
.j
"
0
i '"
Hl! !i'

, -<

,
t

i
II" E
If;'[
I.U

J $
f
';' =
i.!l'l
t

iih
f
':.;p
h,

-h
.,
' ,

i" i! ... H
<l'i
'H

,

!

= &
Hi

;'!

",I i'
]
. -, !
1I.,

... !;i2.
"il-
H.

i!hst
r;"i
!hirl
" ... .,. "

lIHi!a
. ,- !!
tl
hi;.

lHilf
'.
;;
!'
if

l
" ,
I
I
I

" ,
i
!: i
, ,

, '

" )02
'1

,
i
,

12
,

_0

:>I';

c'?

"

,
,

j
;

I
I
I
I
00700
i --- ---------.- - -----
! CIS MANDAMUS 114
55 C J S. 84
Secundum
DUlab,ue up!latcd June 20[3
Maml:lmus
"lISt I
C. Amendolu, 1.0. JUllle! J.D Juhn J. Dvurskc, J.D .. M.A . EriC LIlt_
son, J.D WiII",m L,nd.lcy. J.D.
IV. und l'ufpu.es uf R.ehef
U Act> oreuon.., Judgo;s. und Judic'llIl ur QUilSl.JIll,idal OffICers
,. Co ... und Officers Subject 10 Mandanllllo
Tllflle Summary RcrcmlCCio COflelallOl1 i.ble
114. Clerk5 of courl,
Key Number
Wes,'" Key Number Dlgtlil. Mundarm,u; C=>24
nHI)' sue tu cDmpel a derk of CUUIl 10 I'crfonn .umc minlSlc(lal dUly which
Ihe dor!.. nnprQjlcdy rcfu$Cs II) perform; but It will 001 be where Lhe derk
dlscrellon in Ihe ITI>IIICrdl\d n .... buse ofdisCTCIIOrl '"
Gcllcrully .peuking. a derk of <'uun who. without lcsal II .u pet-
fumt a duty connected Wllh .he c1erk's "tTl may be com(>C'lh:d by mandmmus to
pcrfoml it (FN2]
However_ mandamus u'IIE nul he aglllllot lIl'1crl uf where thetc is llnother adeqUIllC
and aprropriate remedy[FNJ] ur when:: the tlshtt" Ihe II'rn I> nllt clear IFN"J
Also, mondamu5 win notllc where lhe dcrk IS UI1der no dUly 10 perfllnO Ihe IOCt whICh
to be cnforeed.[FNSI or where the clerk is vcMcd wllh dir.crclu)I1 In rc'pt "f Ihe I>I:t
rn que.tlun ond then;: IS no fihu" ,"g of an Kbu.e ofdl>crctiun IFNt'iJ
will he 10 compel the dell< 10 permit acce.s IU n;:eords In the ....'<-
tl)l\y:\FN1\lu l'0Y 001 ml)1'ley lido.! by Inc unle!l& Int'l'e 's u ICG31Ill1cu-c f"r non-
p"ymcnl:(FN9]10 Hoxep! und file a pladlng(FNIO] (lr lu file P"[lCrs properly dcli,x:rcd I" Ihe
derl.[FNI I] un tender uf file criminal ur to coler upon
Ihe ducket lhe uf wllnc>!cs fiummuncd for the ill a criminal
coul1.[FNI4]
Mureu,er. will lie 10 cumpel the dcrk 10 roxurd u venlict re..X:I\ed by the
Judge;[FNI$J IU cnter{FN 16] or 71 II judgll1l:nt .....hen;: the uuty lu uo $0 IS plain; 10
cnttl' iIl1 ofUcr grallllngUII or to and pa[IC1'S to the clerk uflhe
coun w "hich an I>t;I;on hi/>, b<:cn tl'lln.relTed.{FNI9]
2013 Ihomwn No Cluim 10 Orlg US ('JUl'.
i
i
_ ---------- --- --- --- _ -----------------------I
L
CJS MANDAMUS M Page 3
C J.s. Mandamus H4
i
I
prcduded by nde:;; ofnptll:lhuc I'roctUure.
v. lyra, H67 S.W.2d -106 (Tex. ApI' H(lU5tUII 14th Di51. 1993)
(FN5] CaL-Hilton v. Curry, 124 CuI 8 ... S61'. 184 (1899).
Ohio-Suite ex reI. Taynllr \'. 19 OhIO App. 3d 120.4113 N.E.2d 156 (IOlh
'franl.lm County 1984).
ex reI. O"",n v Hunkmio 120 Wu. 2d 86_ 352 N.W.2d 220 (CI. App
1984).
pita ding
dcrh (lflhe Supreme Cllml prDflerly folluwed the RulClo uf or Ihe Su-
preme: Courl or Oht\) when Ihey 10 lICCept !Om;Jlc's untimely plcading oDd.
sU\:h ...-rn: not undtru elt:>f It;al dutyto pcrfonn InC Il<'l requC51.e<1 in inm:J1c's pclnlon
fo, "'til
Oh.o-Sldte ell rei. Fuller v. Mengel. 200)-Qlti\}-3S511. 2003 Wl21S2S411J (Ohio O.
API'. 10th County 200)}. Judgment arrd, 100 Oh.o St 3d 352.
2003-011111(1.143.800 N.E,ld 25 (2003).
iFN61 Tell.-!Jeun ,'. !'olk. 226 S.W. IIn6 (Tex. C,v. AI'(I. Ell'aso 1921).
(FNIl Kan,-il'lYlun v_ W"o:ttll.19 K;m 3ot.I& 1'. Il4 (1(1.&&\.
[FNIIJ Ohlo-State rd. Huller v. I'effiey, 78 Ohlu ApI" 242. 33 Ohiu 01" 553. 46
OIuo LAbs. 609, 67 />I.E 2d II? (2d OISt. Moillgonlcty Coullly 1946).
[FN91 Cl reI. iloller ". remey. 78 Ohio API". 242, 33 OhiO OJ S5J,46
Ohlu l. Ab. 609,67 N.E.2d 111 (2d DIS[. Montgomery Coonly 1946).
[FNIO] Te.\.-Ill re 271 S.W 311 H74 (Tel( ApI . Wocu 2008)
[FN II) Ncv.-Cruinc \'. Eishth Judn:ial Dist. COUI1 In and For COlInI)' <I{ Clark, 101
NC'.S54 816 r.2d 451 (1991,.
jFN 121 Cul.-Kl;l7nIlMky V. Wllham5. 126 C.1I1. 26. SII r. 310 (\899).
[FNU] \ 13 Idahu 2$2. 89 r. 636 (1907).
IFNI4J Ala.-J..:kson v. Mobley. I Ala. 40M_ 47 So 590 (19OlI)
lFNISI O.I.-MenJull \'. SuperIOr Cou"- \II lind fut CouMy, Wi Cal. "'n.
lI', 16 1'.2d 1007 (2d 01'1. 19)21Idl"'ppro",:d o{ on OIhcr grounds by. Slone \. Su-
pcnor COIlI1. 31 Cal. 3d 503. IIIJ Cui. Rptr. 647. 646 1'.2d 809 (I'.I82))
W. \. Sheppard. 182 W. Va. J87 S.E.2d 313 (1989).
20t) TholllfiOn Reuters.. NuClalm luOrig US Ga\:. Wurts.
L ___ . ___________ _
I
CJS MANDAMUS S4
55 C.J.S. 84
""{Jcll_II or txt"C11IU1".
Generally. is a proper n:medy fur wnmgfulllllhm: or oflhe clerk 10
However. mandamus does nOI lie tu o;umpcl the clerk to ISSue
UUIl on D JudglllCnl which luis been rc .. cned on Ippeal.[FN21] or whl;l'c Ihe .5 an OOclIU<lte
remedy by an fur damaGes IIgumsllhe clerl.: for rcfus"IIO Issuelhe excculoon.IFN22]
8 ... ,
Mandamus lies 10 compcllhe clerk 10 approyc II b\lnd where he hIlS. legal lluty to do
so.[FN2J] ur, in some when;: he hb in the prcllIISU. j\.'\ \\'llcre
a .du .... 1 to &pl'fU"c is un or d.$(fCIloto lind .. no uther adcqUllIC n:mcdY.lFNHI
On the IIlher hand, Ihe ufthe ckrk. in Ihe ClICrclSC naton;:.
to Il(lJ'Iro'x: iI buDd Will nOI be "'OI\lrol\1:d by mandamus In the ,bsence nfn ofllbusc of
d'Sl'n'tioo [FN2$]
Na"N of uppedl.
Manclamwo rehef 1$ when a trial eOUI1 clerk fot15 10 perform a mandaillry duty
10 file and furward II. nOllce of arreallu Ihc upprornulc aPflCllls CIIull.[FN26J SimIlarly. a writ
may to (ompel the clerk of an CUIIrt tu file 0 notlCc ofappeul in an underlyin;
ei"il action. when: Ihe clerk could nOI n;:fuse 10 at:Ct'J'Il Ihe notlce 00 thc ;rouDdl; that 11 \\'111
not pruper in fllrm. and tile 3rpeliant nu rcmcdy.[FN271
11114 /Talfsnuss!rm nf papu$ other /Io/ln of .
Mandamu5 lIUIy be awarded 10 compel a ofL'OUrl tu ccrllfy.{fN29) or
r<:cunJ or tran,;cripl or 10 tram<mil olhtl' rlJlCr.i[FNll] for of an
appeal.
[FNI] Ohio-State rei. Boller Y. Pcffiey, 78 Ohio ApI" 242. J) Ohio 01'. 553.46
011111 L. Abs. 609. 67 N.E.1d 87 (2d Muntgul\lCry Coun'y 1946).
[FN21 Ala.-Jeler v. Stote. 218 Ala. 12. 117 So. 460 (1928).
Ohlo-$tale ex .cl. Buller v. I'emey. 7& 0/110 AI'p. 242.)3 OhIO Op. 46 Ohio L.
Ab:<. 67 N.E.ld 81 (2d Olsl Montgomery County 1946).
Tn-English". .... IS3 S.W_2d B9 ITc'IO.Ci'l. A!IIl 194t).
IFN31 Cal-Wholen v. Yank. 94 Cal API'. I 51. P. 729 (ld Disi. I92S).
[FN4) N.Y.-Newman v. Schwo:rt. 245 A.D. 46. 281 />I.Y.S.4SI (4thDt'J'I' 19)5).
for transcript
Writ oflll3ndamus JlC"lIo,un had clear right to relicflO pre'aU distrl(:l from rc-
quinng pa}'l1lCIll for (I( tmnslyipl In addition to eush depOSit in heu
bond. where rcquiriog .dvBIlec paymeut for trarw:ripllflo;r bond was filed IS
!; 2013 Tllumwn ReuICrs. No Claln.lu Ong. US GU\'. Works..
C1S MANDAMUS &4
SS C.J.S 84
l'age4
[FNI6] Utah-Utah Ass'n ofC/wlt Men Y. Bowman. 'II Ural! 326. 11 J 1'. 6J (1911).
[FN171 v. wdlo .... 69 486. 126 N. Y.S.130 (Sup 1910), IIffd. 143
A.D. 147_ 127 N.Y S. 623 (2d 1911).
jFNI8] LOUIs, I.M. J: S. Ry. Co. v. Mtplc 510ugb Drainage DisI.., 138 Ark.
131.211 S.W. 168(1919).
jFNI91 Cal.-Senrcy \'. Kay. 46 CaL Al'p. 792. 190 P. 49 (3d DlSI. 1920).
iFN20] CaL-Kuhn v. Snmh.13 Cal. 2d 12. 142 P 2d 13 (1943) (uvcrrulctl ,n pal1 un
ulher gruunds by.l'ltcLm v. SIIpcrior Coull Ul and fur C,ty.Dd County of San Fran-
t'lsco. 35 Cal. 2t1363. 2n 1'.211 951 (1950).
[FN21] Mo.-Stille (a McCirew CIIOI CII. v. R.gland. )39 Mo. 452, 91 S.W.2d II)
(19361.
(FN12] Ariz.-Arnett v. Smith, 26 Anz. 4W. 226 r. 529 (l924)
[FN23J Al -Ell pane 231 Ala 530. 165 So. 839 (1936).
Tc.\._t)niversal TrJMptJIl & DlSlnbul,ng CO. Y. Cantu. 75 S.W.2d 691 (1"ell. CIV.
API'. San Antonio 1934)
[FN24J Or.-Rtesland v. Baile),. 146 Or. 514, 31 p.2d 183,92 A.L.R. 1207 (1934).
Tcx.-lI.uix v. 701 S.W.2d688 (Tex ApI'. Ammllo 1985).
IFN2S1 TCll.-RuJ2 \'. W.tkins. 701 S.W.2d 688 (Tell. API' AlIIDnno 1985).
[FN26] rc Smllh. 210 S.W.Jd 783 (Tex. ApI" Wao;o
{FN21] HIII'.-Murn\ .. kRs v. DI,tr!cl COUI1 uf HonolulU Div. 2t>OII WL
IIISI76ft (Haw. 2008).
\'fN21Il Ala -Ex pa"c AndrewJ;. 231 ....111 5)0.165 So.
[FN29IAla.-Ex ral1e Jones, 217 Ala. 208. 115 So. 301 (1928).
{FN30] Alu,-Ell'patte AmiIe,",'S. 231 Ala. 530. 16S Su. 839 (1936).
. Anz.-I'Clcrs v.ilcnyman, 30 Anz. 120.245 r. 282 (1926\.
IFN311 U.S.-Scmcl v. U.S., ISH F.2d 229 (C.C.A. Sthe]r. 1946).
Notice or.ppul
Tcx._Wltit5lItv. Ramsay, 719 S.W.2d 333 (Tu. Crim App.1986).
We,llall'.;;:: 2013 Thonlsun Nil Claln,lu Ons. U.S. (lovt Worb.
{;. 2013 Thom.'011 Rcutcr-.. No OOlm 10 OriS. US Gav.
I
I
I
I
I
.J
00701
I'
I
I
!
\\'es!:law.
AMJUR MANDAMUS 250
52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus 250
American Jurisprudence, Second EditIOn
Databnse updated May 2013
Mandamus
Page I
John Bourdeau. J.D . Romualdo P. Ec:lavea. J.D . Lucas D. Martin. J.D., and Eric C. Suretle.
J.D.
IX. Particular Duties and Acts of Public Officers
J. Duties of Officers una Auendants of Courts
Topic Summary Correlillion Table References
250. Gencrally
Wcst's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest. Milndamus ;=63
Forms
Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice fonns. Mandilmus 95 to 97 (Pelition or applica.
tion-For writ of mandnm\ls-To enforce perfom13ncc of dulies of judicial officers and at-
tendants)
As to such purely minisleriai duties. clerks and other officers of the court are subject to co-
ercion by mandamus to the; same extem as are other public omeers.IFNI) Thus, mandilffiUS
gencrnlly is a proper remedy to compel the clerk to perform a ministerial act, or an act which
the law specially enjoins as a duty rcsulting from the office.[FN2] However. a courl will not
issue a writ of mandamus 10 compel a COurt elerk 10 follow the laws gcneral1y.[FN3]
Although a particular act imposed upon such officers may be to some elttcnt discretionary,
mandamus will lie to compel its performance where there is <In abuse of discretlon.(FN4]
In order to be cntitled to a wril ofntandamus directing n municIpal court clcrk to cease and
desist deducting costs incurred for unsuccessrul state-law prosecutions from the fine money
owed to a county ilnd to remit previously withheld funds, the county and a law library associ-
ation had to establish a clear legal righl to payments from the clerk of thc various fines and
fees collected without any deduction by the clerk for ccrtnin court costs related to the unsuc-
ce5Sful prosecution of slate law crimes in municipal court, n corresponding clcar legal duty on
the part of the clerk 10 make those p.,yments. ilnd Ihe lack of an adequate remedy in the ordin-
ary course of the Inw.[FN5]
[FNIJ Vamnelli v. Luddy. 130 Conn. 74, 32 A.2d 61 (1943); Perez v. McGar, 630
2013 Thomson Reuters. No ClClim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
~ - ~ - ~ - - ~ - - -
I
I
I
~ I __ _
- - - ~ --,
AMJUR MANDAMUS Ii 250
52 Am. Jur. 2d Milndnll1us 250
Page 2
S.W.2d 320 (Tex. App. Houslon 14th Dist. 1982) (official district court reporter); State
v. Charnock. 105 W. Va. g, 141 S.E. 403, 56 A.L.R. 1094 (l928).
[FN2] Am. Jur. 2d. Clerks of Court 38.
[fN3J State elt reI. Kuczak v. Saffold, 67 Ohio SI. 3d 123,616 N.E.2d 230 (1993).
[fN4] Riesl;lnd v. Bailey, 146 Or. 574. 31 P.2d 183, 92 A.L.R 1207 (1934); Stille v.
Charnock, 105 W. Va. 8.141 S.E. 403, 56 A.L.R. 1094 (1928).
[FN5) Slate ex rel. Dayton Law Library Assn ..... White. 110 Ohio St. 3d 335.
2006-0hio-4573. 853 N.E.2d 651 (2006).
Q 2013 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B 2013 Thomson RcutcrsfRIA. No Claim 10 Orig. U.S.
Govt. Works. All rights reserved.
AMJUR MANDAMUS 250
END OF DOCUMENT
2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
1
,
I
I
- - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ ~
00702
00703
, '.
WASHOE COUNTY'
STATE OF NEVADA
Office of Court Administration
75 Court Street, Reno, NV 89501
Phone: 775-328-3119 FAX: 775-328-3206
Joey Orduna Hastings, District Court Administrator and Clerk of Court
July 29, 2013
_ Zach Esq.
1471E.9 Street
Reno, Nevada 89512
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
The Second Judicial District Court's Filing Office is in receipt of your pleading entitled:
\ ..
. " "MOTION AND OR REQl'EST FOR JAVS OR FTR AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS AND
NOTICE OF OBSTRUCTION OF COUGHLIN'S ABILITY TO FILE DOCUMENTS
AND VIEW FILES, OBTAIN COPIES TEREFROM, IN THE RMC AND RJC BY RJC
CLERKS, BAILIFFS, AND JUDGES, ORDER APPLYING RES JUDlCA T A TO
COUGHLIN'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS IN ALL RJC CASES GIVEN
MULTIPLE INTSTANCES OF SUCH ALREAD BEING GRANTED, AND PETITION
FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT (MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORIARI) TO
ADDRESS RAMPANT MISCONDUCT BY RJC AND RMC ENTITY AND
INDIVIDUALS. "
. "
Upon review, the above referenced pleading does not comply with Washoe District Court
Rule 10. Therefore, it is being returned to you. To assist you with correcting your
document, I have enclosed a copy of Rule 10 for your reference. Once your pleading
- complies with this Rule, the District Court Filing Office will be pleased to file it for you.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (775) 325-6623.
Thank you,
\). j n ;n ____ ->

Assistant Clerk of Court
00704

. ,
. "
(
1 Document Code:
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV Bar No: 9-173 (temporarily suspended in NV. but authorized to practice on his own behalf in the RJC
NRCP 45 (applicable via NRS 40.400) and JCRCP 45 allow for Coughlin to issue his own subpoenas ant
whate\'er extent the RJC rules otherwise, let this constitute an "open refusal" pursuant to RPC 3.4, 3.5, etl
1471 E. 9TH ST.
RENO, NV 89512
Tele and Fax: 9496677402
6
Attorney suspended in Nevada appearing Pro Se
1
IN
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
9
10
STATE OF NEVADA;
11
Plaintiff,
u
vs.
13
ZACHARY COUGHLIN;
14
Defendant. RCR2011-063341
15 RCR2012-071437, rcr20 I 2-065630, rcr2012-
16 06798', RCR2013-072675, Adminstrative
Order 2012-01 In Re Zachary Coughlin, etc.
17- _______________________________________ _
Matthew Merliss
18
v.
19 Za-::hary Coughlin
rev2011-001492
rev20 11-00 1708,
2(l ____________________________ _
ZACH COUGHLIN
21
V
22 MATT MERLlSS, ET AL (eVII-030S1,
CVII-03126, CVII-03051)
:2 3 __________________________________ _
ZACH COUGHLIN
21
V
2S CITY OF RENO CR 11-2065
26 Park Terrace Townhomes
v
!. 'J
Zachary Coughlin rev20 12-0003 74
28
-------------------------------------.---
)
)
)
..
) CASE NO: ALL CASES ALL
) DEPARTEMENTS
)
) DEPT. NO: CHIEF JUDGE ISSUE
)
)
)
:\I()TION .\ND OR R":QtIEST H)R .JA \'S AlinlO TR \NS( 'RII'TS .\NIl ;';(lTl{ 'E 01<" onsTRt l( TIC):\' 01" \1111.1'1'\ r()
11II,E I)O('ll:\It-:NTS ANn \'JEW FILES, ORT.\IN ('OI'mSTHEREFRO:\I, 1:,\ nil. R.I(' U\' U.\II.TFfs . .
1/9 -
00705
1 Northwinds Apartments
\'
2 Zachary Coughlin rev20 12-00 I 048. 1067,
3
1068,1182,1183, etc
4 Washoe County, applicants
! ... \'.
,
.
,
. .
5 Zach Coughlin rcp20 12-000599
'.1
State Bar of Nevada, applicant"
1 \'.
Zach Coughlin, respondnet
8 000607
RCP2012-
Zach Coughlin v,
10 jetl' nichols
11 superior mini storage v tahoe quarterly and or
1
0
zach coughlin
- . and or zach coughlin v
13 superior mini storage
1"
lC
J 7
1,:J
19
2G
21
22
23
21
?S
26
27
',0
<.
MOTION AND OR REQUEST FOR JAVS OR FTR AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS AND NOTICE OF
OBSTRUCTION OF COUGHLIN'S ABILITY TO FILE DOCUMENTS AND VIEW FILES,
OBT AIN COPIES THEREFROM, IN THE RMC AND RJC BY RJC CLERKS, BAILIFFS, AND
JUDGES, ORDER APPLYING RES JUDICATA fO COUGHL:IN'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STATUS IN ALL RJC CASES GIVEN MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SUCH ALREAD BErt\G
GRANTED, AND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY \VRIT (MANDANJUS. PROHIBITION,
CERTIORARI) TQ. ADDRr;SSJ3,AMPANT MISCONDUCT BY RJC AND RMC ENTITY AND
tM,+I.;G V(oC{!fc\ 1t1> INDIVIDUALS,
COMES NOW, ZACH COUGHLIN, and files the above titled document on his own behalf
and it is based on the argument and authorities herein Coughlin hereby swears that the links
provided herein are to true and correct copies of the actual documents they purport to be and that he
makes the follo\\'ing assertions under penalty of perjury pursuant ot NRS 53,045 \
'
FACTSfPOINTS AND i\CTHORlTIES
Zach Coughlin files this on his own behalf and incorporates by reference all materials lillketl
to here:
https:ffskydriveJive,comfredir"resid=43084638F3 2F5 F28
1
8413
To avoid the terrifying experience of dealing with the RJC "bailiffs" Coughlin request a
digital of every single file (and a digital copy of every single second of any hearing coughlin has
appeared in that the rjc has yet to provide, cmailing it works, ,see the 3fl5113 trial the disc provided
failed to include the entire afternoon portion, coughlin requests the 12118112 hearing in rcr20 J 2-
I . '
,\IOTIOS 'INIl on FOR ,/.1 rs wnlO ,1,'ID ,\onCE OF OF ('(IU '/ll IN'S I
HI,EIlOCliMENTSANIlVIEWFHE' OBT\I'" ""'.. " "" , II
, '" ,,, fPIES 1 I1EREFR(),lt IS lllE R.I(' m /1,11 '('I,ER"S, ,/I f)(;j':'-
2/9 -
00706
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
067980, and the 5123113 hearing in rcr2013-063341 be expedited per 62337 and 61383 exigencies. (it
would help the RIC address the woefully deficient ROA in Rev2011-00170S, see coughlin's MROA
in 61383 for explication, nrs 40.400 make nrap 10, II applicable and the 12/21112 roa fails on many
levels, and the 114112 supplemental in cvll-03628 and the 4/1/13 supplemental still don't have those
12/22/11 filings by coughlin, which are kind of key, and the rjc has failed to accord coughlin to
hearing on the illegal lockouts and verified petitions seeking such that coughlin filed in nOlthwinds
cases, rev20 11-00 1708 (please consider this just such a verified petition as well as to the illegal .
lockout by kern in park terrace, or anything coughlin filed within 5 days thereof the functional
equivalent per nrs 118A.390, and please transmit that appeal coughlin filed and the tijerina ifp
submitted therewith makes such 'perfected" in rev2012-000374, see stancils letter about why she
failed to file in coughlins' notice of appeal, which also seemingly happened in rev2011-001708 per
coughlin's 12126111 notice of appeal of the 12121/11 order, etc.
So, RIC Judge Pearson just happened to issue a 3/22/13 "Administrative Order2013-01"
(http://www . wcbar.org/documentsl AdminO ... http://www.scribd.com/doc/155Z3076213-ZZ-13-
OZ04-1 04S-37 4-1708-RJ C-Chief-J "stice-Pearson-Administrative-O rder-Z013-0 1-W ithill-Z4-
Ho"rs-of-Receipf-AdmiIlO,'der2013-0 1 ) just days after Coughlin's 31l91l3 presentation in
RCR2012-065630 and cross-examination ofRPD Sargent's Paul Sifre and Marcia Lopez, and RPD
Officer Nicholas Duralde revealed the extent to which the criminal trespass conviction Coughlin
sustained in 61901 involved both a burglary by the Washoe County Sheriff Deputy John Machen and
attorney Casey D. Baker, Esq., and fraudulent conduct. by landlord Matt Merliss, his attorney Richard
G. Hill, Esq., and RPD Officer Chris Carter, Jr. and Sargnet Marcia Lopez, and the associated
burglaries by the WCSO of3115112 in connection to Rev2012-000374 and on 6/28112 in Rev2012-
001048 (see RCR2012-067980 and the many, many continuances 01' 40lK R. Bruce Lindsay, Esq.
received (401K means he gets paid 4 times to do nothing once).
The talking point message is the RJC and its Clerks and Bailiff are using inordinately
inappropriate means to obsltuct Coughlin access to COUlt files, typically related to the systematic
burglaries conducted by the WCSO in failing to abide by NRS 40.253(5) requirement that no
lockouts occur until the passing of 24 hours from the tenant's "receipt" of such order. that means
you, NCS, HIll and Baker, Gayle Kern, NOlthwinds Apts, Sue King, WCSO, RPD, all of you,
burglarized Coughlin's property repeatedly, and you know your notices and your "landlord's
affidavits" don't have nearly all that is required of them, and that what they do have is mostly
fraudulent, which makes Russell v. Kalian and Mayes really problematic for you. unlawful detainer
statutes in light of the holdings of the Nevada Supreme Court in Volpert, Davidsohn, and Aikens ....
Doyle, 825 P.2d 1227, 1230.
Both a landlord and its counsel were liable for wrongful eviction on an invalid warrant, whether the
eviction was deliberate or inadveltent. Mayes v. UVI I,loldings, 1I1c., 280 A.D.2d 153,723 N.Y.S.2d
lSI (1st Dep't 2001). Coughlin wants
http://www.scribd.com/doclI55231238/5-23-13-0204-07143 7-1 708-1 492-Coughlin-s-
what Coughlin submitted to the RJC Bailiff
Heibert in the Mills Lane Justice Center lobby, returned by Heibert with a date "received"
stamp ... where Bailiff Reyes attacked Coughlin approximately six minutes later claiming that .'
Coughlin had refused his Order to wait in the lobby for that which Heibert had already given
Coughlin, especially where both Heibert and Bailiff Ramsey (whom had admitted to Coughlin to
having thrown away the documents Coughlin submitted for filing in RCR2011-063341 and
Rev20 11-00 1708 the day prior, on 5/22/13) admit that they had both informed Coughlin he would
not be permitted to view any files that day, 5123113, Heibert informing Coughlin that an unnamed
AND OR REQUEST FOR.M. VS AUI)IO TRANSCRIPTS .-\NU NOTICE OF OBSTRliCTION OF COUGIILlN'S .\llIl.rn TO
1:'11.1>: 1>OC.'Ui\LENTIS ANI> '-mw ltILES. OBTAIN COPU;S 'rllEREFROM. ll'\ TIlE n.JC In R.JCCLERKS,IUILlFFS, ANI> .JlII}(:ES-
3/9 -
00707
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
filing office clerk was refusing to allow Coughlin to view any material in the criminal division or
civil division, and Ramsey informing Coughlin that he is not permitted to view any of the dozen or
so cases in which he has been summarily evicted since August 2011, indicating to Coughlin "the
filing office told me you can't view any cases because all of your cases are closed and are in Carson
now". Here are the documents Coughlin submitted for filing with the RJC by leaving them with RJC
Bailiff Ramsey: I.
http://www.scribd.com/doc!l 55231292/5-22-13-02041708-03628-Emergency-Notice-Motion-
Request-for-Subm-With-Exh-I-Detailing-12-13-22-11-Supersedeas-Bonds
http://wwwscribd.com/docI1552313 71/5-22-13-0204-063 341-Emergency-Notice-and-Motion-and-
Reguest-for-Submission-First-Page-Not-Stamped-R1C-Bailiff-s-Heibert-and-Ramsey-Rejected
http://www.scribd.com/docI15 523 1432/5-1 6-13-0204-06334 I-Note-From-RJC-Delivered-by-B i l i f t ~
Heibert-on-5-22-13-Stapled-to-Coughlin- s-5-16- 13-Reguest-in-Eviction-as-to-Deticiences-in-ROA-a
http://wv,w.scribdcom/docI155231447/5-16-13-0204-06334I-Note-From-RJC-Delivered-by-BaililT-
Heiber-on-5-22-13-Stapled-to-Coughlin-s-5-16-13-Reguest-in-Evictioll-as-to-Deficiences-in-ROA-
llg
http Ilwww.scribd.com/doc/l 5524835013 -22-12-0204-3 74-RJ C-Stancil-Declaration- Regarding-
Failure-to-File-3-16-12-Notice-of-Appeal
The RJC has further violated Nevada law in failing to accord Coughlin the hearings he is
entitled to under NRS 118A390 where Coughlin filed a Verified Petition for Expedited Relief tiom
Illegal Lockout in all of the Northwinds Cases: Rev2012-001048 (upon Chandler filinglposting and
I .
Amended 5 Day Unlawful Detainer Notice on 6/28112, his and Northwinds continuing to attempt to
lock Coughlin out (not to mention seek to have him arrested for "trespass", not to mention Chandler's
"misconduct" at the 7/5/12 Hearing on the Motion to Vacate (and Judge Schroeder's vast misconduct
therein and beyond In that and other matters):
So, the RJC clerks, bailiffs and judges just steadfastly refuse to follow the law or abide by
their duties (failing to transmit Notices of Appeal, failing to accept documents for filing or keep any
record thereof, refusing to accept the $250 Coughlin attempted to post as a supersedeas bond per
NRS 40.385, etc., etc.) .
So ironic that the very documents that Ramsey and the RJC violated criminal law in failing to
retain even copies of, much less file in, chronicle the "rampant misconduct" by RJC Bailiffs and
clerk attendant to Robbin Baker, Cathy Wood, Christine Erickson (Chief Civil Division clerk who
allegedly does not know that JCRRT 10 does not apply to "landlord tenant matters" per JeRRT 2, as
she has a smug, hostile John Reyes respond to Coughlin's various attempted filings in Rev2011-
001708 by bringing out a highlighted copy of JCRRT 10, which Bailiff Heibert alleges Robbin Baker
told him was the basis for rejecting Coughlin's criminal case filings, the only problem is (See WDCR
18), JCRRT 2 provides that nothing in JeRRT applies to criminal cases, and the law prohibits coulis
from applying ticky tack civil action local rules related to formatting to matters involving the
potential loss of liberty. Heibert repeatedly refused to,file in (he says the RJC Clerks will not take
them at times, then other times he says he is rejecting Coughlin's filings) Coughlin's filings in a host
of criminal cases: RCR2011-063341, RCR2012-065630 (a case in which both Bailiff Reyes
announced, on the deadline day for Coughlin to file his post-trial motion, and after Coughlin had
MOT/01\ AND OR REQUEST FOR .J .. \ YS AUDIO TRA1\sCRU'TS AND NOTlCIl OF OBSTRUCTION OF COUGHLIN'S ABU.rn TO
FILl, 1l0CUMENTS A1\1l VIEW FILES, OJlTAIN COI'IES THEREFROM. IN Tim RK BY ItIC CLERKS, R\ILIFFS, ANIl .Jt'Il(;JCS-
4/9 -
00708
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
already submitted filings that day, that Coughlin's filings of such a time sensitive document related to
a liberty interest was being rejected by Reyes, sua sponte, in his "interpretation" of the 12120112
Administrative Order in that Reyes was applying a "no more than one filing per day" wrinkle to the
Administrative Order. Upon Coughlin pointing out the problems associated with this Reyes invaded
Coughlin's personal space and dropped approximately five "f-bombs" with his inimitable cartoon
bully swagger. The thing with Reyes is, he is collecting and $850 check the first of every month for
being "20% disabled", according to his Financial Declaration and getting a $4,500 "retirement" check
the first of every month must be so disorienting when he comes into the RJC and people like
Coughlin actually expect him to perform the duties of his employment (such as process the
documents Coughlin submits for filing pursuant to an incredibly specious to begin with
Administrative Order see RCR2013-071437 and the attack by Reyes connected to Reyes delusiOllal
interpretation thereof in RCR20 13-072675) where Reyes also Reyes a check every couple weeks for
his full time employment as a Bailiff with the RJC ($1\400 or so .. )
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155244644/l2-6-12-0204-063341-AO 12-0 I-Email-to-RlC -Court-
Adm i n i strator-Tutti e-and-RM C-Cllief-Marsha 1- Roper-Bail i f'f- s-Detai n i n g-M e-C ourthou se-Sanctuary
http://www. scribd.col11/doc/155246566/2-5-12-0204-Coughlin-s-TPO-Application-Against -RJC-
Bailiff-Reyes
http://www.scribd.com!doc/ 155247052/2-28-13-0204-063341-WCDA-DDA-Hezler-2-25-13-Letter-
With- New-Handwritten-Note-Remailed-Threatening-TRO-TPO
The thing is, Nicholas Hasset, over 18 year old, non-party, served on the RJC, and Karen
Stancil, and Court Administrator Steve Tuttle a SCR 110 subpoena, which was properly issued (even
ifNRCP is deemed applicable, which it is not, the SBN/NNDB/Clerk ofCourt/OBC expressly
indicated to Coughlin that SCR 105(4) and SCR 119, as they relate to SCR llO, allow even a
"temporarily suspended" attorney such as Coughlin to issue his own subpoenas in his role as as self
representing respondent. The RJC is in contempt and should be subject to SCR 110(3)-(4), and
David Watts-Vial, Esq. must withdrawal from RCP2012-000599 (further, the WCPD is an
independent contractor and not appropriately represented in such Workplace TPO/EPO by the
WCDA, and Watts-Vial attempted to massage that at the 1/4/13 EPO hearing by suggesting the TPO
application was filed by Jim Leslie on behalf of the W(;PD ... one, Leslie cannot file a Workplace
Harassment TPO Application that seeks to protect his enlployer must do it for him, and the
WCDA's Office is not Leslie's employer, beyond the extreme impropriety in Leslie violating his duty
of confidentiality a la RPC 1.16).
http://v,,v.-'w.scribd.comldoclI5 5245650/2-6-13-Email-to-Watts-WCDA- Please- Responde-to-My-
Subpoenas
CONCLUSION
Please provide the JA VS audio recordings sought herein and access to or copies of (digital
copies are great) of ALL ofZach Coughlin's files, ever, in the RJC.
MOTION .-\/':I> OR REQUEST FOR.fA VS AUDIO TRANSCRl1'TS ..'"NJ> NOTICE 01; OBSTRUCTION OFCOVGIILIJ\"S ,\BlLlTY TO
FILE nOCIIMENTS AND VIE'" I'ILES, onTAI],( COPIES nlElmFROM, IN TilE R.lC ilY IUC CLERKS, RAII.IFFS . \],(I).II'I)(;I<:S-
5/9 -
00709
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 undersigned hereby request this Court con:;ider these materials presented herein in
deciding upon this matter. ,.
AFFIRMATION AND DECLARATION .
I declare, pursuant to NRS 53.045, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Nevada that the foregoing and all factual claims herein is and are true and correct and that this
document does not contain any social security numbers, pursuant to NRS 2398.030, an affirmation
to that effect this hereby is.
DATED this 7/22113
Zach Coug
Defendant/'
Suspended Attorney Appearing Pro Se
u lin
, Esq.
laimant (in some NRS 11SA.390 and other instances)
MOTiON ANI) OR RIlQUIl,T I'OR.]A VS Al1l)l0 HI,\NSCRIl'TS .\1\"1) NonCE OF OlISTRI'CTION OF COVGlIUN'S ,\IIIUTY TO
FILE nOCUMENTS ANI) vmw FILES, OIlTAIN COPIES TIII(lUCmOM, IN TIlE R.le IIY ItlC cumKS, BAILIFFS, .\Nn .IUnGES-
6/9 -
00710
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
On this date, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served upon the following by
placing a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the U.S. mail addressed to and
personally delivering the same to the WCDA's Office at 1 South Sierra St.:
Amos R. Stege, astege@da.washoecounty.us
Zachary N. Young, Esq.
Washoe County DA
1 South Sierra P.O. Box 30083
Reno, NY 89520
Phone Number: 775-328-3200 Fax number: 775-325-6703
Email: zyoung@da.washoecounty.us
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858
Email: rhill@richardhillaw.com
11791 Ridge Rim Road, Chico, CA 95928, copy to Matthew Joel Merliss to the extent Hill refuses to
file a notice of appearance in CVI 1-03051.
Sue King, Western Nevada Management, Park Terrace TownhomesHOA
804 Mill Street Reno, NY 89502
(775) 284-4434 and faxed to
kern ad PTTHOA 7753246173
and King and WNM at 7752844465
Gayle A. Kern. Ltd. Address: 542 I Kietzke Lane Suite 200 Reno, NY 89511 Phone Number: 775-
324-5930 Fax number: 775-324-6173 Email: gay\ekem@kemltd.com attoreny for Park Terrace
THOA .
NORTHWIND APARTMENT ASSOC LLC
1031 XPRESS NORTHWIND LLC
1101 10TH AVE NE STE 550
BELLEVUE, W A 98004
Fictitious Firm Name - Counter
74040
04/011199712:00:00 AM Expiration Date: 04/01/2002
Business Name: NORTHWIND APARTMENTS Owners: NORTHWIND APARTMENT
ASSOCIATES, LLC
MOTION AND OR REQUEST FOR.J.\ VS AUDIO TRANSCRII'TS .t\1\'D OF Oll.'STRlIC'f(ON OF COllGIIUN'S .\nILrn TO
FILE ANI) YlEw FILES, OllTAI1'i COPIES IN TilE R.IC IIY RJC CLERKS, U,\ILlFFS, ,\1'1) .JIiI)GES-
7/9 -
00711
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Nevada Court Services
Lew Taitel, Esq., Staff Attorney
Jeff Chandler, Owner and CEO
Robert Wray/Joel Durden, Licensed Process Server
475 S. Arlington Avenue, Suite IA
Reno, NV 89501
(775) 348-7560
Lewis S. Taitel, Esq.
Attorney at Law
475 S. Arlington Suite lA
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775) 322-2272
Fax: (775)348-7977
Nevada State Bar No. 4397
Not sure who Mr. Taitel represents in this matter, if anyone ...
Apparently representing Northwinds Apartments Associates, LLC and or Northwinds Apartments,
though Chandler's "landlord's affidavit" swears that he, Chandler is the "landlord", so ...
Northwind Apartments. 1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Reno, NV 89523-8147
I
14 DATED this 7/22/13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lin
Zach Co g llin, Esq.
Defendant Attorney temporarily suspended (for which all of you will
be sued) in Nevada but not before USPTO
MOTION .-\ND OR FOR.fAVS Aumo TRAi\'SCRIPrs ,.\1\'1) OF OFCOl:GllLIN'S AHlLrn" TO
l'ILE I)OCUMI,NTS AND VIEW FILES, OIlTAIN COI'IES TIIEREFROM, IN TilE RJe IlY R.JC CLERKS, IHILlFFS, A:-<l> .JI'I)(;I':S-
8/9 -
00712
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
INDEX TO EXHffiITS:
I. VARIOUS RELEVANT MATERIALS, INCLUDING THE FILINGS BAILIFF RAMSEY
ADMITS TO THROWING AWAY, ETC., ETC.
https://skydrive.live.comlredir?resid=43084638F32F5F28! 8413
https://skydrive.live.comlredir?resid=43084638F32F51'28! 8413
~ O T O N AND OR REQlmST FOR'/AVS AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS ANIl NOTICE 01' OBSTRUCTION OF COUGHLIN'S AIHLIT\ TO
FILE DOCUMENTS ANIl VIEW FILES, OBTAIN COPIES THEREFROM, IN THE R'/C BY ruc CLERKS,IlAILIFFS, AND ./1'IlGES-
9/9 -
00713
(
,
r
RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Rule 10. Fonn of pleadings.
1. All pleadings and papers presented for filing must be flat, unfolded, firmly bound
together at the top, on white paper of standard quality, not less than 16 lb. weight and
8 Yz x 11 inches in size. All papers must be typewritten or prepared by some other
. duplicating process that will produce clear and permanent copies equally legible to
.....
filed, except as provided in section 6 of this rule. Only one side of the paper may be
used.
All papers presented for filing, or lodging with the clerk shall be pre-
punched with 2 holes, centered 2 %" apart Yz" to 5/8" from the top edge of the paper.
The lines on each page must be double spaced, except that descriptions of real
property may be single spaced. Pages must be numbered consecutively at the
bottom. Lines of pages must be numbered in the left margin or on legal pleading
paper.
Any pleadings or papers presented for filing that are larger than what can be
fastened in a 2 inch acco fastener, must be submitted for filing in volumes of no larger
.than 2 inches per volume with a cover page on each volume indicating the title of the
document and volume number.
2. No original pleading or paper may be amended by using correction fluid or tape,
making erasures or interlineations thereon, or by attaching slips thereto, except by
leave of court.
3. The following information shall appear on the first page of every paper presented
for filing:
(a) The document code (list of document codes available at the Second
Judicial District Court Filing Office and on the court's website at
www.washoecourts.com); the name, Nevada State Bar identification
number, address and telephone number of the attorney and of any
associated attorney appearing for the party filing the paper, whether such
attorney appears for the plaintiff, defendant, or other party; or the name,
address and telephone number of a party appearing in proper person, shall
be set forth to the left of center of the page beginning at Iine1 and shall be
single spaced. The space to the right of center shall be reserved for the
filing marks of the clerk.
CODE
NAME
BAR NUMBER
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
ATTORNEY FOR:
WDCR 10 Effective December 19, 20'07
Per AOKT No. 417 Approved by Supreme Court on November 19, 2007
Page 1 013
00714
(b) The title of the court shall appear at the center of the page, line 6, below the
information required by 'paragraph one as follows:
Below the title of the court shall aRRear in the sRace to the left of center, l i r ~ ___ .. __
9, the name of the action or proceeding, e.g.,
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD ROE,
Defendant.
. (d) I n the space to the right of center at lines 11 and 12, shall appear the case
number and the department number as follows:
Case No. CV06-00000
Dept. No.1
(e) The title of the pleading, motion or other document must be typed or printed
on the page directly below the name of the parties to the action or
proceeding. The title must be sufficient in description to apprise the
respondent and clerk of the nature of the document filed, or the relief
sought, e.g., Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff
John Doe; Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories.
See Example A attached for a General Jurisdiction case.
See Example B attached for a Family Jurisdiction case.
(f) Pleadings or papers presented for filing should be in the following order:
Pleading or document including filer'S signature
Affirmation
o Certificate of Service
Index of Exhibits followed by the Exhibits, if any
4. Pursuant to NRS 2398.030(4) the Second Judicial District Court requires that an
Affirmation must be attached as the last page of each document presented for filing
and before any attached exhibits, or the Affirmation may be the last sentence before
the signature line on the document, stating that the document does not contain the
social security number of any person. If the document does contain the social
security number of any person, the affirmation must indicate the specific state or
WDeR 10 EffecUve December 19, 2007
Page 2 of 3
Per AOKT No. 417 Approved by Supreme Court on November 19, 2007
00715
/-
federal law requiring said number. The Affirmation form is available at the Second
www.washoecourts.com. (Attach Affirmation form and other acceptable options
here.)
5. Social security numbers and any financial account numbers must be redacted
from any documents filed with the court. If a social security or account number is
needed for identification purposes, all but the last four digits of that number must be
redacted from the pleadings and documents.
6. All exhibits attached to pleadings or papers must be 8 Yz x 11 inches in size; must
be separated with bottom-tabbed divider pages; must be labeled numerically, i.e.,
Exhibit 1, 2, 3, etc., rather than alphabetically, and it will be mandatory effective
January 1, 2008, that all exhibits be identified numerically. Exhibits that are smaller
must be affixed.to a blank sheet of paper 8 Y, x 11 inches in size, with invisible
adhesive tape on all sides. Staples must not be used to affix an exhibit to a sheet of
paper. Exhibits that are larger than 8 Y, x 11 inches must be reduced to 8 Y, x 11
inches. Exhibits such as maps must be folded so as to appear 8 Yz x 11 inches in
size. All exhibits attached to pleadings or papers must be separated by a bottom-
tabbed divider page and clearly marked with the exhibit number at the top and bottom
of the page. All exhibits attached to pleadings or papers must be preceded by an
Index of Exhibits indicating the exhibit number, exhibit description and the length of
each exhibit (number of pages). Copies of exhibits must be clearly legible and not
unnecessarily voluminous. Original documents must be retained by counsel for
introduction as exhibits at the time of a hearing or at the time of trial rather than
attached to pleadings.
7. Accountings and/or financial reports must be attached as exhibits to pleadings and
documents and not included in the body of any pleading or document.
8. If pleadings or documents are presented for filing with multiple case numbers, a
separate original must be filed for each individual case.
9. Any motion, opposition, reply, etc., must be filed as separate document unless it is
pleaded in the altemative.
10. When a decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada is cited, the citation
to Nevada Reports must be given together with the citation to West's Pacific Reporter
and the year of the decision. When a decision of an appellate court of any other state
is cited, the citation to West's Regional Reporter System must be given together with
the state and year of the decision. When a decision of the United States Supreme
Court is cited, the United States Reports citation and year of decision must be given.
When a decision of the court of appeals or of a district court or other court of the
United States has been reported in the Federal Reporter System, that citation, court
and year of decision must be given.
11. The clerk shall not accept for filing any pleadings ordocuments which do not
comply with this rule, except by leave of the court after good cause has been shown,
the court may permit the filing of non-complying pleadings and documents.
WDCR 10 Effective December 19, 2007
Page 3 of 3
Per ADKT No. 417 Approved by Supreme Court on November 19, 2007
00716
1 CODE
2 ATTORNEY NAME
BAR NUMBER
3 ADDRESS
4 TELEPHONE NUMBER
---- --- -5 -A-B0RNE-FeRR:-: ------------------- --------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOI-lN DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. CV06-00000
RICHARD DOE,
Dept No_ 1
Defendant.
------------,
TITLE OF DOCUMENT, I.E., MOTION, ORDER, REPLY
JUDGMENT, ETC.
WDCR 10 Cover Page Examples
Effective December 19, 2007
Example A
Page 1 of2
00717
(
1 CODE
ATTORNEY NAME
2 BAR NUMBER
3 ADDRESS
4 TELEPHONE NUMBER
--- --- ---5 --------------------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN THE FAMILY DIVISION
OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. CV06-00000
RICHARD DOE, Dept. No.1
Defendant.
--------_____
TITLE OF DOCUMENT, I.E., MOTION, ORDER, REPLY
JUDGMENT, ETC.
I Example B
L-______________________ ____________________
28
WDCR 10 Cover Page Examples
Effective December 19, 2007
Page 2 012
00718
1 CODE: 2800
2
3
4
5
F I LED
Eleclronically
07-25-2013:02:38:35 PM
Clerk of the Court
8
9 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
10 Appellant,
11
12
l3
14
vs.
MATT MERLISS,
Respondent.
_______________________ 1
Case No.: CVll-03628
Dept. No.: 8
15 ORDER
16 On May 30,2013, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Appellant
17 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN's (Coughlin) appeal from a district court order
18 denying his emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or injunction and
19 awarding attorney's fees. (See Case No. 61383 (May 30,2013).) The Nevada
20 Supreme Court also dismissed all of Coughlin's appeals from any other order or
21 determination arising from the district court's review of this matter, which includes
22 all district court orders entered in this case after that order was entered.. (See id.)
23 III
24 1/ I
25 1/ /
26 III
27 III
28 III
00719
Because this matter has been fully adjudicated, all of Coughlin's outstanding
2 motions pending in this case are DENIED as moot, including his Emergency Motion
3 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. This case is closed.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 DATED this Zs t!: day of July, 2013.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
- 23
24
25
26
27
28
2
00720
(
..r-
2 Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee ofthe Second
3 Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe; that on this
....fl'-
4 cg,5 nay of July, 2013, I electronically filed the following with the Clerk of the
5 Court by using the ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
6 following:
7 Richard Hill, Esq. for Matthew Merliss.
8 I deposited in the Washoe County mailing system for postage and mailing
9 with the United States Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true copy of the attached
10 document addressed to:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zachary B. Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NY 89512
3

Judicial Assistant
00721
o No tJ(
01/rl C-'-H.--V
to 1 -4-R- L po J-t6j()AL
It:J 5 r ah D 0 riffe'
). \1 zc. b d{
1
5 6'5 kfvrf
D ff,\eJS 6, /0 4 ee/-
A 0\ vrlrz.o
q (/ C Ul. C :; 5-f'e "" ( (/.
oN> C9f'" 9
v] 18/ 1/ u: {'ti w YvA .
'2-. r C'V1.//
i
(l(1 /7 5 U VV\
LV vS ).t:f-I4-;-'1/, k- vJ4e- J)
00722

r I
00723
. ,
r ;c:n
. .,
N"vadaGadlly. (renoattorney@grnall.cotl\) This sender IS in your
"J\\;d 7!3'j/13 3'12 AM
i udgr,. harcly@washoocDurtS.US Uudgo da\,id. hardy@washoecourts.U!;
F",,,(Lhacdy@waslloecOlIJ1s us): lidla.st'glich@wastmecourts.us (lidia.st'gJictl@wasllOecourts.Llsj,
Icastl!k)@Ii'Jcour!s.n\!.go'v (leas tillO@:I\tcourts.p\!,qO\;); aoc@m,courts n\;o gO\l (aoc@n\lcourts,nv.go'<1),
Ii\} gC\i (rswst@r.\courts.nv.go\l), renoattorney@gmail.com
(HJI )Q(Jti.Ol m:l'y@gmd!l COl fir tsusicn@ilVdeh.ofg org): shornsboy@nvdetr.org
dVJOng@refD.go'v (dwung@reno.go\r). cJchristensen@reno gov
wonqd@reno.go'v (wongd@rAno gO\!):
(chrish3nseild@reno.gO\,): (skauc@reno I1lichelle.purdy@washoecouiis.lls
(.h,,\fdtLs(@0:cl.vvashoecounty .US. julle.wise@wastK)eCourts.us Ihil@ricllardhi!!aw.com: Zach
(7acllcoug
r
llin@hotmail.com): sl1orl1sby@rwdetr org
1'1 mtachrnents
7 :1:2 130204 MEG!\ FILING ALL CASES IN BOTH AND 2.JDC.IJdl (1948 K8) . 227121 2'
"nc pc slleet tor 227 120204 1,0m chnstensend@reno.qo\i Couqhlin docs 26800 arrest police
1"io')lt ma'sllals (162.9 KB) . 7 25 130204 (;V11-03628 best stamped Order alleGi'l(J
5 _;0 'iJ Dreier in 61383 son:ehC\N excuses hel duties under NRCP 60(b)(4), suspect qiven 2JDC
Wise !ai!we to Iile"1 22 13 Couphlin !ilin>ls no nurnbers.pdf (304.1 KB) , 73013 0204 RJC
C(E:V2011-001'108 RE\i201201048. REV2012-000374 IFP MOTION DECLARATION Requesllor
:leal'inCj on lileqallockouts Incident to WCSO burqlaries a9.pdf (1625.3 KB) . l 30 130204 R.JC ALL
U\SES f\LL DEPTS 104B 374 1708 requestinq lhe heannqs on the illeqallockollt burqiaries bv
WCSO that ne;er Plo,ided nrs 118A.390,pdf (1010.7 KB) . 729130204 2JDC Clerk Wise tips
0ii Judq(, Stiqlich rosuits in7 25 13 Ordel in CV11-03628 2025 03628 72213 Mandamus !FP etc
iutim 2JDC Clerk Wise explain her rnisconduct I\JPCP 5(e) 18 A9 - Copv.pdf (1465.3 KB! .
1 i 1:1 1;: 0204 0633412025 transcnpt Motion Heallnq (November 13. 2012) - 'I07549bqw-Fuli.pdf
i 102.2 KBJ , 1 8 12 0204 ()6:l341 2024 transcript Motion Hearinq (t,O\,ember 13. 2012) -
(5'1.61<8).112 '12 0204 !<inqls to Quash Subpoena on SEf'-J
",nq and Pelers sans exhibits no liumberS.pdf (79 M13) . 11 2 120204 SEN Kmq's Motions to
Subpoenas Directed io RIvIC .Judqes and Stafl sans exhibits 89 no nlllT1berspdf (,I 72S.9 K2)
,116120204063341 Coughlin's subpoena 011 ECOMM Barker Prooi 01 Senke.pdf (778,3 1< B)
11O(3j-(4j application required by 2jDC request for any Indication as to whethel NNDB Chclil' SU.'lch Ilas
:ulii;ied his duty to report to a district COllrt judge.
7i25/1:3 Oluer in CV11-03628 by 2JDC .Juctge Sliglic'1 reads "CV11-0362S D8 On lvIay 30.2013,
. F",, "}""iicla S Court ciisrniss8d Appellant ZACIIARY BARKES COUGHL'tN's (Coughlin) appeal from e<
li 'i'r'C, CGlllt order donying his ernergency 1110tion ior a temporary restraining order or injunction and awarding
:"l,():iic:y'S iCes. (NO iE' l1ere, Judge Stfglich adopts Hichard CHili Esq.'s apploach 01 out the jac! !I,i)l
12/30/11 Motion was a 40.385 Motion ior Stay (the sorl of stay that is not a matter 01 a Distnct
(,cyt ,JL:dQ(,"s disclGtion as to whether or not to grant whele Coughlin plunked down the statutorily set S250 00
, 110 !ODS ! ,'om jour OCCClS:OIlS in tho r,eno Justice Court 10/17/11, 10/25/11. 12113i11, '12/22/1'1 III ReQ01 1-
:;;:;:;'!:; (,SeC) C8se No. 61383 (MRY 3(], 201:,,)) The Nevada Supffome Court also di"rnissen all 01 Coughlin's
;'I";":2is Iron; any other ordGI or d0termrnatioll arismg from the distnct court's re\iiew of this mailer. which
:,'''''.:des di: QlsiriGi court orders entered 'r jl:is case after that order was entered. (See id.) (NOTE: Actu<,lly.
' .. ': ;:;:0'.'1 ii' Gng3 01 5/23/13 reads' "FOI the same reasons, 10 the extent that Clppellant seeks to appEklllrarl'
d,:\' oti!H olde! 0; dHtermmatlon ansing from the district cowis appellate re'vIHw 01 lhe justice court
< .. ():Jrt 1!k'2wise lacks jurisdiction to consider any such appeals.", .the problern With that iogic, however. is thai
40 385 (lhe version put into eflect on 10/1/11, which incorporates NRAP 8) imbues the district COllrt VJith
'..!:!gil'la! t:.:> that portIon 01 Coughlin's tenancy which was utilized as a commercial tenancy, and
"'c,l\es quit" clear that the Nevada Supreme COUlt has appellate jUflsclictlon where the district court mus',
"",IJr2SC such an exercise oi appellate jurisdiction (just what is meallt by "2.[lSll1g in" and "arising from the
00724
!
,'OS:",;: (',OU<l'S apP'oil8te rm,iew" ne(fessailly woulcJ COliliOle some decision, prelniserj upon an eXflrcisH 01 !ts
,,""I"nl ill'lsd'ctiol1. by Ihe justice cowi. and clearly, the legislature chose not to crflBle any SliC/1 iurisdictioll if!
Cj)urts ill NRS 40 385 9S to cOlllmelcial tenants upon enacting tile new version of NRS 40 :385,
this matter hilS beell fu!ly adjudicated. (NOTE, ar;tuillly there <Jr6 sHII s,ol'eral outsfnndlng
:-d";:l" !'1 C'111 03628. and the 5/2t1/13 Order in 61383 does not change that 01 ol)via!e the district COUl1's rU,J
i',) 0:)lb:cice its jurisdiction theleill, as to, say, Coughlin's 4/7112 Motion to Alter or Alr.enu the 3130112 Ord,)r
C101:Y;I"9 ills appeal (which applied all sorts ot appellate pnnciples applYing only to plenary mattels to tnm appeal
,)i '.l slIlilinmy eviction, then, WhiCh, despite NRS 40AOO makrng NI-<AP 38 applicable (meaning that 5122.1"2
;>dry ilv:;:;rdiGg costs is also undone given Berosini aild the inapplicability oj NRS 18. a05( 17)j, in consideration
",,11<, ,',C'i'-"S"iCCi In .Judge FliJnagan's 812811;' Order that he had 110t,orev!ousiy S!",llctloned Coughlin in Hla[
, :"'II:sr p".,,,rs tile U25:12 Oldel ""'Jardlng attorney lees was an application oj IJCH 1:1(3), gIven Judge
':""';''')"'':' <1ppa,'enl. in<iicai<on lhat he did not view a preemptive opposition to a motion jor attorney's f'e8S (if
'::;iiSll'P,'si/1<;1'1? Opposition to ,,,lo1ioll fOI /\ltol'l\ey's Fee is ci'la[8ctrorized thusly) as operative) regardless,
;':f';;:: :; 'J:';:; imci 69 050 cle111l1tely do not apply in II(Jht 01 NRS 40AOO, which I1'1Clkes NRAP applicable to
TJp"),,,;;; or Sli'YI"f18IY eVlClion orders, also outstanding, and very mllcll not moot is Coughlin's 61101'12 NRCP
,':''',r'; ;OWl his motion at 7;'10/13, and that 01 Oi'lS/12) ail oj Coughlin's outstandinq motions pending in L"i'i
, 'He GEN'ED as mooi, !r.cludlnU hiS Emergency Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, This case is closeci
::' SD UF;DERED DATED this 2ith da'l 01 July, 2013. lsi lidia S, Stigltch District Judge''''
Stlglic;"s 7i25/12 Order in CV11-03628 (which especialiy curious in its timing considering the failure:.
: ,,': "',lelT. :ly :!JDC 'Iling 01lice stali to tile in (in Violation oj WDCH 18 and NRCP 5(e), \iVhitmall, Donoi1O
(o';,'I:es ",1 eli) Couqhlin's 7/221'13 suhmisslon of <1 Motioll to Proceed .In Forma P,lllperis etc,:
(,,(ie' Appeal in 61383, which reads
APrEp,L !i1is is an dist!'ic! court Otders denying an efYlerger,cy
"vl a :,"i1IP!8'Y restlaining order or Injunction and Cl\lJarding 8ttorney lees (NOTE. the Nevo,da SupremE! Couri.
!'\l, df'p;,lent!y, does not countenance the lact tilat Couglill's 12130/11 tiling III CIJ11-03628 iinpl!cates a
rQa<10atolY stay under NRS 40385) In a landlord ,tenant matter. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County
"atnc;, F!anagan, ,judge, Appellant 11100.eel tile district court lor a temporary restraining order or injunction
:'::'PC"I ir(>'11 "Juslice cuurt order in " landlord tenmlt dispute. I-'ollowing the denial oj tilat motioll, appellam
"",p,,>,',,)(1 C<' til's COUll distnct CGl'rI entered all 4'der awardi8(! <Jltorney fees to respondent
. ::," (I 3:50 appealed :rol11 that orde(. The district (CUlt has final appellate Jurisdiction in ail arising
'" ,:r',,:;'," r'D"I:S N(!, Cum:! arl 6, 6; see also Waugh" Casazza, 85 Nev, 520 521.456 P 2d 359, 3[)O
;'I'-j:'j,;), !\',hougil Nf-<.",p 3!=\(b)(3) autilorizes an appeal from fln order relusing'o grant an injunction, and N"(i\P
8IJ:horiz'8s an app"a! from a post'Judgment order awarding attorney tees, see Winston Prods, Co .. !nc,
, i)"3()8'- 122 Ne\ 517,525, '134 P3rJ 726,731 (2006) (recognizing that an order awarding attorney lees and
,', !'fts ',j suIJ,,[anil\;e!y appealable as a speci81 order alter iina! Judgment), because the orders challenged (NOl E':
,:,c".lal'y. a,e RJC refused to rule on Coughlin's NRS 40.385 Motion jor Stay, as such, the 2JDC's '1111.1'12 Orcie'
10l1Ied to grant the stay where dOing so is not up to the district court's discretion, was an exercio'e oj the
. 'Hel ,;Ol"1's oiloinai JUI isdictiOl1, especially as to that portion at the premises Coughlin utilized as a '
in {his case z,Hose from the dislric1 court's exercise of appellate jurisdiction o'vel ,;1f1 c:ppC{:l!
;")t\': /:: f'Otnt deCISion. the distpct court's orders were ostensltJly',endered final and are not t,:',
i"i', CDlllt For the same raasons, to the extent that appellant sCleks to appeallrom any other Older or
81!sing 110nl the district court's appellate rel/iew of the Justice court matter. thIS court likewise
iaei,s jurlscii;;tion to consider any such appecils. Accordingly, as we lack jLlfisdiction o'er lhis appeal. we
,Ymc,'( :h", appeal DISMISSE'C.jpl (IHespondent's 2(). 2013, motion seeking to dismiss this 3ppeal lUi
:dL:( oj ju!!sciicUon on other grounc{s and his Apni 26_ 2013 motion to strike are denied as ITiooL 10 the extt-mt
hal !espGnde,,: seeks aitoflley lees based on the motion to dismiss this appeal. thai request is cienlecl. 'vVe
:'.'Ither deny as moot any othel requests for reliei pending in this matter.) lsi Gibbons, J .. Dougl6s, J, Saitta. J"
111(::;: th: maiter 01 Canon 2, '215. and the VVCSO burglarizing instead of foilovJing tho law
I;; -10 2531,.5)(a) requiring the tenal.t to have "receipt" of the summary evic1lOn order lor "24 hours" befoif: :i-le
';;',';1 'li ,';c!l1du(:',s i:I lockout. Coughlin was burglarized on at least four occasion since the initial burglalY by Hili's
'-i':cc end :h" WCSO on 1'111!11 Indicent to HJ.C IGI!201'i-00'l708, which beg at tirst an appeal in CV11-03051 (in
'ii' 'ici' urtSCiCl'OI\ Inst Cltt<lched), which necessanly made the second appeal In CIJ11-03628 wid for lack of
00725
.---" - FOP,Narcied messaqe --------
23Cb Coughlin :,_;:'D:>
D:"io. Jul 23. 2013 at 12:50 MJ1
sutJljoena tor 2/27/12 complete arrest/marshal/police report in 11 TR 26800
',:h l',[',J),(") con;emp! for the Marshal not showing up on 1 "1114/11, at the NND8 Panel at the SBN. and hJrthe
r
"':cf "'c,",": Cha'r's Order of 11 i7/12 '1uashing tile subpoenas is void fer lack of Jurisdlcitior1. so. where the NNDI3
i5o,;rii Cha,nnan Susicil does nol seem to have complied with his duty in that regare!. allow me to inquire v,iih"'a
"<m'c' court 1"rJge" plIfsuant to SCH 110
'c'., ('h!'S;"I:se'1. I stili np,ed tnp, fuli <rnd complete arresilpotice/marshal renort for the 2127/12 arrest for an
:":''':J!cd "C:Jllt:lary contempt. 01 couise your pre\iIOI.lS violations of SCR 110 and purporting to provieie something
<'-'i;C:iSI\,C vJere: as much a sham as Mr. Skau's approach in :"illl1g to propound that required by my subpoena
says there is no such thing as witness lees lor subpoenas;!l misdemeanor cases. so cion'j try
Y'.):.!f "n"o':r, leco,'ds request' teesinonsense excuse. You ladecllo turn over all the ECOMM/911 Galis. I\ey 02:lls
Pf,ff, -'ot W!ned O\,er which had a Brady quality to thern. '
Chnst(Htnsen the most specious thing possible and responds to my request 101 the
report lor the 2J27/12 arrest by prmllding t:ill order lrom '11130/11
a i 10 subpoena was sen,ed on the HJC by Nicholas Hassett on 10/30/12 (on Court Adm,nistr"tor
r<:JC CuStodl8G 01 RecOld. and Chief C"iI DI"ision Filing Officer Clerk Karen Stanci!.
,:"Cf13'V Barv,er Couahlin 1471 E. 9t11 st. Reno, NV 895'12 Tel ami F",x:;:".'_:h: .
. .
}:-'3 ----Filing of pape,s: Under.the siatllte the clerk's duties inciude the obligation to iile all papers properly
bcil:;i(: h'i:l H8mi!
1
nr'l \J Depa11rnem o11r;dustry, Labor & Hurnan Relations, 56 Vvis 2d 673.203 NVV2d 7 (o\lrio OP
grrJu"os Re PewaUKee (Wis) 241 NW2cl603) The acceptance 01 the 1i\il1g 01 a complaint is a mere
:';,In:wclwl <lCi, and the officer chargEld w,th the responsibility 01 receiving thEl same IS required to accept wnat IS
to him if It is accompanied by the proper fee State ex reI. Kaufman" Sutton (Fla App) 231 So 2ri Si.1.
i' '; ;) ",ir.istenai officer. it is the mandatolY duty at the clerk 0; the Court of Ci"i! Appeals to tile and to til,S
';'I:)"'rn(-'1 COlirt any document trmdered to tlllTl appert8inlng to all appe<1lln any cause pending in Ihat cOLili
2tGd(\-:ssed to the Supreme Court \!\!agner 'v GarreH, 1141ex 362 269 SVJ 10JO, A naper is wilh
ci(Jk of Gault when it is de!ivelco to hirn for that purpose. rvlorthland \I Lincoln f\jaL Ll1e Ins. Co , 220 ina 692.
NE:7d "'j. reh den Ind 734 46 NE2d 203 Footnote 17. State ex rei Wallclmai(8r" Miller, 164 OhiO St
<! t.. ";7 01",) Gns 151, '128 NE2d 108
;: :s nd Incllmbent upon one who i1as the ministerial function of accepting the lillng c1 a complaint to
H\8 iegal slgmilcance ot the tendered docurnent. State ex re\. Kau1lYlan \ Sutton (Fia /\Pp)
00726
At tile 1'1/14/12 Formal Bar Counsel King set out his cunous laKe on just wllat is to bG inclucieo In
i;'" r:':.lA ""Ld umiel Jllst what circUlllstances'lhe documenls Coughlin submits lor liling will actualiy 0" Iilec!
(and in 1I1e case at the '10131/12 Pre-Hearing Motion to Dismiss. and for Summary Judgment. and Memoranduili
d 1_;]\'1 :ha' COlIghlm has a lile stamped coPY of (ane! see Exhibit 14 from the 11/14/12 formaillear;ny for a P!<,tty
;1''')('\ ;(;0" c,! just wha\ thai 1()i31112 Ii Ie sl"mped iiling missing irom the ROJ\ looks like. Wllb special
<1:',:11'.10:) on the fde stamping that IS obscured through being 'scratched out". noting the curious choice of C\1,,,,
E;;;)f.Mlrri" in copying the more legible of tile the two choices (between Exllibit 14 and 15) tram which [a draw his
;":)i('[-) in; !::Xfiibii 16. Further. f(!r,g's I=xllibit 12 and 13 were not admitted.
': ,'; '!\7 Guty 01 :l1e clerk ot the municipal caul: to 1iIe 01,appe81 wheli1er presented in time or not thi)
. ''''.:''r at the question wllether the i:lppeal was propelly t"ken is the province at the Appellate hrm on
,i:'!:Drl;O ();SI!1ISS. Pecple ex reI. Trost v Blld, 184 App Di\; 779.172 NYS 412. Footnote [\Iexandlia Nav,,:
2tJfe'; ,;0. "J. F, 8all 8ro. Lumbar Co., '128 La 632.54 So 1035. Footnote 25. Brelsford v Community High
:,(),'DC. r;ir,;( .328 III 27 159 Nf: ;3-i ['oolnot8 26. State \/ Gillette's ['state (1ex Com Apfl) 10 SW2d 984 (lise of
2fi Clnd care oi records It !s the duty or tunction of a clerk of cOll1i to make and keep an acc!Jrate
"''C'v(j 27 oi the proceedings in his court 28 and oi wlmt the court orders and adjudges 29 In the per10rmancG
.:100"'" jUll2S the clerk acts ministerially 30 and uncler the exclusive jurisdiction and direction of the COtili. 31
,,'1 <1 \t;?!;; no powor to pass 0;1 01 contest the 'vandlty 01 any act of the court 'Nhich purports to nervE: beer-; do)'](:"; :n
1,,:;: ot its judicial function. 32 VVhere requiled by statute the clerk must make some recOid 01 the
1,:i"9 ul i! popel presented to him. 33 keep" current general Index 01 recorded InstlUments 34 and keep a Inal
35 m special proceeding docket. 36 It is the clerk's duty to careluily preserve in his office papers filed witi1 him
a:
l
d not to p"rmit their withdrawal or remo'Jal. 37 except with leave 01 court. 38 A retiring clerk at court must
m.er 10 l,iS seler-essor in oHice all records. bODks. and plopmly of his oiffee. 39 Wilile It IS recognized thnt OJ
Vi!lk DI court Inay maintain mandamus ploceedings to obtain from his predecessor in oilice books and pape's Ii'
;:;ossession belonging to tile oiiice, 40 it has been held that mandamus will not lie agaltlst a ori',tote
:f:
i
1l'..ild:t?1 acqulrp')q posseSSlon or the records sought to be reco\ieled, though !Jossession \.IiJas obtallled unde! 8
c,'p\,"nded ciail11to the office of clerk. wllere no cle jure or de lac to status was accorded to the claimant. 41 I;
duty 01 the clerk of a COUll 01 record to extend the records 01 the coun 110m the plocesses and
,;',"'aci:::u', 0:1 \,Ie. anel he cannot resort io extrinsiC evidence iOi tilat (llilpose. 42 .. He has tile right to regard as
. "tJ(f(-:C;t. [he entnes made and the processes issuell by his predecessors. and if. frorn the inaccuracy oj his
i,,,cci,3ces;:lors errors "re found in 1'18 records as extended by the incumbent clerk. the tault Is not his. 43 He
"dS Duly ,he powers incident to his duties as custcdian 01 the records and consequently he has no authority \0
... ,;;;'.1) dilaratlons therein. 44 III lact, he cannot alter the recorli of his own acts, since the making of tile record
ikiS Exi1i1l1sted hiS authority, and hiS only ren:aining powers are to keep and preserve the record sately. 45 Ii is
i P!c'v!rlCC ul th2 court alone to (;orrcct clcllcal to ei1cct the restoration of papers which have
OPbfl'y' altered Of ciefaced. and to prO-VIde lor the SUbstitution 01 new ones when the originals are lost or
1l! Tile clerk. as custodian oj tile recolds" is subject to the general rules governing cllstodians oj publ!c
",,;mcs w,'.h ,aspect to the rights of abstracters and mernbe,$ of the public generally to inspect or copy. 117
: ,;uinClmi rootnote 27. State \i Rockelfeller. 9 f\riz App 265 451 P2d 623. cert den 396 US 920, 24 L Ed?d
1:,9. 90 S Ct 247. Long IJ Sphaie'. 88 F!a 499.105 So 101: 8relstord v Community High Schooi Dist .. 328 III n.
i 59 NE 237. State v Fum;. 252 Ind 486. 250 NE2d 590: Blish v Bush. 158 Kan 760. 150 P2d 168: Mcl<ay v
Coolidge 218 Mass 65. 105 NE 455: State ex rei Caldwell v Cockrell. 280 Mo 269. 217 SW 524' Peeple E:X :ei
Ha:ns Ie Und';8Y. 21 Aop DII, 2d 102, 248 NYS2d 69'1. afld '15 NY2d 751, 257 NYS2d 176.205 NE2d 312:
ex f21. Journal Co. \J County Court tor RaCIne County, 43 V:Jis 2d 297. 168 836. Tne cowt
that the clerk of court is the legal custodian 01 the records In his office Maroon v lmmlgl8tion ({
hli urailn,i 1011 Selvice (CNlj 364 f-2d 982. 2 ALP. Fed 292 Footnote 28. Stille v I'ockerlellel. 9 (.iflZ App 1..6".
45! P2c! 623. cert den 396 US 920. 24 L Ed 2d 199. 90 S Ct 247; Robertson & Wilson Scale & Supply Co. v
!'(iehman. Mich 334. 18G NW 470: State ex rei Morris & Illv. Co. v Brown. 228 Mo App 760. 72 SW2(i
b;,"; F'uglio" Alc,s (CP) 75 Ohio L Ai)3 228. '143 NE2d 641 Footnote 29. State v Rockerlelier. 9 Ariz App 265.
,,;:."! fJ2,; (l23. eel', den 396 US 920. 24 l. Ed 2d 199. 90 S Ct 247. "enderson, Freeman. 205 Ark 856,1/1
0<3 STanton" ,\rkansas Democrat Co .. 194 Ark 135. 106 SW2d 584: Busl, v Bush 15S'Kan 760.150 ?2d
:;:g ;:'og!lo \ AI",s (CP) 75 Ohio L /l.t;>s 228, '143 NE2d 64"1' Commonwealth use oj Orris \ Hoberts. 183 Pa Super
2G4. DO /\2ci 226. re"d on other grounds 392 Pa 572.141 A2d 393. 71 ALR2d 1124: Humphrey v Mauzy 155
It. V" ail. 131 S[2d 329 has an absolute statutory duty to properly index all judgments and his
''';';;:'(0 '0 ;io so renders him ilalJle on his bond. Comrnonwecl!th use of Orris v Roberts. supra Footnote 30. Statr"
.',; \' hlmdl1J (Fla) 75 SJ 2d 905; People ex ieL PClrdr:uge 'v Vvincles, 275 HI 108, ; 13 hiE 91.S). StatE:;
00727
..
. .. /--
'il( ;()i Caidwed v Cockrell 280 dig, 217 SW 524: Barrerl \' Barrell. 207 OKla 234,249 P2d 88. FOJlnole:\1
hi(.ple ex rei. F'arwidge v Windes. 275 III 108, 113 NE 949; 'Barrett v BarretL 207 Olda 234, 249 P2d 88
!'oo!roic 32 State ex rei Druissi v Almand (Fla) 75 So 2d 905 r'ooinote 33 State v Brubaker. 352 M) 414. 177
:OV\iL(i lin Footnote 34. Land \; I.ewls, 299 Ky 866, 186 SW2d 803. 159 ALR 601 (clerk not required to go back
ri, ,.;r co 1'% ;efm 0; oHice and make up general index which sholiid 1181,e been but was not kept up clirrently.).
F cotl'oie 35 UWe" EmploYGf's Casualty Co. 180 Okla 628. 71 P2d 687. r'ootnote 36. State Trllst Co'. v Toms,
:2,14 94 Sl:2d 806 Footnote 37. Brelsford v Comrnunity High School DIS\.. 328 III 27.159 NE 237: Oiria
!,'''''''''' Co op i\ss'n \; Davls.:'9 Ohio App 329.13 Ol1io Ops 116. 25 Ohio LAbs 551.17 NE2d 924
1.lotl'ote,:)8 All papers In a cause should be preserved by the cierk and should not be'taken frofTllile office
d:Ccot leavG oi cowt BrG!s1ord 'v Community Hiqh School [)iSt.. supra Footnote 39 Underwood \: V\i'arson
L!:! j,C 1;37 27 SE:2d 144. Footnote 40. See State ex reI. VVelis "Cline, 29 Okl" 157 116 P 767 (by
wlrAki'EiCl{l) Footnoie 41. State ex rei. Weils v Cline. 29 Okla 1 116 P' 767. where the relalor allege,d that f,)",-"
Since the organization oj the court he had been the de jure and de facio cierk. F-ootnote 42 Fnnk Ii flinK, 43 NH
I;I)F) r()oinoie 43 Frink I; Fnnk Rupia Footnote 44 Fnnk v Frll1k 43 NH 503. The dulies 01 a clelk wiil \""Y INlil'!
na:,.ire or the 3nd lis requirements. thus, in the Supreme Court of the United States, which exercis1:';'s
;,t:,-,:cs\ 01"t!re!y Dppe!iate the copies of the record 01 the case are an essential part of thE:
P fmc! ihe clerk is !esponslble the court ior the ('DIrectness and proper indexing of the pnn
i
80 capie;:;
c'[ ';lC iOT tile in the form and size prescribed by the rules, and for the''-
,_''t.'!'"C-fj:C lhe parties enlit!t:d thcr8to, Bean v P2,tt81son, 1'10 US 401 28 L Ed 190 d. Set 23, Such a duty
. ::i 'c"ely be ;)citofl'f'ed Dy the clecK 01 3 trial court Footnote 45. l:lliott '" of Peirsol, 26 US 328. 7 L
F,j 16ft Foo:note 46, Lev/is 'II 37 f'v1e 230. Frink \0 Fri:ik. 1\:-3 Nh 508; F<emlck \0 Butterfield, 31 NH 70.
::nchcstGr, Cande (NY) 3 Cow 39: Holiister v Judges of Drst Court. 8 Ohio St 201. [,en the court cannot direct
1"(; a!\CrDtIon 01 a true record of what has been said or done. even though perjured testimony is a pari ther'lol.
C;c,)pcck" l'tE;ed. 189 Iowa 581, 178 382 10 ALR 1407. Footnote 47. See 1 Am ,jur 2d, Abstracts 01 TitlE;
s ll'l: G6 !\m ,Jur 2d. Records and RE;cordmg Laws 19 et seq. Enlorcement of right of inspection by
I see 37 intra,
[) 21' c Ilecl 01 breach at duly on rights of litigants
r:'ose dealing with the clerk of a court concerning an acllon or matter then pending have a fight to
("',It \-;(: v)di pellorm the ml!1istenai dutIes connected Witl1111S ottic), and hiS .neglect or failure to do so should
';'(:jl the!! fights 75 "nl!S pnnciple has been frequ(-::ntly applied in cases where a pr:lrty seel(s 1rorn a
>!(jJl1!erlt rendered against hun by !bnSon of some mIstake or default of the clerk 76 HOW8"SL wher,a no dUly
c;;;sis 77 or w:lere the neg:rgence of the attolney or suitor intelvenes. 76 reliej wlil be denied tllern, v.ilGre
m!:ccl on promIses or statements ot'the clerk, 79 or where the clerk 1alled to answer letters 01 inqL;iry about
11,8 status of tile case and juclgrnent was rendered without their knowledge 80 It may be noted here il-,at t1e
;rnpfO\,irient exercise 01 authority by the clerk: as where an order of sale IS issued by him without the clirection 01
P;:lr!V BnWtGd thereto. may not prejudice the rights 01 innocent purchasers. 81 But where a writ of
0' :)r,"';8ri t)j the clerk. Without action 01 the court. to the holder of a sher;lf's [Ieed on a mortgage ioreciosurr"
'//";, 's 'loki 2nd should be vacated on direct att8ck. 82,1;:., clerk of court is, getlera!ly speaking liable
; 2nd on his cmda! bond to a !11:igant injured as a fCSUa of hls negiigenc;c 8f misconduct 33
75 VVilllarns'v Tyler 14 A!a App 591,71 So 5-1. c8ft den '198 Ala 696,73 So 1002; Hoas
f\ilf,;ir;;; C\;. 'J i\ie'l>' Canso! Grfn,ei MInIng Co, 65 Ca! 22, 2 P 4d9. Sih/81!nal'1 \, Childs, 107 ill f\pP 522, May v
/.'o\;::qt()n 59 Md 117, '14 f\ (D6, Thompson \ Sharp, 17 Neb G9, 22 NW 78, Hopkins" Ni99li (Tex) 6 SW G25:
fJlack 73 Wis 126, 40 NW 673 Footnote 76. I,ester \J Mozeley 89 Ga App 578, 80 SE2d 197
".n"DI<1;io:l' 164 !\LR 552 el SEq, III. Failure oj the clerk to notify an appellant of completron of the t,anscnpt IS
'.:i):H,e tor refusing to dismiss ::111 appeal on the ground that a certified copy of the judgment and the
;ym:t:nq at the ilppeal was not filed in the appellate court by the clerk. in the time required by statute. pmtlcu!arly
(-.lc,k C:;ifirrnati'v;";:-:Y stater! th;)t Hloc-l'sS of,J deputy and illsh of huslnEss hRd pr0\J8ntod hlm from
,rO,y,plel,.'g Ihe in411scripf in time 10 iiie it Parks v Ivlarsi1aii, 322 Vlo 218. 14 SW2d 590, 62 ALR 835. Foo\note
f? '1lala v [vl<,ln'lar industries. Inc. (Del) 254 A2d 249: Westel'!1 Union Tei. Co. Ii GriHIn. 1 Ind App 46 27 UE '113
,leks"" \' Jones (I\y) 336 SW2d 565: Valley Finance Co. "Campana. 112 Ohio App 405. 13 Ohio Gps 2d 472.
33 C)piO L. ;\bs 577, 167 654,moiion o\:err. Footnote 78. vVestern Union Tel. Co. \; Griffin, 1 Ind }\pp 46,2/
1,[ 113. f 001110le 79. 3ernl8rv Schaefer, '11 1112d 525,144 NE2d 577 Libert" Turzynski. 129111 App 2(1'146,
?6? NI,2d '741 (deputy cierk): Western Union Tel Co. v Grifiin, supra A clerk oj court IS not liable. hecause a
I'c"!, ,eiied ,:Ipon his gratuitous adVice on a matter having no relation to tl1e duties of hiS office. Trala" Me'mar .
Inc'ustlics. Inc (Del) 254 A2d 249. Footnote 80. Williams \J Wescott. 77 Iowa 332. 42 MN 314' F;rst Nat. 8ank v
\f'.'cnj\,!od:1 28 Karl 183: Ganzer \; Schitfbauer, 40 Neb 6:33,59 NW 98; Puiaski 011 Co \; 62 Okla 21!.
")2 ;..: l=tKlu)()Lc;; SOWid$ \t Harvey 20 !nd 21/. plain\;n oi)taining Judgment \\I inoltgage IO'eC!OtU'p,
00728
(
ploceetl'rlJ may not set aside sile"" s sale by reason at clerk's unauthorizeci,>;:;ue oj order oj sale on luclgmel1:
FOGtnot& 32, Williams :)5 Idaho 169, 205 P 259, 21 AlR 353, wherein a motion to vacate Writ on the
qround tilat it was granted by the clerk without notice was held to be a direct. not a collateraL attack, !-oOInOle
,n, 2B e1 seq .. intla,
28 r,egiioence or misconduct
prinCiple that a public ofticer should be held to a jaithjul pertormance ot his official duties and to
0]11';W8' in ciamages to all persons who Illay 118ve been injured through his malfeasance, oillission or fI(:)glect 84
app:I!os to' tile negligence, c8!elessness, or misconduct oj a clelk 0'1 court, 85 As a public flllnistenai olilce!,
it1C cierK is answerable lor ,my act at negligence or misconduct in office resulting in injUly to the compl8inil1q
i"c'''Y Sf.] in order to render the, clerk ot court and the sureties on his oiJicial bond liable tel' the clerk's
f11ISr"asn"ce both a breacll of duty and consequent clamage must be shown, 87 to warrant re!iet the
, nnd tl1" resuliing Injury must concur; the clerk's misconduct br negligence'mtlst be the direct and
G':')x:""ll') C;:?ltlse ot the injulY 88 If tile injury wauld ha"e nOtwithstanding the misconduct, 01 :f tile
,1i,,,,J,:),; paliy c(Jntrlbuted to' th':) result ill any degme by his own tault or neglect 01 th8t 01 his attorney, he no
I(:\lai ground (A complaint and the clerk cannot be held responsible, 89 Under applicable statutory proviSions, a
... i',-'i'k ,)1 (,UU" lYlay be held liable on his bond tor failure to issue a writ. citation, or process, 90 tor the improper
of iet1ers 01 guardianship whereby an unauthorized person was able legally to proclile funds of anotllel
apc] s,llI3nder them, 91 lor negligence or misconcluct in issuing a warrant 01 arrest; 92 tor tailure proparly to
'.l',JcKe; E! jUogm8nt, 93 tor faiiure to properly index a judgmenl; 94 lor failure to enter an attachment within tlw
(Irrle fixed by law' 95 for lailure to tax costs: 96 tor iallure to include a judgment on a mortgage certitiea!!"
:,,,n:s!ied in COllnectlon with a partition sale: 97 for farlure to reject a surety bond executed by a person ineligiblf:
r>:'l aCe as slimty under the statute; 98 tor not requiring a surety to qualily upon a bond executed by hiln as such
surety: 99 or lor failUie properly to keep records of a case and tor infarming the court inaccurately of Its s1atus
in i hose jmisdlctiolls where a clerk of cOLlli serves also as recorder 01 deeds aocl mortgages bread' of hiS clutle"
;'1,; a 12cording ofiicer may give rise \0 an action on his o11iclal bond as clerk, 2 sLich as his failure to record an
instrtJrI1sni lodged with him for recording,
:i 28 ---,Nedllgence 01 Illisconduct Applicability of Judicial immunity to acts 01 clelk of COUIt under slate la", 34
,C\LR4th 1136 Case authorities' A county clerk of court did not have sovereign ;mmuqity against an aclion ior
I'lCiel11l1ity by a title insurance company wllere tho an employee oj the clerk's offiCe improperly indexed a
'_1clCU'1)(on' vfhich aHected ihe title to a parcel of real estate because the clerk had a statutory duty to properly
IHco'd and index documents in the public records aml public policy considerations la"or accouniabiiity' by Ihe
Cle'" ;0' pcg!igence First American !;tIe Ins, CO, I, Dixon (1992, Fla App 04) 6Q3 So 2d 562, 17 FLW D 1708, .
. Gen tF!a) (-}1 J So 2d 3. So\tereign immUnity did not plotect sl'.;lte irorn /iaollity for failure 01 county clerk to
I",wiy (iocke: judgrmmt Since ael of recording judgment was not d,scretionalY, National Westminster Bank v
Oita:e (1889, 1st Dept) 155 AD2d 261,546 NYS2d 864, app gl 75 NY2d 706. 552 NYS2d 929, 552 NE2d 177
ilnd alld 76 NY2d 507, 561 NYS2d 541, 562 NE2d 866, A clerk ot court IS liable in a civil action for a negligent
O;,lISSlon to perform a statutOlY duiy which proximately causes injury to another, unless the injured party was
cont-ibuloriiy neqligenl, Maddox \ As!ra Invest., 45 Ohio App 2d 20J, 74 Ohio Ops 2d 312, 343 NE2d 133, 'The
'ailulc of ihe clerk 01 the Court of Common Pleas to docket and index a certificate ot judgment tor several days
aHer it is delivered and tiled constitutes negligenCe Maddox" Astra Invest., 45 Ohio App 2d 203, 74 Ohio Ops
;,d :112 343 NE2d 133, 752 SVV2d 118, Footnotes Footnote 84, See 63 Am Jur 2d, Public Officers and,
:':n'rJioyc,es 287 et seq, 85, Lick" Madden, 36 Cal 208, Footnote 86, Esla\ia " Jones, 83 A,la 139, 3
317' Clerks 01 the Superior Court are no less liable for the negiioent perlomwilce oj illeir ollicia! duties illafl
10' a failure to' peltorm sucil duties Touc.hton" Echols County, 211 Ga 85, 84 SE2d 81, Footnote 87, i'Jeai,-Blull
(,;0, Ii RORers, 141 Ga 808,82 SE 280, Footnote 92, Stine" Shuttle, 134 ind App 67, 186 NE2d 168, !lOldmq
i 1'''1t the ele' [( ot court was liable ill damages ior talse arrest based on his negligence o! lTlisconduct in ISSU!n\J a
\.'y';1'ra;--;t 0; arrest Footnote 84, Shac; .. 6!ford \I Slaton, '117 NC 73, 2:1 Sf: "j 01 A prothonotary has an absolute
sl3tU[Ory duty to properly 'ndex all judgments and his failure to do so renders him liable on his bond
Coml11OlwJealth use oj Orris" Roberts, 183 Pa Super 204,130 A2d 226, re\Jd on other grounds 392 PC! 572,141
, .. ,2n :}!n, 7'1 ALR2d 1124, Footnote 98, People II May, 251 III 54, 95 NE 999, error d,srnd 232 US 720, :38 L f:'a
'j14, 34 S Ct 602,See, Stephe!' v Drew (DC Va) 359 F Supp 746, involving an action against a clerk ot cell!'!
,l"d felr wronglul cOI71rnitment oj the plalntii1 lor mental illness, wherein the court stclted that although
',U,),I(, decisions hiM) ,1Iliculated a "quaSI-judicial" IC111111nity of clerki' of COUlL of COUlt enjoy no immunity
Eli Hlere is no Immunity from suit for cl-orks oj court in thH petiornance ot tileir mimsterial duties, such as the
filinG 01 papers, McCray \; Malyland (CA4 Md) 456 !-2d 1,
As such, 8m CounSel 1112112 argument within his Ex Parte Emergency Motion to Ouash Cougll!in's
;"ic'IA,"')<' 011 Cle, k 01 COLirt Petei's should nol beneiit trom an SCR 106 apillication (nor should a subpoena 011
00729
iJd! COIIl'sei. leally. especially whb" Coughlin was repeatedly forced to testily. wllile acting as his own counsel
iii self lE:presm,t;ng. to Il1e ,ery sorts of malters to which Coughlin sought to question King and Petels. including
whelflel they received this or that, wllal the en\ielope on the 10!9!12
I
filed Notice-of Intent To Take Default
. (Coclgl1lin witnessed downtown uSPS Clerk "Tlln" make a nandwritten notation thereon uponlefusing
10 provide such cerlilied mailing to Coughlin due to the insuilicient postage the SBN had affixed to mailing. one
lor which thG SBN sent to Coughlin by one, and only one method, a single certified mailing (in steadfastly
lO:using to acquiesce to Coughlin's requests that the GBC/Clerk of Court/NNDB/Panel copy Coughlin on every
silcill:llIlq or commUflicatlon \;Ia lax or emar! or both (domestic violence victim Issues, USPS 01ficial Change of
.. \,:(i''''3$ issues. Coughlin essentially being to scared oi local law enforcement for some time to mak.e 111S
public, etc.)
ZachalY 8arl(e! Couqhlin. Esq. (ternporanly suspended in NV but not with lhe USPTO) 1471 E. 9ti1 St. Reno. i'lV
H9512 Tel and Fax: . . :1:
. '.
00730
(
SECOI\lD JUDICIAL DISTRICT C'uuRT
WASHOE COUNTY
STATE OF NEVADA
Office of Court Administration
75 Court Street, Reno, NV 89501
Phone: 775-328-3119 FAX: 775-328-3206
Joey Orduna Hastings, District Court Administrator and Clerk of Court
July 29, 2013
Zach Esq.
1471 E. 9' Street
Reno, Nevada 89512
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
L
The Second Judicial District Court's Filing Office is in receipt of your pleading entitled:
"MOTION AND OR REQUEST FOR JAVS OR FTR AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS AND
NOTICE OF OBSTRUCTION OF COUGHLIN'S ABILITY TO FILE DOCUMENTS
AND VIEW FILES, OBTAIN COPIES TEREFROM, IN THE RMC AND RJC BY RIC
CLERKS, BAILIFFS, AND JUDGES, ORDER APPLYING RES JUDICATA TO
COUGHLIN'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS IN ALL RIC CASES GIVEN
MULTIPLE INTSTANCES OF SUCH ALREAD BEING GRANTED, AND PETITION
FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT (MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORIARI) TO
ADDRESS RAMPANT MISCONDUCT BY RJC AND RMC ENTITY AND
INDIVIDUALS."
Upon review, the above referenced pleading does not comply with Washoe District Court
Rule 10. Therefore, it is being returned to you. To assist you with correcting your
document, I have enclosed a copy of Rule 10 for your reference. Once your pleading
complies with this Rule, the District Court Filing Office will be pleased to file it for you.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (775) 325-6623.
Thank you,
____ ' _----.. ...
Julie Wise
Assistant Clerk of Court
"
.-
00731
1 Document Code:
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
2
3
4
NY Bar No: 9473 (temporarily suspended in NY, but authorized to practice on his own behalf in the RJC
NRCP 45 (applicable via NRS 40.400) and JCRCP 45 allow for Coughlin to issue his own subpoenas anc
whatever extent the RJC rules otherwise, let this constitute an "open refusal" pursuant to RPC 3.4, 3.5, et,
1471 E. 9TH ST.
RENO, NY 89512
5
Tele and Fax: 949667 7402
6
Attorney suspended in Nevada appearing Pro Se
7
IN '
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, ST ATE OF NEY ADA
9
10 STATE OF NEVADA;
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
ZACHARY COUGHLIN;
14
Defendant. RCR2011-063341
15
RCR2012-071437, rcr2012-065630, rcr2012-
16 067980, RCR20 13-072675, Adminstrative
Order 2012-01 In Re Zachary Coughlin, etc.
17 _______________________________________ _
Matthew Merliss
18
v
19 Zio,o:;hary Coughlin
rev2011-001492
rev2011-001708,
20 ____________________________ _
ZACH COUGHLIN
21
Y
22 MATT MERLlSS, ET AL. (CVI1-03051,
CYII-03126, CYII-03051)
23 __________________________________ _
ZACl-I COUGHLIN
24
Y.
25 CITY OF RENO CRII-2065
26 Park Terrace Townhomes
v.
27 Zachary Coughlin
rev20 12-0003 74
28 -----------------------------------------
)
)
) .
) CASE NO: ALL CASES ALL
) DEPARTEMENTS
)
) DEPT. NO: CHIEF JUDGE ISSUE
)
)
)
i\101"lON AND OR REQUEST FOR .J.-\\S AllInO l'RANSCRJPTS .\[\'1) NOTICE OF onSTRlI(TION OFCOll(;nUl'\'s .\HIUTY TO
FILE DOCU;\JENTS AND YU:W FILES, OBTAIN (,OI)IES TIlEREI;UOi\l, Ii" 'fUE RoJe H'i' IU(' B.\JLJI<I-S, .-\j\'J) ,HiJ)GJ!S-
1/9 -
00732
1 Northwinds Apartments
v.
2 Zchary Coughlin rev20 12-00 1048, 1067,
3 I068,1182,1183,etc.
4 Washoe County, applicants
v.
5 Zach Coughlin rcp2012-000599
6
State Bar of Nevada,
7 v.
RCP2012- Zach Coughlin, respondnet
8 000607 .
9
Zach Coughlin v.
10 jeff nichols
11 superior mini storage v. tahoe quarterly and or
zach coughlin
12
and or zach coughlin v
13 superior mini storage
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION AND OR REQUEST FOR JAYS OR FTR AUDlO TRANSCRIPTS AND NOTICE OF
OBSTRUCTION OF COUGHLIN'S ABILITY TO FILE DOCUMENTS AND VIEW FILES,
OBTAIN COPIES THEREFROM, IN THE RMC AND RJC BY ruc CLERKS, BAILIFFS, AND
JUDGES, ORDER APPLYING RES JUDICATA TO COUGHLIN'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STATUS IN ALL RJC CASES GIVEN MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SUCH ALREAD BEING
GRANTED, AND PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT (MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION,
CERTIORARI) TQ MISCONDUCT BY RJC AND RMC ENTITY AND
. ( &':-MP-
t:"..s..1D . v 2: C UP"- I b Vl r I "\.\ '!. v-y I' 1 ! 6J QJ
COMES NOW, ZACH COUGHLIN, and files the above titled document on his own behalf
and it is based on the argument and authorities herein. Coughlin hereby swears that the links
provided herein are to true and correct copies of the actual documents they purport to be and that he
makes the following assertions under penalty of perjury pursuant ot NRS 53.045. d .
FACTS/POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Zach Coughlin files this on his own behalf and incorporates by reference all materials linked
to here.
https://skydrive.live. 8F32F SF28! 84 \ 3
To avoid the terrifying experience of dealing with the RJC "bailiffs" Coughlin request a
digital of every single file (and a digital copy of every single second of any hearing coughlin has
appeared in that the rjc has yet to provide, emailing it works .. see the 3115113 trial the disc provided
failed to include the entire afternoon portion, coughlin requests the 12118/12 hearing in rcr2012-
i\101'ION ANI) OR REQUEST FOR.L\ VS AUDIO TR ...\NSCR11'l'S AN .\,OTICE OF OUSTRLJCTlON OF COllGHLIN'S AUII,IT\ TO
FILE AND VIF.W FILES. OIlT.IIN corms TlIlmEFRoM.IN THE ILle BY RJC CLERKS. IIAILIFFS. AND .[111)(;1"-
2/9 -
00733
. "
. "
. "
1
2
3
4
5
/-
. '
067980, and the 5/23/13 hearing in rcr20 13-063341 be expedited per 62337 and 61383 exigencies. (it
would help the RJC address the woefully deficient ROA in Rev20 11-00 1708. see coughlin's MROA
in 61383 for explication. nrs 40.400 make nrap 10, 11 applicable and the 12/21/12 roa fails on many
levels, and the 1/4/12 supplemental in cv 11-03628 and the 411 113 supplemental still don't have those
12/22111 filings by coughlin, which are kind of key. and the tjc has failed to accord coughlin.to
hearing on the illegal lockouts and verified petitions seeking such that coughlin filed in northwinds
cases. rev20 11-00 I 708 (please consider this just such a veritied petition as well as to the illegal
lockout by kern in park terrace, or anything coughlin filed within 5 days the"eofthe functional
6 equivalent per nrs 1 18A.390, and please transmit that appeal coughlin Ii led and the tijerina ifp
. submitted therewith makes such 'perfected" in rev20 I 2-000374, see stancils letter about why she
failed to file in coughlins' notice of appeal, which also seemingly happened in rev2011-001708 per
coughlin's 12/26111 notice of appeal of the 12121/11 order. etc.
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
So. RJC Judge Pearson just happened to issue a 3/22113 "Administrative Order 2013-01"
(htt p;l. \\ II IV. III i nO ... http://www.saihd.lom/.lor/155230762/322-13-
02114-1048-37 4-1708-1UC-Ch rsoll-Adm illistrativc-Ordcr-20 13-0 I-With in-14-
HOIIl's-of-Reccint-AdminOrder2U13-01 )just days after Coughlin's 3/19/13 presentation in
RCR2012-065630 and cl'oss-examination ofRPD Sargl'nt's Paul Sif,:e and Marcia Lopez, and RPD
Officer Nicholas Duralde rewaled the extent to which t'le criminal trespass conviction Coughlin
sustained in 6190 I involved both a burglary by the Washoe County Sheriff Deputy John Machen and
att01'l1ey Casey D. Baker, Esq., and fraudulent conduct by landlord Matt Merliss, his attorney Richard
G. Hill. Esq .. and RPD Officer Chris Carter, Jr. and Sargnet Marcia Lopez, and the associated
burglaries by the WCSO of3115/12 in connection to Rev20 I 2-000374 and on 6/28/12 in Rev2012-
001048 (see RCR2012-067980 and the many. many continuances 01' 40lK R. Bruce Lindsay, Esq.
received (40 I K means he gets paid 4 times to do nothing oncc).
The talking point message is the RJC and its Clerks and Bailiff are using inordinately
inappropriate means to obstruct Coughlin access to court files. typically related to the systematic
burglaries conducted by the WCSO in failing to abide by NRS 40.253(5) requirement that no
lockouts occur until the passing of24 hours from the tenant's "receipt" of such order. that means
you. NCS. Hili and Baker, Gayle Kern. Northwinds Apts. Sue King. WCSO, RPD. all of you.
burglarized Coughlin's property repeatedly. and you know your notices and your "landlord's
19 affidavits" don't have nearly all that is required of them, and that what they do have is mostly
fraudulent, which makes Russell v. Kalian and Mayes really problematic for you. unlawful detainer
statutes in light of the holdings of the Nevada Supreme Court in Vol pert, Davidsohn, and Aikens ....
Doyle, 825 P.2d 1227. 1230.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2:
28
Both a landlord and its counsel were liable for wrongful eviction on an invalid warrant, whether the
eviction was deliberate or inadvertent. Mayes v. UVI Holdings, Inc . 280 A.D.2d 153.723 N.Y.S.2d
151 (I st Dep't 200 I). Coughlin wants
IU1!):,',''' \\'j) .,cribiL",0l;vdoc/155211238.,';;-23-13 .. 0204-071437:
Writtcll-Rcqllc,t-llJ-RJC-I"r-J)oc1I11lents-und-Accc" what Coughlin submitted to the RJC Bailiff
Heibert in the Mills Lane Justice Center lobby, returned by Heibett with a date "received"
stamp ... where BaililTReyes attacked Coughlin approximately six minutes later claiming that
Coughlin had refused his Order to wait in the lobby for that which Heibert had already given
Coughlin. especially where both Heibert and Bailiff Ramsey (whom had admitted to Coughlin to
having thrown away the documents Coughlin submitted for filing ill RCR2011-063341 and
Rev20 11-00 1708 the day prior. on 5/22/(3) admit that they had both informed Coughlin he would
not be permitted to view any files that day. 5/23/13, Heibert informing Coughlin that an unmimcd
MOTION .-\1'\1) Oil REQUEST FOR .IA\'S AUDIO TRANSCRWTS :\Nl) OF OF COUGIIUN'S ABILITY Tn
FILE DOCtiM[1\'"TS Ai':D "lEW FILES. OBTAIN COPIES IN TilE RJC BY R.IC BAILIFFS. ANI) .1I:o(a:s-
3/9 -
00734
&

&
, &.
5
6
7
8
9
http://IV'' loc.: 15523 i }92/5-22-1 3-0204 I 708-03(,.1,
f<l'l)lIc,t- ror-S!,Ibm- \\.
http:.':",,,w.scribd com/Joc
i
155"., 1171 i5-22-13-0204-1163341-Emc'rgencv-Noticc-and-i\101\pn-and-
Rellll":;,-!or-Subm issiol1' First-Page {{.Ie -Bail i
http:/'\V\\ \\.scrihd.c"'l11hloci 15523 143215-1 6-1 '-0204-0Ii.l341-NOlc-EIom-RJC-fJdivcrcd .. hv-!Jui Ii
I
10
hllp:r!,,\\'W.scribd.c,)l11idoc!l5523 144
r lcibcr-0n-5-22-1 3-Staplcd-to-Colluh I i l1-s-5-16- 1 3-[{ cquest-ill-El'iction-as-to-Dc licicnces- i n-R 0:\-
11 an
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
=1
;:2
3
" 1
25
26
21
28
.http://'''lw.sc:ribd.c;ol11:Joc;.'15524g35(l/3-22-12-0204-37'I-RJC-:''lilncil-!)cdm1llion-Regarding-
failure-lo-File-3-111-12-Nol
The RJC has further violated Nevada law in failing to accord Coughlin the hearings he is
_ entitled to under NRS 118A.390 where Coughlin filed a Verified Petition for Expedited Reiieffro111
Illegal Lockout in all of the Northwinds Cases: Rev20 12-00 I 048 (upon Chandler filing/posting and
Amended 5 Day Unlawful Detainer Notice on 6/28112. his and Northwinds continuing to attempt to
lock Coughlin out (not to mention seek to have him arrested for "trespass", not to mention Chandlel"s
"misconduct" at the 7/5/12 Hearing on the Motion to Vacate (and Judge Schroeder's vast misconduct
therein and beyond in that and other matters):
So, the R.IC clerks, bailiffs and judges just steadfastly refuse to follow the law or abide by
their duties (failing to transmit Notices of Appeal, failiri g to accept 'documents for filing or keep any
record thereof, refusing to accept the $250 Coughlin attempted to post as a supel'sedeas bond pel'
NRS 40.385. etc.. etc.)
So ironic that the very documents that Ramsey and the RJC violated criminal law in failing to
retain even copies of, much less file in, chronicle the "rampant misconduct" by RJC Bailiffs and
clerk attendant to Robbin Bakel', Cathy Wood, Christine Erickson (Chief Civil Division clerk who
allegedly does not know that JCRRT 10 does not apply to "landlord tenant matters" per ICRRT 2, as
she has a smug. hostile John Reyes respond to Coughlin's various attempted filings in Rev20) 1-
001708 by bringing out a highlighted copy of JCRRT 10. which Bailiff Heibert alleges Robbin Baker
told him was the basis tor rejecting Coughlin's criminal case filings, the only problem is (See WDCR
18). JCRRT:2 provides that nothing in JCRRT applies to criminal cases. and the law prohibits courts
fi'om applying ticky tack civil action local rules related to formatting to matters involving the
_ potential loss of liberty. Heibert repeatedly refused to file in (he says the RJC Clerks will not take
them at times. then other times he says he is rejecting Coughlin's filings) Coughlin's filings in a host
ofcl'iminai cases: RCR:2011-063341, RCR2012-065630 (a case in which both Bailiff Reye5
announced. on the deadline day for Coughlin to tile his post-trial motion. and after Coughlin had
MOTION .-\i\:O 1.tF.Ql1ES,T FOR J,\\'S AvnlO TRANSCI,WTS \i\:n NOTICE OF OBsnW(.TIO;\' OF COll(;IIUi\"S ,\IlII.1TY To
FlU: ,\NO nr.\\' nu:s. 08TAI1'\ COPIf..S THERE"-ROM. THE R.I( BY R,1e CLERKS. BAILIFFS. A]'I;J) .1l'DGF.s-
4/9 -
, .
00735
..... . .. _ . - .......... U} .... "'YII15 UI[;lll Willi KJL
00736
1 filing office clerk was refusing to allow Coughlin to view any material in the criminal division or
civil division, and Ramsey informing Coughlin that he is not permitted to view any of the dozen or
2 so cases in which he has been summarily evicted since August 20 II, indicating to Coughlin "the
filing office t01r1 me> YOl1 f'f'n't vif'''V CRI::-:-C;: ,.,f'Y01,Tr {"!f\C;:f-d ?'1rl 9re in
00737
. '.
. "
1
2
3
already submitted filings that day, that Coughlin's filings of such a time sensitive docliment related to
a liberty interest was being rejected by Reyes, slla sponte. in his "interpretation" of the 11120/12
Administrative Order in that Reyes was applying a "no more than one filing per day" wrinkle to the
Administrative Order. Upon Coughlin pointing out the problems associated with this Reyes invaded
Coughlin's personal space and dropped approximately five "f-bombs" with his inimitable cartoon
4 bully swagger, The thing with Reyes is, he is collecting and $850 check the first of every month for
being "20% disabled", according to his Financial Declaration and getting a $4,500 "retirement" check
the first of every month must be so disorienting when he comes into the RJC and people like
Coughlin actually expect him to perform the duties of his employment (such as process the
documents Coughlin submits for filing pursuant to an incredibly specious to begin with
Administrative Order see RCR20 13-071437 and the attack by Reyes connected to Reyes delusional
interpretation thereof in RCR20 13-072675) where Reyys also Reye.s ,a check every couple weeks for
his filII time employment as a Bailiffwith the RJC ($1.'100 or so .. ,),
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
hit!':;,""" I 552446,I'f! 12-6-12-02IH-063341-;\() 12-0 I-Email-to-R.lC-Coun-
,.\ ,11 11 i 11 is! 1'3(0),- r U !lle-m ld-R i'vl C-C h ic ,VI" r,'fln 1-H O[lc)'-I.la iii i 11 in -M ('-COli rthollsc-SWl c!lIun
fH!p::"\\'\\ \\" I 5 5- 120204-Cough lin-s-TPO-A nplication- A!!ainst-R.lC-
Reves
hit":;!,, \\w,Scribd,cI)l11hlodI55747052i2-28130104-063341-WCDA-DDA-Hezkr-2-25-13-Lctter-
13 With-New-Handwritten-Note-Remai Icd-'l'hrealening-'('R 0-IP()
15
The thing is. Nicholas Hassel. over 18 year old, non-party. served on the RJC. and Karen
Stancil. and Court Administrator Steve Tuttle a SCR 110 subpoena, which was properly issued (even
ifNRCP is deemed applicable, which it is not. the SBNfNNDB/Clerk ofCourtlOBC expressly
16 - indicated to Coughlin that SCR 105(4) and SCR 119. as t11ey relate to SCR 110, allow even a
"temporarily suspended" attorney such as Coughlin to issue his own subpoenas in his role as as self
I'epresenting respondent. The RJC is in contempt and should be subject to SCR 110(3)-(4). and
David Watts-Vial, Esq, must withdrawal from RCP2012-000599 (further, the WCPD is an
independent contractor and not appropriately represented in such Workplace TPO/EPO by the
WCDA. and Watts-Vial attempted to massage that at the 1/4/13 EPO hearing by suggesting the TPO
application was filed by Jim Leslie on behalf of the WCPD .. ,one, Leslie cannot file a Workplace
Harassment TPO Application that seeks to protect his empJoyer must do it for him, and the
WCDA's Office is not Leslie's employer, beyond the extreme impropriety in Leslie violating his duty
of confidentiality a la RPC 1.16),
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
http:'",w\\"scribd,com,'tloc: I 55245650!2-6-13-Fmaii-IO-Walls-
Sul)DOl'Il:IS
CONCLUSION
Please provide the JAVS audio recordings sought herein and access to or copies of (digital
copies al'e great) of ALL of Zach Coughlin's tiles, ever, in the RJC.
AND Olt. REQUEST fOR JAVS AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS ,.\NO NOTICE OF OBSTRlICTION OF COllGltUN'S ARIUTY TO
FILE nOCtlMF.NTS Al'\D VIEW FILES. OBTAIN (:Ol'IES THEREFROi\l. TilE RIC BY R.le CLERKS, R\ll.IFFS. ANJ).llIDGf.S.-
5/9 -
. '
00738
- '.
l
1
'I
II
- ..
i7
18
1J
22
23
- '.
,/:7
?S
t
The undersigned hereby request this Court these materials presented herein in
deciding upon this matter.
,\FFlR1\lATION AND DECLARATION
I declare, pursuant to NRS 53.045, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Slate of
that the foregoing and ali factual claims herein is and are true and correct and that this
document does not contain any social security numbers. pursuant to NRS 239B.030. an al1kmatioll
tu that effect this hereby is.
DATED this 7/22i13
lin
Zach Cougl 1, Esq.
Defendant! -1aiman! <in some NRS liSA 390 and other instances!
S)Jspendcd Attorney A ppearing Pro Se
-I
'IoTTON ,\:'\lHiR NEQllE:')T H)R.f n's i\cnrO TlUNscrtn"-,s \."'0 'crt f( OFOHsTl{t <TIO, ()feOf C:1If,r!",. 'llitH" TO
riLE noe ,\..\"J) YJI(W FJLI:S. onT.\Ii" ( 0['110::-; 'I 1"\ Til E RW m' l{.JC ('f II \11 ,IFI:S, .\ '\I).n 1l(:F,S-
6/9 -
00739
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
On this date. I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served upon the following by
placing a true and correct copy of the fOl'egoing document in the U.S. mail addressed to and
personally delivering the same to the WCDA's Office at I South Sierra St.:
Amos R. Stege. astege@da.washoecounty.us f
Zachary N. Young. Esq. zyoung@da.washoecounty.us
Washoe County DA
I South Sierra P.O. Box 30083
Reno. NV 89520
Phone Number: 775-328-3200 Fax numbel': 775-325-6703
Email: zyoung@da.washoecounty.us
652 Forest Street
Reno. Nevada 89509
Phone: (775) 348-0888
Fax: (775) 348-0858
Email: rhill@richardhillaw.com
. I 1791 Ridge Rim Road. Chico, CA 95928, copy to Matthew Joel Merliss to the extent Hill refuses to
Ii Ie a notice of appearance in CV I 1-0305 I.
Sue King, Western Nevada Management, Park Terrace TownhomesHOA
804 Mill Street Reno. NV 89502
(775) 284-4434 and faxed to
kern ad PTTHOA 7753246173
and King and WNM at 7752844465
Gayle A. Kern. Ltd. Address: 5421 Kietzke Lane Suite 200 Reno. NV 89511 Phone Number: 775-
324-5930 Fax number: 775-324-6173 Email: gaylekern@kernltd.com attoreny for Park Terrace
THOA
NORTHWIND APARTMENT ASSOC LLC
1031 XPRESS NORTHWIND LLC
110 IIOTH AVE NE STE 550
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
Fictitious Firm Name - Counter
74040
04/0 I 11997 12:00:00 AM Expiration Date: 04/0 I 12002
Business Name: NORTHWIND APARTMENTS Owners: NORTHWIND APARTMENT
ASSOCIATES, LLC
;"IOTlO"" \ ~ D OH REQl'f.ST FOR.lA \"S AllDIO TR.\i\:SCI.tWTS \i\iD l\OTICE OF ORSTRllCTIOi\' OF COllGIILIi\"S .\RlI.lTY TO
FILE nOCl;\lENTS AND VIEW FILES, onTAIN COPIES THEI{EFROM. IN THE IUC BY R.IC CLf.R'KS. B<\ILlFFS. r\l\:n ,nlU(;r.s-
7/9 _ f .
00740
. ..
. ..

2
s
(
Nevada COlin Services
Lew Taitel, Esq., Staff Attorney
Jeff Chandler, Owner and CEO
Roben \Vray/.Joel Durden, Licensed Process Server
475 S. Arlington Avenue, Suile I A
Reno, NY 89501
(775) 348-7560
Lewis S. Taitel, Esq.
6 Attorney at Law
"
,
e
II
12
, .,
, -
J6
17
18 -
,')
475 S. ArIiJl!(tOJl Suite lA
Reno, Nevada 8<)50 I
(775) 322-2272
I'lIX: (775) 348-7977
Nevada State Bar No. 4397
Not sure who Mr Taitel represents in this matler. if anyone.
Apparently representing NOrlhwinds Apartments Assoriates. LLC or Nonhwinds Aparlmenls.
though Chandler's "landlord', allidavit" swears that he. Chandler is the "landlord", so ..
Norlhwind Apartments. 1680 Sky Mountain Drive, Reno. NV 89523-8147
,
Zach Co g llin, Esq.
Defendant Attorney temporarily suspended (f('r which all of yo" will
be sued) in Nevada but not b0fore USPTO
.\'O'f{OS \;\.'1) OR FOI{.r \ \"S .\1fl1IO rR.\;\.snUI'TS .\iXU:\o II( "'. (')I< ORSTIU '( '110:'\ OJ' ('Ol'(:nt,1 '\'S .\B1[ .11 \ 10
FIl.E 00(:1.:::\11::",'1"; Ylf':W 1:I1.E.o.;, Onl'AI:\ CONES TIiEllEFRO;\I. R.I( UY I:tI( ( B \1 A '1).11 1)( a:..,-
8/9 -
00741
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
)C
.. 0
27
28
INDEX TO EXHIBITS:
I. VARIOUS RELEVANT MATERIALS, INCLUDING THE FILINGS BAILIFF RAMSEY
ADMITS TO THROWING AWAY, ETC., ETC.
https://skydrive.Iive.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28!8413
hllPS:i-'skydrih,.1 i"c.C:C>Il1.'rcd k?rcsid=4 30846J 8F32 1'5 Fe 8! 84 13
. '
\10TION :\NO 0", REQllf.ST Fon .IAVS AUDIO TRAXSCRIPTS .-\1"0 NOTICE OF ORSTRli(.'TION OF COUGHLIN'S ABILITY TO
FlU: DOCtlMF.NTS AKD YltW FILES. OUTAIN {'OPIF..5 THEREFROM, ~ TilE RIC BY RJC CI,ERKS. BAILIffS. A1\"O.I\!()GES-
9/9 -
00742
RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Rule 10. Form of pleadings.
1. All pleadings and papers presented for filing must be flat, unfolded, firmly bound
the white paper of standard quality, not less than 161b. weight and
8 Yz x 11 Inches In size. All papers must be typewritten or prepared by some other
duplicating process that will produce clear and permanent copies equally legible to
fent sfze-shall-noHle
filed, except as provided in section 6 of this rule. Only one side of the paper may be
used.
1\11 papers presented for filing, receiving or lo?,ging with the clerk shall be pre-
, punched with 2 holes, centered 2 v." apart W' to 5/8" from tne top edge of the paper.
, ..
The lines on each page must be double spaced, except that descriptions of real
property may be single spaced. Pages must be numbered consecutively at the
bottom. Lines of pages must be numbered in the left margin or on legal pleading
paper.
Any pleadings or papers presented for filing that are larger than what can be
fastened in a 2 inch acco fastener, must be submitted for filing in volumes of no larger
than 2 inches per volume with a cover page on each volume indicating the title of tDe
document and volume number.
2. No original pleading or paper may be amended by using correction fluid or tape,
making erasures or interlineations thereon, or by attaching slips thereto, except by
leave of court.
3. The following information shall appear on the first page of every paper presented
for filing:
(a)
The document code (list of document codes available at the Second
www.washoecourts.com); the name, Nevada State Bar identification
number, address and telephone numb!Jr of the attorney and of any
associated attorney appearing for the party filing the paper, whether such
attorney appears for the plaintiff, defendant, or other party; or the name,
address and telephone number of a party appearing in proper person, shall
be set forth to the left of center of the page beginning at line1 and shall be
single spaced. The spa<;e to the right of center shall be reserved for the
filing marks of the clerk.
CQDE
NAME
BAR NUMBER
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
ATTORNEY FOR:
WDCR 10 Effeclive December 19, 2007
Page 1 of 3
, ..
00743
, ..
(b) The title of the court shall appear at the center of the page, line 6, below the
information required by paragraph as follows; ,
.. .... __ ._ $)... .... BelQINJhe.Jitle.Qflbe .cmu:llhaILil.ppear:. [I) the2Q..1u,;e .tg.JbeJeftPfc:en.\e,r, line
9, the name of the action or proceeding, e.g.,
, ..
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD ROE.
Defendant.
. (d) In the space to the right of center at lines 11 and 12, shall appear the case
number and the department number as follows:
r
Case No. CV06-00000
Dept. No.1
(e) The title of the pleading, motion or other document must be typed or printed
on the page directly below the name of the parties to the action or
proceeding. The title must be sufficient in description to apprise the
respondent and clerk of the nature of the document filed, or the relief
sought, e.g" Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff
John Doe; Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories.
See Example A attached for a General Jurisdiction case,
See Example B attached for a Family Jurisdiction case.
(f) Pleadings or papers presented for filing should be in the following order:
Pleading or document including filer's signature
Affirmation
Certificate of Service
Index of Exhibits followeq by the if any
, ..
4. Pursuant to NRS 239B.030(4) the Second Judicial District Court requires that an
Affirmation must be attached as the last page of each document presented for filing
and before any attached eXhibits, or the Affirmation may be the last sentence before
the signalure line on the document, stating that the document does not contain the
social security number of any person. If the document does contain the social
security number of any person, the affirmation must indicate the specific state or
WDCR 10 Effective December 19, 2007 Page 2 of 3
00744
...
. "
federal law requiring said number. The Affirmation form is available at the Second
www.washoecourts.com. (Attach Affirmation form and other acceptable options
here.)
5. Social security numbers and any financial account numbers must be redacted
from any documents filed with the court. If a social security or account number is
needed for identification purposes, all but the last four digits of that number must be
_. __ and ___________ .. __
5. All exhibits attached to pleadings or papers rrlust be 8 Yz'x 11 inches in size; must
be separated with bottom-tabbed divider pages; must be labeled numerically, i.e.,
Exhibit 1, 2, 3, etc., rather than alphabetically, and it will be mandatory effective
January 1, 2008, that all exhibits be identified numerically. Exhibits that are smaller
must be affixed to a blank sheet of paper 8 Yz x 11 inches in size, with invisible
adhesive tape on all sides. Staples must not be used to affix an exhibit to a sheet of
paper. Exhibits that are larger than B Yz x 11 inches must be reduced to 8 Yz x 11
inches. Exhibits such as maps must be folded so as to appear 8 Yz x 11 inches in
size. All exhibits attached to pleadings or papers must be separated by a bollom- .
tabbed divider page and clearly marked with the exhibit number at the top and bottom
of the page. All exhibits attached to pleadings or papers must be preceded by an
Index of Exhibits indicating the exhibit number, exhibit description and the length of
each exhibit (number of pages). Copies of exhibits must be clearly legible and not
unnecessarily voluminous. Original documents must be retained by counsel for
introduction as exhibits at the time of a hearing or at the time of trial rather than
attached to pleadings.
7. Accountings and/or financial reports must be attached as exhibits to pleadings and
documents and not included in the body of any pleading or document.
8. If pleadings or documents are presented for filing with case numbers, a
separate original must be filed for each individual case.
9. Any motion, opposition, reply, etc., must be filed as separate document unless it is
pleaded in the altemative.
10. When a decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada is cited, the citation
to Nevada Reports must be given together with the citation to West's Pacific Reporter
and the year of the decision. When a decision of an appellate court of any other state
is cited, the citation to West's Regional Reporter System must be given together with
the state and year of the decision. When a decision of the United States Supreme'
Court is cited, the United States Reports citation and year of decision must be given.'
When a decision of the court of appeals or of a district court or other court of the
United States has been reported in the Federal Reporter System, that citation, court
. and year of decision must be given.
11. The clerk shall not accept for filing any pleadings or documents which do not
comply with this rule, except by leave of the court after good cause has been shown,
the court may permit the filing of non-complying pleadings and documents.
WDCR 10 Effective December 19, 2001
Pag; 3 of 3
.. AOKT No. 417 Approved by Supreme Court on November 19. 2007
00745
00746
00747
[0
00748
S
6
7
8
9
10
J 1
12
13
14
15
(
OF 'iRE SECOND
16
17 A /1- v l)i6 of
18 r-4Purw:nt to IJIld ltase.si,on f}.e,la"tion, I
19 '{G vt( "'81 2 ,('z..+- 2 (IV
20
this Court to proceed without paying court costs or od,er costs and fees as
because llnck sufficient financial ability,
21
22
23
24
25
26
I,
DECLARATION
(In Lieu of Affidavit Pursuant to NRS 53.045)
76Gh ,declarethat:
(Print your name h
I, I have read the contents of this Application to Waive Fees and Costs, I am competent to
testifY about its contents, and I know its contents arc true based upon my own knowledge, except for
27
28 those matters stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I
F-6 Rnised 0110:5108 beL Apphcalion 10 Waive Fccllnd COSIS P,,,e I or 3
,
00749

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
2. I am unable, because of my financial poverty, to pay the costs and fees of this case, and 1
am wlable to give security for the costs and fees in this matt er.
3. I wish to file with this Court the pleading submi !ted with this Application. I cannot pay the

er resources. including myself, there are cost of filing because I lack sufficient income, assets, or oth
_,
adults and children in my household. Their a
ge(s) is/are ____ -' __ --', and
My total monthly income hefore taxes is:
From all sources including
employment, self-employment, .
social security, child support,
I
ar
Ony
, State hd County benefits:Jj"'1' .9. ..
&t ( WI ti "'-f> cvll'e -f c:-
Any othe ousehold income from -e
another member oflhe household: .....................
List you
your Job title: I "
I ""CO
The [allowing rellresents a list afmy assets and their value:

Automobile
ltri
C::U:ccJ
Value

Loan Balance .

..
(Print the year and type of car.)
Mobile Home, House, or Other Real Estate

(print the size, type, andlor year ofpfO(erty.)
i __ _
$_---
Bank Accounts

Other
$_--- $_---
$----_.
F-6'llov"d 08105.01 Bel 2
Applic:alion 10 Waiye Feu and Costs Page 2 or 1
00750
5
6
7
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(
(
Child Care ..................................................................... .
Insurance... .... ......... ...... ..... '" '" . . . . .. . ... .. .. 411 a/J f.!
Medical ....
I request the Court hold a hearing on this Application if the Court is inclined to deny same, so
that I may testify as to my indigent status.
Dated this
Thi. d= "'" """"'" '" SooW '"",,tr N"""" of
..=.
I declare under pellalty ofperiurv, under the law of the State of Nevada, that the foregoing
statements are troe and correct.
25 )ur-..Q..
r
Z""'f 3'
1..
Dated
Appllctrion to Waive fecs and Costs raac 1 or)
00751
r '
"
00752
F I L E D
Electronically
08-19-2013:02:47:21 PM
Clerk of the Court
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
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF RENO,
Respondent.
____________________________
Case No.: CR12-1262
Dept. No.: 8
ORDER FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
In this appeal from a Reno Municipal Court conviction for trespass, Appellant
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN (Coughlin) has filed the following four motions
with the court:
(1) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed on August 27, 2012;
(2) Petition for Extraordinary Writ or Motion for Extension of Time filed on
July 31, 2013; and
(3) Two Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed on July 31, 2013.
The court has reviewed the docket, including Judge Steven P. Elliott's August
27,2012 Order granting Respondent CITY OF RENO's motion to dismiss Coughlin's
appeal, and finds a status conference would be helpful in determining the present
status of this case. At the conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the
present status of the case and, if necessary, the outstanding motions listed above.
/II
1
00753
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
Accordingly, a status conference shall be held in this case on August 22,
2013 at 2:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this /'7 d y of August, 2013.
2
00754
2 Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of the Second
3 Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe; that on this
4 l ~ y of August, 2013, I electronically filed the following with the Clerk of the
5 Court by using the ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
6 following:
7 Pamela Roberts, Esq. for City of Reno.
8 I deposited in the Washoe County mailing system for postage and mailing
9 with the United States Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true copy of the attached
10 document addressed to:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zachary B. Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NY 89512
3
THRNROG RS
Judicial Assistant
00755
Judge: LIDIA STIGLICH
Clerk Accepted: 08-19-2013:14:48:12
Case Title: ZACHARY COUGHLIN VS. CITY OF RENO (D8)
Document(s) Submitted: Order...
Filed By: Judicial Asst. KRogers
RENO
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.
00756
F I L E D
Electronically
08-22-2013:03:59:14 PM
Clerk of the Court
1
2
3
4
5
8
9 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, Case No.: CR12-1262
10 Appellant, Dept. No.: 8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vs.
CITY OF RENO,
Respondent.
____________________________ 1
ORDER AFTER HEARING
Pursuant to the oral rulings issued at a hearing held today in this case,
IT IS ORDERED that Appellant ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN's
(Coughlin) Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed on July 31, 2013 is
GRANTED.
IS IT FURTHER ORDERED that Coughlin's Petition for Extraordinary
Writ or Motion for Extension of Time filed on July 31, 2013 is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part. Specifically, his request for waiver of EFlex fees is
GRANTED. All other requests are DENIED without prejudice as each of them
is either moot or unripe.
/II
/II
/II
/II
1
00757
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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent CITY OF RENO (the City)
may file an Opposition to Coughlin's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed on
August 27,2012, which is still pending before the court. If the City decides to file
an opposition, it must do so within twenty (20) days. Coughlin may file a Reply
within five (5) days of the filing of the opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/lei
DATED this 2'2- day of August, 2013.
2
~
L DIA .STI
DIstrIct Judge
00758
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
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of the Second
Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe; that on this
,.1
eM day of August, 2013, I electronically filed the following with the Clerk of the
Court by using the ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
following:
Daniel Wong, Esq. for City of Reno.
I deposited in the Washoe County mailing system for postage and mailing
with the United States Postal Service in Reno, Nevada, a true copy of the attached
document addressed to:
Zachary B. Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
3

Judicial Assistant
00759
Request Denied:
Failed to retrieve requested document: Root element not set
User Manual | terms of use | privacy policy | payment policy | support | contact us | about Tybera Development
Group, Inc.
2001-10 Tybera Development Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
00760

7 25 12 To 8 22 13 760 Pages Bates 02045 62237 61901 26405 CR12-1262 All Filings in 2JDC Appeal From RMC Ocr Final A9

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

7 25 12 To 8 22 13 760 Pages Bates 02045 62237 61901 26405 CR12-1262 All Filings in 2JDC Appeal From RMC Ocr Final A9

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

7

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]

Page15 oI17 HotmailPrintMessage

From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]

Anda mungkin juga menyukai