Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Through The Door


  • A 3L was shot and killed last week through a door when he tried to enter the wrong apartment. [RJ]
  • The Supreme Court of Nevada released its annual report. Can anyone find anything good? [NVCourts; RJ]
  • The Silverstone Golf Course case gets curiouser and curiouser with what appears to be some questionable strategies to avoid an injunction, including selling the property to an entity that then files bankruptcy. Judge Boulware still found the original buyer in contempt for not turning over sale documents. [RJ]

23 comments:

  1. I foresee a bad faith ruling. Its an uphill fight, but the punitive damages are immense. Whoever filed that bankruptcy are taking a stupid risk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was filed in the Central District of California, BK Case 1:15-bk-14111-MT by the Abbasi Law Corp in Beverly Hills, California.
      The managing member of Stoneridge Parkway LLC (formed 8/3/15 per CA SOS) is listed as Danny Modab which I can only guess, based on the infinite knowledge of Google, is the guy behind Modab Venture Group in Encino, CA (accuracy not guaranteed nor even guessed.)

      I'm curious to see how the case rolls through given that it appears, from the public view, that they purchased it solely to file BK in, what I'm assuming, is to get rid of any obligations including CC&R's. Good luck with that though.

      Delete
    2. The corp has new debtor syndrome written all over it. On December 18, 2015, Stoneridge Parkway LLC was domesticated in Nevada, had the property transferred to them, then filed bankruptcy the same day in California. They are not even trying to hide it. Wow.

      I would love to be creditor counsel on this one.

      Delete
    3. Can you even discharge CC&R obligations in bankruptcy? If those are covenants and restrictions on the land, I wouldn't see how they could be discharged. But this is far from my area of expertise.

      Delete
    4. Not a chance. There are so many ways to screw with both them and their counsel in that BK. BK Court will not be VERY unhappy to see that they filed to dodge a federal court's injunction.

      Delete
    5. BK Ordered 3-25-2016 Change of Venue from CA CENTRAL to NEVADA
      Tentative ruling 3-10-2016
      /Stoneridge_Parkway_LLC__cacbke-15-14111__0089.0.pdf
      Just getting started Mr. Modaberpour and Mr. Richards!

      Delete
  2. That story about the 3L is sad. Just like my mom used to say, nothing good happens at 5am after you've been drinking and clubbing all night.

    Maybe somebody with some criminal experience can clarify for me this statement from professor Addie Rolnick: "the letter of the law in Nevada is that on(e) can claim self-defense as long as one reasonably fears that someone is about to break into one's home. ... So, whereas other state laws might require that an intruder actually be in your home, or be on a connected porch, Nevada's law is worded in a way that could cover, for example, someone in your yard, as long your fear of intrusion was reasonable."

    Is that correct? I thought that in order to use deadly force in self-defense, you have to have a reasonable fear that your life or somebody else's life is in danger. Not just a reasonable fear of somebody breaking into your home.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the law changed this summer, but here is the relevant statute:

    NRS 200.120  “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

    1.  Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

    2.  A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

    (a) Is not the original aggressor;

    (b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

    (c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

    [1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518; 2011, 265)

    NRS 200.130  Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required.  A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

    [1911 C&P § 130; RL § 6395; NCL § 10077]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok folks everybody is missing it here. The law professor missed it because she was following a traditional self defense analysis. There is a statute NRS 41.095 which provides that a person in his or her home (including transient lodging) is presumed to have a reasonable fear of death or imminent bodily injury in the face of a burglary or home invasion. The 3L law student was banging on the door and attempting to barge at 5:00 am in the morning, the occupant called 911 because he was in fear, he announced he had a gun, and the person kept banging and attempting to barge in. No reasonable likelihood of a conviction. The February 2014 issue of Nevada Lawyer
      Gun Laws and the Second Amendment (available on line) had several articles on guns, self defense, and the Second Amendment.

      Delete
    2. I would give 12:06 full points on question. Short, sweet, and to the point. Ability to work in an insult against the ivory tower intellectuals gives +2 extra credit.

      Delete
    3. SB 175 in the 2015 Legislature expanded the protections of a dwelling to a car/automobile or occupied habitation. Some say "Castle Doctrine" but not "Stand Your Ground."

      https://leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/78th2015/Bill/1548/Text

      Delete
    4. I actually think 12:06 loses points on this one. NRS 41.095 is used in civil contexts, not criminal, as it is under the heading "LIABILITY OF PERSONS WHO USE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER IN RESIDENCE".

      Delete
    5. 12:06 seems to have it. I feel "there but for the grace of God go I" after reading the RJ write-up. That could have been me on some drunken fools errand. On the other hand, the guy who shot him had every right to do so. A tragedy, by definition, with no real villain. RIP, and may the family of the deceased find the strength to forgive.

      Delete
    6. oh snap. Check yo self before you wreck yo self.

      Delete
    7. When I was an undergrad I lived in the hood. One night some guy fired off a clip worth of ammo right outside my door. My girlfriend and I dived to the ground and I retrieved my .45. A few minutes later there was a loud banging at the door. I almost decided to just start shooting lest some thug come barging in, but a little voice in my head said "it's the cops." I yelled who is it. Sure enough, it was the cops. I came that close to being a cop killer. (They threw me to the ground and roughed me up, but my gun was clearly a .45 and the shell casings on the floor outside my door were from a 9mm, so after some chit chat, they let me go. The cute crying girlfriend probably helped, too.)

      Delete
  4. BTW, if you look at the SB 175 it immunizes anyone who is justified in shooting from civil liability in one's home, occupied habitation, or car. So the shooter here may be immune from civil liability. The amendments were to 41.095 which is a form of "Castle Doctrine." Further, if a person comes up to a car banging on a window and trying to get in to cause you harm, a person could be immune from suit. Anyone else here on the same page?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Any drunk that continues to pound on my door at 5:00 AM after a warning that I'm armed and I've called the police is likely to get the same treatment. It would be one thing if I lived alone, I might be more patient, but I have a wife and son at home and that greatly increases my likihood of taking no chances with a clearly out of control idiot trying to break into my house.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn, Sharkpimp - you are one badass MF. The next time I'm in Yuma, or wherever it is you live, I'll take note. Don't Mess With The Badass Armed Sharkpimp

      Delete
    2. Yuma? Dude's a Constable in Laughlin. He hasn't managed to muck up his job so badly that the job gets eliminated, either.

      Delete
  6. 12:06--your point is well taken and well intended. Please take a look at SB175 which intertwined the criminal and civil together. I am certain that anyone charged with a shooting will ask for an instruction based on the statute that there is a presumption it is justified because the person was in fear of a burglary or home invasion. The legislature really muddied the waters here putting multiple aspects of justifiable homicide into one bill. They intertwined so many aspects together. It fits the one subject rule because it all relates to "firearms".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Know its not local, but anyone see the story on the NSA spying on members of congress? Strikes me as a major problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. https://democracychronicles.com/vp-search/

    SMH.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow. This is great. A candidate who has less than zero chance is using a crany guy to find their running mate. This literally made me laugh out loud.

    ReplyDelete