Friday, February 12, 2016

All For Good


  • Las Vegas Sands filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge David Barker's decision not to disqualify Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez from the case against Steven Jacobs. [RJ-includes copy of motion]
  • The Nevada Supreme Court heard oral argument about marijuana residue and driving under the influence. [RJ]
  • Robert Eglet and Aaron Ford are the attorneys on a class-action suit against the CCSD. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • ICYMI, Cliven Bundy was arrested in Oregon for charges related to the 2014 standoff here in Nevada. [Las Vegas Sun; RJ-includes copy of complaint]

16 comments:

  1. Not mj residue, mj metabolite

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why did Ford leave Snell & Wilmer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same reason everyone leaves Snell -- they don't want to be associated with John Delikanakis.

      Delete
    2. And yes, that is a joke.

      Delete
    3. Snell does not want people serving in legislation, which is why Brower is not running for state Senate

      Delete
    4. I thought I read that Brower accepted a DOJ position. I wonder why Snell doesn't want to have the (at least perceived) juice that comes with having a sitting legislator at your firm.

      Delete
    5. Because they take a Partner share while not carrying a Partner load. (Although there are a few loads over at S&W).

      Delete
  3. Idiot Bundy couldn't stay away from the cameras. I hope they lock him and his cattle up for good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What did the cattle do?

      Delete
    2. Petit filet larceny

      Delete
    3. Damn, I cannot get my detonated Bundy melons anymore with him in the clink. Think I can get 'em on the black market?

      Delete
  4. Proposed Changes to Federal Nevada Local Rules 2016 include deleting LR 7-5 and 7-6!!! see http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/PublicComments/default.aspx

    Comments: After carefully reviewing the proposed 2016 rules I immediately noticed my two favorite local rules LR 7-5 and LR 7-6 have been completely removed! I request that these rules remain and are updated to include "letter/mail" in rule 7-6 and add the option to send a ex parte motion via email for 7-5. They were: LR 7-5. EX PARTE AND EMERGENCY MOTIONS. (a) Ex Parte Definition. An ex parte motion or application is a motion or application that is filed with the Court, but is not served upon the opposing or other parties. (b) All ex parte motions, applications or requests shall contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court without notice to all parties. (c) Motions, applications or requests may be submitted ex parte only for compelling reasons, and not for unopposed or emergency motions. (d) Written requests for judicial assistance in resolving an emergency dispute shall be entitled “Emergency Motion” and be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth: (1) The nature of the emergency; (2) The office addresses and telephone numbers of movant and all affected parties; and, (3) A statement of movant certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, movant has been unable to resolve the matter without Court action. The statement also must state when and how the other affected party was notified of the motion or, if the other party was not notified, why it was not practicable to do so. If the nature of the emergency precludes such consultation with the other party, the statement shall include a detailed description of the emergency, so that the Court can evaluate whether consultation truly was precluded. It shall be within the sole discretion of the Court to determine whether any such matter is, in fact, an emergency. LR 7-6. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Neither party nor counsel for any party shall make an ex parte communication with the Court except as specifically permitted by these Rules. (b) Any unrepresented party or counsel may send a letter to the Court at the expiration of sixty (60) days after any matter has been, or should have been, fully briefed if the Court has not entered its written ruling. If such a letter has been sent and a written ruling still has not been entered one hundred twenty (120) days after the matter has been or should have been fully briefed, any unrepresented party or counsel may send a letter to the Chief Judge, who shall inquire of the judge about the status of the matter.Copies of all such letters must be served upon all other counsel and unrepresented parties.

    The Local Civil, Patent, and Criminal Rules Committees for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada have proposed amendments to the court's local rules of practice and seek comment from the bench, bar, and public. All comments will be carefully considered by the rules committees. Please provide any comments as soon as possible but no later than Monday, March 7, 2016. Comments concerning the proposed amendments must be submitted using the electronic comment form on the court's website. Click on the red box below to access the proposed amendments and electronic comment form.


    Click hereto review and comment on the proposed amendments to the local rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/proposed-changes-to-federal-nevada-local-rules-2016-include-deleting-lr-7-5-and-7-6/

      Delete
    2. Your review must not have been that "careful". See the redline provided by the court:

      http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/publiccomments/rules/redline/2016%20Local%20Rules%20of%20Practice%20Redline%20with%20TOC.pdf

      Former LR 7-5 is now LR IA 7-2 (Ex Parte Communications) and LR 7-4 (Emergency Motions). Former LR 7-6 is now LR IA 7-1 (Case Related Correspondence)

      Delete
  5. What happened to LR 7-4 before it became emergency motions?

    ReplyDelete
  6. What happened to LR 7-4 before it became emergency motions?

    ReplyDelete