Thursday, July 28, 2016

What Goes Up


  • Attorney Becky Pintar has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to overturn $257,751.27 in sanctions against her as determined by Judge Jessie Walsh. [Nevada Supreme Court case 70878]
  • The Supreme Court will be hearing oral argument on school choice tomorrow. [RJ; nvcourts.gov]
  • A change of tact for NV Energy on grandfathering solar customers (before the Supreme Court hears argument in a case on that topic tomorrow). [RJ]
  • Hillary Clinton gets her big moment tonight when she officially accepts the nomination at the DNC. [DailyBeast]

49 comments:

  1. quarter of a mill in sanctions? now thats just ridiculous, even by Walsh's own standards lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. also, NV Energy can suck a fat one. bastards

      Delete
    2. Imagine being Becky Pintar. Your client's already been tagged with a quarter mill in fees and costs, even though they're out of business, and ain't nobody paying that bill. Teddy Parker brings another motion for attorneys fees to recoup money spent chasing the appeal. You review it, figure, "eh, there's still no money, no point in opposing this." Then Teddy drops a notice of non-opp and a "supplement" claiming that Becky herself oughtta be personally liable for attys fees and costs. Nobody reviews this, and the court grants it without a hearing. All of a sudden, you've got your firm's operating accounts are running at $0. Talk about an "oh shit" moment.

      Delete
    3. I mean, I sympathize, but why wouldn't she read the supplement? If it was really nothing, it would take here like 11 seconds. That's where her argument fell apart in my opinion. I'll admit that I don't immediately see what was sanctionable, unless she didn't disclose that her client didn't have the license, but I'm guessing Parker has a slightly different take on that part.

      Delete
    4. There's just nobody to root for in this case is there? Parker's awful, but why would you not read that pleading?

      Delete
    5. Teddy is awesome. To not read a pleading with him as opposing counsel is asinine. Especially when it sounds like it was about a page long. Inexcusable neglect IMO.

      Delete
    6. For those of you wondering, it says on page 8, "The caption, "Supplement and Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion for Fees and Costs," led to the conclusion that this pleading was simply stating that no opposition had been filed, which was accurate, so it was not reviewed."

      Bad for not reading, but there may be a procedural due process issue with that supplement...

      Delete
    7. Pintar says the contractor's board found that her client did have a license, but the earlier NV Supreme Court opinion suggests otherwise. Walsh probably should have asked for a surreply if attorney sanctions were first mentioned in a reply. But on the other hand, why is it Walsh's job to hold Pintar's hand?

      Delete
    8. Obviously she should have read it and quickly filed something, but how does one file a "supplement" *five days* before a hearing that seeks to impose sanctions on a non-party,. presumably based on some new theory or factual basis that was not part of the original motion? The due process concerns here are so substantial that I think the idea of not reading a so-called "supplement" filed less than a week before a hearing date and relating to the imposition of fees and costs against your OOB client will likely not be fatal to her argument. Not unlike the cases holding that the failure to object to misconduct at trial will be excused where the behavior was sufficiently egregious. But we shall see.

      Delete
    9. Walsh makes Trump appear Presidential.

      Delete
    10. This is what the elderly statesmen in our profession call "greasy kid stuff." It is easy to say that she should have read the pleading, because that is true. But Walsh should know that a "supplement" attached to a notice of non-opposition is not the place to ask for previously un-requested attorney sanctions to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. Icky all around.

      Delete
    11. Ted Parker meet your twin, Ted the Bear.

      Delete
  2. I bet the Nevada Supreme Court will be super impressed by her argument that "oh the other side filed something but it didn't seem like it could be important so I didn't read it."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is it just me, or are a lot of documents on the NSC's website not available these days? Even the advance opinions page just sends you to the case docket, where you still can't view the opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. case search always seems to have everything unless it's a huge document like a record on appeal.

      Is this the one you have trouble with: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

      Delete
    2. Not just you, but it is some sort of glitch. Try several times if you know it should be available, it will download eventually.

      Delete
    3. Links from the unpublished/published opinions have been sticky lately and going into the case docket (and then the case docket saying call the clerk). Yes this is a new development in the last 3-4 weeks.

      Delete
  4. Lots of "Gotta make sure the PI plaintiff wins" going on in todays's Khoury v. Seastrand, 132 Nev. Adv. 52.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Khoury is a mixed bag. Write-downs not relevant and therefore not admissible (Pickering's concurrence really does make a lot of sense). We pretty much already knew that's how Nevada's judges were applying the law and everyone was holding their breath on adopting the Howell approach -- that wasn't going to happen. But medical liens are now admissible and not blindly treated as collateral source. That'll be interesting going forward.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @11:01 The PI Plaintiff did win by jury verdict. ID counsel always wants to avoid the responsibilities and consequences of their client's actions by MSJ, Appeal or some other type of court interference to a judgement rendered by a jury verdict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The insurance company got out of a spine surgery case for well under a million bucks, but still wants to cry about it. Boo hoo. They probably had a $15k policy and offered 10. The decision itself has a few things for both sides, although knocking out some BS arguments raised in every case about bill write-downs and insanely restrictive reading of the cases on testimony by treating doctors.

      Delete
  7. It is a Jessie Walsh decision. Odds of affirmance/writ being denied-- very small.

    On the other hand, Bleeping JESUS-- Teddy is this dirty. I know, I know, there is no way that your clients can pay the bill on this case so you need to collect it from someone, and you would stab your mother for a quarter so of course you would screw another attorney for a quarter of a million dollars. And you did not even send the proposed Order over to Pintar to see and review before submission because you knew it would alert her that you pulled a fast one. And then you claim to have "mailed" the NEO when you could have just e-served it for free but once again--why alert Becky before you could take a swipe at her bank accounts? This was scumbag-level stuff.

    On the other hand, Becky, what were you THINKING? (1) I did not read the Supplement and Notice of Non-Opposition; (2) then I did not check the minutes of the Hearing to see if the relief was granted; (3) I did not check to see that an Order had been entered to make sure that it said what it was supposed to say (knowing Judge Walsh would sign anything put in front of her face); (4) the old "It says it was mailed but I did not get it" trick. Yeah, it happens (especially when as slimy as Teddy has been it might not have been mailed) but check Odyssey/Wiznet to see if Teddy is pulling one over on you.

    This is one of those "Pox on both your Houses" cases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously, I haven't read the source yet, but does anyone think this isn't a total a-hole move by Parker to ask for $250k in sanctions against opposing counsel? I don't know many attorneys in town who wouldn't go bankrupt immediately upon getting hit with that. Is there some kind of bad blood between those two?

      Delete
    2. Clearly she was negligent, but I don't think that this or any other court will let stand such slimy behavior by a member of the bar and clear denial of due process by a member of the bench on the basis of mere negligence in not reading something that was misrepresented as a "supplement" to a motion that was already unopposed and set for a chambers hearing. The court will stretch the definition of "excusable neglect" as far as it needs to in order to avoid putting its imprimatur on this kind of conduct. Just my two cents.

      Delete
    3. Teddy not nice. Bad Teddy! I am curious to see how NSC draws the line between scuzzy Teddy and lackadaisical Becky.

      I have litigated against "win at all cost" types. Not always sure what they are doing is "wrong" per se, but I have to say it has a certain tinge of doucheyness. Can't we just litigate the merits and call it a day? Then share a brew and make fun of each other's booboos?

      Delete
    4. Even the lawyer Teddy learned that move from wouldn't have done it...unless it involved a seven figure judgment or Big Pharma. Weak on Teddy's part.

      Delete
    5. I'm curious to see how Judge Walsh justifies 'sanctioning' an attorney for the attorneys fees in a case that the attorney WON AT TRIAL? The judge overturned it and awarded the win to the opposing side. But how exactly does that mean the ATTORNEY is responsible for the attorneys fees and not the client? If a judge is going to make an attorney responsible for the opposing side's attorneys fees, why would we take any cases whatsoever that we aren't damn sure are winners?

      Delete
    6. Pretty much reflective of the entire practice of law in Clark County!

      Here you have scumbag attorney using a "any means necessary" (and yes! there is a definite connection in that phrase) legal filing tactic to get paid by another attorney's lazy negligence! ... in the court room of an inept district court judge!

      Parker no doubt is a POS! Pintar ...well, not the best attorney.

      No way NSC condones this BS!

      Delete
    7. Let's take a moment for comedic relief. Enjoy this article, including the photo of our former $97k per year public servant walking out of federal court and the priceless reader comments.

      Delete
    8. Question: Let's say you're one of Teddy's ID clients and you find out he did this. Do you move your files b/c who knows what sort of other things are going one there, or do you send him more files b/c this only shows he's "aggressive"?

      Delete
    9. The Pintar/Parker case involving Judge Jesse was assigned to the Court of Appeals which is likely to reverse. If that occurs, Pintar needs to get out of that department. She will only get screwed again.

      Delete
    10. Right. The Walsh order will say: yes you're right Ms. Pintar. Sorry I didn't invite a surreply and it was sneaky for Teddy to put that in his reply. But now he has a motion on file. And I still think you should be sanctioned.

      Delete
  8. Becky Pintar is a rocky mountain super star

    ReplyDelete
  9. Imagine being Pintar's partner right now. His worst crime in this is picking the wrong partner, and now he's furiously writing an appeal hoping against hope that he can get himself out of this jam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She is partners with her son.

      Delete
    2. I wish my kids would follow me into the business. Spoiled brats.

      Delete
    3. That's a pretty good trump card then.

      Mom: "I brought you into this world. I worked long hours to put you through school. I changed your diapers."

      Son: "I had to feverishly write an appeal with tears streaking down my cheeks that time you forgot to do your job and it almost bankrupted us. So tiesies."

      Delete
    4. Did you say "trump"? SAFE SPACE!

      Delete
  10. Go speed racer, go speed racer, I mean Becky. She likes chocolate milk, and she likes to wear rbow bracelets.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For a joint case conference report, do you attach just the parties NRCP 16.1 disclosures i.e. just list of witnesses? I know you don't attach the actual exhibits. I have seen it done both ways. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the list of witnesses and the list of exhibits, and of course not the actual exhibits themselves (but you got that already.)

      Delete
  12. If Becky Pintar owes you money, it is a fire sale, take what you can get. She maybe facing a Gordon and Silver collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is the moot court room still named Gordon and Silver at Boyd?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. And is the law review room still named after Lionel Sawyer and Collins?

      Delete
    2. No to Gordon and Silver. Named after a real trial attorney, Adam Kutner.

      Delete
  14. Considering Pintar won at an initial appeal, and got a jury verdict in her favor, its hard to see how she was in violation of NRS 7.085. If it was that frivolous it should never have been submitted to a jury.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I know nothing about the underlying case involving Pintar and Parker (?), but come on, Las Vegas Sands got sanctioned $25k for destroying evidence (or something like that) and this attorney gets sanctioned $250k for... what??? F'n CC, man; I hate practicing in a jx where the clown-judges don't even bother to pretend anymore! Sheesh, no wonder we're getting Donald Duck Trump for Leader of the Free World come next year!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Videos For Everyone is top rated video production company of India which deals in creating corporate videos, advertising, explainer and presentation videos.

    Videos For Everyone
    video production company India

    ReplyDelete