Monday, November 28, 2016

Cyber Turkey


  • A Texas judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the new overtime pay law. [PBS]
  • A permanent injunction was issued regarding Nevada's Educational Savings Account program. [RJ]
  • A Henderson startup is helping people with immigration paperwork. [RJ]
  • Gina Bongiovi shares the top legal mistakes businesses make. [Vegas Inc.]
  • A reader wants to know if anyone has any details regarding In the Matter of Discipline of Jacob Hafter. [Supreme Court case #71744]

62 comments:

  1. Valorie Vega's denial of Kirstin Lobato's habeas appeal was reversed/remanded.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Attended the UNLV game on Saturday. They got beat like a red-headed step child. It was brutal, but at least I was freezing ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just wish Tony would stop having his QB run the bloody ball when he should throw it. That said, it was a nice TD at least.

      Delete
    2. On behalf of redheads everywhere, I demand a retraction.

      Delete
  3. Hafter: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/disciplinary-hearing-outspoken-las-vegas-lawyer-jacob-hafter-underway

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I vote for a Lawyer Bird blog

      Delete
  4. What a crock for this poor lady. Supreme Court issued an unpublished decision in McClandon v. District Court on Wednesday. McClandon was a Judgment Debtor. Judgment was not timely renewed. McClandon timely moved to set aside the renewal as untimely, which was denied by Judge Cory. McClandon appeals pro se. Nevada Supreme Court dismisses her appeal on grounds that "there is no jurisdiction to appeal from a denial of a Motion to Strike renewal of a judgment." McClandon runs a writ.

    Nevada Supreme Court finds: "McClandon, you are right on all counts. Judge Cory wrongfully renewed the Judgment and wrongfully refused to set aside the renewal. McClandon, you were right and we were wrong. Of course you can appeal from an Order refusing to strike an untimely renewal under NRAP 3A(b)(8). BUT we aren't going to give you a Writ because you had the right to appeal, which even though you exercised it and we wrongfully dismissed it you should have filed a Motion for Reconsideration. So because you didn't challenge our mistake through reconsideration, you don't get your untimely judgment invalidated." And we wonder why people think the legal system is rigged and nonsensical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What makes this particularly bullshit is the docket in her first attempt (case no. 68430). She files the Notice of Appeal on 7/17, and the Docketing Statement on 7/24. NSC dismisses on 7/31, without even issuing an OSC to explain why the case shouldn't be dismissed. So because their law clerks screwed up, this lady gets screwed. Fantastic.

      Delete
    2. That is shameful. The Court should be embarrassed.

      Delete
    3. This is truly a shameful shameful case. Honestly to throw her case out for doing everything RIGHT is just ridiculous.

      Delete
    4. If this is the new rule, the Court should expect a petition for rehearing every single time a litigant thinks the Court is wrong - which is pretty much every case.

      Delete
    5. The Clerk's Office of the Nevada Supreme Court is horrible. I wish they could take lessons from the 9th Circuit on how to be helpful. The attitude and disdain is insane and I've yet to have them answer a simple question rather than saying "we can't give legal advice, you'll have to figure it out on your own." I'm not surprised that they erroneously dismissed an appeal and then tried to blame it on a proper person litigant rather than fixing their own mistake. The Court should not sign off on this b.s. and should take a closer look at what happens in the clerk's office.

      Delete
    6. They're the rudest clerks I've come across for sure.

      Delete
    7. They are rude, but generally they are right on the rules (overly strict but technically correct). Unlike any of the Clerks' Offices at any District/Justice Court level which is not rude; it is brutal incompetence.

      Delete
    8. As bad as Cadish's JEA?

      Delete
    9. Hello, Mr. Pro Se. What's happening? We have sort of a problem here. You apparently didn't put the blue coversheet on your appeal. Mmm, yeah. You see, we're putting the blue coversheet on all appeals that are filed on Monday. Did you see the memo about the Rule of Appellate Procedure? Yeah, see your Appeal was filed on a Tuesday, which would mean you use a red coversheet. And when we got it, Bob here got confused, because he thought your red coversheet was really a purple coversheet, so we dismissed your appeal. So yeah, if you could just go without access to the courts, that would be greeeaaaat.

      Delete
    10. They withdrew that order yesterday. I wonder why......

      11/28/16 Filed Order Withdrawing Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus. On November 23, 2016, an "Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus" was filed in this matter. That order was filed as a result of a clerical error. Accordingly, the "Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus" filed on November 23, 2016, is withdrawn.

      Delete
    11. The Order was filed in error? WTF! Did the Justices not really read the Opinion to which their signatures are affixed? Who is going hog wild with the Justices' signature stamps now?

      Delete
    12. Now the NSC Captcha plays the "Identify the Street Sign/Storefront" game. I think the Blog Operators here must be taking over the NSC Website.

      Delete
    13. Supremes filed a NEW Order today, reaching the same conclusion but softening the language on the "Ooops our mistake" and instead putting in more language on "Well if you just would have cited us to Leven v. Frey, we would not have made that mistake regarding our own jurisdiction." Pathetic weasels.

      Delete
  5. It is pretty sad when the legal blog shares G. Bongiovi advice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. We must take advice from Bonjovi, who sleeps with her associate partner, Misko, or Bobby D. She is laughable.

      Delete
    2. Ain't nothing wrong with some interoffice hanky panky.

      Delete
    3. Who cares who she sleeps with? Do you have a substantive problem with the advice she's giving or are you just here for slut shaming? How many female attorneys have been propositioned by male supervisors/partners/bosses? Probably all of us. Unless you have something interesting or useful to contribute, STFU 11:05.

      Delete
    4. Yes, watch her seminars. She is an idiot.

      Delete
    5. 12:00, you are an moron.

      Delete
    6. Gina Bongiovi is the spokeswoman for sexual harassment. I cannot wait for that youtube video to come out.

      Delete
    7. Gina can abuse me anytime she wants. Hot tamale.

      Delete
    8. Ms. Bongiovio is a cougar. Bobby is like 10 or 20 years younger than her.

      Delete
    9. I am pulling my membership from Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, because Gina Bongiovi is a trustee. She refers to Italians as dagos. I am Italian. Racist.

      Delete
    10. Having been a member of 5 different Chambers in the LA area, I was shocked to see how the LV CofC discourages non members from attending events and networking with its members. I never joined and I have never regretted it or missed anything.

      Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce . . . nothing to see here . . . just move along.

      Delete
    11. Another attorney in my law firm use to refer business clients to Gina Bongiovi, but she gave them bad advice, so she no longer receives our referrals.

      Delete
    12. What is wrong with referring to Italians as dagos? #MAGA

      Delete
    13. Careful, 1:58, or you'll have the Italian anti-defamation league after you. In fact, if you listen carefully, you'll probably hear their sirens off in the distance... wop wop wop wop wop

      Delete
    14. G. Bongiovi was voted a Super Lawyer. Such low standards.

      Delete
    15. #stopshamingslutshaming

      Delete
    16. Why do you keep calling her a slut, 3:13?

      Delete
    17. Read Gina Bongiovi's, Bongiovi Law Firm, article and it is legally wrong. Please hire her, she keeps our law firm in business.

      Delete
    18. Sounds like someone is really obsessed with Gina.

      3:45, which article are you talking about and what is legally wrong in it?

      I'm ambivalent about her, but good for her if she's consorting consensually with a younger guy. It ain't sexual harassment unless its unwelcome. Plus she she doesn't have enough employees for sexual harassment laws to apply to her business.

      Delete
    19. I don't know her but it seems inappropriate to keep harping on her with derogatory posts that have no substance and are so personal. It's ugly and disheartening in what's supposed to be at least sort of a professional's web/blog.

      Delete
    20. 8:54, thank you, Gina.

      Delete
    21. @ 8:00 Where did you get the idea that this is a professional web/blog? I would estimate close to half of the posters are not attorneys. And even many of the attorneys are Beavis-level in maturity. I think we kid ourselves as to who is on the other end of many of these posts.

      Delete
    22. Gina Bongiovi was selling herself on Question 3 in the public arena. She sells and promotes herself anyone she can. As far as I am concerned, she is far game as to what is said about her.

      Delete
    23. So because you comment on Question 3, people get to take shots and make allegations about your sexual practices? In what f***ing universe do you live?

      Delete
  6. Speaking of Hafter and disciplinary reviews, what happened with the State Bar's petition to the Supreme Court on Pengilly? Did that just go the way of the Dodo bird? Did they ever take the depositions?

    ReplyDelete
  7. McClandon lost the underlying case fair and square. It had to do with contract work to complete the interior of a very upscale condo (Turnberry) - potentially a second home, as she appears to have lived in Florida at the time. She's probably hiding assets and playing all kinds of shenanigans to avoid the victor from collecting on a legitimate judgment. To the possibly erroneous renewal of the judgment, I say, "meh."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No attorney gives a shit about the judgment, it's the nature of the NSC's screw up that causes concern. They summarily denied a legitimate appeal and essentially blamed the "victim" for the court's poor case management.

      Delete
    2. 12:58 hits the nail on the head. She filed timely. She brought her appeal before the NSC. The NSC admits that it mistakenly dismissed her legitimate appeal and then denied her writ relief because she had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy (albeit one that was only plain speedy and adequate so long as the NSC had not screwed it up itself).

      Delete
    3. It is the court of final error.

      Delete
  8. The McClandon affair is hardly the most shameful or silly thing the NSC has ever done. And I think they ultimately got it right. It looks like she failed to oppose the motion to renew the judgment in the district court after reasonably calculated attempts at notice. NSC could have accepted jurisdiction in the direct appeal and addressed it on those grounds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except the NSC notes in its Order under Leven v. Frey and NRS 17.214 that Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor did not timely or properly renew the Judgment. In fact the "Motion" is not a proper vehicle to renew a Judgment. Nonetheless, if the NSC would have reinstated her appeal and said "Ooops sorry, yes you timely appealed a matter over which we had jurisdiction, Briefing reinstated." But to bollocks up the case and wrongfully dismiss her appeal, and then say well you Pro Se Litigant didn't properly challenge our own mistakes is preposterous.

      Delete
  9. Speaking of odd appeals - what ever happend on the Becky Pintar judgment?????? Did Parker get his money?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Case no. 70878 - sent down to the shitwork panel. Briefing's been done for a month.

      Delete
  10. Becky Pintar is a bitch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is turning into the old grade school slam book but against women lawyers.

      Delete
    2. Oh no, it is a Jr. High level Slambook against all lawyers. Women lawyers just get the extra level of being slut shamed, which is pretty much the same as Jr. High.

      Delete
    3. Who is being slut shamed?

      Delete
    4. See the Bongiovi comments above.

      Delete
    5. Have nothing but the utmost disrespect for G. Bonjovi. She sucks.

      Delete
  11. Does the Texas federal court injunction v. minimum wage increase apply nationwide?

    ReplyDelete