6 14 12 0204 03628 hill and baker's reply to supplement to opposition to motion for attorney's fees...

7/28/2019 6 14 12 0204 03628 Hill and Baker's Reply to Supplement to Opposition to Motion for Attorney's Fees of 4 19 12

1/18

F I L E DElectronically

06-14-2012:04:50:59 PM

Joey Orduna HastingsClerk of the Court

Transaction # 3020168

gr

OFFICEHILL

123456789

10

Code No. 3795RICHARD G HILL, ESQ.State Bar No. 596CASEYD. BAKER, ESQ.State Bar No. 9504SOPHIE A. KARADANIS, ESQ.State Bar No. 12006RICHARD G HILL, LTD.652 Forest StreetReno, Nevada 89509(775) 348-0888Attorneys for Respondent Matt Merliss

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

11 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ))))))))))

Case No.: CVll-0362812 Appellant, Dept. NO.713 v.14 MATT MERLISS,15161718

Respondent.REPLY TO SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TOMOTION FOR ATTORNEY S FEES

Respondent, MATT MERLISS,by and through his counsel, RICHARD G HILL,19 LTD., and CASEY D BAKER, ESQ., replies to the Supplement to Opposition to o t i ~ n for20 Attorney's Fees filed herein on June 9,2012 by Mr. Coughlin. Mr. Coughlin's supplement21 is seriously tardy, and is nonsense. Mr. Coughlin's supplement should be stricken from the22 record: This reply isbased on the points and authorities belowand all papers and pleadings23 . on file herein.242526

POINTS AND AUTHORITIESFACTS

As the court is aware, this is an appeal from a summary eviction order27 entered in the Reno Justice Court. Merliss believes the court to be familiar with the28Nevada 69505


2/18

G. HILL

1 underlying substantive facts of this case, and will not needlessly repeat them here. The2 pertinent procedural fads are as follows:3 1. On October 27, 2012, the Reno Justice Court entered its Findings of Fact,4 Conclusions of Law and Order for Summary Eviction in case no. REV2011-001708. ROA5 Vol. II, pp. 75-80.6 2. On January 14,2012, Coughlin filed his Oppositionto Motion for Attorney's7 Fees, even though no such motion had been filed in this case.8 3. On March 30,2012, this court entered an order denying Coughlin's appeal9 from the summary eviction order. Merliss was the prevailing party on appeal. Merliss filed

10 and served a notice of entry of that order on the same day.11 4. On April 3, 2012, Merliss timely filed and served his memorandum of costs12 and disbursements.13 5. Coughlin's motion to retax was due by no later than April 9, 2012. Coughlin14 did not file any motion to retax as required by NRS 18.110, but instead filed a bizarre,15 rambling, and abusive opposition to memorandum of costs, to which Merliss replied on16 April 12, 2012.17 6. On April 19 2012, Merliss timely filed and served his motion for attorney's18 fees pursuant to NRS 69.05Q and NRS 7.085.19 7. Coughlin's opposition to Merliss' motion for attorney's fees was due by no20 later than May 7 2012. Coughlin did not file any opposition to the motion for fees.21 8. On May 9, 2012, Merliss requested submission of his motion for attorney's22 fees. That motion remains pending, awaiting the court's ruling.23 9. On May 22, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Merliss'24 memorandum of costs and disbursements.25 10. On une 8,2012, Coughlin filed a motion to alter or amend the court's26 award of costs.7

28Nevada 895052


3/18

OFFICEG HILL

1 11. On June 9, 2012, more than a month after his opposition was due, and2 exactly one month after the motion had been submitted for a decision, Coughlin filed the3 instant supplement, in which he purports to finally oppose Merliss' motion for attorney's4 fees.5 LAW AND ANALYSIS6 Mr. Coughlin's opposit ion, ifany, to Merliss' motion for attorney's fees was due7 by no later than May 7,2012. DCR 13(3). WDCR 12(2). Coughlin's supplement is tardy,8 having been filed more than a month after it was due, and exactly one month after the9 motion was submitted to the court for a decision. Coughlin's failure to file a timely

10 opposition should be construed by the court as an admission by Coughlin that the motionis meritorious and should be granted. DCR 13(3). King v. Cartlidge 2 Nev. 926, 124 P.3d

12 6 (2005).13 Coughlin claims that the opposition he filed on January 14, 2012 is a standing14 order and applies and applied to any and all attorney's fees motion (sic) ever submitted in15 this matter .. Supplement to Opposition at 5:21-22. This is nonsense and without any16 basis in the Rules or case law. Coughlin offers no authority for the proposition that a17 litigant can file a pre-emptive opposition to a motion that may, or may not, ever be filed in18 the future. In fact, both WDCR 12(2) and DCR 13(3) specifically require that anyopposition19 must be filed .. within 10 days after service ofa motion .. (Emphasis added). Coughlin's20 January 14, 2012 opposition was and is a fugitive document with no bearing on this case,2 other than to showeither (1) Coughlin's complete incompetence as an attorney, and/or (b)22 that the fees he consistently and needlessly inflicted on Merliss throughout this case were23 by specific design.24 Substantively, Coughlin's supplement proves the points made in25 Merliss' motion. The fees in this case have reached such astronomical levels solely and26 exclusively due to Coughlin's ridiculous ravings and his penchant for confrontation where27 none should exist. He continues to file nonsensical rants for no purpose other than to drag28 this matter out andcost Merliss additional fees.

3


4/18

OFFICEHILL

1 Coughlin's supplement is 13 pages long. Approximately one-half of the2 document contains nothing but irrelevant and unprofessional personal attacks on Merliss,3 his counsel, various local judges, and Coughlin's public defenders. Threaded amongst these4 attacks are Coughlin's inappropriate attempts to re-argue the merits of the underlying5 eviction. The other half of the document consists of irrelevant and unanalyzed string cites6 of authority that Coughlin copied and pasted from Westlaw. Nowhere in his supplement7 does Coughlin make any coherent argument, or cite to any relevant authority, as to why8 Merliss should not be awarded his fees.9 Merliss was undisputedly the prevailing party on appeal. He is entitled to an

10 award of fees under NRS 69.050 as a matter of right. Coughlin's frivolous and vexatious11 efforts to prolong this matter without any basis in law or fact are laid bare in Merliss'12 motion. In the event it was not obvious already, Coughlin's supplement removes all doubt13 that an award of fees under NRS 7.085 is also appropriate.114 Just as described inthe motion for attorney's fees, Merliss has now been forced,15 yet again, to incur additional fees to respond to Coughlin's supplement, even though that16 document is without any merit whatsoever. Coughlin's blind insistence on continuing his17 rampage is not well-founded in either lawor fact. But, rather, it is calculated solelyto inflict18 m()re harm on Merliss. s discussed in detail in Merliss' fees motion, Coughlin's filings, and19 each of them, have been perfectly and consistently frivolous and vexatious. Coughlin20 must be stopped Procedural sanctions are both necessary and appropriate.21 This court possesses the inherent power of equity and of control over the22 exercise of[its] jurisdiction. Jordan v. State Dept. ofMotor Vehicles 121 Nev. 44, 59,11023 P.3d 3 (2005). That power includes the right to restrict a litigants access to the court's4

252627

2551 28Nevada 89505

1 Coughlin's license to practice law in Nevada was suspended by the NevadaSupreme Court on June 7 2012. See EXHIBIT 1 hereto, which is a true and correct copyof that Court's order. Nevertheless, NRS 7.085 still applies to all of Coughlin's conductreferenced in the motion, and sanctions are appropriate.

348-{)858 4


5/18

OFFICEG. HILL

1 processes. Id In addition, NRCP 11 permits a district court to impose appropriate2 deterrent sanctions on a party who violates that rule by signing court documents that3 are frivolous or presented for an improper purpose. Id (Emphasis added). See4 also, NRCP 11(C)(2).5 Here, Coughlin has demonstrated his overwhelming and consistent propensity6 to file documents solely to vex and harass Merliss. His multiple and voluminous filings, and7 each of them, including the instant supplement, have been so deficient, and so devoid of8 merit, as to raise a presumption that every document filed by him from this point forward9 will be, and is, frivolous. Merliss specifically asks the court to make such a factual

10 finding. Merliss further requests that the court exercise its equitable and11 statutory authority to sanction Coughlin, and protect Merliss from Coughlin's12 abuses, by entering a sanction order to the effect that Merliss is not required13 to respond to any further ffiings by Coughlin, until and unless directed to do14 so by the court. Merliss asks that the scope of any such order include the June 8, 201215 motion to alter or amend order granting memorandum of costs filed by Coughlin. In16 addition to the foregoing non-monetary sanctions, Merliss also asks for sanctions in the17 amountof $500.00, as and for the fees he incurred to prepare this reply, and that Coughlin18 be held in contempt of court if he fails to pay.19 Reference is made to the Declaration of CaseyD Baker, Esq., attached hereto20 as EXHIBIT 2, for authentication of all exhibits and a discussion of the fees incurred in21 preparing this reply.22 CONCLUSION23 This case is over. Enough is enough. Coughlin lostat every level, and must now24 face the consequences of his actions. Merliss is entitled to an award offees pursuant toNRS25 69.050 and NRS 7.085, as discussed in the instant motion. Coughlin's supplement is26 tardy, and without any substantive merit. The conte:qts of the supplement only reinforce27 the arguments made by Merliss in his motion. The January 14, 2012 opposition filed by28 11 1

5


6/18

W OFFICEG HILL

1 Coughlin is a fugitive document that may n ~ t be considered by the court. DCR 13(3).2 WDCR 12(2). Coughlin's failure to timely ifile an opposition to Merliss' motion forII3 attorney's fees should be construed as an d m i ~ s i o n by Coughlin that the motion should be4 granted. DCR 13(3). In addition to the fees requested in the motion, Merliss asks the court5 for an additional award of fees in the amount of 500.00, which represents two hours of6 the undersigned's time to read, decipher, andioppose Coughlin's frivolous supplement.7 Merliss further asks for a sanction order g a i n s ~ Coughlin to the effect that Merliss need not8 respond to any future filings by Coughlin, untfl and unless directed to do so by the Court.9

10 WHEREFORE, Merliss prays for award of fees as prayed for in the motion11 for attorney's fees filed herein on April 19, 2b12; for an additional award of fees in the12 amount of 500.00, as and for fees incurred preparing this reply; for a sanction order of13 the court that Merliss need not respond to ant future filing by Coughlin, until and unless14 directed to do so by the court; and for such t h ~ r further, and additional relief as seemsjust15 to the court in the premises.1617 AFFIRMATION u r s u ~ n t to NRS 239B.03018 The undersigned does hereby af f1rm that the preceding document does not19 contain the social security number of any e r ~ o n .2021222324252627

J.DATED this \ { day of June, ~ 0 1 2RICHARD G. HILL, LTD.

CASEYD. BAKER, ESQ.652 Forest StreetReno, Nevada 89509Attorney for respondent Matt Merliss2551 28


7/18

LAW OFFICEG HILL

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEPursuantto NRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of RICHARD G

3 HILL, LTD., and that on the 4 ~ day of June, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing4 REPLY TO SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY S FEES with5 the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing6 to the following:789

101112131415161718192021222324252627

Zach Coufflhlin, Esq.1422 E 9 Street, 2Reno, Nevada 89501

)

2551 28348-0888


8/18

OFFICEG. HILL

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728Nevada 89505348 ()888

EXHIBIT NO.12

EXHI IT IN EX

DESCRIPTION PAGESJuly 7 2 12 Order from Nevada Supreme Court 2Declaration of Casey D. Baker Esq. 5


9/18


06-14-2012:04:50:59 PM


Transaction # 3020168 EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT


10/18

AJ 1 unpublish order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authori ty SCR 123

SuPREME COURT

NEVAl P.

(O)1 l41A

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADAIN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OFZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, ESQ., BARNO. 9473.

No. 60838FILEDJUN 07 20tl

ORDER OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONREFERRAL TO DISCIPLINARY BOARDBar counsel for the State Bar of Nevada has fIled a petition

pursuant SCR 111 seeking an order from this cOlift temporarilysuspending attorney Zachary B. Coughlin, Bar Number 9473, from thepractice of law and referring him for' disciplinary proceedings. Thepetition alleges that on September 9, 2011, Coughlin shoplifted a.candy-.f .bar and cough drops from a Wal-Martstore. It is s u p p o r t e d t i ~ . ,documentation indicating that on November 30, 2011, in the MtmiciPif;llCourt of the City of Reno, Coughlin was found guilty, followin,g abene,h,trial, of one count of petit larceny/theft in violation of Reno Municipal 'Code 8.10.040. He was ordered to pay 400 in fines aJ;1d fees. Coughlinappealed his conviction to the Second Judicial District Court, and onMarch 15, 2012, the judgment was affirmed.1

IThe. petition does not indicate whether Coughlin informed barcounsel of the conviction.as required by SCR 111(2),


11/18

SUPREME oURTOF

NEVADA

0) 1947A ...

Pursuant to SCR 111, temporary suspension and referral tothe appropriate disciplinary board are mandatory when an attorney hasbeen convicted of a serious crime, which includes theft. SCR 111(6)-(8).Accordingly, pursuant to SCR 111(8), we refer this matter to theappropriate disciplinary board for the institution of a formal hearingbefore a hearing panel in which the sole issue to be determined shall bethe extent of the discipline to be imposed. Furthermore, pursuant to SCR ..111(7), we hereby temporarily suspend attorney Zachary B.Coughlin fromthe practice of law in Nevada, pending final disposition of the disciplinaryproceedings.

It is so ORDERED.2J.Saitta .

etf t7 J.J.

Hardesty '

cc J. Thomas Susich, Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary BoardDavid A. Clark, Bar CounselKimberly K. Farmer, Executive.Director, State Bar of NevadaZachary B. CoughlinPerry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme CoUrt2This order constitutes our fmal .disposition of this matter. Should

there be any further proceedings regarding Coughlin, they shall bedocketed as a new matter. .

2


12/18


06-14-2012:04:50:59 PM


Transaction # 3020168EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT


13/18

gr 1 Code No. 1520

OFFICEG. HILL

RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.2 State Bar No. 596CASEY D. BAKER ESQ.3 State Bar No. 9504SOPHIE KARADANIS ESQ.4 State Bar No. 12006RICHARD G. HILL, LTD.5 652 Forest StreetReno, Nevada 895096 (775) 348 0888Attorney for Respondent Matt Merliss78 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

1011121314151617

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,Appellant,

v.M TT MERLISS,

Respondent.

))))))))))

Case No.: CVn-03628Dept. NO.7

DECLARATION OF CASEY D. BAKER. ESQ.CASEY D. BAKER ESQ., being first duly sworn, deposes and under penalty of

18 peIjury avers:19 1. I am a resident of the City of Reno, County of Washoe, State of Nevada,20 and over 18 years ofage. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, except those21 matters stated on information and belief, and as to those items I believe them to be true.22 This declaration is made in support of respondent s Reply to Supplement to Opposition to23 Motion/or Attorney s ees and represents my testimony if called on to present same in24 court.25 2. J am an attorney duly licensed as such by the State of Nevada to practice26 before all courts of this State and maintain my office at 652 Forest Street, Reno, Nevada,27 where I am employed as an associate for the law firm of Richard G. Hill, Ltd. I am also28 licensed to practice before the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

775 348-0658


14/18


15/18

OFFICEHill

1 3 hours spent on this matter, each and every instance of which was necessary and2 reasonable under the circumstances. As the court can see, however, I have only charged the3 client for 2 hours of the time I spent preparing the referenced reply. Reference is made to4 the declarations of RichardG Hill and CaseyD Baker, attached to the motion for attorney s5 fees filed herein on April 19 2012 for a discussion of work that was performed but not6 billed to the client.7 7 I have personally reviewed the exhibits attached to the instant motion, and8 each exhibit is a true and correct copy of what it purports to be.9 8. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.101112131415161718192021222324252627

DATED this L- t1 day of June, 2012.

28Nevada 895053


16/18

OFFICEHILL

123456789

10111213141516171819221222324252627

Box 2551 28Nevada 89505348-0888 .

EXHIBIT NO1

EXHIBIT INDEXDESCRIPTION PAGESActivity Report 1

4


17/18

EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT


18/18

For the dates:6113 2012 to 6 14 2012Client: Merliss, Dr. Matthew J.Matter: General Default)

ill Detaila ~ e Type Biller

6113/2012 Fee C6 14 2012 Fee C

DescriptionPrepare reply to supplement to opposition to motionfor fees.Edit, revise, and finalize reply to supplement tooppostion to motion for fees. n/c

Activity SubtotalsFees:Expenses:

Other Charges:Payments:

Hours.2.001.00

3.00 Hours

Amount500.00

0.00

500.000.000.000.00

6 14 12 0204 03628 hill and baker's reply to supplement to opposition to motion for attorney's fees...

Documents