February 2, 2023 ex parte hearing transcript analysis

2/2/23 hearing where I was unfairly declared a vexatious litigant ex parte without an opportunity to oppose or appeal

The standard of review

“”[A] judge is presumed to be impartial.” Ybarra v. State, 127 Nev. 47, 51, 247 P.3d 269, 272 (2011). “[R’jemarks of a judge made in the context of a court proceeding are not considered indicative of improper bias or prejudice unless they show the judge has closed his or her mind to the presentation of all the evidence.” Cameron v, State, 114 Nev. 1281, 1283, 968 P.2d 1169, 1171 (1998).”

NCJC 2.9 improper ex parte communications

Rule 2.9.  Ex Parte Communications.

      (A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter, except as follows:

      (1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, is permitted, provided:

             (a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and

             (b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and gives the parties an opportunity to respond.

Nona Tobin’s motion to disqualify Judge Peterson

4/26/23 Motion To Disqualify The Honorable Judge Jessica K. Peterson Pursuant to NRS 1.230, NCJC 2.11, NCJC 1.2, 2.2 (appearance of a lack of impartiality); (NCJC 2.9 (improper ex parte communications); NCJC 2.15 (C)(D) (improper response to allegations of judicial and lawyer misconduct); And NRCP 59(a)(1)(A) (irregularity in the proceedings) or (B)(misconduct of prevailing party) (C) (surprise)(ex parte vexatious litigant bench order in absentia and refusal to attach opposition to order) And/Or Relief from the order pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(1)(mistake – errors of law); NRCP 60(b)(3) (misrepresentation); NRCP 60(d)(3) (fraud on the court)

Request for equal treatment

Motion to reconsider the January 16, 2023 order to grant non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion for attorney fees

Comes now Nona Tobin (“Tobin”), in Proper Person, to respectfully move the court to reconsider the 1/16/23 judgment order. Movant asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction over non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC (Herein “Red Rock LLC”), and all non-party Red Rock LLC’s filings therefore must be stricken as rogue, and once all rogue filings are stricken, Tobin’s claims and petitions for sanction against parties Red Rock and Nationstar must be granted as unopposed.

PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

The Nevada Supreme Court rejected Tobin’s petition 85251 to arrest these proceedings prior to a final judgment order, saying that appeal was Tobin’s “plain, speedy and adequate” remedy. This motion to reconsider the 1/16/23 order attempts to equitably resolve all parties’ claims without the court acting outside its jurisdiction and without the court forcing Tobin to appeal unequal treatment.

No hearing is requested. Movant requests the court vacate as moot an unnecessary hearing scheduled for 2/2/23 to hear Tobin’s Motion For An Order To Show Cause Why Written Findings Of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded To The State Bar.

Movant respectfully requests that the court consider the motions herein in conjunction with the four motions currently docketed for in-chambers review on 2/8/23.

Movant respectfully requests that this court equitably resolve all claims of all parties in this case by striking all non-party rogue filings and granting Tobin’s unopposed claims and petitions for sanctions against parties Red Rock and Nationstar thereby.

LEGAL STANDARDS AND ARGUMENT

  1. Red Rock Financial Services LLC (“Red Rock LLC”) is not the Plaintiff nor is it a Counter-Defendant in case A-21-828840-C.

The court record and the findings of fact, quoted below from Tobin’s 6/27/22 proposed order, establish that Red Rock LLC is not, and never has been, a party in A-21-828840-C.

  1.  On 2/3/21, Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership, (“Red Rock”) filed the current interpleader complaint (2/3/21 COMP) was identified in the caption as the only Plaintiff.
  2. Red Rock Financial Services, LLC (“Red Rock LLC”) did not file the complaint, and Red Rock LLC was not listed in the caption as the Plaintiff.
  3. The Notice of Appearance and the Initial Appearance Fees Declaration (2/3/21 IAFD) does not include an appearance or fees paid for Red Rock LLC to appear as a party.
  4. Red Rock LLC was not identified as the Plaintiff on any of the summons or Affidavits of Service of the Complaint on any of the five named Defendants: (2/17/21 AOS Republic Services), (2/17/21 AOS Wells Fargo),  (2/17/21 AOS Tobin as Trustee),  (2/17/21 AOS Nationstar), (2/17/21 AOS Tobin, an individual)
  5. Defendant Nona Tobin, an individual, filed the only Counter-Claims (3/8/21 AACC) in the case, and she identified Plaintiff Red Rock as the only Counter-Defendant.
  6. Counter-Claimant Tobin did not file or serve any Counter-Claims against non-party Red Rock LLC, and none of the other four Defendants filed or served any Counter-Claims against Red Rock LLC.
  7. Nationstar’s and Wells Fargo’s answer to the complaint (4/9/21 ANSC) did not contain any Counter-Claims against Red Rock LLC.
  • Nevada Supreme Court decisions affirm that this court lacks jurisdiction to grant judgment for or against non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC (“Red Rock LLC”)

I.C.A.N. Foods, Inc. v. Sheppard (In re Aboud Inter Vivos Trust), 314 P.3d 941, 946 (Nev. 2013) (“Young v. Nev. Title Co., 103 Nev. 436, 442, 744 P.2d 902, 905 (1987) (“A court does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment for or against one who is not a party to the action.””)

Non-party Red Rock LLC is not the Plaintiff.  Non-party Red Rock LLC did not serve the complaint on any Defendant. Non-party Red Rock LLC never “pled a claim for relief”.

I.C.A.N. Foods, Inc. v. Sheppard (In re Aboud Inter Vivos Trust), 314 P.3d 941, 946 (Nev. 2013) (“Young v. Nev. Title Co., 103 Nev. 436, 442, 744 P.2d 902, 905 (1987) (“A court does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment for or against one who is not a party to the action.””)

Process of service is a prerequisite of a court acquiring jurisdiction, and no party filed or served any claims against non-party Red Rock LLC in this case.

Levin v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, No. 63941, at *6 (Nev. Sep. 11, 2017) (“Service of process is required before a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a person or entity. C.H.A. Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707, 709 (1990) (“Personal service or a legally provided substitute must still occur in order to obtain jurisdiction over a party.”). Moreover, “[a] district court is empowered to render a judgment either for or against a person or entity only if it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter,” and a district court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a party—even one with actual notice of the proceedings—unless that party has first been adequately served. Id. at 383-84, 794 P.2d at 708-09 (emphasis added)”)

  • To intervene, NRCP 24 requires a timely motion and an interest in the subject non-party Red Rock LLC does not have.

Non-party Red Rock LLC did not file a motion to intervene.

Non-party Red Rock LLC has no interest in the subject of the proceedings.

Non-party Red Rock LLC did not ever have any contractual relationship with the HOA, Sun City Anthem, under whose statutory authority the HOA sale was conducted. Non-party Red Rock LLC did not conduct the 8/15/14 foreclosure sale of 2763 White Sage.

Non-party Red Rock LLC did not ever possess, hold in trust, or have any interest in, the $57,282.32 excess proceeds that Plaintiff/Counter-defendant/HOA Sale Trustee Red Rock failed to distribute after the 8/15/14 sale. 

Non-party Red Rock LLC is not the entity that disregarded the NRS 116.31164(3)(c) (2013) mandate to distribute all the proceeds after the sale in 2014 in the manner proscribed by that clear and unambiguous controlling statute.

Non-party Red Rock LLC is not the entity that is still unlawfully withholding the $57,282.32 excess proceeds from sole claimant Tobin, 8+ years after the sale, pending action by this court.

Therefore, non-party Red Rock LLC never timely filed the required NRCP 24(a)(2) motion to intervene. It could not assert it had an interest it did not have:

“an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”

Further, there is no provision in NRCP 24 for a court to sua sponte allow a non-party to intervene when there has been no motion to intervene wherein the non-party claimed it had an interest that could not otherwise be protected. NRCP 24 requires a timely motion to initiate intervention. NRCP 24 does not give a court sua sponte authority to turn an entity that did not file and serve the complaint into the Plaintiff. NRCP 24 does not give a court sua sponte authority to turn an entity against whom no claims were filed or served into a Counter-defendant.

  • Rogue filings must be stricken as they disrupted the interpleader action filed 2/3/21 and caused Tobin’s money to be unfairly withheld two years and unfairly cost her $31,000 in attorney fees and costs to defend against Non-party’s motion to dismiss.

Despite having no protectable interests, including no interest in the $57,282.32 that Plaintiff Red Rock has withheld from Tobin for 8+ years, non-party Red Rock LLC filed multiple oppositions to this court distributing the interpleaded funds to sole claimant Tobin.

Non-party Red Rock LLC filed the successful motion for attorney fees and costs granted by the 1/16/23 order that sanctioned Tobin for filing counter-claims of fraud, racketeering, and conversion and a petition for sanctions against party Red Rock for fabricating evidence, falsifying accounts, and misrepresenting material facts to court to cover it up.

Non-party Red Rock LLC also filed the successful motion to dismiss with prejudice Tobin’s counter-claims of fraud, racketeering, and conversion and a petition for sanctions against party Red Rock for fabricating evidence, falsifying accounts, and misrepresenting material facts to court to cover it up. By granting the non-party’s motion the court ignored that neither party responded and simply gave them a free pass.

Young v. Nevada Title Co., 103 Nev. 436, 442 (Nev. 1987)

“The district court was without the power to retain jurisdiction over non-parties because it never had such jurisdiction in the first place. A court does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment for or against one who is not a party to the action. Quine v. Godwin, 646 P.2d 294, 298(Ariz.Ct.App. 1982); Fazzi v. Peters, 440 P.2d 242, 245(Cal. 1968). Accordingly, it is clear the district court erred in entering judgment in favor of non-parties.”)

  • Koch & Scow LLC, attorneys for both Plaintiff Red Rock, a partnership (EIN88-0358132) and Non-party Red Rock LLC, knowingly misrepresented the parties to confuse the court.

The screenshot below shows page 1 of the 4/16/21 motion to dismiss with prejudice (NRCP 12(b)(5)) Tobin’s counter-claims against Counter-Defendant Red Rock and Tobin’s petition for sanctions against Counter-Defendant Red Rock that was filed by Koch & Scow LLC, attorneys for Plaintiff Red Rock as well as the attorney for the Non-party. It shows that the attorneys corrected represented what Plaintiff they were representing, but misrepresented the Non-party as the Plaintiff and as the Counter-Defendant in the caption. The Movant is clearly identified as the Non-party.

Koch & Scow LLC repeat this duplicitous pattern throughout.

The screenshot below it the first page of Non-party Red Rock LLC’s 6/13/22 opposition to Tobin’s 2nd amended motion to distribute the proceed with interest to her as the sole claimant as for attorneys fees and costs and opposition to Tobin’s motion to correct three orders where the Non-party is incorrectly identified in the captions as the Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant. The Non-party renewed its 12/28/21 motion abuse of process, for a vexatious litigant restrictive order, and for attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • There is precedent within this dispute for striking a non-party’s filings as rogue.

Tobin was removed as a party from the 1st action three years after she first filed into the case as a pro se. Setting aside discussion about the unfairness of it, the result was Tobin’s pro se filings, including dispositive motions, supported by a large volume of verified evidence, were stricken unheard and undecided once she was declared a non-party as an individual.

Below is a screenshot of an excerpt from the conclusions of law, based on the misrepresentations in the findings of the 11/22/19 post-trial order that retroactively removed Tobin as a party from the 1st action.

Movant requests that the court apply this exact same conclusion of law to non-party Red Rock LLC as was applied to Tobin in the 1st action. Specifically, Movant requests the court conclude that:

“Because Red Rock LLC is not a party to this case, all documents filed with this court by Red Rock LLC are rogue documents and are stricken from the record.”

In the 1st action, Tobin was severely damaged because she was removed as a party and her pro se filings stricken without allowing her to put on her case. The 1st court, without holding the evidentiary hearing required by NRS 40.110[1], resolved the title dispute by approving an out of court settlement between Nationstar and Jimijack. Since Tobin was declared a non-party even though has had filed claims and held a recorded deed, she was excluded from the trial and was not treated like a necessary party under Rule 19.

Nationstar collected $355,000 as a quid pro quo from non-party Joel Stokes in exchange for a free and clear title by releasing the lien of the deed of trust it provably did not own, and they passed this off as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement. Neither Nationstar nor Jimijack ever even filed or served any quiet title claims against Tobin or the Hansen Trust, but both prevailed by simply by getting Tobin declared a non-party. Getting all Tobin’s claims precluded against all defendants in subsequent proceedings concealed their fraudulent transfers of the property and the defects in their recorded claims.

  • Non-party Red Rock LLC’s filings must be stricken or it is an unjust double standard.

In the face of the extreme prejudice Tobin suffered because of her opponents’ successful tactic of misrepresenting her standing to be a party as an individual, it is an obvious double standard to arbitrarily treat Red Rock LLC as a party when it provably is a non-party.

In this case, it is incontrovertible that Red Rock LLC is not, and was not ever, a party in case A-21-828840-C. All its rogue filings must be granted, and the resulting orders that exempted parties Red Rock and Nationstar from court rules must also be declared void as the fruit of the poison tree. The court must resolve any factual dispute of party status solely by evidence and the factors the Nevada Supreme Court says are predicate conditions of party status. It cannot be resolved by just saying it doesn’t matter, or that Red Rock and Red Rock LLC are in privity, or they share the same attorney.

Myers v. Haskins, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 51, 8-9 (Nev. App. 2022) (“evidentiary hearings are designed with this purpose in mind: to resolve disputed questions of fact. See DCR 13(6) (recognizing that disputed factual points may be resolved at evidentiary hearings); EDCR 5.205(g) (providing that exhibits attached to motions do not constitute substantive evidence unless admitted); cf. Nev. Power Co. v. Fluor III., 108 Nev. 638, 644-45, 837 P.2d 1354, 1359 (1992) (recognizing that conducting an evidentiary hearing is the only way to properly resolve questions of fact concerning whether to dismiss a party’s suit as a discovery sanction)”)

It would be as unjust for this court, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, to arbitrarily confer party status on Non-party Red Rock LLC as it was unjust for the 1st court to rely on Tobin’s opponents’ misrepresentations to arbitrarily strip Tobin’s party status from her without conducting an evidentiary hearing. It would be equivalent to settling a dispute over whether a marriage is legal by just asking one spouse and not checking the court records.

If this court arbitrarily confers party status on Non-party Red Rock LLC, it will unfairly gain the right of appeal that was arbitrarily taken away from Tobin in the 1st action. Otherwise, Non-party Red Rock LLC has no right to appeal any decision this court makes as it is not “an aggrieved party” under NRAP 3A.  “This court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal only where the appeal is brought by an aggrieved party.” Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 734 (1994). 

  • Failing to strike the non-party’s rogue filings also enables Red Rock and Nationstar to prevail by unfairly exempting them from complying with court filing rules.

If this court gives Non-party Red Rock LLC party status by fiat, it also gives unfair advantages to Counter-Defendant Red Rock and Cross-Defendant Nationstar that severely damage Tobin. On 3/8/21, Tobin filed counter- and cross-claims against Red Rock and Nationstar of Fraud, Racketeering, and Conversion and petitions for sanctions (fabrication of evidence, falsification of accounts, fraudulent transfers, obtaining court’s signature on false pretenses) pursuant to NRCP 11 (the cover up, misrepresentations to court), NRS 42.005 (punitive damages), and NRS 207.470(1) (civil damages from racketeering, multiple transactions involving deceit, fraud).

If this court arbitrarily confers party status on Non-party Red Rock LLC it allows these unfair advantages to be given to parties Red Rock and Nationstar within these proceedings:

  1. Arbitrarily conferring party status on Non-party Red Rock LLC exempts parties Red Rock and Nationstar from complying with court rules regarding filing a responsive pleading within 21 days, or at all.
  2. It dismisses with prejudice all Tobin’s claims (Fraud, Racketeering, Conversion, sanctions for fabricating evidence, misrepresentations to court, gaining the court’s signature on false pretenses) against Counter-Defendant Red Rock and Cross-Defendant Nationstar on the unsupported grounds, as alleged by the disinterested Non-party, of claims preclusion/res judicata without the parties Red Rock and Nationstar ever having had to file a responsive pleading that refuted Tobin’s extraordinarily serious, factually and legally supported allegations in any way.
  3. It arbitrarily shifted the burden of proof from Counter-Defendant Red Rock and Cross-Defendant Nationstar to Tobin such that Red Rock and Nationstar were not required to meet their burden of proof that the elements of res judicata/claims preclusion were even met before this court granted the Non-party’s rogue, untimely motion to dismiss all Tobin’s claims against them with prejudice.
  4. Because the court granted the Non-party’s motion to dismiss all Tobin’s claims with prejudice, this court has rejected motions for an evidentiary hearing to allow her to prove that sanctions are warranted against parties Red Rock and Nationstar. This is particularly unfair because Tobin has petitioned the court for sanctions to be imposed precisely because Red Rock’s and Nationstar’s successful suppression of her evidence and the unfair removal of her as a party from the 1st action precipitated all the subsequent litigation.
  5. By granting the non-party’s motion, the court denied Tobin 8+ years interest, at the Nevada legal interest rate that should have been payable to rightful owner Tobin, on funds that Plaintiff Red Rock, not the non-party, unlawfully held. This unfairly exempted Plaintiff Red Rock from being required to cite any legal authority for it having held money that rightfully belonged to Tobin for more than eight years.

CONCLUSION

Movant requests that the court apply this exact same conclusion of law to non-party Red Rock LLC as was applied to Tobin as an individual in the 1st action. Specifically, Movant requests the court conclude that:

“Because Red Rock LLC is not a party to this case, all documents filed with this court by Red Rock LLC are rogue documents and are stricken from the record.”

Movant requests reconsideration of the 1/16/23 order that improperly entered judgment by granting non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion and dismissed with prejudice Tobin’s claims and petitions for sanctions against without requiring parties Red Rock and Nationstar to file any responsive pleading to answer Tobin’s claims of fraud, conversion and racketeering, and excusing them from having to answer or refute Tobin’s factually and legally supported petitions for sanctions for fabrication of evidence, falsifying accounts, obstruction of justice and obtaining the court’s signature on false pretenses.

Movant respectfully requests that this court vacate the 2/2/23 hearing on Requests for Judicial Notice of Uninvestigated Complaints to decide these motions without oral argument in conjunction deciding the other motions scheduled for in-chambers review on 2/8/23. Dated this 23rd day of January 2023


[1] NRS 40.110  Court to hear case; must not enter judgment by default; effect of final judgment.

      1.  When the summons has been served as provided in NRS 40.100 and the time for answering has expired, the court shall proceed to hear the case as in other cases and shall have jurisdiction to examine into and determine the legality of plaintiff’s title and of the title and claim of all the defendants and of all unknown persons, and to that end must not enter any judgment by default, but must in all cases require evidence of plaintiff’s title and possession and receive such legal evidence as may be offered respecting the claims and title of any of the defendants and must thereafter direct judgment to be entered in accordance with the evidence and the law. The court, before proceeding to hear the case, must require proof to be made that the summons has been served and posted as hereinbefore directed and that the required notice of pendency of action has been filed.

      2.  The judgment after it has become final shall be conclusive against all the persons named in the summons and complaint who have been served personally, or by publication, and against all unknown persons as stated in the complaint and summons who have been served by publication, but shall not be conclusive against the State of Nevada or the United States. The judgment shall have the effect of a judgment in rem except as against the State of Nevada and the United States; and the judgment shall not bind or be conclusive against any person claiming any recorded estate, title, right, possession or lien in or to the property under the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s predecessors in interest, which claim, lien, estate, title, right or possession has arisen or been created by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest within 10 years prior to the filing of the complaint.

Vexatious litigant order in absentia

2/2/23 Court hearing @ 11:15AM, not 10:55 AM

Minutes served @4:44Pm wrongly reported

“chambers” – not open court

“No parties present” – not Steven Scow for Plaintiff Red Rock and non-party Red Rock LLC and Vanessa Turley for Nationstar who were actually at the ex parte hearing

There were no minutes that any decisions were made on the three actions scheduled for hearing on February 2 at 10 AM

Tobin’s 1/03/23 motions were scheduled for decision in chamber without oral argument on 2/8/23, but were denied ex parte 2/2/23

Hyperlinks to documents

4/26/23Tobin Motion To Disqualify The Honorable Judge Jessica K. Peterson Pursuant to NRS 1.230, NCJC 2.11, NCJC 1.2, 2.2 (appearance of a lack of impartiality); (NCJC 2.9 (improper ex parte communications); NCJC 2.15 (C)(D) (improper response to allegations of judicial and lawyer misconduct); And NRCP 59(a)(1)(A) (irregularity in the proceedings) or (B)(misconduct of prevailing party) (C) (surprise)(ex parte vexatious litigant bench order in absentia and refusal to attach opposition to order) And/Or Relief from the order pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(1)(mistake – errors of law); NRCP 60(b)(3) (misrepresentation); NRCP 60(d)(3) (fraud on the court)
4/20/23Apr 20, 2023 at 3:14 PM Gmail Tobin to Court The response came back the next day saying that the Chief judge was only responsible for reviewing a filing if initiated a complaint, but any filing into the case was Dept. 8’s responsibility.
4/20/233.20 pm court ack so I resubmitted it to Dept 8 and predictably it has been ignored ever since.
4/19/234:00 PM Tobin to Clerk for Chief Judge ‘Could you please tell me if Judge Weise has seen this?
4/13/234/13/23 6:06 PM Gmail Court to Tobin Proposed Order has been submitted. my resubmission was immediately acknowledged by the court’s auto- responder, but nothing ever came from Dept. 8 after 3/28/23.
4/13/23on 4/13/23 I resubmitted the 4/5/23 corrections 230405 corrected 230323 I didn’t hear anything from the court from 4/523 to 4/13/23 so I re-submitted it and I can’t appeal this order without my opposition noted in the record more clearly,
4/5/23230405 3.52 PM Gmail to court entitled corrections to 3/28/23 order to attach opposition erroneously or intentionally omitted. The court ignored it . Did not respond corrected 230328 I re submitted a
4/5/23230405 original plus corrected order to attach my opposition is 52-pages. see the PNG .Sig pg. It shows the extreme difference in perspective between how I see this dispute and how Judge Peterson sees it. I see that my claims have never been heard on their merits and I am fighting constantly to get my evidence before a judge. Judge Peterson thinks I am judge beating a dead horse re-litigating the same old thing that I deserve to keep losing.
3/31/233/31/23 11:59 I submitted the first wo page I noticed were missing from the edited version of the order zi had submitted on 3/28/23 w my request for 30 days with the expectation that it would have been attached to the order as my opposition to the 1/9/23 order was attached to that and became the 1/1623 order. That didn’t happen in either case. The 3/28/23 order continued uncorrected proposed order
3/28/2023Order Declaring Nona Tobin a Vexatious Litigant, Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for Order to Show Cause why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should no be Forwarded to the State Bar; (2) Moton to Withdraw Tobin’s Counter- Claims and Cross-Claims vs Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo/ (3) Motion to Modify Grounds for Tobin’s Petitions for Sanctions vs Red Rock and Nationstar to Include NRS 357.404(1)(A), and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395 and (4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order and Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings
3/28/2023Doc ID# 132 Notice of Entry of Order
3/28/2023Order Declaring Nona Tobin a Vexatious Litigant, Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for Order to Show Cause why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should no be Forwarded to the State Bar; (2) Moton to Withdraw Tobin’s Counter- Claims and Cross-Claims vs Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo/ (3) Motion to Modify Grounds for Tobin’s Petitions for Sanctions vs Red Rock and Nationstar to Include NRS 357.404(1)(A), and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395 and (4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order and Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings
3/28/23230328 Gmail I sent an email to the court requesting 30 days to write an opposition considering that Scow got 50 days to draft an order that was imposed unfairly ex parte for no just cause. but I got no answer.
3/28/23230328 Gmail 11.02 The court acknowledged receipt that it was submitted to the dept. 8.
3/27/23I only had an opportunity to read through the proposed order on Monday and I used the MS word editor to track my comments, but I had guests visiting from out of the country.
3/24/202311:53AM Gmail from Steven Scow’s legal assistant giving me the proposed order out of the ex parte hearing that was delivered to the court at the same time. I didn’t open this Friday afternoon email until Monday since I expected I would have the normal ten days to review or oppose or sign off as to form and content as is standard practice under EDCR.
3/3/2023Doc ID# 129 Court Recorders Invoice for Transcript Ex parte 2/2/23 hearing
2/2/2023 recording fee and transcript
3/3/2023Doc ID# 130 Recorders Transcript of 2/2/23 ex parte unnoticed Hearing was added to court record on 3/3/23
3/3/2023Doc ID# 129 Court Recorders Invoice for Transcript Ex parte 2/2/23 hearing
2/2/2023 recording fee and transcript
3/3/2023Doc ID# 130 Recorders Transcript of 2/2/23 ex parte unnoticed Hearing was added to court record on 3/3/23
2/21/23Gmail Tobin to court submitting Tobin’s 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Proposed order granting 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Gmail Court to Tobin threatening an order to show cause why not to be held in contempt for submitting draft order per EDCR 2.23(b) granting 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Gmail Tobin to court submitting Tobin’s 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Proposed order granting 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Gmail Tobin to Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee begging him to voluntarily lift the onerous requirement to get a court order with written findings before the State Bar Ethics & Disciplinary panels will investigate to enforce the rules of professional conduct. I tried to impress upon him that without the support of the State Bar and the other administrative enforcement agencies the citizens of Nevada do not have a chance in the courts against the big monied interests who pay attorneys who are willing to lie and cheat to win. I got no response. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt.
2/21/202310:41 AM Court to Tobin “The next submission into OIC will result in the court
issuing an order to show cause as to why you should not be held in contempt.”
2/21/23Gmail Court to Tobin threatening an order to show cause why not to be held in contempt for submitting draft order per EDCR 2.23(b) granting 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Gmail 9:59 AM Tobin to court entitled “Order granting Tobin’s 1/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)” explaining that the court minutes say that the court denied my motion to withdraw the unopposed 12/19/22 MOSC
2/21/23Proposed order submitted pursuant to EDCR 2.23(b) to adopt as unopposed per EDCR 2.20(e) . there were no minutes that my 12/19/22 MOSC why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar was denied on 2/2/23
2/20/2023Doc ID# 128 Reply to Opposition
Tobin Reply in Opposition to Red Rock 2/16/23 Memo of Fees and Costs
2/16/23Gmail Scow to Tobin to say that court asked him to prepare the order from the 2/2/23 ex parte hearing
2/16/23Proposed order denying all Tobin’s motions even if unopposed
2/16/23Court returned Order without a reason specified
2/16/23Gmail Tobin to court resubmitting proposed order showing why not denying her motions was an abusive means to prevent appeal.
2/16/23Gmail court to Tobin resubmission returned within 20 minutes
2/16/2023Doc ID# 127 Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements
Red Rock Financial Services’ Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements as Supplement to Declaration of Steven B. Scow
2/15/2023Gmail from court returned Tobin’s proposed order as it had been denied ex parte
2/12/2023Doc ID# 126 Tobin Opposition To Scow Declaration ISO Attorney Fees
2/10/2023Gmail Tobin to DC8inbox and opposing counsels entitled “Order filed pursuant to EDCR 2.23(b)” as time to file written opposition had passed so pursuant to ECCR 2.23(b) I filed an order granting unopposed 6/27/22 and 1/23/22 motions (EDCR 2.20(e))
2/10/2023Proposed order filed granting unopposed 6/27/22 and 1/23/22 motions (EDCR 2.20(e))
2/2/2023Minutes published on the court website that were served See PNG 230202 4:44PM minutes notice served on the parties inaccurately describe Judge Peterson denied Tobin’s 1/03/23 four motions in chambers alone (scheduled to be decided on 2/8/23 by CNOH #114) when these motions were denied at an ex parte hearing held after I requested on 1/23/23 that it be vacated as moot. See PNG 230123 request to vacate. Why were Steven Scow or Vanessa Turley to be present when the RFJN about them were not on the docket, and Turley’s motion for Nationstar for a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me, filed on 1/24/23, shouldn’t have been considered without considering my opposition, that I timely filed, four hours after the ex parte hearing I didn’t know about. See Doc No. 125 filed 3:46p
2/2/2023Doc ID# 125 Tobin’s Reply to Nationstar’s Opposition and Vexatious Litigant Motion filed at 3:46 PM
2/2/2023Doc ID# 124 Declaration of Steven B. Scow in Support of Attorneys’ Fees Awarded to Red Rock Financial Services

Nationstar’s 1/24/23 motion for a vexatious litigant restrictive order was one sentence. My opposition was ignored. See #125.