Judge Peterson refused to recuse herself from the decision about whether to vacate ex parte vexatious litigant restrictive order. Why?
12/19/22 Tobin motion for an order to show cause (“MOSC”) why written finding of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar to avoid Tobin having to file separate civil actions because the State Bar will not investigate the complaints without a court order that contains written findings. The MOSC was supported by Requests for judicial notice of the uninvestigated complaints and the draft civil actions that would have to be filed separately if this court declined to file
3/28/23 orderas it was adopted without notice or opportunity to oppose
Tobin’s opposition that Judge Peterson steadfastly refused to allow to be attached to the 3/28/23 order rendering it virtually impossible to appeal
Tobin’s 4/26/23 motion to disqualify Judge Peterson as her impartiality can reasonably be questioned due to improper ex parte communications and acting outside her jurisdiction and conduct in the hearings that showed she made decisions by relying solely on the misrepresentations of opposing counsels and without consideration of Tobin’s evidence. Chief Judge is requested to set aside Judge Peterson’s orders on t from the decision to set aside the orders first on jurisdictional grounds and then on Rules 59 and/or 60 misconduct of the prevailing parties.
5/3/23 Judge Peterson’s affidavit misstates the court record including misrepresenting who the parties are, stating that the case is over, the appeal period is over, but that she can be fair and handle any decisions that are remaining. Given that by refusing to recuse herself is the only way she can guarantee that her extraordinarily harsh and damaging orders against me, that prevent my title claims from ever being adjudicated based on evidence, can stand, why is she insisting on it? What’s in it for her?
5/10/23 Non-party Red Rock LLC’s opposition to my 4/26/23 motion reiterates the same false version of history that omits the fact that there has never been an evidentiary adjudication of anyone’s claims in this case ever and omits the basic fact that he filed the interpleader action in bad faith knowing that Red Rock didn’t have standing to file it, the legal standard for interpleader was not met, and I was the only person with standing to file a claim for the interpleaded proceeds since 6/3/19 before the show trial in the 1st action.
Tobin’s 5/20/23 Declaration and Reply to Steven Scow’s and Judge Peterson’s Opposition to Judge Peterson’s recusing herself from the decision to set aside the 3/28/23
Voluntary recusal is both the high road and the path of least resistance, but for Judge Peterson, it is also the road not taken. Why?
Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) provisions implicated in my motion to disqualify Judge Peterson.
Rule 1.1. Compliance With the Law. A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Rule 1.2. Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
2.2. Impartiality and Fairness. A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
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.
The standard of review is if a reasonable person knowing the facts would agree that Judge Peterson should be disqualified from the case.
I contend that Judge Peterson did not treat me fairly or promote confidence in the judiciary by specific actions or inactions. Each example will be presented separately along with hyperlinks to the documentary evidence.
8/19/21 Judge Peterson did not end the meritless interpleader action in my favor in 2021. She left it hanging for two years and wrongly dismissed my other legitimate claims with prejudice without considering the evidence or the law.
Doc ID# 14 Nona Tobin’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Answer And Counter-Claim vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Cross-Claims Vs. Nationstar Mortgage LLC And Wells Fargo, N.A., And Motion For Sanctions vs. Red Rock Financial Services And Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and/or Nationstar Mortgage dba Mr. Cooper Pursuant To NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005
Doc ID# 15 Request for Judicial Notice Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Complete Official Clark County 2003-2021 Property Records for APN 191-13-811-052
Doc ID# 20 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Answer to Red Rock Financial Services’ Complaint for Interpleader (NRCP 22)
On 8/19/21, she refused to hear and decide my motion to grant me the $57,282.32 excess proceeds from the 8/15/14 HOA sale of late fiance’s home, plus interest at the Nevada legal interest rate when these things were undisputed at that time:
I was the only party who had timely filed a claim for the proceeds
I was the only party who had ever filed a civil claim for the proceeds.
Nevada law (NRS 116.31164(3)(c ) required those proceeds be distributed in the manner proscribed in the statute after the sale in 2014.
All fees that the statute allowed Red Rock to collect Red Rock had collected before the $57,282.32 was declared “excess” as shown on page 3, #10 “In connection with the foreclosure sale, the Association was paid the money it was owed, and RRFS was paid its fees and costs incurred in collecting the debt as allowed by contract and Nevada law. After paying these costs, RRFS was left with funds of $57,282.32.”
Red Rock’s statement in the complaint on page 3, #12, is provably false and rendered the entire interpleader action to be meritless and unwarranted and filed for an improper purpose.“Records in Clark County, Nevada indicate that there are several potential liens and other debts secured by the Subject Property belonging to the defendants in this action. RRFS believes these debts exceed the amount currently in the possession of RRFS.”
Records in Clark County for the property, APN 191-13-811-052, in their entirety were provided to the court in a request for judicial notice that I filed on 3/15/21 and hand-delivered in 3-ring binders to the court on the 11th floor of the Phoenix Building on or about 5/11/21, show exactly that the liens of all the named defendants except me as an individual were released June 3, 2019 or before and so it was impossible for this to have been an innocent mistake. An interpleader action requires the multiple competing interests and potential mu
On 7/7/22, Judge Peterson heard Nona Tobin’s 2nd motion to distribute the interpleaded proceeds to her as the sole claimant with interest and penalties, -1½ years after she failed to hear Tobin’s 1st motion and a year after she granted non-party Red Rock LLC’s Tobin to dismiss Tobin’s unheard, unopposed claims of Conversion, Racketeering, and Fraud with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata.
Judge Peterson also heard Tobin’s motion to correct three prior orders to accurately identify the names of the parties and to attach Tobin’s opposition to factual inaccuracies in the orders.
The judge also accepted and granted the rogue motion of non-party Red Rock LLC’s for attorney fees, and granted the improper renewed motion for a vexatious litigant restrictive order against Tobin.
Judge Peterson granted non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion for attorney’s fees, denied Tobin’s unopposed motions.
Judge Peterson told Tobin that nothing Tobin said (in her unopposed proposed order has any merit by misconstruing the 6/30/22 appellate court ruling of the prior action in this dispute where the dismissal with prejudice of Tobin’s 2nd civil claim for these proceeds was affirmed on the grounds of res judicata and privity, bound this court to preclude all Tobin’s claims of Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering). The court decided Tobin has no claims except for the interpleaded funds, had no right to interest or penalties, and that Steven Scow did nothing wrong by withholding her money for 8+years and because he held it in trust so it was harmless error.
The interpleader was filed to deprive me of my right to redress my grievances by raising costs
The Interpleader complaint was meritless and unwarranted. All the proceeds were required to be distributed after the sale in 2014. The attorney Steven Scow, who unlawfully withheld the $57,282.32 excess proceeds from the 8/15/14 HOA sale told the court that his client was facing multiple liabilities because five defendants had recorded claims for more money that his client held.
The controlling law does not require an attorney or an interpleader
Scow knew none of this was true. first, Red Rock had given the excess proceeds to him with a bunch of other checks made out to the court and told him to distribute them to the rightful people on 8/28/14 which is what the law required. If he had done that in 204, Red Rock would have complied with the law, I would have gotten my money and gone away and none of this seven years of litigation would have happened. I tried to get the money from Red Rock in September 2014 but they told me that they gave it to the court and that I would get a notice to make a claim, but the notice never came.
Everything my opponents have been allowed to do has raised my costs and abridged my rights
In 2017, i made my first civil claim to void the sale and get the excess proceeds, but NRS 38.310 says that the courts do not have jurisdiction in a matter involving the interpretation of HOA CC&Rs unless until mediation is completed, so it was dismissed without prejudice to go to mediation. I tried to get the HOA to settle my claims at no cost to the HOA or to me
The HOA attorney – not the HOA Board-refused my CC&Rs XVI ADR rights
Violation of NCJC 2.6 as grounds for disqualification
I contend that Judge Peterson violated NCJC 2.6 by
refusing to conduct the evidentiary hearing that was ordered for 8/18/21,
denying my 12/14/21 motion for an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes about the findings in the 9/10/21 and 11/30/21 orders that I allege covered up the criminal actions of my oppoenents vis-a-vis their abuse of the HOA quiet title litigation process to steal from many victims,
dismissing my unanswered 3/8/21 claims of Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering and my petitions for sanctions vs. Red Rock and Nationstar with prejudice without making my opponents meet their burden of proof
exempting my opponents from timely (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B)) filing a responsive pleading to my claims and granting an untimely, rogue motion to dismiss from a non-party.
Legal authorities supporting the proposition that a judge must allow a party to present evidence to support her case
Fact finding is the “basic responsibility” of trial courts “rather than appellate courts.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982) (quoting DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450 n.22 (1974)); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123 (1969) (“appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues”).
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)”)
An evidentiary hearing is required to establish fraud upon the court (NRCP 60(d)(3))
Milam v. Stealth Holdings, LLC, 381 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2012) (“NC–DSH, Inc. v. Garner,125 Nev. 647, 657, 218 P.3d 853, 860–61 (2009)(providing that “[i]t is only after a proper hearing in which the fraud [upon the court] has been established by clear and convincing evidence that relief can be granted.” (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted));”)
List of filings I made that contained evidence that Judge Peterson refused to admit or consider
The list is long because, I believe, Judge Peterson unfairly refused to allow me to assert my actual claims. She kept insisting that all my claims were precluded and nothing was before her but the question of who the interpleaded funds belonged to.
I say that Steven Scow filed the interpleader action in bad faith, knowing that it was meritless and unwarranted and that neither Plaintiff Red Rock nor non-party Red Rock LLC had standing to either pursue and interpleader action nor oppose the court ordering interpleaded funds being distributed to me with interest and penalties for being wrongfully withheld for 8+ years.
My claims for Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering and petitions for sanctions were compulsory counter-claims that should have been granted as unopposed because Red Rock did not file any timely responsive pleading and non-party Red Rck LLC’s motion to dismiss was rogue, untimely, and contained exhibits which the court would have to have considered to make a claims preclusion ruling which would have nessecarily converted it to an MSJ, meaning the factual disputes would have had to have been resolved on a NRCP 56 standard and it could not have been granted as a NRCP 12(b)(5). Further, she refused my motion to amend one time under NRCP 15 for no good reason and didn’t sua spinte move for a more definitive statement if she thought it wasn’t pled to 9(b) standard. She just obviously wanted to be rid of it and me.
3/8/21 unanswered counter- & cross-claims and four requests for judicial notice of the property record, my unadjudicated claims, relevant laws and Sun City Anthem governing documents, and disputed facts in the prior court record (false evidence filed and recorded by my opponents to get the prior courts to bless the theft of my property)
Doc ID# 14 Nona Tobin’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Answer And Counter-Claim vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Cross-Claims Vs. Nationstar Mortgage LLC And Wells Fargo, N.A., And Motion For Sanctions vs. Red Rock Financial Services And Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and/or Nationstar Mortgage dba Mr. Cooper Pursuant To NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005
Doc ID# 15 Request for Judicial Notice Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Complete Official Clark County 2003-2021 Property Records for APN 191-13-811-052
Doc ID# 18 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of Relevant Unadjudicated Civil Claims and Administrative Complaints
Doc ID# 19 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Sun City Anthem Governing Documents Germane To the Instant Action
Doc ID# 21 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of NRCP 16.1 Disclosures /Subpoena Responses from Discovery in Case A-15-720032-C and Disputed Facts in the Court Record
12/14/21 motion for an evidentiary hearing and replies to Nationstar’s and non-party Red Rock LLC’s opposition and their improper counter-motin for abuse of process and for an unwarranted vexatious litigant restrictive order against me
Doc ID# 75 Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside Orders and for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 60(B)(3) and (D)(3), NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3)
Doc ID# 80 Nona Tobin’s Reply to Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Cots Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
Doc ID# 81 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Nationstar’s And Wells Fargo’s Joinder And Countermotions For Attorney Fees And A Vexatious Litigant Order
12/19/22 motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar of Nevada for disciplinary action
Doc ID# 103 Tobin Motion for An Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded To The State Bar of Nevada
Doc ID# 108 Corrected Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not be Forwarded to the State Bar
Doc ID# 102 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Brittany Wood
Doc ID# 104 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed with The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Steven Scow
Doc ID# 105 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Melanie Morgan, Esq. (SBN 8215), Akerman, LLP; and Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP, and Draft Alternative Civil Action
Doc ID# 106 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Joseph Y. Hong
Doc ID# 107 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. David Ochoa, Esq. (SBN 10414) and Adam Clarkson, Esq.
Legal research question
Is a final judgment order unfairly entered if the court does not allow one side to present its opposition given that appellate courts generally defer to the district court’s findings of fact ?
Nevada courts generally defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. However, a final judgment order may be unfairly entered if the court does not allow one side to present its opposition, misapplies the law, or makes findings not supported by evidence.
Several of the cases I found emphasize the importance of allowing both sides to present their cases in order to ensure a fair trial. For example, in Milam v. Stealth Holdings, LLC, the court discusses the requirement that parties be “fully heard” on an issue before a district court can grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Similarly, in Solinger v. Solinger, the court reiterates that a district court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly erroneous, and that substantial evidence is required to sustain a judgment. Other cases I found highlight the importance of correctly applying the law in order to avoid an unfair judgment. For example, in Long Valley L. D. Co. v. Hunt, the court held that a judgment must be reversed when the court misapplies a rule of law or erroneously places the burden of proof on the losing party. In KY Invs. NV v. King of Condos, Inc., the court discusses the importance of a district court providing a statement of reasons when granting summary judgment, in order to allow for meaningful appellate review.
Finally, a few cases I found emphasize the deference given to district court findings of fact on appeal. For example, in Pickens v. McCarran Mansion, LLC, the court notes that appellate courts are bound by the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Similarly, in Bonnell v. Lawrence, the court reiterates that the remedy for legal error is by timely motion or appeal, not by independent action for relief from judgment.
The Nevada Revised Statutes define the grounds and procedure for disqualification
NRS 1.230 outlines the grounds for disqualification, which include both actual and implied bias.
NRS 1.235 sets out the procedure for disqualification, including the requirement to file an affidavit specifying the grounds for disqualification.
The Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) also provides guidance
The Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) also provides guidance on when a judge should disqualify themselves. NCJC Rule 1.2 requires judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, and NCJC Rule 2.11(A) requires judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Violating NCJC does not promote confidence in the judiciary and creates a situation where the judge’simpartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Implicated NCJC provisions in my case
Rule 1.1. Compliance With the Law. A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Rule 1.2. Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
Rule 2.2. Impartiality and Fairness. A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
Rule 2.6. Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.
(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
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.
(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.
(C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.
Rule 2.11. Disqualification.
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
Rule 2.15. Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct.
(C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.
(D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.
Standard of review for assessing if the grounds for disqualification are met
The standard for assessing whether a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would reach that conclusion.
The motion for disqualification must contain affidavits that meets this burden of proof that a reasonable person would also question the judge’s impartiality.
However, the burden of proof is on the movant as the judge is presumed to be unbiased.
“This court gives substantial weight to a judge’s decision not to recuse herself and will not overturn such a decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Goldman v. Bryan, 104 Nev. 644, 649, 764 P.2d 1296, 1299 (1988), abrogated on other grounds by Halverson v. Hardcastle, 123 Nev. 245, 266, 163 P.3d 428, 443 (2007). A judge is presumed to be unbiased, and “the burden is on the party asserting the challenge to establish sufficient factual grounds warranting disqualification.” Id. at 649, 764 P.2d at 1299.
Impact of a disqualification motion
In Debiparshad v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nev. 2021), the Nevada Supreme Court outlined the requirements for disqualification under the NCJC and relevant case law.
(“In Towbin Dodge, we noted that NCJC Rule 2.11, which requires a judge to “disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” does not contain a procedural mechanism for enforcement. Id. at 257, 259, 112 P.3d at 1067, 1069. We specified the procedure for moving to disqualify a judge pursuant to NCJC Rule 2.11, explaining that, as with an affidavit filed under NRS 1.235, a motion to disqualify under NCJC Rule 2.11 must include the facts upon which the disqualification is based and must be referred to another judge for decision. Id. at 260-61, 112 P.3d at 1069-70; see also Turner v. State,114 Nev. 682, 687, 962 P.2d 1223, 1226 (1998) (applying, without discussion, the NRS 1.235 procedural requirements to a motion to disqualify under both the statute and the NCJC). ”)
Debiparshad v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71, 8 (Nev. 2021)
How Debiparshad and Towbin Dodge support my case is two-fold:
1) the subject judge (Peterson in my case) can take no further action in the case until the motion to disqualify is resolved, and
2) the disqualification decision must be made by another judge.
This comes as positive news since it would be unreasonable to anticipate Judge Peterson recusing herself now, after 2+ years of ruling against me without any factual or legal justification. This includes her recent actions at an improperly noticed hearing held ex parte, where she issued an unwarranted vexatious litigant bench order against me in absentia, which was converted into a final judgment denying all my motions without notice, good cause, or an opportunity for opposition.
Why this drastic action is necessary rather than just filing an appeal
The order submitted on March 28, 2023, was composed in a manner that made obtaining a precise understanding of the facts and law nearly unattainable for the reviewing court. The judge followed the common practice of having opposing counsel draft the order, resulting in significant misrepresentation of material facts and legal matters. Appellate courts assume that the facts are unchallenged if the order states as such, and no opposition is present within the record.
My previous losses have occurred under these circumstances, where orders are written to suggest that the evidence and the law support the opposing argument.
My motion is timely to void all A-21-828840-C orders
My motion is timely to void all Judge Peterson’s orders as new grounds emerged due to the refusal to allow the 3/28/23 order to accurately reflect that it was issued ex parte without notice, just cause or an opportunity to ppose.
“[I]f new grounds for a judge’s disqualification are discovered after the time limits in NRS 1.235(1) have passed, then a party may file a motion to disqualify based on [Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2 ] as soon as possible after becoming aware of the new information.”
Towbin, 121 Nev. at 256, 112 P.3d at 1067.
Judge Peterson’s impartiality canreasonably questioned be as these provisions of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct are alleged to have been violated.
The required affidavit with supporting evidence will be filed first to the Commission on Judicial Discipline as it has a Nevada Constitutional mandate to ensure that the Nevada judiciary complies with the NCJC.
Rule 1.2. Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Rule 2.2. Impartiality and Fairness. A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
Rule 2.6. Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.
(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
Rule 2.7. Responsibility to Decide. A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification is required by Rule 2.11 or other law.
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.
(2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received.
(3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.
(4) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge.
(5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when authorized by law to do so.
(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.
(C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.
(D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.
Rule 2.11. Disqualification.
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
Rule 2.15. Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct.
(A) A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.
(B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.
(C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.
(D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.
Standard for Review
Other jurisdictions offer guidance on the standard of review as well
In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the reviewing court should inquire into a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the nature of the judge’s conduct, the tone and demeanor of the judge, the scope of the judicial conduct in the context of the length and complexity of the case and issues therein, the extent to which the judge’s conduct was directed at one side more than the other, and the presence of any curative instructions, either at the time of an inappropriate occurrence or at the entry of the final order. When the issue is preserved so that the true facts are known and a reviewing court determines that the judge’s conduct pierced the veil of judicial impartiality, the court may not apply harmless-error review. Rather, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
A-21-828840-C orders are void
If the judge is disqualified because judicial impartiality can be reasonably questioned,
“Disqualification occurs when the facts creating disqualification arise, not when disqualification is established.”); see also Hoff v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,79 Nev. 108, 110, 378 P.2d 977, 978 (1963) (“That the actions of a district judge, disqualified by statute, are not voidable merely, but void, has long been the rule in this state.”); Frevert v. Smith, 19 Nev. 363, 11 P. 273 (1886) (“[T]he general effect of the statutory prohibitions … [is] to render those acts of a judge involving the exercise of judicial discretion, in a case wherein he is disqualified from acting, not voidable merely, but void.”). ”
Debiparshad v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71, 9-10 (Nev. 2021)
9/10/2021 Doc ID# 43 “Order & Judgment On Plainiff (Sic) Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim And Petition For Sanctions And Defendants/ Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgement And Motion For Sanctions”
11/30/2021 Doc ID# 70 Order Clarifying Sept. 10th, 2021 Order and Mooting Notice of Default and Motion to Strike
11/30/2021 Doc ID# 71 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion to Reconsider of Order Dismissing Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions and Defendant/ Counter-claimant Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Sanctions
5/25/2022 Doc ID# 88 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Set Aside 9/10/21 Order And 11/30/21 Orders Pursuant To NRCP 60(b)(3)(Fraud) And NRCP 60(d)(3)(Fraud On The Court) And Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Pursuant To EDCR 7.60(1) And (3), NRS 18.010(2); And, Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s 12/28/21 Countermotions For Abuse Of Process and Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees And Costs
1/9/2023 01/09/2023 Order Doc ID# 115 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motin to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
1/16/2023 Doc ID# 117 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
For the last four years, I have subscribed to a legal services research service found on casetext.com. On 3/15/23, I upgraded to its new level of service called Co-counsel that includes an OpenAI-enabled document analysis feature that I utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of impartiality in the court hearings. I asked for an analysis of each hearing by providing a series of questions. Below the video and the summary are the Casetest Open AI responses for the 1/19/22 hearing.
They didn’t get a vexatious litigant restrictive order at this 1/19/22 hearing but they did it ex parte on 2/2/23.
– The document is a transcript of a court hearing in which the defendant, Nona Tobin, is arguing against the dismissal of her counterclaims and alleging misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and a previous judge.
– The case number is A-21-828840-C and the hearing took place on January 19, 2022 in Clark County, Nevada.
– The plaintiff is Red Rock Financial Services and the defendant is Nona Tobin.
– The hearing was presided over by Judge Jessica Peterson.
– Attorneys for the plaintiff include Steven B. Scow, Kerry P. Faughnan, and Aaron Lancaster for Nationstar.
– Nona Tobin is representing herself pro se.
– The hearing concerns a motion by Tobin for an evidentiary hearing to set aside two previous orders and for sanctions, as well as a countermotion by Red Rock Financial Services for attorneys’ fees and costs and a restrictive order against Tobin.
– Judge Peterson states that the only action in front of her is the interpleader action and that Tobin’s counterclaims were dismissed due to the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion.
– Judge Peterson also states that she originally thought an evidentiary hearing might be necessary, but after reviewing the case files, she decided it was not.
– Tobin argues that claim preclusion does not apply because she did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first instance.
– Tobin alleges that the plaintiff won the original lawsuit by cheating, presenting false evidence, and suppressing evidence.
– Tobin also alleges that a previous judge engaged in ex parte communications with the plaintiff, which Judge Peterson admonishes her for.
Pages 9-16
– Nona Tobin argues that the Jimmy Jack, Nationstar settlement was a complete fraud, and that she was excluded from the deal as a necessary party.
– Tobin claims that the plaintiff’s attorneys acquired the first ruling by means of fraud, and that the motion for summary judgment was based on falsified evidence.
– Tobin argues that she has submitted evidence to prove her claims, and that her motions for reconsideration and appeals have been attempts to get a court to make a decision based on verified evidence.
– Tobin requests that the court order her opponents to pay her restitution, and warns that she will appeal if the court refuses to consider her evidence.
– Steven Scow argues that Tobin has brought the same claims multiple times and they have been denied each time, and that her accusations of criminal conduct are inappropriate.
– Scow argues that the volume of documents Tobin submitted in her reply briefs is evidence of her vexatious litigant behavior.
– The court denies Tobin’s motion and does not grant the countermotion, but warns Tobin that she may be declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to file motions.
– The court orders Scow to prepare an order detailing the procedural history of the case.
CaseText Transcript Analysis assesses the implied bias or a lack of judicial impartiality
1/19/22 TranscriptAnalysis by Casetext.com Co-counsel AI
For the last four years, I have subscribed to a legal services research service found on casetext.com. On 3/15/23, I upgraded to its new level of service called Co-counsel that includes an OpenAI-enabled document analysis feature that I utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of impartiality in the court hearings. I asked for an analysis of each hearing by providing a series of questions. Below are the responses for the 1/19/22 hearing.
Purpose of the Transcript Analysis
This analysis is being used to support a motion to disqualify Judge Peterson from the current case for actual and implied bias.
NRS 1.230 outlines the grounds for disqualification, which include both actual and implied bias.
NCJC Rule 2.11(A) requires judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
Rule 2.2. Impartiality and Fairness. A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
Standard of Review: A reasonable person
The standard for assessing whether a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would reach that conclusion.
The motion for disqualification must contain affidavits that meets this burden of proof that a reasonable person would also question the judge’s impartiality.
However, the burden of proof is on the movant as the judge is presumed to be unbiased.
“This court gives substantial weight to a judge’s decision not to recuse herself and will not overturn such a decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Goldman v. Bryan, 104 Nev. 644, 649, 764 P.2d 1296, 1299 (1988), abrogated on other grounds by Halverson v. Hardcastle, 123 Nev. 245, 266, 163 P.3d 428, 443 (2007). A judge is presumed to be unbiased, and “the burden is on the party asserting the challenge to establish sufficient factual grounds warranting disqualification.” Id. at 649, 764 P.2d at 1299.
Identify where in the transcript Tobin told the court that previous decisions had been unfair or based on some type of misconduct or asked for a review of the evidence.
Yes
Tobin makes multiple references to perceived unfairness or misconduct in previous decisions, citing examples such as cheating, presenting false evidence, and suppressing evidence (pgs. 6,7). She also repeatedly asks the court to review the evidence, emphasizing that it is provable and that she wants a decision based on verified evidence (pgs. 9,11).
Tobin makes multiple references to what she perceives as unfairness or misconduct in previous decisions. For example, she claims that her opponent “originally won their lawsuit by cheating” (
Tobin makes several references to her belief that previous decisions were unfair or based on misconduct. For example, she claims that the “Jimmy Jack, Nationstar settlement was complete fraud” (Line 100), that attorneys “acquired that first ruling by means of fraud” (Line 103), and that the motion for summary judgment was “based on Red Rock’s falsified foreclosure fraud” (Line 103). Additionally, she repeatedly asks the court to review the evidence, stating that it “is provable” (Line 104), that the “volume of documents” she submitted “will prove” her claims (Line 105), and that she wants “any court” to “make a decision based on verified evidence” (Line 116).
Identify how the court reacted to Tobin’s allegations.
Rejected
The court was not receptive to Tobin’s allegations. They rejected them outright (pgs. 12-14), warning her against filing repetitive motions, and pushed back against her claims, admonishing her for making unfounded allegations (pgs. 7,8).
The court repeatedly pushed back against Tobin’s allegations, asserting that there was “no proof” of the ex parte communications she claimed occurred. The court also admonished Tobin for making “unfounded, unprovable, and salacious allegations against another judge.”
The court rejected Tobin’s allegations, stating that they had already been addressed in previous cases. The court also warned Tobin that if she continued to file repetitive motions, they would consider declaring her a vexatious litigant.
Describe the court’s reasoning on why Tobin’s motions should be denied.
Multiple reasons
The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied for a few reasons: she is asking the court to make a different decision without any basis in law (pgs. 4,5), her claims are precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata (pgs. 12,14), and her allegations are inaccurate or irrelevant (pgs. 4,5).
The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied because she is repeatedly asking the court to make a different decision without any basis in law. The court has already ruled that Tobin’s counterclaims are barred by the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion, and the court does not need an evidentiary hearing to make this determination. The court also argues that Tobin’s allegations in her motion for reconsideration are inaccurate or irrelevant.
The court argues that Tobin’s claims are precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata, and that it is not the court’s role to review decisions made in other departments of the 8th Judicial District Court.
Describe the court’s reasoning on why all Tobin’s claims of Fraud Racketeering, Conversion, and petitions for sanctions were dismissed with prejudice.
Preclusion, res judicata
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion and res judicata, arguing that she should have taken action in the original cases rather than filing counterclaims in this case (pgs. 4,5,12,14).
The court dismissed Tobin’s counterclaims on the basis of claim preclusion, or res judicata, which prevents a party from relitigating a claim that has already been decided. The court argues that Tobin is asking it to make a different decision without any legal basis to do so.
The court found that Tobin’s claims were precluded by the doctrine of claim preclusion and res judicata. The court stated that if Tobin disagreed with any of the other courts’ decisions, she should have appealed or taken other actions in those cases, rather than filing counterclaims in this case.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made complimentary statements to or about Steven Scow
Appreciation
While the judge does not make any explicitly complimentary statements about Steven Scow, they do express appreciation for his work on multiple occasions (pgs. 13, 15), such as by acknowledging the effort he has put into the case and thanking him.
The judge does not make any explicitly complimentary statements about Steven Scow, but does express appreciation for his work on multiple occasions. For example, the judge says “Mr. Scow, I know you’ve put a lot of effort into this case as well already” (Line 130) and “Thank you, Mr. Scow” (Line 142).
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made complimentary statements to or about Nona Tobin or her attorney.
No relevant language found.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin or her attorney.
Multiple instances
The judge makes negative statements to or about Nona Tobin or her attorney in multiple places in the transcript. The judge admonishes Tobin for making “unfounded, unprovable, and salacious allegations” (pg. 7, LINE:142), tells her there is “no proof” of her claims (pg. 8, LINES:144, 147), warns her about being declared a vexatious litigant (pg. 12, LINE:127), and states that her claims are “precluded” and “barred” (pgs. 13,14, LINES:125, 126, 138).
The judge makes several negative statements to or about Nona Tobin in the transcript. For example, the judge interrupts Tobin to admonish her for making “unfounded, unprovable, and salacious allegations against another judge” (LINE:142). The judge also repeatedly tells Tobin that there is “no proof” of her claims (LINES:144, 147).
While the judge does not make any overtly negative statements about Nona Tobin or her attorney, there are several instances where the judge expresses frustration or disapproval. For example, the judge warns Tobin that if she continues to file “seriatim motions” the court will have “no other choice” but to declare her a vexatious litigant (LINE:127). Additionally, the judge repeatedly states that Tobin’s claims are “precluded” and “barred” by claim preclusion and res judicata (LINES:125, 126, 138).
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Steven Scow or her attorney.
No relevant language found.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge stated that Tobin’s claims were precluded or that Tobin had no claims.
Lines 107, 112, 116, 121, 125, 126, 129
The judge references claim preclusion and the barring of Tobin’s claims multiple times in the transcript. References can be found on lines 107, 112, 116, and 121 (pgs. 4,5) as well as on lines 125, 126, and 129 (pgs. 12,13).
The judge references claim preclusion multiple times in the transcript. For example, on line 107, the judge states that Tobin’s “counterclaims…were barred by the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion.” The judge also references this on lines 112 and 121. Additionally, on line 116, the judge states that she dismissed “all claims.”
The judge references this several times throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says “There is no basis for this Court to reconsider its prior decision that her claims in this case are precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata” (Line 125) and “It was not to file counterclaims into this case that are barred by the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion and res judicata” (Line 126). Additionally, the judge says “This Court’s decision initially that Ms. Tobin’s counterclaims were precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata was a sound decision” (Line 129).
Identify where in the transcripts the judge stated anything related to Red Rock LLC being a party as a matter of law.
Yes
The judge references Red Rock LLC several times, but most directly addresses their status as a party on line 132, stating that they filed an interpleader complaint (pg. 14).
The judge references Red Rock LLC several times throughout the transcript, but most directly addresses their status as a party on
Identify where in the transcripts the judge stated why she would not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested.
Two reasons
The judge provided two explanations for why she would not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested. First, she stated that her initial decision to preclude Tobin’s counterclaims was sound (pgs. 13-14). Second, she explained that after reviewing the case files and motions, she determined the hearing wasn’t necessary (pg. 4).
The judge explains that she initially thought she might need an evidentiary hearing, but after reviewing the case files and motions, she decided it wasn’t necessary. Specifically, she states: “Once I actually read the motion, and reviewed the case files, and looked at everything, I decided I didn’t need an evidentiary hearing, which is the Court’s prerogative.”
The judge stated that there was “no reason for the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing” because “the Court’s decision initially that Ms. Tobin’s counterclaims were precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata was a sound decision.”
Identify any negative reference to Tobin
Yes
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. Mr. Scow expresses frustration with Tobin (pgs. 11, 13) and the Court warns her about being declared a vexatious litigant (pgs. 11, 13). Additionally, the Court implies negativity by noting that Tobin is asking for decisions without legal basis and making unfounded allegations (pgs. 4, 7).
While there is no direct negative reference to Tobin, the document does contain some implications that could be seen as negative. For example, the Court states that Tobin “keeps asking this Court to make a different decision without any basis in law to do so” and that she is making “unfounded, unprovable, and salacious allegations against another judge.”
There are several negative references to Tobin in this document. For example, Mr. Scow expresses frustration with having to face the “same claims against the same parties or similar parties seven or eight times” from Tobin. He also states that he doesn’t like being called a criminal, which Tobin has insinuated. Additionally, the Court warns Tobin that if she continues to file “seriatim motions,” they will have “no other choice but to file an order to show cause to declare her a vexatious litigant.”
Identify any positive reference to Tobin’s opponents
No
There is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, but there is mention of them prevailing in earlier cases (pgs. 6,7) and the Court expresses appreciation for Mr. Scow’s efforts (pgs. 13,15).
There does not appear to be any positive reference to Tobin’s opponents in this document, but there is mention of them prevailing in earlier cases. For example, on line 131, Tobin says “My opponent originally won their lawsuit by cheating,” and on line 136, she says “Both Jimmy Jack and Nationstar succeeded in prevailing without any evidence to support their ownership claims.”
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the Court does express appreciation for Mr. Scow’s efforts in the case, saying “I know you’ve put a lot of effort into this case as well already.”
– The document is a transcript of a court hearing in which the defendant, Nona Tobin, is arguing against the dismissal of her counterclaims and alleging misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and a previous judge.
– The case number is A-21-828840-C and the hearing took place on January 19, 2022 in Clark County, Nevada.
– The plaintiff is Red Rock Financial Services and the defendant is Nona Tobin.
– The hearing was presided over by Judge Jessica Peterson.
– Attorneys for the plaintiff include Steven B. Scow, Kerry P. Faughnan, and Aaron Lancaster.
– Nona Tobin is representing herself pro se.
– The hearing concerns a motion by Tobin for an evidentiary hearing to set aside two previous orders and for sanctions, as well as a countermotion by Red Rock Financial Services for attorneys’ fees and costs and a restrictive order against Tobin.
– Judge Peterson states that the only action in front of her is the interpleader action and that Tobin’s counterclaims were dismissed due to the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion.
– Judge Peterson also states that she originally thought an evidentiary hearing might be necessary, but after reviewing the case files, she decided it was not.
– Tobin argues that claim preclusion does not apply because she did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first instance.
– Tobin alleges that the plaintiff won the original lawsuit by cheating, presenting false evidence, and suppressing evidence.
– Tobin also alleges that a previous judge engaged in ex parte communications with the plaintiff, which Judge Peterson admonishes her for.
Pages 9-16
– Nona Tobin argues that the Jimmy Jack, Nationstar settlement was a complete fraud, and that she was excluded from the deal as a necessary party.
– Tobin claims that the plaintiff’s attorneys acquired the first ruling by means of fraud, and that the motion for summary judgment was based on falsified evidence.
– Tobin argues that she has submitted evidence to prove her claims, and that her motions for reconsideration and appeals have been attempts to get a court to make a decision based on verified evidence.
– Tobin requests that the court order her opponents to pay her restitution, and warns that she will appeal if the court refuses to consider her evidence.
– Steven Scow argues that Tobin has brought the same claims multiple times and they have been denied each time, and that her accusations of criminal conduct are inappropriate.
– Scow argues that the volume of documents Tobin submitted in her reply briefs is evidence of her vexatious litigant behavior.
– The court denies Tobin’s motion and does not grant the countermotion, but warns Tobin that she may be declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to file motions.
– The court orders Scow to prepare an order detailing the procedural history of the case.
