Complaint summary as filed to the State Bar online on 3/1/22
Link to 12/19/22 Request For Judicial Notice of 346-page verified, evidence-backed, uninvestigated (pending court order) complaint to the State Bar and 50-page draft civil complaint requesting a court order for written findings of attorney misconduct (that will be necessary if this court does not refer the matter to the State Bar for investigation)
This resulted in me being declared a vexatious litigant and a restrictive order being entered against me without notice or a chance to oppose.
I have tried unsuccessfully repeatedly for the last few weeks to get my opposition attached to the order so it is accurate enough for appeal.
HOA attorneys and managers fail in their fiduciary duty to the HOA
HOA attorneys and managers are by law fiduciaries to the HOA that employs them. However, they routinely act in their own self-interest rather than solely and exclusively in the interest of the HOA.
The HOA homeowners are the intentional third-party beneficiaries of the CC&Rs contract in that the HOA exists for the purpose of maintaining the common areas, the community lifestyle and the property values of for the common good of the HOA membership at large.
The attorney and the manager are agents. They have no authority over the Board. Anything they assert over the Board is usurped, and that is the problem.
SB 417 will exacerbate the problem of attorneys and other agents enriching themselves by improper control over HOA Boards
My experience shows HOA attorneys lie with impunity to the courts now. The State Bar Assosication does not enforce the ethical codes of conduct. The Nevada Supreme Court thinks that’s okay. The judges let them write orders that misrepresent the facts, the evidence and the law.
Why should NRED or the Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities be any different? Why investigate any homeowner’s complaints ever?
Adam Clarkson already has the Ombudsman in his pocket
…Or else, how has he kept my complaints from being heard by the Commission for Common Interest Communities for the last six years?
After all, it has been enough for the past six years for the NRED to not investigate my complaints and the Ombudsman not to refer them to the Commission SOLELY because Adam Clarkson, the Community Association Institute lobbyist and Sun City Anthem’s debt collector and attorney, says I’m are just a “bad person” and not the kind that should be allowed to serve on the Board of Directors because I complained about things like how much over market the manager is paid?
Link to my unanswered 1/31/18 Affidavit regarding Clarkson’s denial of records request related to Sandy Seddon’s salary that I filed with Investigator Christina Pitch who was assigned to investigate three NRED Form 530s. (If SB 417 is passed, it will be legal for Clarkson to deny this request and legal for NRED to refuse to investigate it. But then, the homeowner can be criminalized and threatened with high-cost litigation for even asking.)
9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re Interference with the Recall election was resolved by NRED’s very thoughtful 8/8/18 letter below.
9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re Clarkson’s declaring my elected seat on the Board vacant “by operation of law” rather than by the mandatory NRS 116.31036 removal election was resolved by NRED’s very thoughtful 8/8/18 letter below.
9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re Clarkson’s spearheading bullying, retaliation, and harassment was resolved by NRED’s very thoughtful 8/8/18 letter below.
8/8/18 NRED’s dismissal of the three Form 530s without prejudice, ignoring the Form 530 and ignoring Clarkson’s obstruction of the legitimate access to information about employee salaries.
Judge Peterson ordered Nona Tobin to show cause why her third-party complaint should not be dismissed for failure to serve it within 120 days. Judge Peterson signed an order submitted by Tobin’s attorney voluntarily dismissing the complaint, but kept the hearing on the calendar for another purpose. Judge Peterson wanted to see if Tobin’s counter-claims and cross-claims had been properly served. This seems innocent enough but was it?
For one thing, it cost me $1,300 in attorney fees. Second, all the attorneys and the judge agreed Tobin’s counter-claims had been properly served, but they were all wrong when they said they had been properly answered. No party filed any responsive pleading to my 3/8/21 counter-claims or cross-claims, and Judge Peterson did not let Tobin take anyone’s default.
I was forced to withdraw complaint for lack of timely service because I hired an attorney to conduct an evidentiary hearing that was never held.
Link to PDF of TPC complaint dismissed for lack of service
Nona Tobin is filing a complaint against attorneys for various entities, including Red Rock Financial Services, Nationstar Mortgage, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust, and Sun City Anthem.
Tobin alleges abuse of process, racketeering, fraud, and civil conspiracy in relation to a disputed property sale.
Tobin is the successor trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, which held title to the property in question until a foreclosure deed transferred title to the alleged purchaser.
Tobin claims that the defendants engaged in various fraudulent practices, including lying to the court, suing the wrong party, and concealing material facts and conflicts.
Tobin is seeking restitution, punitive damages, and sanctions against the defendants.
Tobin has exhausted all administrative remedies, including filing complaints with the Henderson Police Department, the State of Nevada Mortgage Lending Division, the Office of the Nevada Attorney General, and the State Bar of Nevada Ethics & Discipline Panel.
Tobin’s docketing statement was returned unfiled, preventing her from appealing certain orders made by Judge Kishner.
Judge Kishner made several rulings that Tobin alleges were based on misrepresentations by opposing counsel, including granting summary judgment, denying a motion to reconsider, and dismissing Tobin’s claims.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that Tobin was not a party to the appeal and lacked jurisdiction to address her claims.
Tobin alleges that opposing counsel violated professional and ethical standards in order to prevent her claims from being adjudicated.
Tobin’s four causes of action include abuse of process, fraud, civil conspiracy, and racketeering.
Tobin alleges that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s rights to title.
Tobin claims entitlement to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale.
Tobin argues that her 3/28/17 deed is valid and superior to the Jimijack’s defective 6/9/15 deed and the 5/1/19 deed of Jimijack’s successor Joel Stokes.
Tobin alleges that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust are false.
Tobin seeks to cancel and declare without legal force and effect all instruments, encumbrances, and assignments that were improperly or unlawfully executed.
Tobin seeks attorney fees, costs, exemplary and punitive damages, and restitution and punitive damages for racketeering and fraud.
Tobin requests that the court provide findings of fact to the Nevada Bar Counsel for the Ethics & disciplinary Panel to impose appropriate attorney sanctions.
Tobin alleges that the defendants engaged in racketeering, fraud, and civil conspiracy in relation to a disputed property sale.
Tobin outlines the elements of a civil claim for damages caused by racketeering, and argues that the defendants meet these criteria.
Tobin provides a partial list of the defendants’ “predicate acts” which she argues constitute racketeering activity.
Tobin also alleges that the defendants engaged in abuse of process and civil conspiracy.
Tobin references multiple complaints she has filed with the Nevada Attorney General and the Nevada State Bar, as well as various publications detailing her allegations against the defendants.
Tobin cites relevant Nevada case law to support her claims.
Tobin argues that Nationstar was not owed Hansen’s debt, and that Nationstar does not hold the original note.
Tobin claims that the recorded assignments of the Hansen DEED OF TRUST were false claims to title.
Tobin references multiple complaints she has filed with various agencies, and argues that the defendants violated multiple statutes.
Tobin argues that the defendants’ corrupt business practices are well-documented, and references multiple settlement agreements and consent judgments.
Tobin alleges that the defendants used a “PUD Rider” to scam HOA homeowners.
Tobin questions what it takes to get disbarred in Nevada, and calls out the Nevada Attorney General for not taking action.
Tobin provides information about a complaint she filed with the Nevada Attorney General, including the type of complaint, her contact information, and the details of her complaint against Nationstar.
Tobin requests that BHHS be compelled to provide entries into the Equator system that were not provided, despite a subpoena being issued.
Tobin requests an investigative report to determine whether Nationstar’s claims to own the DOT can be proven, and whether the false affidavits recorded to claim ownership of the $389,000 note rose to the level of criminality.
Tobin requests an investigation into other HOA foreclosures to determine if there is sufficient cause to pursue further investigation.
Tobin provides links to exhibits related to her complaint to the NV Attorney General, which include evidence of fraud, false claims, and misconduct by Nationstar and Akerman attorneys.
Tobin alleges that Akerman attorneys conspired with Joseph Hong and others to steal her property by recording false claims against the title, filing pleadings and motions with false claims, and obstructing her ability to have her quiet title claims fairly adjudicated.
Tobin alleges that Nationstar and its attorneys engaged in abuse of process, racketeering, fraud, and civil conspiracy in relation to a disputed property sale.
Tobin argues that Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming ownership of the Hansen deed of trust.
Tobin details multiple instances in which she attempted to contact or engage with Nationstar or its attorneys, but was met with resistance or outright obstruction.
Tobin alleges that Nationstar and Jimijack conspired to settle the quiet title dispute without the court examining any evidence, and that the court allowed this fraudulent side deal to stand.
Tobin also references a number of exhibits, transcripts, and videos that she believes support her claims.
Tobin references a Nevada law (AB 284) that makes it a felony to execute, notarize, or record false claims to title.
Tobin argues that six of the 61 recorded claims in the Clark County property record are fraudulent, and that Nationstar is liable for penalties under NRS 205.377.
Tobin alleges that Nationstar evaded detection by voluntarily dismissing its claims before trial, and that its attorney conspired with Jimijack’s attorney to settle the dispute out of court.
Tobin argues that Nationstar made multiple false statements in court filings, including conflicting claims about when it became the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust.
Tobin also alleges that Nationstar’s attorney met ex parte with the judge to suppress evidence and obstruct a fair adjudication.
Tobin raises a question about the interpretation of the PUD Rider section F-Remedies, and argues that Nationstar has misapplied this contract provision in order to steal property.
Tobin is requesting help from various individuals and organizations to investigate the problem of HOA debt collectors and banks ripping people off.
Tobin identifies two specific issues: HOA debt collectors using abusive practices to foreclose on properties, and banks lying to the court in order to foreclose on mortgages they don’t own.
Tobin argues that the Nevada Real Estate Division and CICC Ombudsman have failed to enforce state law.
Tobin references a previous HOA corruption case, but argues that the current problem is much larger in scale.
Tobin wants to speak with enforcement agency staff to discuss the investigative research that has already been done.
Tobin discusses how banks are using HOA foreclosures to fraudulently obtain title to properties.
Tobin also discusses how HOA debt collectors are unlawfully retaining proceeds from sales.
Tobin discusses the case of a disputed property sale, in which she alleges abuse of process, racketeering, fraud, and civil conspiracy by various defendants.
Tobin argues that Nevada is poor at regulating sham LLCs, which allows for the proceeds of sales to disappear.
Tobin references the case of SCA hiring Alessi & Koenig, LLC, a company with numerous problems, including the fact that David Alessi was not licensed to practice law in Nevada.
Tobin discusses how A&K dissolved the LLC, hid its assets, and morphed into HOA Lawyers Group.
Tobin argues that HOA boards are often ill-advised by financially conflicted agents.
Tobin discusses how banks are often cheating by claiming to own mortgages they don’t actually own.
Tobin argues that the banks are getting a “second bite of the apple” in HOA foreclosure litigations.
Tobin discusses her own case, in which the HOA sold the house to a Realtor after the bank blocked four legitimate sales.
Tobin argues that the banks are prioritizing getting mortgages on their books over the proceeds of the HOA sale.
Tobin discusses the high costs associated with suing after losing a house for a trivial debt.
Tobin references the Spanish Trail case, in which the owner has not received the proceeds from the sale.
Tobin outlines a number of ways in which the Board of Directors (BOD) of the Sun City Community Association (SCA) mishandled foreclosures in 2014.
Tobin argues that the BOD gave complete control over collections to the manager/debt collector, without any checks and balances.
Tobin claims that the BOD kept everything confidential, did not publish the quarterly delinquency report, and did not provide the fee schedule to homeowners.
Tobin argues that the BOD only listened to the debt collector and did not communicate with the homeowner.
Tobin discusses the legal theory for the BOD’s authority, and argues that the BOD has a fiduciary duty to act solely for the association’s benefit.
Tobin references the case of Joel Stokes vs. Bank of America, in which the two parties reached an agreement to settle all claims.
Tobin argues that Joseph Hong and Melanie Morgan did not warn her of the settlement, and that Judge Kishner blessed the deal.
Tobin alleges that Red Rock’s motion to dismiss her claims was granted, and that all other defendants joined in the motion.
Tobin argues that the court ordered the cancellation and expungement of three notices of lis pendens that she had recorded.
Tobin references requests for attorney’s fees made by the Chiesi and Jimijack defendants.
Tobin alleges that Brody Wight, counsel for Red Rock, filed a motion to dismiss that was not supported by facts or law.
Tobin argues that attorneys from Akerman and Wright Finley Zak conspired with Red Rock to conceal Nationstar’s criminal acts.
Tobin alleges that the attorneys for Nationstar, Sun City Anthem, and Red Rock Financial Services all concealed or withheld documents and falsified evidence.
Tobin references her complaint in case A-21-828840-C, in which she alleges that Melanie Morgan conspired with Joseph Hong to make a covert deal to steal her property.
Tobin alleges that attorneys Melanie Morgan and Forrest Barbee concealed records that would have proved that Nationstar refused to identify the beneficiary of a deed of trust.
Tobin argues that Morgan fabricated standing for Nationstar in order to pursue a case against her.
Tobin alleges that Morgan tricked the court into allowing her and Hong to settle out of court.
Tobin claims that Akerman and Wright Finley Zak attorneys concealed records that would have shown how Nationstar communicated with Red Rock about an HOA sale.
Tobin argues that the attorneys concealed an offer from Nationstar that was rejected by Red Rock.
Tobin alleges that the attorneys made false claims in order to protect Nationstar’s security interest.
Tobin references complaints she filed with the Nevada Attorney General and the Nevada Mortgage Lending Division.
Tobin argues that the State Bar of Nevada declined to take action against the attorneys involved, stating that the matter should be handled by a judge.
Tobin references two Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that deal with the rights of bona fide purchasers and the transferability of property after the withdrawal or cancellation of a notice of pendency.
Tobin argues that Brittany Wood knows that no claims in prior proceedings were fairly adjudicated.
Tobin claims that Nationstar and Jimijack prevailed without adjudication.
Tobin argues that Brittany Wood knows that her co-conspirators prevailed by deceit.
Tobin alleges that Wood suppressed the preliminary title report and proof of title insurance.
Tobin claims that Wood misrepresented the property record to obscure her clients’ wrongdoing.
Tobin argues that Wood concealed all property records related to the fraudulent actions dispute between Tobin and Nationstar and Joel Stokes.
Tobin claims that Wood knew that Jimijack’s deed was void and that Jimijack’s transfer of title to Joel Stokes was also void.
Tobin argues that Wood knowingly misrepresented her deed as “a wild deed outside the chain of title.”
Tobin alleges that Brittany Wood deliberately damaged her and obstructed her case by misrepresenting a recorded deed.
Tobin argues that her authority to close the Gordon B. Hansen Trust and execute a deed to transfer its sole asset to the sole remaining beneficiary has been uncontradicted in the Clark County official property record since 2017.
Tobin claims that Wood advocated for the preposterous argument that Tobin was in privity with herself as trustee of a trust that was closed in 2017.
Tobin alleges that Wood ignored Jimijack’s defective deed because she knew that the Chiesi deed was the fruit of the poison Jimijack deed tree.
Tobin references three Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that deal with fraudulent conveyances, knowingly receiving fraudulent conveyances, and conveyances made to defraud prior or subsequent purchasers.
Tobin cites a Nevada Supreme Court case that establishes the requirements for a subsequent purchaser to claim title to land.
Tobin discusses “badges of fraud” that may indicate fraudulent intent.
Tobin claims that Wood ignored all the lis pendens and did not include any of them in the RFJN.
Tobin references two rules of professional conduct for attorneys that Wood allegedly violated.
Tobin is upset that the police department cannot assist her with her case, as they claim it is a civil matter.
Tobin has filed complaints with the Nevada Attorney General, but they have been rejected or referred to other agencies.
Tobin references a Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) that prohibits threats, harassment, and creating a hostile environment in a homeowners association (HOA).
Tobin argues that Clarkson, an attorney, misquoted the law twice in order to exempt himself and Seddon from the anti-bullying law.
Tobin discusses a Nevada HOA retaliation case in which attorneys claim to be exempt from being considered agents of the HOA.
Tobin argues that Clarkson breached his fiduciary duty to the HOA by representing Seddon’s interests instead.
Tobin references several rules of professional conduct that Clarkson allegedly violated.
Tobin alleges that GM Sandy Seddon and CAM Lori Martin violated various statutes and bylaws by withholding records from her.
Tobin is seeking justification for various actions taken by the Board, such as hiring Seddon for a high salary and paying four managers above market rate.
Tobin also wants to know why the Board has not put formal HR systems in place.
Tobin alleges that Seddon and Martin retaliated against her and created a hostile environment after she made requests and complaints in good faith.
Tobin references a study that shows how HOA foreclosures depress the real estate market.
Tobin argues that the HOA debt collectors are scamming homeowners by selling houses in secret to speculators.
Tobin discusses the impact of the mortgage crisis on HOAs in Nevada.
The document discusses a legal complaint filed by Nona Tobin against various defendants, alleging abuse of process, racketeering, fraud, and civil conspiracy in relation to a disputed property sale.
The document references a study that found that HOA foreclosures reduced the value of all Nevada homes by 1.7%, and that the controversy over HOA’s super-priority lien status has decreased the willingness of lenders to lend for the purchase of homes in HOAs.
The document lists various Nevada Revised Statutes that are implicated in the case, including those related to civil practice, remedies, witnesses and evidence, crimes against property, real estate brokers and salespersons, mortgage lending, and trusts.
The document also discusses an interpleader complaint filed by Red Rock Financial Services against Nona Tobin and other defendants, and the subsequent reassignment of the case from Judge Kishner to Judge Jessica K. Peterson.
The document begins by referencing a deed and affidavit of service for Nona Tobin, as well as noting that service on her as a trustee was unnecessary.
It then discusses the closure of the Hansen Trust in 2017, and the transfer of title to Nona Tobin as the sole beneficiary.
The document goes on to mention service on Wells Fargo and Nationstar, and the reasons why these entities will not file claims for excess proceeds.
It also discusses service on Republic Services, and the company’s quick disclaimer of interest.
The document then accuses Steven Scow of filing for interpleader unnecessarily, and calls for Joseph Hong to be disbarred for his misconduct.
Finally, the document references the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, and argues that disbarment is appropriate for Hong based on various aggravating factors.
The document begins by noting that Nationstar did not file any claims against Nona Tobin or the Hansen Trust, and that Nationstar never refuted any of Tobin’s claims.
It then references several motions and replies filed by Tobin that were stricken from the record due to misrepresentations made by Nationstar’s attorney, Melanie Morgan, to Judge Kishner.
The document also references a motion for a new trial filed by Tobin that was also stricken from the record due to misrepresentations made by opposing counsel.
It goes on to mention an unheard motion filed by Tobin to vacate an order that granted Nationstar’s limited joinder to the HOA’s motion for summary judgment.
The document then discusses how Nationstar prevailed despite evidence supporting Tobin’s claims, by tricking the court into ignoring the evidence.
It references several exhibits that support Tobin’s claims, including declarations, transaction reports, and records of foreclosures.
The document also discusses how Nationstar refused to produce any documents in response to Tobin’s requests, and how it changed its story about how it acquired the deed of trust.
It goes on to argue that Nationstar does not hold the original Hansen promissory note, and that it attempted to conceal this fact.
Finally, the document discusses how Nationstar, Bank of America, and the HOA all contributed to the wrongful foreclosure on the property.
The document begins by referencing several videos that Tobin has made to simplify and publish evidence supporting her claims.
It then discusses the damages that Tobin has suffered as a result of the fraud, including the loss of a $500,000 house, the theft of $389,000, and the loss of rental profits.
The document also references the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, which the opposing counsels have violated in various ways, such as by making false statements, falsifying evidence, and obstructing access to evidence.
Finally, the document includes a declaration from Tobin under penalty of perjury, in which she states that she has personal knowledge of the facts stated in the document and would testify to them if called to do so.
The document begins by outlining the various exhibits that Tobin has submitted as evidence, which include recorded claims from 2003 to 2021.
Exhibits 1-4 detail various deeds, powers of attorney, and deeds of trust related to the disputed property sale.
Exhibit 5 discusses a disputed lien that Red Rock recorded without notice, which Tobin argues was predatory.
Exhibit 6 discusses a notice of default that Tobin disputes, as well as a rescission of that notice.
Exhibit 7 discusses the HOA foreclosure sale, which Tobin argues was fraudulent and based on false information.
The document also references various instances of misconduct by Red Rock, Nationstar, and other parties, such as concealing information, falsifying records, and rejecting offers to settle the dispute.
The document discusses Nationstar’s lack of candor in response to Tobin’s interrogatories and requests for production.
It also references Nationstar’s rescission of a bogus assignment, which removed any possible claim that Nationstar was the successor in interest to BANA.
Tobin alleges that Nationstar fraudulently reconveyed the property to Joel Stokes in order to defraud the court.
The document also discusses various exhibits that Tobin has submitted as evidence, including requests for notice of liens or defaults, and a substitution of trustee.
Tobin argues that Joseph Hong fraudulently convinced the court that his client’s out-of-court settlement qualified as a settlement of Tobin’s quiet title claims.
The document also references various deeds, liens, and lis pendens that Tobin has recorded in relation to the disputed property sale.
The document begins by referencing an appeal in case 82294.
It then discusses various orders and deeds that are void or have been expunged.
Tobin requests punitive damages under the RICO statutes and wants the unethical attorneys disbarred.
Tobin also asks the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline to postpone formal charges against Judge Kishner in order to give her a chance to prove she was duped by the attorneys.
The document then discusses the need for state civil court reform and recommends a joint investigation by the NV Attorney General, State Bar of Nevada Ethics & Discipline Panel, and the Nevada Commission on Judicial Ethics.
Finally, the document discusses the importance of alternative dispute resolution and how it was not made available to Tobin or the Foundation Assisting Seniors.
The case law in Nevada generally supports the proposition that every litigant has the right to an evidence-based adjudication of their claims by an impartial tribunal. Several cases emphasize the importance of a fair trial or hearing, and the need for litigants to have the opportunity to present their case. Other cases discuss the importance of impartiality in the judicial system, and the various procedural safeguards that are in place to ensure a fair and unbiased tribunal.
Several cases in Nevada emphasize the importance of a fair trial or hearing, and the need for litigants to have the opportunity to present their case. For example, in McDermond v. Siemens, the court discusses the importance of giving litigants a fair opportunity to present their case, including the right to a trial when there is any doubt as to the facts. The court in Miller v. Miller similarly acknowledges that while the district court has discretion in conducting a trial, it must still accord every party the “full right to be heard according to law.” Other cases discuss the importance of impartiality in the judicial system. For example, in Whitehead v. Nevada Com’n on Judicial Discipline, the court discusses the fundamental right of litigants to a fair trial or hearing before an impartial tribunal, and references several U.S. Supreme Court cases that support this principle. The court in Nev. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court also discusses the right to a civil jury trial under the Nevada constitution, and how that right may be waived under certain circumstances. This case thus touches on the right of litigants to have their claims adjudicated by an impartial tribunal. Several cases also discuss the various procedural safeguards that are in place to ensure a fair and unbiased tribunal. For example, in SOC LLC v. Rodriguez, the court cites a Nevada statute that requires a reviewing court to inquire whether an agency’s factual determinations are reasonably supported by evidence, and emphasizes the importance of a fair and impartial hearing.
“As stated by Justice Traynor, [The] litigant has a right to objective consideration of all proper evidence by triers of fact without violations of any substantial rights he may have as a litigant. He is entitled not to a trial free of all possible error but to a trial free of harmful error. . . . . . . . [Where] the error is so forceful as to leave its mark on the judgment, the trial itself [is] contaminated.” “Retrial is a small price to pay for insuring the right to a fair trial.”
“”Our judicial system guarantees every defendant a fair trial with impartial jurors deciding a case only on admissible evidence presented in court. Conduct which erodes these basic tenets will be presumed prejudicial.””
“Further, “public policy dictates that cases be adjudicated on their merits.” Kahn, 108 Nev. at 516, 835 P.2d at 794. However, “[l]itigants and their counsel may not properly be allowed to disregard process or procedural rules with impunity.”
“A court should exercise great care in granting summary judgment.” “NRCP 56 authorizes summary judgment only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and no genuine issue remains for trial. See Short, cited above; Bader Enterprises, Inc. v. Becker, 95 Nev. 807, 809, 603 P.2d 268 (1979); Lipshie v. Tracy Investment Co., 93 Nev. 370, 375, 566 P.2d 819 (1977); Nevada Land Mtge. v. Hidden Wells, 83 Nev. 501, 506, 435 P.2d 198 (1967). A litigant has a right to trial where there is the slightest doubt as to the facts. Short, cited above.”
A vexatious litigant restrictive order was lifted in the Jones case
We conclude that the district court may restrict a litigant from filing petitions and motions that challenge a judgment of conviction or the litigant’s custody status pursuant to a judgment of conviction and that the guidelines set forth in Jordan adequately protect a litigant’s rights while providing instruction for the district courts as to when a restrictive order is warranted and the proper scope of a restrictive order. A court imposing access restrictions on a vexatious litigant with respect to filings that involve post-conviction challenges to a judgment of conviction or computation of time served pursuant to a judgment of conviction must: (1) provide notice of and an opportunity to oppose the proposed restrictions; (2) create an adequate record that includes a list of the filings or other reasons that led it to conclude that a restrictive order is needed, including consideration of other less onerous sanctions to curb the repetitive or abusive activities; (3) make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions; and (4) narrowly tailor the restrictions to address the specific problem and set an appropriate standard by which to measure future filings. Under the facts presented in this case, we conclude that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it determined that Jones was a vexatious litigant and entered an order restricting his access to the court. We therefore grant the petition.”
Vexatious litigant restrictive order limits my rights to NRS 116.4117 civil action
3/28/23 The court declared that my filings requesting written finding of attorney misconduct be forwarded to the State Bar against HOA, debt collector, real estate speculator and bank attorneys were vexatious and so I am prohibited from filing any civil action against any defendant for any cause of action until I get approval from the Chief Judge.
4/26/23 I filed a motion to disqualify the judge and set aside the order. There will be a hearing on 5/25/23 @ 10 AM
These should be viewed through an anti-SLAPP lens
SB 417 is designed to limit my free speech, to continue to restrict my rights to serve on the HOA Board by giving Clarkson firepower
Clarkson ordered me to cease and desist asking about Sandy Seddon’s salary, is that what this SB 417 change fixes?
What benefit does a lack of transparency give to anyone other than overpaid managers and attorneys? Why, if the HOA exists for the benefit of the owners, does adding a charge to the owners to provide information in email or electronic format make sense?
Failed in good faith to respond? Refused in good faith to provide? Seriously?
Why is this written only in one direction? Why isn’t’ it written to be bilateral? Why isn’t the attorney, manager of Board member prohibited from retaliating against anybody?
Clarkson regularly tries to shut down the blogs that don’t support Sandy Seddon. Here’s how SB 417 is designed to silence criticism when strong arm tactics like cease & desist letters fail:
Accuse the blogger of defamation, regardless of whether she is speaking the truth. Force her to pay attorneys to defend herself.
Clarkson has unlawfully kept me off the Board for six years already. Now he’s changing the law to make it legal.
The Ombudsman is supposed to be for the Owners in common interest communities – not the fixer for the attorneys and managers
Court records show that the interpleader action was meritless as it was filed when I was the sole party with a recorded claim after June 3, 2019.
The statute NRS 116.31164(3)(c)(2013) required that all the proceeds from the August 15, 2014 HOA foreclosure sale be distributed in a specified manner by the person conducting the sale.
Red Rock’s attorney’s failure to comply with the law and Red Rock’s instructions caused years of litigation and enabled bank fraud.
The law required all the proceeds to be distributed after the sale in 2014, but Red Rock didn’t do that and forced years of litigation to claim money that was rightfully mine and enabled massive fraud on the court by other parties as a result. When Red Rock sued me in a meritless interpleader action, I fought back with fraud, racketering and conversion claims. No party answered so I filed a motion for summary judgment, but then a nonparty filed a motion to dismiss per res judicata which the court granted while denying my motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there were disputed facts and my claims were precluded anyway and she didn’t need to address my claim for the proceeds as long as I was attempting to unwind the sale on appeal.
Red Rock filed a successful motion to dismiss my claim for those proceeds on June 23, 2020 on the grounds of NRCP 12(b)(5) (res judicata) (even though the excess funds from the 2014 sale had not been distributed as required by the statute NRS 116.31164(3)(c)(2013) and NRCP 12(b)(6)(failure to join the HOA as a necessary party to protect its interest in the excess proceeds (despite the fact that Red Rock had paid the HOA in full $2,701.04 on 8/21/04 (according to HOA records that Red Rock falsified in discovery).
Plaintiff Red Rock did not have standing to file 2/3/21 interpleader complaint
Plaintiff Red Rock Financial Services was referred to as “RRFS” in the complaint, but as “Red Rock” elsewhere throughout the case, and as “RRFS was contracted by the Association to collect debts for unpaid homeowners assessments owed to the Association by defendant Nona Tobin as the trustee for the Gordon Hansen Trust for the property located at 2763 White Sage Drive, Henderson, Nevada 89052”. This “RRFS” was a partnership subsidiary of FirstService Residential Nevada, LLC (EIN 88-0358132). The relevant debt collection contract, also concealed in discovery by Red Rock, was signed with Sun City Anthem on 4/27/12.
Judge Peterson did not require my opponents to have standing
The Plaintiff Red Rock is a different legal entity from Red Rock Financial Services, LLC, is a disinterested non-party utilized by their shared attorney to improperly file rogue documents into these proceedings. Judge Peterson’s 7/7/22 declaration that Red Rock LLC was a party is factually and legally incorrect. Red Rock LLC never had a contract with Sun City Anthem, never had the proceeds, never had anything to do with this case until Steven Scow started adding the LLC designation in the caption or filing rogue documents in when the plaintiff or the counter-defendant had not filed a responsive pleading or a written opposition or filed a motion.
Judge Peterson gave preferential treatment to my opponents
The interpleader action was a meritless abuse of process.
Judge Peterson assumed without support of evidence or law that ALL the proceeds didn’t have to be distributed after the sale
Red Rock misrepresented in the complaint that it faced multiple liabilities.
I presented evidence that this was false and Judge Peterson did not distribute the funds to me for over yet and almost all the funds are gone in fees.
How Plaintiff Red Rock is identified
The funds that the court was asked to distribute were the excess proceeds of an HOA sale conducted by FirstService Residential Nevada LLC (Formerly RMI Management LLC) dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) that was under a 4/27/12 debt collection contract and the NRS 649 debt collection license with Sun City Anthem that was terminated in April, 2015.
Plaintiff Red Rock wrote a check to the court on its collection account
Shown below is the check for the interpleaded proceeds that Red Rock agent gave to Steven Scow on 8/28/14 with instructions to remit it to court. That check is written on a co-mingled collection account that is under the control of Scow’s client FirstService Residential dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) who is the Plaintiff in this case.
Why Scow refusing to distribute the funds is harassment, maybe conversion
This is significant because the interpleader action was meritless because Scow was supposed to deposit the money with the court in 2014 as his client Red Rock instructed, but he failed to do so. I have spent over $300,000 trying to get my huse back and these funds and Scow has fought me every step of the way.
The cover up – why they fight so hard to silence me
He has filed false evidence in response to subpoena to cover up that Red Rock sold my house without notice, that included files and accounts that had been doctored and he acted in concert with the Nationstar and HOA attorneys to cover up that the sale was void in its entirety because Red Rock conducted the sale after it had rejected assessments that cured the default three times.
It would have been over BUT FOR
The sale should have been voided in the 1st action, and it would have been BUT FOR the misconduct of the opposing parties that met ex parte with Judge Kishner and convinced her that I had never been granted leave to intervene as an individual, and therefore that all of my verified evidence and me, a necessary party under Rule 19, were excluded from the trial.
As a result, I was never permitted to defend my 3/28/17 deed.
There never was the evidentiary hearing mandated by NRS 40.110.
Judge Kishner awarded quiet title to Jimijack on 6/24/19 who had no deed at all to protect after Jimijack had fraudulently reconveyed its defective inadmissible deed on 5/1/19 to non-party Joel A Stokes.
Nationstar didn’t have to go to trial to prove anything because the court didn’t know that the lien it released on 6/3/19 had already been rescinded on 3/8/19 as if it had never existed.
My claim of conversion and my claim for interest and penalties stems from the fact that I have been forced to litigate over and over to get money that he was supposed to deposit with the court in 2014 and not obstruct
I assert that his successful manipulation of the court got my claims unfairly precluded and got me unfairly declared a vexatious litigant. Scow tricked the court into not looking at the evidence by repeatedly saying that the evidence had been examined before when it had not been.
The banks should have been dismissed. The court allowed attorneys for disinterested parties and non-parties file oppositions to my claims for the proceeds because I had other claims
2/16/21 FirstService Residential dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) served five defendants a complaint for interpleader when only one had standing to make a claim
2/17/21 Republic Services filed a disclaimer of interest and withdrew from the case
3/8/21 I, Nona Tobin, as an individual, filed the only timely counter-claim for the interpleaded proceeds, and contained the compulsory counter-claims that I had vs. Red Rock and cross-claims vs. Nationstar of Fraud, Conversion, Racketeering, and sanctions per NRCP 11, NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.270(1)(4). NRS 42.005
The court didn’t require the banks to file NRCP 13(a)(1) counterclaim for the proceeds or answer my crossclaims
4/9/21 Nationstar and Wells Fargo filed a nonsensical answer that had NONE of the compulsory NRCP 13(a)(1) counter-claims, including for the proceeds and NO timely response to my 3/8/21 cross-claims, and NO mention of res judicata in its affirmative defenses. Further, the banks didn’t properly disclaim interest in the proceeds, and the first filing, or any filing thereafter, did not include an Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure so when considered with the affidavit supporting Akerman’s motion to withdraw, it is likely that Wells Fargo doesn’t know it was even in this case.
4/12/21. I filed a motion for an order to distribute the interpleaded funds to me as the sole claimant with interest in which I showed the property records that proved my claim and showed that the banks had no standing to oppose me
4/15/21 I filed a motion for summary judgment as no one filed a timely response to my 3/8/21 courter-claims and cross-claims
4/16/21 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC, filed a motion to dismiss my 3/8/21 counter-claims.
4/26/21 Doc ID# 31 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Limited Opposition to Defendant Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds
4/27/21 Doc ID# 32 Scow listed Non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC as the Plaintiff and the counter-defendant to Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Limited Opposition to Defendant Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds. In either case, it just manipulated and confused the court who never understood what was really going on.
Red Rock LLC has nothing to do with this case and Scow knows it
Instead of distributing the proceeds to me in 2021 as the sole claimant they jerked me around for years precluding all my claims
“Legal Standard “In an interpleader action, the ‘stakeholder’ of a sum of money sues all those who might have claim to the money, deposits the money with the district court, and lets the claimants litigate who is entitled to the money.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1992)
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Pundyk, No. 2:16-cv-01196-APG-GWF, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017) (“District courts have original jurisdiction over interpleader actions involving $500 or more in controversy if “two or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship…are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property…” 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a).
Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows interpleader of disputed funds where a Plaintiff is subject to double or multiple liability. Perfekt Mktg., LLC v. Luxury Vacation Deals, LLC, 2015 WL 10012987, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2015). The purpose of the interpleader is for the stakeholder to “protect itself against the problems posed by multiple claimants to a single fund.” Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012).
An interpleader action typically involves two stages. Id. In the first stage, the district court decides whether the requirements for a rule or statutory interpleader action have been met by determining if there is a single fund at issue and whether there are adverse claimants to that fund. Id. If the Court finds that the interpleader action has been properly brought, it then makes a determination of the respective rights of the claimants. Id.”)
All proceeds were legally required to be distributed AFTER THE SALE in 2014.
rrfs 047
The interpleader complaint in 2021 was meritless.
Steven Scow filed for interpleader in 2021 when his client FirstService Residential dba Red Rock Financial Services (EIN 88-0358-132) instructed him to remit a check designated as excess proceeds to the court as the law required.
In 2021 Steven Scow did not deposit the stale 2014 check to the court nor did he admit he had defied the law and his client’s instructions for seven years.
2/3/21 Scow filed the complaint knowing Red Rock did not have standing to file for interpleader in 2021 when he had been instructed to remit the funds to court on 8/28/14.
“Legal Standard “In an interpleader action, the ‘stakeholder’ of a sum of money sues all those who might have claim to the money, deposits the money with the district court, and lets the claimants litigate who is entitled to the money.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1992)
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Pundyk, No. 2:16-cv-01196-APG-GWF, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017) (“District courts have original jurisdiction over interpleader actions involving $500 or more in controversy if “two or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship…are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property…” 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a).
Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows interpleader of disputed funds where a Plaintiff is subject to double or multiple liability. Perfekt Mktg., LLC v. Luxury Vacation Deals, LLC, 2015 WL 10012987, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2015). The purpose of the interpleader is for the stakeholder to “protect itself against the problems posed by multiple claimants to a single fund.” Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012).
An interpleader action typically involves two stages. Id. In the first stage, the district court decides whether the requirements for a rule or statutory interpleader action have been met by determining if there is a single fund at issue and whether there are adverse claimants to that fund. Id. If the Court finds that the interpleader action has been properly brought, it then makes a determination of the respective rights of the claimants. Id.”)
High Noon at Arlington Ranch Homeowners Ass’n, Nonprofit Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 402 P.3d 639, 645-46 (Nev. 2017) (“Under Nevada law, an action must be commenced by the real party in interest—”one who possesses the right to enforce the claim and has a significant interest in the litigation.” Szilagyi v. Testa , 99 Nev. 834, 838, 673 P.2d 495, 498 (1983) ; see NRCP 17(a). Generally, a party has standing to assert only its own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party not before the court. Deal v. 999 Lakeshore Ass’n , 94 Nev. 301, 304, 579 P.2d 775, 777 (1978)”)
Stockmeier v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 122 Nev. 385, 393 (Nev. 2006) (“This court has a “long history of requiring an actual justiciable controversy as a predicate to judicial relief.” In cases for declaratory relief and where constitutional matters arise, this court has required plaintiffs to meet increased jurisdictional standing requirements. However, where the Legislature has provided the people of Nevada with certain statutory rights, we have not required constitutional standing to assert such rights but instead have examined the language of the statute itself to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to sue.”)
My 3/28/17 deed made me the only one with with standing to assert a claim for the proceeds as all other liens were released by mid-2019 before the 1st action was decided.
3/30/17 Republic Services released both its garbage liens due to the 3-year statute of limitations on non-enforcement.
2/17/21 Republic Services filed a disclaimer of interest and withdrew from the lawsuit the day after it was served
6/3/19 Nationstar released the lien of the Western Thrift & Loan 1st deed of trust
Two days before the quiet title trial in the first action, Nationstar recorded a release of the lien of the first deed of trust, delivering the property free and clear to Joel A. Stokes, a non-party individual. In return for recording this unauthorized lien release, Nationstar received $355,000. As a result, Joel A. Stokes and Sandra F. Stokes, trustees of the Jimijack Irrevocable Trust, gained quiet title in the first action’s trial, despite the fact that Jimijack’s deed, inadmissible as evidence and leqally insufficient to hold or transfer title, had been covertly quitclaimed to the non-party before the trial. The trial did not consider evidence as mandated by NRS 40.110.
3/12/15 Wells Fargo released the lien of the Wells Fargo 2nd deed of trust
Link to 3/12/15 PDF of Wells Fargo’s 2nd deed of trust lien release
Wells Fargo was not involved in the first two actions. The bank filed an IRS Form 1099-C to cancel the outstanding $15,000 debt on the line of credit after the borrower, Gordon Bruce Hansen, passed away on January 14, 2012. However, they didn’t release the lien until a few months after the HOA sale. Wells Fargo never asserted to be the beneficiary of Hansen’s July 22, 2004, first deed of trust, and was likely unaware of Bank of America’s recorded corporate assignment of its non-existent interest.
Additionally, Wells Fargo probably didn’t know that debt buyer Nationstar intermittently claimed to service the loan on their behalf, or that Akerman LLP alleged that they were authorized to represent Wells Fargo in the A-21-828840-C interpleader action.
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 2/2/23 hearing.
Identify where in the transcript the judge made accommodating statements to or about the parties present
Pgs. 21-22, 3, 5, 10, 11
The judge makes several accommodating statements throughout the transcript. The most explicit examples are on pages 21-22 (LINES: 138-140) where the judge thanks Mr. Scow and asks Ms. Turley if she has anything to add. There are also other instances where the judge is understanding or polite to the parties present, such as not faulting Mr. Scow for a delay (pgs. 3,5) and allowing him to speak when he interrupts (pgs. 10,11).
The judge does not make any explicitly accommodating statements, but there are a few places where the judge seems to be understanding or accommodating. For example, the judge does not fault Mr. Scow for the delay in submitting an order because they were waiting for a transcript and for a writ issue to be resolved (LINE:130). Additionally, the judge tells counsel that they do not need to file an opposition to certain motions because the judge is advancing all motions to that day (LINE:113).
The judge does not make any explicitly accommodating statements, but there are a few instances where the judge is polite or respectful to the parties present. For example, the judge says “Go ahead” when Mr. Scow interrupts (LINE:116), and the judge responds “Okay, perfect” when Mr. Scow confirms that Ms. Tobin received notice (LINE:125).
The judge made several accommodating statements to or about the parties present. For example, the judge said “Thanks for coming down” (LINE:139) and “Appreciate it” (LINE:140) to Mr. Scow. Additionally, the judge asked Ms. Turley if she had anything to add, and when she said no, the judge responded “All right” (LINE:138).
Identify where in the transcript the judge made complimentary statements to or about Nona Tobin.
No relevant language found.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin.
Throughout
The judge makes negative statements about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript, including that she does not understand the law (Lines 103, 115), is repetitive and unmeritorious in her filings (Lines 110, 124, 126), and is a “vexatious litigant” (Line 113). These statements occur on pages 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17.
The judge makes several negative statements or implications about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that Tobin “does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint” (LINE:115), that she “continues to argue” a point that has already been decided (LINE:120), and that she “continues to file seriatim motions that were without legal or factual merit” (LINE:126).
The judge makes several negative statements about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that Tobin is “wrong and… misunderstanding what the law is” (Line 103), that she “did not seek leave of this Court to do so as required” (Line 108), that she “is simply wrong” (Line 110), and that she has filed “seriatim motions with this Court that are devoid of legal merit” (Line 124).
The judge makes several negative statements about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge refers to her filings as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious” (LINE:111), and declares her a “vexatious litigant” (LINE:113).
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about the parties present.
Against Ms. Tobin
The judge makes a number of negative statements or implications about Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript, including that she does not understand the law (Lines 103, 115, 118), files motions without merit (Lines 108, 110, 116, 126), and is a “vexatious litigant” (Line 113). The judge also refers to one of her requests as “inappropriate” (Line 145). These statements occur on pages 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17.
The judge makes a number of negative statements or implications about Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that “Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint” (
The judge makes several negative statements about Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that Ms. Tobin is “wrong and… misunderstanding what the law is” (Line 103), that she “did not seek leave of this Court to do so as required” (Line 108), that she “is simply wrong” (Line 110), and that she “continues to file seriatim motions with this Court that are devoid of legal merit” (Line 116). Additionally, the judge refers to Ms. Tobin’s request for judicial notice as “inappropriate” and “legally devoid of merit” (Line 145).
The judge makes a few negative statements or references to Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge refers to her motions as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious”
The judge references denying Tobin’s motions or precluding her claims in multiple places throughout the transcripts. On pages 3-4, the judge discusses dismissing Tobin’s claims, denying her motion to reconsider, and implying that all motions will be denied. On pages 8, 10, 11, and 13, the judge mentions that Tobin’s motions have been denied multiple times and that she may be declared a vexatious litigant. Finally, on pages 15-17, the judge discusses enjoining Tobin from filing complaints, denying her motion to reconsider, and declaring her a vexatious litigant.
The judge references dismissing Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion on line 121. Additionally, the judge discusses denying Tobin’s motion to reconsider on line 122. Finally, the judge states that she is advancing all motions to the current day and implies that they will all be denied on line 114.
The judge does not explicitly state that Tobin’s claims are precluded or that she has no claims, but the judge does mention multiple times that Tobin’s motions have been denied. Specifically, the judge says “once again denied Tobin’s claims” (Line 105), “the Court will have no other choice but to issue an order to show cause why Ms. Tobin should not be declared a vexatious litigant” (Line 116), “the Court was going to declare her a vexatious litigant” (Line 124), and “she filed another motion to reconsider on the same issues that have been denied over and over and over again” (Line 139).
The judge references denying Tobin’s motions or precluding her claims in several places. For example, the judge says “The Court is going to enjoin her from filing any complaints” (Line 101), “If Ms. Tobin’s complaint is meritless or if it fails to allege a cognizable, legal claim Ms. Tobin’s complaint shall be sent back to her unfiled” (Line 102), “Ms. Tobin is enjoined from filing anything other than a timely notice of appeal into this case” (Line 103), and “the Court declares Ms. Tobin a vexatious litigant and denies the motion to reconsider that is being advanced to today” (Line 115).
The judge explicitly states that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case on two separate occasions (pgs. 3, 9), and also makes reference to them in the context of the case on another occasion (pg. 19).
The judge states that “It is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint. Red Rock Financial Services is a party to this case.” Additionally, the judge later says “They have interplead funds. That is the only thing that is at issue in this case.”
The judge states that “Red Rock Financial Services is a party in this case. They are the interpleader in this case. She filed cross-claims against them.”
While the judge does not explicitly state that Red Rock LLC is a party as a matter of law, the judge does mention Red Rock Financial Services several times, including instructing that they “shall turn over to Ms. Tobin the amount of blank” (Line 131) and that they are to be included in the order being prepared (Line 129).
Lines 113, pg. 18
The judge explicitly stated that the parties did not need to file an opposition to Tobin’s motions in line 113 (pg. 3), and also implied it in response to Mr. Scow’s question on page 18.
The judge stated that “I do not feel that it is necessary for them to file an opposition to the motion to reconsider that is set to be heard on the 8th or on the 28th. Nor do I find it necessary for them to file an opposition to the motions that are set for in chambers, for February the 8th” in
The judge does not explicitly state that the parties do not have to file a written opposition, but the implication is clear when the judge says “I advanced that to today, too” in response to Mr. Scow’s question about the hearing on the 8th being in chambers only.
The judge stated that the court had tried to call Tobin but she didn’t answer her phone on line 107 (pg. 2)
The judge states that “We just attempted to phone her and she did not answer the phone” on line 107.
The court was consistently displeased with Tobin’s allegations and motions, dismissing them as meritless and expressing frustration with her repeated filings (pgs. 3,4,7,8,9,10,11,13,14). The court ultimately declared her a vexatious litigant and enjoined her from filing any further complaints without review (pgs. 15,16,17).
The court seems to have largely dismissed Tobin’s allegations. The judge notes that Tobin “does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint,” and that “Red Rock Financial Services is a party to this case.” Additionally, the judge criticizes Tobin for filing “seriatim motions that were devoid of legal or factual merit,” and argues that her attempt to withdraw those filings does not “cure” the issue.
The court repeatedly denies Tobin’s claims and motions, and expresses frustration with her repeated filings. The court ultimately considers declaring her a “vexatious litigant” in order to restrict her ability to file further motions.
The court was not pleased with Tobin’s allegations. The court enjoined her from filing any complaints until they are reviewed by the Chief Judge, and if they are found to be meritless, they will be returned to her unfiled. The court also declared her a vexatious litigant, citing her “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions.”
Procedural errors; meritless motions
The court provides a number of reasons for denying Tobin’s motions, including that she did not follow proper procedure (pgs. 9,11), did not justify her request for relief (pgs. 9,11), and misunderstood the nature of the complaint (pgs. 3,4,6,7). Additionally, the court argues that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that lack merit and has been warned about being declared a vexatious litigant (pgs. 9,11,16,17).
The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied for a few reasons. First, the court contends that Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint and that Red Rock Financial Services is indeed a party to the case. Second, the court argues that Tobin has continued to file “seriatim motions” that lack legal or factual merit, even after being warned not to do so. Finally, the court argues that Tobin’s request for judicial notice is not appropriate because the facts she wants the court to take notice of are subject to reasonable dispute.
The court provides several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. First, Tobin did not seek leave of the court to file a motion for reconsideration, as required by EDCR 2.24(a). Second, she did not identify which of the six grounds for relief from a final order would justify relief or reconsideration. Third, the court argues that Tobin is incorrect in asserting that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to the case. Finally, the court notes that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that are devoid of legal merit, and has been warned that she risks being declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to do so.
The court cites several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. The court argues that Tobin’s motions are “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious,” and that she has been given ample opportunity to respond and argue her case. Additionally, the court notes that they had previously warned Tobin that if she continued to file motions that were “legally and factually devoid of merit,” they would declare her a “vexatious litigant.”
Claim preclusion; harassment
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion (pg. 4), and denied her motion to reconsider. Additionally, the court has repeatedly expressed frustration with Tobin’s “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” (pgs. 13-14, 16-17), which may have contributed to the decision to dismiss her claims with prejudice.
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion, as stated in line 121. Additionally, the court denied Tobin’s motion to reconsider this decision (line 122).
While the document does not directly address this question, it does mention that the court has repeatedly denied Tobin’s claims and motions, and that the court finds her filings to be “legally devoid of merit” and “doing nothing except for attempting to harass the attorneys that have been involved in this matter.”
While the document does not explicitly address the reasoning behind the dismissal of these claims, it does mention that Ms. Tobin has filed “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” and that she was warned about being declared a “vexatious litigant” if she continued to file motions “legally and factually devoid of merit.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin throughout the document. The Court criticizes her for not understanding the nature of a complaint (pgs. 3-7), for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14), and for not attending a hearing (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14). The Court also refers to her as a “vexatious litigant” on multiple occasions (pgs. 16,17,21).
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. For example, the Court states that Tobin “continues to argue that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to this case” and that “it is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint.” Additionally, the Court references Tobin’s “seriatim motions that were without legal or factual merit” and warns her that she may be declared a “vexatious litigant.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court repeatedly refers to her filings as “devoid of legal merit,” “repetitive,” and “abusive.” The Court also notes that she did not attend a hearing and did not provide any notice that she would not be present. Finally, the Court discusses the possibility of declaring her a “vexatious litigant.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court refers to her filings as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious” (LINE:111) and declares her a “vexatious litigant” (LINE:113). Additionally, Mr. Scow notes that Tobin’s behavior has been “vexatious” for the Court as well (LINE:136).
While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, there are a few places in the document that could be seen as favorable to them. The Court notes Mr. Scow’s caution and thoroughness (pgs. 5,7), criticizes Tobin for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,14), and expresses appreciation for Mr. Scow’s cooperation (pgs. 17,19,20,22).
While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain some information that could be seen as favorable to them. For example, the Court notes that Mr. Scow submitted an amended order “in an abundance of caution” to reflect Tobin’s proposed changes, which suggests that he is being careful and thorough. Additionally, the Court repeatedly criticizes Tobin for filing motions that are “devoid of legal or factual merit,” which implies that her opponents may have stronger arguments.
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain several negative references to Tobin herself, which could be seen as indirectly positive for her opponents. For example, the document states that Tobin’s proposed changes are “legally incorrect,” that she is “wrong” and “misunderstanding what the law is,” and that she has filed motions that are “devoid of legal merit.”
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the Court does express appreciation to Mr. Scow for his suggestions and cooperation, saying “thank you” multiple times and noting that he is “happy to do” what the Court requests.
– The document is a transcript of a court proceeding involving Red Rock Financial Services and Nona Tobin.
– The proceeding took place on Thursday, February 2nd, 2023, before Judge Jessica K. Peterson.
– Steven B. Scow represented Red Rock Financial Services, while Vanessa M. Turley represented Nationstar.
– Nona Tobin did not appear in court, and did not answer when called.
– Several motions were on the docket, including requests for judicial notice of attorney misconduct.
– The judge advanced all motions to withdraw, and a motion to reconsider to the day of the proceeding despite Tobin’s absence.
– The judge clarified that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, despite Tobin’s arguments to the contrary.
– The judge referenced a previous hearing in which she warned Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and noted that Tobin had continued to do so.
– The judge ruled that she could not take judicial notice of attorney misconduct as requested by Tobin, as the facts were subject to dispute.
– The judge also referenced an order from a previous hearing that was not entered until January 2023 due to Tobin’s appeals to the Supreme Court.
Pages 8-14
– The Court denies all of Ms. Tobin’s proposed changes to an order, as they are legally incorrect or contain argument.
– Ms. Tobin files a motion to reconsider an order from January 16, 2023, as well as a renewed motion to strike Red Rock Financial Services’ filings.
– The Court explains that Ms. Tobin is misunderstanding the law, and denies her motion for reconsideration.
– The Court references rule 2.24 of the Eighth Judicial District Court rules and rule 60(b) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern motions to set aside a judgement or order.
– Ms. Tobin did not seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, nor did she identify grounds for relief.
– The Court finds that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, and that Ms. Tobin’s argument is incorrect.
– The Court references a previous order that warned Ms. Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and notes that she received notice of the order.
– The Court discusses the requirements for declaring someone a vexatious litigant, and finds that Ms. Tobin meets the criteria.
– The Court imposes a restrictive order on Ms. Tobin, barring her from filing new actions unless the Court reviews the filing and determines that it is not frivolous.
Pages 15-22
– Ms. Tobin is warned against filing complaints against individual attorneys involved in the case.
– The Court orders Ms. Tobin to submit any complaints to the Chief Judge of the District Court for review before filing.
– Ms. Tobin is only allowed to file three specific items: a notice of appeal, an objection to the Brunzell affidavit, or an objection to the amount received from the interplead funds.
– The Court declares Ms. Tobin a vexatious litigant and denies her motion to reconsider.
– The Court requests that Mr. Scow prepare an order detailing the Court’s decision.
– The Court discusses the possibility of disposing of the entire case with this final order.
– The Court requests that Mr. Scow leave blank spaces in the order for the amount of fees and the amount Ms. Tobin is entitled to from the interplead funds.
Identify how the court reacted to Tobin’s allegations.
The court was consistently displeased with Tobin’s allegations and motions, dismissing them as meritless and expressing frustration with her repeated filings (pgs. 3,4,7,8,9,10,11,13,14). The court ultimately declared her a vexatious litigant and enjoined her from filing any further complaints without review (pgs. 15,16,17).
The court seems to have largely dismissed Tobin’s allegations. The judge notes that Tobin “does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint,” and that “Red Rock Financial Services is a party to this case.” Additionally, the judge criticizes Tobin for filing “seriatim motions that were devoid of legal or factual merit,” and argues that her attempt to withdraw those filings does not “cure” the issue.
The court repeatedly denies Tobin’s claims and motions, and expresses frustration with her repeated filings. The court ultimately considers declaring her a “vexatious litigant” in order to restrict her ability to file further motions.
The court was not pleased with Tobin’s allegations. The court enjoined her from filing any complaints until they are reviewed by the Chief Judge, and if they are found to be meritless, they will be returned to her unfiled. The court also declared her a vexatious litigant, citing her “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions.”
Describe the court’s reasoning on why Tobin’s motions should be denied.
Procedural errors; meritless motions
The court provides a number of reasons for denying Tobin’s motions, including that she did not follow proper procedure (pgs. 9,11), did not justify her request for relief (pgs. 9,11), and misunderstood the nature of the complaint (pgs. 3,4,6,7). Additionally, the court argues that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that lack merit and has been warned about being declared a vexatious litigant (pgs. 9,11,16,17).
The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied for a few reasons. First, the court contends that Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint and that Red Rock Financial Services is indeed a party to the case. Second, the court argues that Tobin has continued to file “seriatim motions” that lack legal or factual merit, even after being warned not to do so. Finally, the court argues that Tobin’s request for judicial notice is not appropriate because the facts she wants the court to take notice of are subject to reasonable dispute.
The court provides several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. First, Tobin did not seek leave of the court to file a motion for reconsideration, as required by EDCR 2.24(a). Second, she did not identify which of the six grounds for relief from a final order would justify relief or reconsideration. Third, the court argues that Tobin is incorrect in asserting that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to the case. Finally, the court notes that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that are devoid of legal merit, and has been warned that she risks being declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to do so.
The court cites several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. The court argues that Tobin’s motions are “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious,” and that she has been given ample opportunity to respond and argue her case. Additionally, the court notes that they had previously warned Tobin that if she continued to file motions that were “legally and factually devoid of merit,” they would declare her a “vexatious litigant.”
Describe the court’s reasoning on why all Tobin’s claims of Fraud, Racketeering, Conversion, and petitions for sanctions were dismissed with prejudice.
Claim preclusion; harassment
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion (pg. 4), and denied her motion to reconsider. Additionally, the court has repeatedly expressed frustration with Tobin’s “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” (pgs. 13-14, 16-17), which may have contributed to the decision to dismiss her claims with prejudice.
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion, as stated in line 121. Additionally, the court denied Tobin’s motion to reconsider this decision (line 122).
While the document does not directly address this question, it does mention that the court has repeatedly denied Tobin’s claims and motions, and that the court finds her filings to be “legally devoid of merit” and “doing nothing except for attempting to harass the attorneys that have been involved in this matter.”
While the document does not explicitly address the reasoning behind the dismissal of these claims, it does mention that Ms. Tobin has filed “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” and that she was warned about being declared a “vexatious litigant” if she continued to file motions “legally and factually devoid of merit.”
Identify where in the transcripts the judge stated why she would not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested.
Multiple reasons
The judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, but there are a few potential explanations in the transcript. The judge mentions Tobin’s history of filing frivolous motions (pg. 16), her apparent misunderstanding of the case (pg. 3), and her inappropriate and meritless request for the court to take judicial notice of alleged attorney misconduct (pg. 14).
While the judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, she does mention that Tobin “continues to argue that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to this case” and that “it is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint.” This suggests that the judge does not believe the evidentiary hearing is necessary or warranted given Tobin’s apparent misunderstanding of the case.
While the judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, she does mention that Tobin’s request for the court to take judicial notice of alleged attorney misconduct was “inappropriate” and “legally devoid of merit.”
The judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, but she does mention that Tobin’s “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” provide “a sufficient record to support a vexatious litigant filing.” This suggests that the judge is not inclined to grant Tobin’s requests because she has a history of filing frivolous motions.
Identify any negative reference to Tobin
There are multiple negative references to Tobin throughout the document. The Court criticizes her for not understanding the nature of a complaint (pgs. 3-7), for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14), and for not attending a hearing (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14). The Court also refers to her as a “vexatious litigant” on multiple occasions (pgs. 16,17,21).
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. For example, the Court states that Tobin “continues to argue that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to this case” and that “it is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint.” Additionally, the Court references Tobin’s “seriatim motions that were without legal or factual merit” and warns her that she may be declared a “vexatious litigant.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court repeatedly refers to her filings as “devoid of legal merit,” “repetitive,” and “abusive.” The Court also notes that she did not attend a hearing and did not provide any notice that she would not be present. Finally, the Court discusses the possibility of declaring her a “vexatious litigant.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court refers to her filings as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious” (LINE:111) and declares her a “vexatious litigant” (LINE:113). Additionally, Mr. Scow notes that Tobin’s behavior has been “vexatious” for the Court as well (LINE:136).
Identify any positive reference to Tobin’s opponents
While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, there are a few places in the document that could be seen as favorable to them. The Court notes Mr. Scow’s caution and thoroughness (pgs. 5,7), criticizes Tobin for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,14), and expresses appreciation for Mr. Scow’s cooperation (pgs. 17,19,20,22).
While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain some information that could be seen as favorable to them. For example, the Court notes that Mr. Scow submitted an amended order “in an abundance of caution” to reflect Tobin’s proposed changes, which suggests that he is being careful and thorough. Additionally, the Court repeatedly criticizes Tobin for filing motions that are “devoid of legal or factual merit,” which implies that her opponents may have stronger arguments.
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain several negative references to Tobin herself, which could be seen as indirectly positive for her opponents. For example, the document states that Tobin’s proposed changes are “legally incorrect,” that she is “wrong” and “misunderstanding what the law is,” and that she has filed motions that are “devoid of legal merit.”
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the Court does express appreciation to Mr. Scow for his suggestions and cooperation, saying “thank you” multiple times and noting that he is “happy to do” what the Court requests.
– The document is a transcript of a court proceeding involving Red Rock Financial Services and Nona Tobin.
– The proceeding took place on Thursday, February 2nd, 2023, before Judge Jessica K. Peterson.
– Steven B. Scow represented Red Rock Financial Services, while Vanessa M. Turley represented Nona Tobin.
– Nona Tobin did not appear in court, and did not answer when called.
– Several motions were on the docket, including requests for judicial notice of attorney misconduct, motions to withdraw, and a motion to reconsider.
– The judge advanced all motions to the day of the proceeding.
– The judge clarified that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, despite Tobin’s arguments to the contrary.
– The judge referenced a previous hearing in which she warned Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and noted that Tobin had continued to do so.
– The judge ruled that she could not take judicial notice of attorney misconduct as requested by Tobin, as the facts were subject to dispute.
– The judge also referenced an order from a previous hearing that was not entered until January 2023 due to Tobin’s appeals to the Supreme Court.
Pages 8-14
– The Court denies all of Ms. Tobin’s proposed changes to an order, as they are legally incorrect or contain argument.
– Ms. Tobin files a motion to reconsider an order from January 16, 2023, as well as a renewed motion to strike Red Rock Financial Services’ filings.
– The Court explains that Ms. Tobin is misunderstanding the law, and denies her motion for reconsideration.
– The Court references rule 2.24 of the Eighth Judicial District Court rules and rule 60(b) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern motions to set aside a judgement or order.
– Ms. Tobin did not seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, nor did she identify grounds for relief.
– The Court finds that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, and that Ms. Tobin’s argument is incorrect.
– The Court references a previous order that warned Ms. Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and notes that she received notice of the order.
– The Court discusses the requirements for declaring someone a vexatious litigant, and finds that Ms. Tobin meets the criteria.
– The Court imposes a restrictive order on Ms. Tobin, barring her from filing new actions unless the Court reviews the filing and determines that it is not frivolous.
Pages 15-22
– Ms. Tobin is warned against filing complaints against individual attorneys involved in the case.
– The Court orders Ms. Tobin to submit any complaints to the Chief Judge of the District Court for review before filing.
– Ms. Tobin is only allowed to file three specific items: a notice of appeal, an objection to the Brunzell affidavit, or an objection to the amount received from the interplead funds.
– The Court declares Ms. Tobin a vexatious litigant and denies her motion to reconsider.
– The Court requests that Mr. Scow prepare an order detailing the Court’s decision.
– The Court discusses the possibility of disposing of the entire case with this final order.
– The Court requests that Mr. Scow leave blank spaces in the order for the amount of fees and the amount Ms. Tobin is entitled to from the interplead funds.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 40.110Court 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.
“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
Tobin 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)
Apr 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.
4/13/23 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.
on 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,
230405 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
230405 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.
3/31/23 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
Order 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
Order 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
230328 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.
230328 Gmail 11.02 The court acknowledged receipt that it was submitted to the dept. 8.
3/27/23
I 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.
3/24/2023
11:53AM 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.
Gmail 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)
Gmail 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.
10:41 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.”
Gmail 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)
Gmail 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
Proposed 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
Doc ID# 127 Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements Red Rock Financial Services’ Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements as Supplement to Declaration of Steven B. Scow
Gmail 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))
Minutes 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
