“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.
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
January 28, 2021 I complained to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline about Judge Kishner
Staff attorneys dismissed the complaint without investigation and the same thing happened again in 2023 with a different judge.
Summary of 1/28/21 video to NCJD
Nona Tobin is filing a complaint against Judge Joanna Kishner of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas.
Tobin’s complaint centers on Kishner’s alleged ex parte communication with opposing counsel, as well as her failure to properly adjudicate claims in consolidated cases under her jurisdiction.
Tobin also alleges that Kishner acted outside of her jurisdiction by allowing plaintiffs to prevail without being compliant with NRS 38.310 when Tobin was the only party compliant with NRS 38.310 which requires mediation prior to courts attaining jurisdiction in cases involving interpretation of HOA CC&Rs.
Tobin claims that Kishner met with opposing counsels ex parte at a hearing that Tobin was served notice was continued, and in her absence, they decided that Tobin had never been a party to the case, despite her filing the pleadings and other documents since 2016.
Tobin argues that the ex parte meeting affected the outcome of the trial, in which unfairly, no documentary evidence was allowed.
Tobin also alleges that Kishner never ruled on the standing of the other parties.
Tobin filed a complaint in a different district court, but the judge refused to hear the case on the grounds of claims preclusion.
Tobin has four appeals in front of the Nevada Supreme Court.
Tobin also alleges misconduct by opposing counsels, particularly Joseph Hong.
I have been in litigation since July 29, 2016 and no judge looked at my evidence ever.
NRS 40.110 requires an evidence-based adjudication of a title decision, but I have never got one. I never was allowed to file a claim for sanctions, fraud, conversion or racketeering because ALL my claims were precluded per res judicata.
NRS 40.110 requires an evidentiary hearing
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.
In Nevada, the elements for a claim of quiet title are:
1. Action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claims. NRS 40.010;2. Complaint must be verified. NRS 40.090-1;
3. Summons must be issued within one year of filing the complaint and served per NRCP. NRS 40.100-1;
4. Lis Pendens must be filed with the county recorder within 10 days of filing of the complaint. NRS 40.090-3;
5. Copy of the Summons must be posted on the property within 30 days after the summons is issued, and an affidavit of posting must be filed with the court. NRS 40.100-2;
6. Disclaimer must be filed. NRS 40.020;
7. Affidavit to unknown heirs must be filed. NRS 14.040(3);
8. Court must hold a hearing on the evidence in order to issue judgment. NRS 40.110(1)
9. Quiet title may not be obtained through default judgment. NRS 40.110(1); and
10. Record a certified copy of the judgment quieting title. NRS 247.120(0).
Foyner v. Bank of America Home Loans. Case No. 2:09-CV-2406-RCJ-RJJ 2010 Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev.1996); Sceirine v. Densmore. 87 Nev. 9, 12,479 P.2d 779 (1971); MacDonald v. Krause. 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev.1961); Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co . 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916) No. 2:09-CV-00567-RCJ-LRL, 2009 WL 5039495 (D. Nev. 2009); Del Webb Conservation Holding Corp. v. Tolman. 44 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1109-10 (D. Nev 1999); Union Mill v. Mining Co. v. Warren, 82 F. 519, 520 (D. Nev. 1897); Howell v. Ricci, 197 P.3d 1044, 1046 n. 1 (Nev. 2008); Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev. 1996); Sceirine v. Densmore. 87 Nev. 9, 12,479 P.2d 779 (1971); MacDonald v. Krause. 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev.1961); Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co .. 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916)
Each party must prove good title for herself, but I have never been allowed to defend my title
Res. Grp., LLC v. Nev. Ass’n Servs., Inc., 437 P.3d 154, 156 (Nev. 2019) (“We first hold that each party in a quiet title action has the burden of demonstrating superior title in himself or herself.”)
While the “burden of proof [in a quiet title action] rests with the plaintiff to prove good title in himself,” Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp ., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (1996), abrogated on other grounds byDelgado v. Am. Family Ins. Grp.,125 Nev. 564, 570, 217 P.3d 563, 567 (2009), “a plaintiff’s right to relief [ultimately] … depends on superiority of title,” W. Sunset 2050 Tr. v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , 134 Nev. ––––, ––––, 420 P.3d 1032, 1034 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). And because “[a] plea to quiet title does not require any particular elements, … each party must plead and prove his or her own claim to the property in question.” Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Natl Tr. Co.,129 Nev. 314, 318, 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Now in 2023 Judge Peterson is the 2nd judge who improper ex parte communications
On 4/26/23, I filed a motion to disqualify Judge Jessica K. Peterson from this case pursuant to NRS 1.230 and NCJC 2.11 on the grounds of actual and implied bias. Judge Peterson, without notice, good cause or an opportunity to oppose, entered a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me on March 28, 2023.
This order was originally issued, unbeknownst to me, at an ex parte hearing held on 2/2/23, at which time, two of my unopposed motions that were scheduled to be heard on 2/28/23, were denied in my absence, after Judge Peterson told the attorneys for Nationstar and Red Rock that they didn’t need to file the required written opposition (EDCR 2.20(e)) to my pending motions because she was going to deny them anyway.
Substantial evidence backing the order is thoroughly documented and hyperlinked in this blog. However, the utilization of a newly available artificial intelligence significantly streamlines and clarifies the data.
CaseText Transcript Analysis assesses the implied bias or a lack of judicial impartiality
Over the past four years, I’ve been a subscriber to a legal research service available on casetext.com. On March 15th, 2023, I upgraded to a tier called Co-counsel, which features an OpenAI-powered document analysis tool. I employed it to evaluate Judge Peterson’s perceived impartiality during court hearings by supplying a set of questions for each session. Find the links below for the responses pertaining to all A-21-828840-C hearings.
Hyperlinks to all filed A-21-828840-C case documents and 2023 communications with court regarding EDCR 2.20(e), EDCR 2.23(b), NCJC 2.9, and requests to add opposition
Doc ID# 14 Nona Tobin’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Answer And Counter-Claim vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Cross-Claims Vs. Nationstar Mortgage LLC And Wells Fargo, N.A., And Motion For Sanctions vs. Red Rock Financial Services And Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and/or Nationstar Mortgage dba Mr. Cooper Pursuant To NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005
Doc ID# 15 Request for Judicial Notice Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Complete Official Clark County 2003-2021 Property Records for APN 191-13-811-052
Doc ID# 19 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Sun City Anthem Governing Documents Germane To the Instant Action
Doc ID# 21 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of NRCP 16.1 Disclosures /Subpoena Responses from Discovery in Case A-15-720032-C and Disputed Facts in the Court Record
Doc ID# 30 Nona Tobin’s Opposition to Red Rock Motion to Dismiss Tobin’s Counter-Claims and Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or (4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.40(1), NRS 42.005
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
Doc ID# 32 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s rogue Joinder 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
Doc ID# 34 Wells Fargo, N.A. And Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Joinder To Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim And Petition For Sanctions
Doc ID# 35 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Nationstar’s & Wells Fargo’s Opposition To Tobin’s Motion To Opposition To Tobin’s Motion To Distribute Proceeds And To Their Untimely Joinder To Red Rock’s Motion To Dismiss And Tobin’s Reply To Support Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgment Vs. Nationstar & Wells Fargo
Doc ID# 36 Wells Fargo, N.A. And Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Joinder To Red Rock Financial Services’ Opposition To Nona Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgment
Doc ID# 39 Non-Party Red Rock LLC’s Rogue Reply In Support Of Its Motion To Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim And Petition For Sanctions
Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 8/19/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
Doc ID# 43 “ORDER & JUDGMENT ON PLAINIFF (SIC) RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s COUNTERCLAIM AND PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AND DEFENDANTS/ COUNTERCLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS”
Doc ID# 44 Notice of Entry of Order & Judgment granting non-party Red Rock LLC’S rogue Motion to Dismiss Tobin’s Counterclaim, Petition for Sanctions And Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgement against counter-defendant Red Rock
Doc ID# 53 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s rogue Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions
Doc ID# 55 Notice of Change of 11/16/21 Hearing of all matters from 10 AM to 8 AM. Bluejeans link provided. Parties were asked to contact the court if unavailable.
Doc ID# 62 Akerman Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Nationstar and Wells Fargo PNG #62 shows Akerman knew it had to get out because Nationstar and Wells Fargo were in default for never answering my 3/8/21 cross-claims. 362 also show that Nationstar claims here to be the servicer for Wells Fargo which contradicts its claims on different dates. The exit and the fact that there was no IAFD and no SUBT shows Wells Fargo did not hire them and maybe Nationstar didn’t either.
Doc ID# 64 Declaration of Nona Tobin In Support Of Motion For P. Sterling Kerr To Withdraw As Counsel To Allow Her Return To Pro Se With No Hearing – PNG #64 show
Doc ID# 66 Nationstar and Wells Fargo’s Motion to Strike Tobin’s notice of intent to take their default for failure to file a timely (NRS 12(a)(1)(B)) responsive pleading to my 3/8/21cross-claim and petition for sanctions. Note that on 5/3/21 Akerman did file an untimely (EDCR 2.20(d)) joinder to non-party Red Rock LLC’s rogue and untimely ((NRS 12(a)(1)(B)) motion to dismiss and also note that since Akerman never filed a mandatory counterclaim for the interpleaded proceeds for either of the banks (NRCP 13(a)(1)) the banks should have filed a disclaimer of interest and withdrawn from the case in February 2021 and not obstructed my asserting my claim for funds in which they have no interest.
Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 11/16/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
Doc ID# 71 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion to Reconsider of Order Dismissing Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions and Defendant/Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Sanctions
Doc ID# 75 Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside Orders and for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 60(B)(3) and (D)(3), NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3)
Doc ID# 77 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s rogue Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60 (d)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process; For a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
Doc ID# 78 Insufficient Notice of Appearance “Aaron D. Lancaster, Esq., of Troutman Pepper LLP, will appear as Counsel for Defendant, Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC.” No IAFD. No SUBT. No Signature from Wells Fargo, Nationstar, or Akerman. “Gary Schnitzer, of Kravitz Schnitzer Johnson Watson & Zeppenfeld, Chtd., the office of which is located within the State of Nevada at 8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nevada 89123, has agreed to serve as the Designated Attorney for service of papers, process, or pleadings required to be served on the attorney, Aaron D. Lancaster, Esq., including service by hand delivery or facsimile transmission, as Troutman Pepper LLP does not maintain an office in the State of Nevada.”
Doc ID# 79 Wells Fargo and Nationstar’s Joinder to Defendant Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60 (b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60 (b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3) NRS 18.010 (2); and Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
Doc ID# 80 Nona Tobin’s Reply to Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Cots Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
Doc ID# 84 Notice of Entry of Order Granting Akerman s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC
1/19/22
Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 11/16/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
Doc ID# 86 Notice of Appearance No IAFD. No SUBT. No authorization by Nationstar or Wells Fargo. Aaron Lancaster notices begin “VANESSA M. TURLEY, of Troutman Pepper LLP, is admitted and authorized to practice in this Court, and will appear as Counsel for Defendant, Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC.”
Doc ID# 88 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Set Aside 9/10/21 Order And 11/30/21 Orders Pursuant To NRCP 60(b)(3)(Fraud) And NRCP 60(d)(3)(Fraud On The Court) And Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Pursuant To EDCR 7.60(1) And (3), NRS 18.010(2); And, Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s 12/28/21 Countermotions For Abuse Of Process & Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees Costs
[89] Notice of Entry of Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Set Aside 9/10/21 Order And 11/30/21 Orders Pursuant To NRCP 60(b)(3)(Fraud) And NRCP 60(d)(3)(Fraud On The Court) And Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Pursuant To EDCR 7.60(1) And (3), NRS 18.010(2); And, Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s 12/28/21 Countermotions For Abuse Of Process and Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees Costs
[90] Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30, 2021 and May 25, 2022
Doc ID# 91 Exhibits To Second Amended Motion For An Order To Distribute Interpleaded Funds With Interest To Sole Claimant Nona Tobin And Motion For Attorney Fees And Costs Pursuant To NRS18.010(2) And EDCR7.60(b)(1) And (3) And Motion To Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices Of Entry Of Orders Entered On 11/30/21 And 5/25/22
Doc ID# 93 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for An Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds With Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30, 2021 and May 25, 2022; and Renewed Countermotion for Abuse of Process; For a Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
Doc ID# 94 Reply to Non-Party Red Rock LLC’s Opposition to Tobin’s Second Amended Motion For An Order To Distribute Interpleaded Funds With Interest To Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(B)(1) and (3)
Doc ID# 96 Response to Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Countermotion for a Restrictive Vexatious Litigant Order Against Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Nona Tobin’s Counter-Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order
Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 11/16/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
Doc ID# 105 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Melanie Morgan, Esq. (SBN 8215), Akerman, LLP; and Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP, and Draft Alternative Civil Action
Doc ID# 107 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. David Ochoa, Esq. (SBN 10414) and Adam Clarkson, Esq.
Doc ID# 109 Clerk’s Notice of 2/2/23 Hearing of Doc #102, Tobin’s 12/19/22 RFJN vs Joseph Hong uninvestigated complaint vs. Brittany Wood and draft civil action that will be necessary if this court chooses not to act
Doc ID# 110 Clerk’s Notice of 2/2/23 Hearing of Doc103 Tobin’s 12/19/22 MOSC why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar
Doc ID# 111 Clerk’s Notice of 2/2/23 Hearing of Doc #106, Tobin’s 12/19/22 RFJN vs. uninvestigated complaint vs. Brittany Wood and draft civil action that will be necessary if this court chooses not to act
Doc ID# 112 1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded to the State Bar And 2) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Counter-Claims / 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 357.040(1(a),(b),(i), 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 (as amended on 1/3/23) It allowed the attorneys to walk away and put the entire cost onto Red Rock and Nationstar. It also moved the punitive damages from being payable to me to being payable to the State of Nevada through the courts via the false claims act without me having to file a whistleblower action.
Doc ID# 113 Red Rock Response to Tobin Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded to the State Bar. #
01/09/2023 Order Doc ID# 115 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
Doc ID# 117 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
Doc ID# 118 Notice of Entry of Corrected 1/9/23 Order amended solely to correct the 1/9/23 order to state that Tobin had responded, refused to sign for the reasons identified in the opposition attached to the corrected order. PNG # 118 shows neither 1/9/23 nor 1/16/23 were “restrictive orders” as misrepresented in the 3/28/23 order.
Doc ID# 119 Red Rock Financial Services’ Response/Opposition to (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not be Forwarded to the State Bar; (2) Motion to Withdraw Tobins 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 357.0401(a), (b), (i) 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
Doc ID# 120 Tobin 1/23/23 Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings PNG # 120 shows my good faith intent to resolve the matter without appeal and without the court acting outside its jurisdiction and without forcing a multitude of additional cases to address the number of attorneys who had lied to the court to cover up the criminal activities of their clients.
Doc ID# 121 Clerks’ Notice of 2/28/23 Hearing Tobin Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings. Note this would result in adopting Tobin’s unopposed 6/27/22 judgment order.
Doc ID# 122 Wells Fargo and Nationstar’s Joinder to Red Rock Financial Services’ Response//Opposition to (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded to The State Bar; (2) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Petitions For Sanctions VS. Red Rock, Nationstar to Include NRS 357.0401(A), (B), (I) 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
Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 11/16/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
Minutes published on the court website that were NEVER SERVED on the parties inaccurately describe that Judge Peterson was alone in Chambers at 11:15 AM when she denied the Tobin’s 1/23/23 motion to reconsider “- The Court having advanced this hearing to 2.-02-23 and following review of the papers and pleadings on file herein, COURT ORDERED, 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, DENIED.” Note that these motions were on the docket for 2/28/23 by CNOH Doc No. 114 and Judge Peterson actually denied these motions at a hearing that was held ex parte after Tobin requested on 1/23/23 that it be vacated as moot. See PNG 230123 request to vacate. Note that there are no minutes regarding the vexatious litigant restrictive order. There are no minutes that of the ex parte hearing at all. There are no minutes that show the three items that were on the docket were acted on, i.e. Docs. 102, 103, and 106,12/19/22 MOSC and the RFJNs for Wood and Hong.
2/2//2023
I did not anticipate that the court would so aggressively deprive me of the most minimum due process that could be reasonably expected, especially when so unreasonably restricting my fundamental rights to access to any impartial tribunal, and yet it got progressively worse until by April the court was neither accepting nor rejecting just ignoring and letting time pass. AS to the 2//2/23 ex parte hearing, it was completely improper and unnoticed. 1. I did not receive a phone call that the court claims was made to me from the ex parte hearing. I do not have any record that I missed such a call. I received no voice mail from the court. Like everything I say, I can say it under oath. I don’t know who at the court can. 2. I requested on 1/23/23 that the 2/2/23 hearing be vacated as moot. 3. The court did not address the three unopposed items actually docketed for 2/2/23. Neither Joseph Hong nor Brittany Wood were present for the hearing that was supposed to be about the motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar and the RFJN of my uninvestigated complaints vs. them. There are no minutes that the court denied this, but when (2/21/23) I turned in a proposed order granting my 12/19/22 MOSC as unopposed, I was ordered to stop and threatened with an order to show cause why I shouldn’t be held in contempt.
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 actually these motions were denied at a hearing that was held ex parte after Tobin 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 a 3:46 PM
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))
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 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# 130 Recorders Transcript of 2/2/23 ex parte unnoticed Hearing was added to court record on 3/3/23
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.
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.
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 rder that was imposed unfairly ex parte for no just cause. but I got no answer.
3/31/23 11:59 I submitte 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 thit and became the 1/1623 order.. That didn’t happen in either case. The 3/28/23 order continuted uncorrected .proposed order
230405 3.52 PM gmail to ccourt entitled corrections to 3/28/23 order to attach opposition erroneously or intentionally omitted. The court ignoed it . Did not respond.corrected 230328 I re submitted a
230405 original plus corrected order to attach my ipposition is 52-pages. see the PNG.Sig pg. It shows the extreme difference in perspective between how I see this dispute and how Judge zzpeterson 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 religating the same old thing that I derserve to keep losing.
4/13/23
on 4/13/ I resubmitted the 4/5/23 corrections230405 corrected 23032 I didn’t hear anything from the court fofrom 4/523 to 4/13/23 so I re-submitted it and said i can;t appeal this order without my oppposition noted in the record more clearly,
4/13/23
4/13/23 6:06 PM Gmail Court to Tobin Proposed Order has been submitted. my resubmission was immediately acknoeldged by the court’s chatbot rsponder, but nothing ever came from Dept. 8 after 3/28/23.
4/19/23
4:00 PM Tobin to Clerk for Chief Judge ‘Could you please tell me if Judge Weise has seen this?
4/19/23
230419 4.00 pm six days lay I contacted the clerk of the Chief Judge and ssked if my proposed corrections to the order had been seen by the Chief Judge.
4/20/23
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 Iinitiated a complaint , but any filing into the case was Dept. 8’s responsibility.
4/20/23
230420 3.20 pm court ack so I resubmitted it to Dept 8 and predictabily it has been ignored ever since.
issuing a vexatious litigant restrictive order ex parte without notice, just cause or an opportunity to oppose (NCJC 2.6(, NCJC 2.9 (improper ex parte communications are prohibited)
denying unopposed motions by differential enforcement of the court rule (EDCR 2.20(e)) that allows a Movant to submit a proposed order for the court to grant an unopposed motion if no party filed a timely written opposition (NCJC 2.2 (apply the law fairly and impartially)
declaring a non-party is a party (NCJC 2.2 (apply the law fairly and impartially) despite all evidence and law to the contrary
Judge Peterson showed bias against me by declaring I was a vexatious litigant in absentia, the rules don’t apply to my opponents, and Red Rock LLC was a party contrary to all law and evidence.
I found out that all this happened two weeks after the ex parte hearing.
Here are the facts and law regarding Red Rock LLC’s lack of standing to be a party.
The court record shows Red Rock LLC was not a party.
This information was all provided to the court on 1/23/23 in my motion to reconsider and my motion to strike all rogue filings of non-party Red Rock LLC. (Doc # 120). These motions were scheduled to be heard on 2/28/23 (CNOH Doc #121), but Judge Peterson ignored it, and declared at the 2/2/23 ex parte hearing that the motions were denied and that Nationstar and Red Rock who were present at the unnoticed hearing were exempt from EDCR 2.20(e).
Nevada case law is clear. This court lacks jurisdiction to grant judgment for or against non-party 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.””)
To be the Plaintiff, you have to file the complaint.
Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“The district court clearly erred by failing to apply the Nevada Revised Statutes, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable precedent from our supreme court, and by entering judgment without a trial in favor of a party that never even pled a claim for relief”)
Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership, not LLC, filed the complaint. Red Rock LLC did not file any claims and is not the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff Red Rock (sometimes “RRFS”), with an interest in the proceedings, was Sun City Anthem’s former managing agent, FSR dba Red Rock Financial Services (EIN 88-0358132). FSR (formerly known as RMI Management LLC) dba Red Rock held the NRS 649 debt collection license, performed debt cllection services for SCA under a contract for the applicable time period executed onthat was terminated by SCA on 4/26/15. conducted the wrongful foreclosure of my late fiance’s home in 2014 and wrongfully failed to distribute to her the excess proceeds from the sale, did not file any response to my motion.
Red Rock LLC is not the Plaintiff, and the attorney Steven Scow who filed the complaint knows it.
NRCP 10(a) requires all parties to be named in the original complaint.
Rule 10. Form of Pleadings
(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court’s name, the county, a title, a case number, anda Rule 7(a) designation. The caption of the complaint must name all the parties; the caption of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may refer generally to other parties.
NRCP 10(a)
The Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure also identifies who an attorney is representing in a case. The Plaintiff is not Red Rock LLC.
Although both Plaintiff Red Rock and non-party Red Rock LLC are Steven Scow’s clients, he didn’t claim to be representing both of them in this case until he decided to start filing into the case for unknown reasons on behalf of the non-party. Doc No. 1 is Scow’s IAFD for Red Rock, with no Red Rock LLC in sight.
To be a Defendant you have to have received proper service of process
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)”)
The facts in the court record show that Red Rock LLC was never served any claims against it. Therefore, it is not a defendant.
The only summons served in case A-21-828840-C were Doc No. 8 (Republic Services), Doc No. 9 (Wells Fargo), Doc No. 10 (Nona Tobin as an individual), Doc No. 11 (Nona Tobin as the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08), Doc No. 12 (Nationstar Mortgage LLC).
Red Rock LLC is not a Cross-Defendant as no party filed any claims against it.
I’m the only party who filed any cross-claims, and I certainly didnt file any claims against Red Rock LLC. Therefore, Red Rock LLC is not a cross defendant.
To intervene, you have to show you have an interest in the proceedings. Red Rock LLC had no interest.
Non-party Red Rock LLC did not file a motion to interveneTo 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.”
NRCP 24(a)(2)
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.
It is outside the court’s jurisdiction court to decide for or against a non-party.
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.”)
Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *3 n.2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“Booke was not a party to the case, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter any judgment against him. See NRCP 4(d); Schwob v. Hemsath, 98 Nev. 293, 294, 646 P.2d 1212, 1212 (1982) (“Without proper service of process the district court acquires no. jurisdiction over a party.”) (citing Brockbank v. District Court, 65 Nev. 781, 201 P.2d 299 (1948); State v. District Court, 51 Nev. 206, 273 P. 659 (1929)). ”)
Steven Scow’s misrepresentation caused Judge Peterson to unwittingly act outside her jurisdiction to grant non-party Red Rock LLC’s 4/16/21 motion to dismiss.
Steven Scow knows which client he is representing, but he began the charade that Red Rock LLC was a party in April 2021 and prevented the case from concluding then as it should have.
Possibly Steven Scow was concealing that his client Plaintiff Red Rock also didn’t have standing to file the interpleader complaint either, but I’ll leave that for another blog.
First attempt for a vexatious litigant restrictive order was to dstrict the court from having an evidentiary hearing.
My motive for requesting a ruling based on evidence was proper.
In December 2021 I filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing because I had been in litigation since July 2016 and no judge had looked at the evidence yet.
Screenshot of my motion’s introduction shows my good faith intention.
Non-party Red Rock LLC filing an opposition to my motion was improper and outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Red Rock Financial Services LLC is not the Plaintiff, did not file the complaint, did not ever have a contract with Sun City Anthe, did not conduct the disputed forecloure sale, did not legally ever possess the interpleaded funds that Plaintiff Red Rcok was lawfully required to distribute to me as the sole claimant in 2014, but has obstructed giving to me through three court cases for 8+ years.
Screenshot of Red Rock LLC’s motion’s preliminary statement shows irrelevant personal attack and lack of substance.
Note that I brought claims as an individual in the 1st action as well as the trustee of the Hansen Trust. The last line of this scrennshot, that i brought claims solely as a trustee, is one of the big lies that have made this dispute so hard to resolve as that lie is used to preclude my claims from being heard on the merits.
The hearing was scheduled for 1/18/22 to hear my motion for an evidentiary hearing until a counter-motion changed the purpose and the date of the hearing
A hearing was held on January 19, 2022 to decide my motion for an evidentiary hearing to set aside previous orders on the grounds that the orders had been obtained by fraud, false evidence, attorney and judicial misconduct.
A rogue counter-motion made by a non-party, Red Rock Financial Services LLC, to issue a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me was filed, and the date and purpose of the hearing changed so no evidentiary hearing was held (again).
The same date change and the same failure to hold an evidentiary hearing happened for the 8/19/21 hearing that had the date changed inexlicably from 8/18/21 to 8/19/21.
My daunting experience from 2017 until now strongly attests to the fact that Community Association Institute (CAI) lobbyists – attorneys representing HOAs, HOA debt collectors, and HOA managers – already wield excessive power for their own self-interest. This negatively impacts both the HOAs and the homeowners, to whom they owe a fiduciary duty.
My 8/16/17 notice of intent to complain vs. Sun City Anthem attorney Adam Clarkson was on the 8/24/17 A.M. closed session Board agenda.
My 8/14/17 notice of intent to complain vs. Clarkson alleged bullying, abuse of privilege, concealing records, misrepresentations and conflicts of interest.
My 8/11/17 notice of intent to complain vs. Sun City Anthem general manager Sandy Seddon and community association manager Lori Martin, also on the 8/24/17 morning closed Board agenda, has never been investigated or resolved by NRED.
Clarkson refused to let me put the notice of intent on the agenda on in the Board book despite the requirements of NRS 116.31087
I had another notice of intent to file NRED complaints against Clarkson, the managers, and the other Boardmembers, but Clarkson would not let it be placed in the Board book. Link to PDF 8/10/17 notice of intent to file the Form 530 re harassment and retaliation shown below.
I prepared an 8/24/17, 2-page settlement offer to replace the 8/10/17 notice of intent, but that was unilaterally rejected by Clarkson without me being allowed to place it in the Boardbook.
This controlling what goes into the official record so the facts are misrepresented is a critical part of the problem.
In my professional life, I administered a local government civil service system for about 8,000 FTEs. There is no way the records under my control were ever mishandled the way I have observed that Adam Clarkson and Sandy Seddon have manipulated, concealed and even falsified the records at Sun City Anthem.
Page 1 of 2-page settlement offer to set aside the 8/10/17 notice of intent to file a form 530 that Clarkson refused to allow me to put in the 8/24/17 Board Book even though I was an elected member of the HOA Board and four of the other six Board members were currently fcacing petitions for a NRS 116.31036 election for their removal.Page 2 of 2-page settlement offer to set aside the 8/10/17 notice of intent to file a form 530 that Clarkson refused to allow me to put in the 8/24/17 Board Book even though I was an elected member of the HOA Board and four of the other six Board members were currently fcacing petitions for a NRS 116.31036 election for their removal.
Clarkson retaliated against me by falsely accusing me of profiting from my elected Board seat and declaring absurdly that my seat was “vacant by opertion of law”
Link to PDF of Clarkson’s 8/24/17 letter falsely accusing me of placing matters before the Board from which I could make a profit from my Board position and declaring that, absent an NRS 116.311036 removl election, he could declare my elected board seat vacant without any due process.
Clarkson changed the election procedures so he can “vet” candidates for the Board. He has sent me a rejection letter every year.
Each year there are progressively more outrageous reasons for declaring that I am ineligible to run for or serve on the HOA Board.
Here are the links to Clarkson’s annual “notices of ineligibility”:
2023 Notice of Ineliegibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
2022 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
2021 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
2020 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
2019 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
2018 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
On 12/19/22 I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar
Neither of the SCA attorneys, David Ochoa of Lipson Neilson nor Adam Clarkson, filed any opposition to the motion for an order to show cause nor did they show up for the hearing nor did they do anything. Must be nice to feel that incinvible.
The complaint against the SCA attorneys was verified and fully supported by evidence as shown in the exhibits linked below:
BAR COMPLAINT VS. OCHOA EXHIBITS G, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, H, ONLINE COMPLAINT RECEIPT
David Ochoa is named because he was the litigation attorney representing the HOA’s insurance company and protecting the HOA’s former agent, Red Rock finacial Services, that conducted the disputed foreclosure in 2014, but make no mistake, Adam Clarkson’s fingerprints are all over this fraudulent misrepresentation to the court and concealing the HOA’s official records that had probative value to my case.
The exhibits show that the attorneys produced falsified documents to the court when there was no benefit to the HOA to do so, but did it to cover up the wrongdoing of the former agents.
EXHIBIT A Obstructed settlement mandated by CC&Rs XVI
EXHIBIT G Concealed that there were no HOA Board authorizations of any foreclosure in meetings complaint with NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.31085
EXHIBIT G-1 Legal limits on closed HOA Board meetings were concealed or misrepresented
EXHIBIT G-2 SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws
EXHIBIT G-3 SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014
EXHIBIT G-4 SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosures by Red Rock Financial Services or any other debt collector
EXHIBIT G-5 No valid HOA Board action authorized the sale and so the action is voidable
EXHIBIT H More disputed facts in meritless MSJ and order entered on 4/18/19
EXHIBIT H-1 Analysis of similarities with a Spanish Trail case shows that this case is not a one off; it is part of a corrupt pattern and practice where HOA attorneys aid and abet corrupt co-conspirators steal HOA homeowners’ property without notice or due process and allow banks to collect on debts they are not owed and debt collectors to refuse to distribute the excess proceeds from the sales in the manner proscribed by law.
Link to 12/19/22 Request For Judicial Notice of 481-page verified, evidence-backed, uninvestigated (pending court order) complaint to the State Bar and 78-page draft civil complaint requesting a court order for written findings of attorney misconduct.
The separate civil action (Link to separate PDF) will be necessary because the A-21-828840-C court chose not to issue a court order for the Sun City Anthem attorneys to show cause why written findings should not be forwarded to the State Bar for investigation).
This will ultimately be a huge waste of judicial resources because separate complaints will have to be filed against attorneys for Red Rock, for the the real estste speculators and for the banks as they all perpetrated fraud on the court for their own unjust profut, but their crimes were quite different.
Neither SCA attorney responded to the NRCP 11c safe harbor letter I sent them in November. Neither refuted any of the allegations of misconduct alleged in the complaint or produced any verified evidence to refute the verified enidence that supports my claims. Neither filed any
This resulted in me unfairly, without just cause, being declared a vexatious litigant at an improper, unnoticed, ex parte 2/2/23 hearing I learned of two weeks after the fact.
Instead of issuing an order for the attorneys to show cause why written findings shouldn’t be forwarded to the state Bar, the judge denied that motion and declared me a vexatious litigant for filing the motion at all. No wonder the attorneys didn’t bother to respond.
On 3/28/23, a restrictive order was 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 outrageously-inaccurate order so it is at least accurate enough for appeal.
No response has come from the court for five days.
HOA attorneys and managers fail in their fiduciary duty to the HOA, and the courts are not holding them to any standard.
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, and it’s not its job either. The judges let the attorneys write orders that misrepresent the facts, the evidence and the law. The people of Nevada are simply stuck with a dysfunctional court system,
If SB 417 is approved, Nevadans in HOAs will witness NRED continuing to appease CAI lobbyists, while inadequately addressing the concerns of HOA homeowners in need of a channel to resolve their grievances.
Adam Clarkson has had the Ombudsman in his pocket for years.
…Or else, how has he kept all SCA homeowner 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?
Whose interests are being served?
What about NRED not investigating the “loss” of two pages of 22 signatures from the recall petition for Bob Burch? It is patently ridiculous to claim that attending the vote count was adequate when the issue was that he wasn’t on the ballot because two pages were “lost”.
Two pages of signatures were not courted and so Bob Burch was not not the recall ballot.
Showing up for the vote count for the other three with three attorneys from Clarkson’s office (that the homeowners paid) was the Ombudsman’s way of closing the case without investigation.
The determination that the election was valid was completely goundless since attending the vote count was completely irrelevant to the complaint.
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 a request for informstion about why the manager is paid more than $100,000/year more than her job is valued, and it will be legal for him a continue to write contracts for her that do not contain the provisins required by lawfor community association management contracts, and it will be legal for him to keep the contracts that the puppet Board members aopt in closed session secret from the members, and it will be legal for NRED to refuse to investigate it. But then, the homeowner can be stigmatized and threatened with high-cost litigation for even asking.
9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re Election 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 unlawful removal from elected Board seat by 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 Harassment, Retaliation 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. Link to 8/8/18 NRED letter PDF.
SB 417 gives power to the wrong people and takes it away from the ones who need it.
2/23/22 Verified Bar Complaint Vs. Melanie Morgan, Akerman LLP Morgan aided and abetted Nationstar to collect on a debt it was not owed from Tobin who did not owe it by misrepresentation, concealing and suppression of evidence, stipulated dismissal of claims without adjudication, unfair removal of Tobin as an Individual party on false pretenses, fraudulent side deal with non-party Joel Stokes, misrepresented as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement & improper Ex Parte communications with 1st judge Pages 4045-4154
2/28/22 Wright Finley Zak LLP Verified Bar Complaint WFZ filed Nationstar’s original meritless & conflicting claims to be the beneficiary owed the debt from the deed of trust extinguished by the 8/1/14 sale, the lie that caused six years of litigation that aided and abetted Nationstar to abuse the HOA quiet litigation process to collect a debt it was not owed from Tobin who did not owe it without foreclosure and disregarding the PUD Rider Remedies (F) provision that prohibits any lender from using the payment of delinquent HIA assessments as a de facto foreclosure Pages 4155-4259
3/1/22 Steven Scow, Koch & Scow, LLCPart 1 Verified Bar Complaint Scow produced Red Rock’s false evidence in response to Tobin’s Subpoena. It was the hearsay evidence that provided the total support for the HOA’s meritless MSJ that became the “law of the case” and stopped all judicial scrutiny of any verified evidence in the remainder of the 1st action and in both subsequent actions Pages 4260-4354
Steven Scow Part 2 Verified Bar Complaint Exhibits B-F Red Rock instructed Scow to remit checks for excess proceeds to court but Scow retained millions in proceeds from all Sun City Anthem foreclosures and from all Red Rock foreclosures in multiple other HOAs by disregarding Red Rock’s instructions and NRS 116.31164(3)(c)(2013) statutory mandate that required distribution of all proceeds in 2014. Scow covered up how Red Rock was unjustly enriched by selling directly to investors without conducting public auctions, by not indemnifying the HOA according to contract terms, and by misrepresenting the open meeting law to inattentive or unsophisticated HOA Boards. Pages 4355- 4438
Steven Scow Part 3 Verified Bar Complaint Exhibits F -H-5 The false evidence Scow gave to the HOA and in response to subpoena covered up that: 1) Red Rock covertly sold the property after rejecting assessments that cured the default three times; 2) the HOA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action; 3) Required notices were not provided, but records were falsified to fake that they had been sent. Pages 4439-4603
3/6/22 Verified Bar Complaint vs. David Ochoa & Adam Clarkson Sun City Anthem attorneys Exhibits A-D Attorneys deprived Tobin of ADR, then obstructed her litigation and appeal litigation. They misrepresented the false evidence from Red Rock as the HOA’s official records and concealed the HOA’s actual verified records that were inculpatory t Red Rock and of probative value to Tobin’s case. Pages 4604 – 4733
3/6/22 Verified Bar Complaint vs. David Ochoa & Adam Clarkson Exhibits E, E-1, E-2, 3-3 F Shows how HOA MSJ was meritless for more reasons than because SCA had no standing to file it, i.e., the supporting exhibits include falsified documents produced by Red Rock and conceal the HOA’s real records indicating that Ochoa & Clarkson are working for Red Rock, not for the HOA. Pages 4734 – 4847
3/6/22 Verified Bar Complaint vs. David Ochoa & Adam Clarkson Exhibits G shows exactly how documents were doctored or just deceptive. G-1 & G-2 show the attorneys advised the HOA Board to act in a manner that did not comply with HOA meeting laws. G-3 shows that SCA Board was told that it was legally required to keep confidential from all SCA owners when Red Rock was intending to sell an SCA property. G-4 shows that in one year, Red Rock secretly sold a dozen houses to investors for less than 20% of their value, and the HOA has no records that any of them were foreclosed or sold under the HOA’s statutory authority or that any amount of money was collected. G-5 shows that no valid Board action approved any of the sales. H shows more disputed facts that were in the HOA’s motion for summary judgment; H-1 shows a comparison with a case in a different HOA with different lenders but many of the same attorneys Pages 4848 – 5046
9/4/17 Verified Bar Complaint Adam Clarkson & 9/12/17 Bar Rejection Had the State Bar not ignored Tobin’s 1st Bar Complaint against Adam Clarkson for bullying, harassment, representing the interests of the HOA manager against the interests of the HOA, misrepresenting the law to the HOA Board regarding open meeting and notice requirements, years of litigation could have been averted. Pages 242-279
2/14/21 Joseph Hong And 2/16/21 Brittany Wood Verified Bar Complaints & 3/4/21 Bar Counsel’s Rejection pending Tobin’s submission of a court order with written findings of attorney misconduct. Hong conspired with Melanie Morgan to obstruct the 1st action because neither of their clients had evidence to support their title claims and the way to win was to get rid of Tobin by whatever means. They negotiated a fraudulent side deal, misrepresented it to the court, orchestrated an ex parte meeting with the judge, recorded multiple false claims to title to aid and abet their clients’ fraudulent reconveyance of the property to defraud Tobin. They lied to the district courts and the courts of appeal about Tobin’s standing as an individual to prevent her claims from being heard and to obstruct judicial scrutiny of her verified evidence. Brittany Wood conspired with Joseph Hong and others to cover up that her clients were not bona fide purchasers, but knowingly received the last fraudulent transfer while there were three of Tobin’s lis pendens on record. Wood made multiple intentional misrepresentations of material fact to obstruct Tobin’s claims from being heard on their merits because, if they were fairly heard, her clients would lose both their investment, whatever it was, and the property, because chances are, the title insurance wouldn’t have paid. Pages 280-460
