Category: Ethics

Allegations of misconduct against Red Rock Financial Services attorney

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 because the State Bar would not investigate complaints without it. Below is my statement of intent.

The motion was made in good faith and supported by verified evidence

Summary of 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Red Rock attorney Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC

  1. Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC is the attorney for Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) that conducted the disputed HOA foreclosure sale usurping the statutory authority of the HOA.
  2. Scow knew that this critical case-concluding phrase in the 4/18/19 order was false, “The totality of the facts evidence that the HOA properly followed the processes and procedures in foreclosing upon the Property”.
  3. Despite knowing the order was based on the false evidence Scow himself produced, Scow and/or other attorneys under his direction, repeatedly relied on it in meritless filings and court hearings that succeeded in obstructing a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims based solely on verified evidence on at least these dates: 6/23/20, 8/3/20, 8/11/20, 4/16/21, 4/27/21, 4/29/21, 5/11/21, 8/19/21, 10/22/21, 11/16/21, 12/28/21, 1/19/22, 5/25/22, 6/13/22.
  4. The 3/1/22 complaint overview to the Bar vs. Scow and table of contents of exhibits are quoted here:
  5. 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906) is quoted/summarized here:
  6. Steven Scow, the subject of this instant complaint, represents Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132), that secretly sold my late fiancé’s house allegedly at a properly noticed and conducted HOA sale.
  7. Steven Scow produced false evidence and concealed inculpatory evidence in response to my 2/4/19 subpoena that was relied on by the court to grant a meritless motion for summary judgment for quiet title by the HOA (even though the HOA had no interest in the title to protect). Upon information and belief, the HOA filed the motion for improper purposes, i.e., to cover up the fraudulent conduct of the sale and/or to retaliate against me for being a whistleblower.
  8. The HOA’s motion, and Nationstar’s equally meritless joinder, were granted by the order entered on 4/18/19 by the court’s relying solely on Steven Scow-produced Red Rock’s unverified, uncorroborated, and sometimes blatantly falsified, foreclosure record.
  9. Steven Scow’s and David Ochoa’s fraudulent misrepresentation to the court of the Red Rock unverified file as the HOA’s official records, is the proximate and direct cause of three more years of litigation for which I have accrued $317,532.76 in attorneys’ fees and much more in personal and financial cost.
  10. All subsequent orders in district court cases A-15-720032-C, A-19-799890-C, A-21-828840-C and in appeals 79295 and 82294 were the fruit of this poison tree of falsified documents used to inaccurately depict the HOA sale as compliant with all legal requirements in Nevada statutes and the HOA governing documents.
  11. My complaint against Steven Scow is much larger than my individual case. It also focuses on his refusal to distribute the excess proceeds from this sale (despite my repeated unheard civil and administrative claims), AND from a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 sales, AND from an unknown number of other sales conducted by Red Rock over the years.
  12. 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906was supported by the following exhibits that were rejected by the Assistant Bar Counsel without the investigation required by SCR 104(1)(a):
  13. Exhibit A Scow presented false evidence in response to Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena.
  14. Exhibit B Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained, to this day, the excess proceeds of Sun City Anthem HOA foreclosure sales after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
  15. Exhibit C Scow also unlawfully retained excess proceeds from foreclosures by other HOAs after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
  16. Exhibit D Scow did not produce subpoenaed documents that contained inculpatory evidence without claiming privilege.
  17. Exhibit E Steven Scow failed to identify the partners who are unfairly profiting by these statutorily non-compliant sales and Scow’s failure to distribute the excess proceeds.
  18. Exhibit F Steven Scow filed meritless claims, motions, and oppositions to evade judicial scrutiny of inculpatory evidence.
  19. Exhibit G-1 SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws after being intentionally misinformed about the law by Scow’s clients.
  20. Exhibit G-2 Legal limits on closed HOA meetings in SCA governing documents were disregarded because Scow’s clients intentionally misinformed the SCA Board about them.
  21. Exhibit H-1 “We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case”
  22. Exhibit H-2 “HOA debt collectors wield an unlawful level of power”
  23. Exhibit H-3 “The House that took over a Life”
  24. Exhibit H-4 Exhibit 5 of 3/8/21 Tobin’ A-21-828840-C Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-claims that shows that required notices for the sale were not provided, but the records were falsified to cover it up and “HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think”  Cost more
  25. Exhibit H-5 Call for an audit of the co-mingled, unaudited account(s) where Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained the excess proceeds he was instructed to remit to the court in 2014.
  26. Scow knew, but concealed that Red Rock unlawfully sold the property for $63,100 without notice on 8/15/14, three months after Nona Tobin had already been accepted the high bid of $367,500 on 5/8/14 from MZK Properties on auction.com, but that Nationstar would not let escrow close on a sale that was five times higher than the Red Rock sale.
  27. Pages 14 to 20 of the draft complaint against Scow list and describe the specific false evidence he entered into the court record in response to subpoena.
  28. False evidence (partial list) was entered into the court record via the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425).
  1. RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf– the date was scrubbed, Red Rock misrepresented to the Board “As of today, RRFS is unaware of any buyer that is lined up…” when Red Rock was aware the property had already been sold on auction.com three months earlier and Nationstar had sent a notice that it would pay one year of assessments to close escrow on the 5/8/14 auction.com sale.
  2. RRFS 095 is SCA 277..png is a doctored combination of unrelated emails to misrepresent that no notice was actually sent to the owner in response to Nationstar’s 5/28/14 $1100 offer. Annotated version – (SCA 277)
  3. RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a letter that was provably never sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14 as “no return to sender – deceased” was disclosed
  4. RRFS 123 DATE SCRUBBED RE 140515 SCHEDULED SALE.pdf– date was scrubbed
  5. RRFS 124 IS 140318 REQ 4 PAYOFF .pdf– on 3/18/14 Red Rock agent Christie Marling acknowledged Chicago Title’s request for payoff figures but asked to delay response until the Board reviewed a pending request for a waiver on 3/27/14. (RRFS 129)
  6. RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf has scrubbed out the 3/18/14 Chicago Title request for payoff figures, the 3/27/14 Board approval of a $400 fee waiver, and the 3/28/14 Red Rock demand for $
  7. RRFS 128 IS SCA 315.pdf and SCA 315 misrepresented how the Board approved the sale. Board Resolution R005-120513 at the 12/5/13 meeting did not approve the sale of this property or any other SCA property.
  8. Red Rock concealed in discovery its 3/28/14 demand to Chicago Title that shows on page 6 that the board approved a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction on 3/27/14.
  9. Red Rock provided falsified accounts so that the Board’s approval of a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction did not show as an entry on 3/27/14 on future ledgers. (RRFS 076) and (SCA 255) and (SCA 303) and (RRFS 103)
  10. Red Rock concealed in discovery the applicable 4/27/12 debt collection contract that required Red Rock to indemnify Sun City Anthem and hold it harmless if any claims were brought alleging misconduct Red Rock’s part which caused a minimum of $150,000 in damages to the HOA.
  11. RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a falsified notice that was never sent to Tobin’s address at 2664 Olivia Heights Ave. as alleged. Tobin has stated multiple times under oath that she received no notice whatsoever from Red Rock after the 2/12/14 notice of the 3/7/14 sale which was not held because the property was in escrow with a $340,000 cash offer pending lender approval.
  12. RRFS 189-190 RES TRAN NO PAGE NUMBERS.pdf scrubbed the sequentially-numbered page numbers 1335 and 1336 from the resident transaction report (Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage and Tobin’s address at 2664 Olivia Heights)
  13. RRFS 398-399 RES TRAN 376.21 121205.pdf scrubbed the sequentially numbered page numbers 1334 and 1335 from the resident transaction report
  14. RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf scrubbed the sequentially-numbered page numbers 1334 – 1336 from the resident transaction report
  15. RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf Red Rock withheld in discovery all the financial transactions on resident transaction report pages 1336 – 1337 from 7/31/14 through 9/25/14, concealing thereby that the HOA has no record that 2763 White Sage was ever sold on 8/15/14, or any other date, and shows no entry in any ledger that confirms the alleged $63,100 was collected from a sale.
  16. Red Rock concealed page 1337 of the Resident Transaction Report that shows that Jimijack – not Opportunity Homes – became the second owner of the property on 9/25/14 and that there is no record of Opportunity Homes LLC or F. Bondurant LLC ever owning the property.
  17.  RRFS 305 – 311 shows that Red Rock responded to a payoff request from Ticor Title on 5/29/13 with a demand for $3,055.47 three weeks after Red Rock covertly rejected the Miles Bauer $825 tender when only $825 in assessments were then delinquent.

What allegations of attorney misconduct were made against Sun City Anthem Attorneys

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 against David Ochoa and Adam Clarkson that was accompanied by a Request for Judicial Notice of a complaint filed with the State Bar.

The complaint had not been investigated by the State Bar as shown below. I had to get a court order with written findings before they would investigate these allegations.

Their actions prevented my quiet title case from being resolved fairly in 2017-2019.

They covered up the fraud of the HOA’s former agents by lying to the court and framing me.

  1. David Ochoa, Lipson Neilson P. C., under direction from Adam Clarkson, The Clarkson Law Group, were the lawyers for Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc., party in the first action who presented the falsified Red Rock foreclosure files to the court and misrepresented them as if they were the HOA’s concealed official records SCA’s attorneys filed a meritless motion for summary judgment to quiet a title in which the HOA held no interest and supported it with the falsified Red Rock records. SCA’s attorneys defamed Tobin and unlawfully removed her from her elected position on the HOA Board for being a party to the quiet title litigation of a house she inherited and have pursued a relentless campaign of harassment and retaliation against her over the past five years both for being a litigant herein and for being a whistleblower about other unrelated HOA matters.
  2. SCA attorneys usurped the statutory authority of the HOA Board to enforce, and to impose fines and sanctions for alleged violations of, the HOA’s governing documents according to the terms of the Act (NRS 116). SCA attorneys obstructed Tobin’s access to Alternate Dispute Resolution (CC&Rs XVI, NRS 38.310) and then used abusive, potentially criminal (NRS 199.480(2)(c), NRS 199.210, NRS 193.130(d), NRS 199.145) litigation tactics to obstruct her ability to fully and fairly litigate her civil claims.
  3. SCA attorneys acted in bad faith and did not serve the interests of the HOA or the common good of the HOA membership at large. The attorneys acted for their own self-interest (Clarkson) or in the interest of other parties (Clarkson and Ochoa), e.g., Sandy Seddon, Red Rock or the HOA’s insurance carrier
  4. Defendant Ochoa made false statements to the court on at least these dates 3/28/17 RTRAN, 4/27/17 RTRAN, 5/23/17 RTRAN, 5/25/17 RTRAN, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 RTRAN,  9/10/19 video, 9/10/19 minutes, submitted a false document to the court on these dates: 3/22/17, 3/27/17, 3/31/17, 4/18/17, 9/20/17. 4/20/18,  2/5/19, 3/6/19, 4/18/19, 5/2/19, 5/24/19, 5/31/19, 8/8/19, 8/9/19, 8/22/19, 11/22/19, 3/30/20, 7/1/20, or improperly withheld material information from the court on at least these dates: 5/31/18, 2/11/19, 2/26/19, 2/26/19, and caused serious injury to Tobin as an individual, and caused a significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.
  5. Ochoa knew that this phrase that he wrote into the 4/18/19 order was false,

“The totality of the facts evidence that the HOA properly followed the processes and procedures in foreclosing upon the Property”.

  • All documentary evidence, including declarations under penalty of perjury and sworn affidavits, put before the court on, inter alia, these dates: 9/23/16, 1/31/17, 3/3/17, 2/9/18, 5/31/18, 7/13/18, 12/5/18, 2/7/19, 2/12/19, 2/20/19, 2/26/19, 2/26/9, 2/27/19, 2/28/19. 2/28/19, 4/10/19, 4/12/19, 4/17/19, 4/24/19, 4/29/19, 5/23/19, 8/20/19, 8/26/19 – support the Tobin/Hansen Trust claims. However, the court relied solely on misrepresentations and false evidence by Ochoa and other opposing counsels, to adopt the erroneous orders entered on 4/18/19, 5/31/19 and 6/24/19.
  • Despite knowing the order was based on the false evidence Ochoa himself produced or the true evidence that he himself concealed and withheld, Ochoa and/or other attorneys under his direction, repeatedly relied on it in meritless filings and court hearings that succeeded in obstructing a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims based solely on verified evidence on at least these dates: 4/27/17 RTRAN, 5/23/17 RTRAN, 5/25/17 RTRAN, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 RTRAN,  9/10/19 video, 9/10/19 minutes, 3/22/17, 3/27/17, 3/31/17, 4/18/17, 9/20/17. 4/20/18,  2/5/19, 5/31/18, 2/11/19, 2/26/19, 2/26/19,
  • The order, authored by Ochoa, entered on 5/31/19, contains the false statements, completely unsupported by any verified evidence, (See EXHIBIT C of 3/6/22 Bar complaint.) that:

“The substantial exhibits that have been submitted in this case demonstrate that Nona Tobin as Trustee of the Trust was aware of the foreclosure and did nothing to stop the foreclosure. The May 2, 2019 (sic) Order, without addressing superpriority, establishes the HOA had a valid lien and properly noticed the foreclosure sale.”

  • Pages 48 to 55 of the draft complaint against Ochoa and Clarkson delineate the false evidence they entered into the court record primarily via records obtained from Steven Scow.
  • Exhibit A: Ochoa Obstructed Settlement
  • Exhibit C: Misrepresented and Suppressed Evidence
  • Exhibit D: Concealed Evidence
  • Exhibit E: Disclosed false & falsified evidence
  • Exhibit E-1 Disputed facts in Red Rock foreclosure file in SCA 176 – 643
  • Exhibit E-2 Examples of false evidence
  • Exhibit E-3 Red Rock Foreclosure file is false, falsified and disclosed as SCA 176-643
  • Exhibit F: Filed non-meritorious claims
  • Exhibit G: Concealed there were no Valid Board Actions
  • Exhibit G-1 Limits on closed HOA Board meetings
  • 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 conducted by Red Rock Financial Services in SCA 2012-2014 agendas and minutes excerpted for items related to foreclosure or debt
  • Exhibit G-5 is 5/23/19 Exhibit 5 “No valid board authorization for the sale” was misrepresented by David Ochoa and ignored by the court
  • Exhibit H – More disputed facts in the order (NEO 4/18/19) that granted the HOA MSJ and Nationstar joinder

Clarkson unlawfully removed me from my elected seat on the SCA Board in 2017 and has obstructed my running every year since

Judge Peterson’s impartiality can reasonably be questioned by declaring Red Rock LLC was a party

The court can’t render judgment for or against a non-party

Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“the district court entered judgment on this un-asserted claim without conducting a trial (and without employing any recognized trial substitute such as NRCP 12(c) or 56). Instead, the court simply resolved all pending factual and legal disputes on its own, in chambers, without hearing the sworn testimony of any witnesses, without applying any rules of evidence or any recognized procedures for admitting evidence, without permitting the parties to assert any objections to any evidence, without permitting any cross-examination of any witness by any party, and without identifying the legal standards used to resolve any factual or legal disputes, and without entering findings of fact and conclusions of law.”)

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”)

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)). ”)

“A district court may render judgment for or against a person only where the court has jurisdiction over the parties. C.H.A. Venture v. G. C. Wallace Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 383, 794 P.2d 707, 708 (1990). Thus, a court may not enter a judgment for or against a nonparty.”

NRCP 10(a)(1) The complaint must name all the parties

10(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court’s name, the county, a title, a case number, and a 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 Rule 10. Form of Pleadings

Pacific States Sec. Co. v. District Court, 48 Nev. 53 (Nev. 1924)

“Parties are those who are named as such in the record, and who are properly served with process, or enter their appearance. 20 R.C.L. p. 662; Womach v. City of St. Joseph, 201 Mo. 467, 100 S.W. 443, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 140.”

A party must file an appearance, and no attorney ever appeared for Red Rock LLC

A court does not have jurisdiction over non-parties

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.””)

Red Rock LLC did not intervene as a timely motion and an interest in the proceedings would have been required.

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 relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, i.e., it never had any relationship to the HOA, the interpleaded proceeds, or this dispute, other than sharing an attorney and a similar name with the Plaintiff.

The 2/3/21 complaint must identify ALL the parties per NRCP 10a1 and Red Rock LLC is NOT named as the Plaintiff

Red Rock LLC did not serve any summons to claim relief as the plaintiff

I filed the only counter- and cross-claims, and I did not serve any claims against Red Rock LLC.

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.

Red Rock LLC is not, therefore, a counter-defendant just because Scow added an LLC designation to counter-defendant in the caption.

No party timely responded to my 3/8/21 claims so I filed 1st 4/12/21 motion for the proceeds

No party timely (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B) responded to my 3/8/21 claims so I filed a 4/15/21 motion for summary judgment

Counter -claims require a timely responsive pleading (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B))

(B) A party must serve an answer to a counterclaim or crossclaim within 21 days after being served with the pleading that states the counterclaim or crossclaim.

Rule 12.(a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.

4/16/21 Scow filed a rogue, unsupported NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss on behalf of non-party Red Rock LLC the day after I filed my MSJ because no party filed a timely answer to my 3/8/21 AACC.

12/28/21 Non-party Red Rock LLC filed an improper opposition to my motion for an evidentiary hearing and a motion for vexatious litigant restrictive order against me and motions for attorneys fees when it had no standing to be in the case

6/13/22 Non-party Red Rock LLC filed an improper opposition to my 2nd motion for the proceeds with interest and penalties for being wrongfully withheld 8+ years and another motion for a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me for moving to correct the orders for the party identification and another motion for legal fees.

Judge Peterson granted the non-party’s 6/13/22 motion for attorney fees but Scow didn’t accurately write the 1/9/23 order

I insisted that my opposition be added and a corrected order was filed on 1/16/23

1/23/23 I filed motion to reconsider this 1/16/23 order because it was granting the motion of a non-party and because it did not deny my prior 6/27/22 motion to strike the rogue filings of non-party Red Rock LLC in an written appealable order.

State, Div. Child Fam. Servs. v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 445, 452 (Nev. 2004) (“[p]rior to the entry of a final judgment the district court remains free to reconsider and issue a written judgment different from its oral pronouncement.” Consequently, we stated that “[a]n oral pronouncement of judgment is not valid for any purpose; therefore, only a written judgment has any effect, and only a written judgment may be appealed.””)

2/10/23 I filed an order granting these motions as unopposed

2/15/23 court denied because of ex parte hearing I knew nothing about

Judge Peterson just ex parte declared “Red Rock is a party” and I’m a vexatious litigant and the court rules don’t apply to my opponents

1/23/23 motions ask for equal treatment of non-parties to fairly end this dispute

Judge Peterson allowed Scow to write the order. The order misrepresents the motion to reconsider as “frivolous” and violating the court’s admonitions.

It is not improper to move to strike the rogue filings of a non-party. It is asking for equal treatment.

Who controls CAI and its 50 state HOA lobbying committees?

HOAGOV reprint Who controls CAI and its 50 state HOA lobbying committees?

by George K. Staropoli, first published 3/11/12

I believe this shows that a tiny group of attorneys and HOA managers have for more than a decade crushed the rights of millions of HOA homeowners by convincing legislators nationwide that they were speaking for the best interests of HOA homeowners when they were really the mouthpiece for the trade association of the HOA managers, attorneys and other agents who “service” the HOAs for their own enrichment.

Voluntary recusal is the high road and the path of least resistance, but for Judge Peterson, it is also the road not taken. Why?

Judge Peterson refused to recuse herself from the decision about whether to vacate ex parte vexatious litigant restrictive order. Why?

12/19/22 Tobin motion for an order to show cause (“MOSC”) why written finding of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar to avoid Tobin having to file separate civil actions because the State Bar will not investigate the complaints without a court order that contains written findings. The MOSC was supported by Requests for judicial notice of the uninvestigated complaints and the draft civil actions that would have to be filed separately if this court declined to file

3/28/23 order as it was adopted without notice or opportunity to oppose

Tobin’s opposition that Judge Peterson steadfastly refused to allow to be attached to the 3/28/23 order rendering it virtually impossible to appeal

Tobin’s 4/26/23 motion to disqualify Judge Peterson as her impartiality can reasonably be questioned due to improper ex parte communications and acting outside her jurisdiction and conduct in the hearings that showed she made decisions by relying solely on the misrepresentations of opposing counsels and without consideration of Tobin’s evidence. Chief Judge is requested to set aside Judge Peterson’s orders on t from the decision to set aside the orders first on jurisdictional grounds and then on Rules 59 and/or 60 misconduct of the prevailing parties.

5/3/23 Judge Peterson’s affidavit misstates the court record including misrepresenting who the parties are, stating that the case is over, the appeal period is over, but that she can be fair and handle any decisions that are remaining. Given that by refusing to recuse herself is the only way she can guarantee that her extraordinarily harsh and damaging orders against me, that prevent my title claims from ever being adjudicated based on evidence, can stand, why is she insisting on it? What’s in it for her?

5/10/23 Non-party Red Rock LLC’s opposition to my 4/26/23 motion reiterates the same false version of history that omits the fact that there has never been an evidentiary adjudication of anyone’s claims in this case ever and omits the basic fact that he filed the interpleader action in bad faith knowing that Red Rock didn’t have standing to file it, the legal standard for interpleader was not met, and I was the only person with standing to file a claim for the interpleaded proceeds since 6/3/19 before the show trial in the 1st action.

Tobin’s 5/20/23 Declaration and Reply to Steven Scow’s and Judge Peterson’s Opposition to Judge Peterson’s recusing herself from the decision to set aside the 3/28/23

Voluntary recusal is both the high road and the path of least resistance, but for Judge Peterson, it is also the road not taken. Why?

Judges are expected to promote confidence in the judiciary by performing fairly and impartially

Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) provisions implicated in my motion to disqualify Judge Peterson.

Rule 1.1.  Compliance With the Law.  A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.     

Rule 1.2.  Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

 2.2.  Impartiality and Fairness.  A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.

 Rule 2.9.  Ex Parte Communications.

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

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

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

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

The standard of review is if a reasonable person knowing the facts would agree that Judge Peterson should be disqualified from the case.

I contend that Judge Peterson did not treat me fairly or promote confidence in the judiciary by specific actions or inactions. Each example will be presented separately along with hyperlinks to the documentary evidence.

8/19/21 Judge Peterson did not end the meritless interpleader action in my favor in 2021. She left it hanging for two years and wrongly dismissed my other legitimate claims with prejudice without considering the evidence or the law.

02/03/212Doc ID# 2 Complaint for interpleader
3/8/202114Doc 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
4/12/202122Doc ID# 22 Nona Tobin’s Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin

2/17/202113Doc ID# 13 Disclaimer of interest – Republic Services
3/15/202115Doc 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

4/9/202120Doc ID# 20 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Answer to Red Rock Financial Services’ Complaint for Interpleader (NRCP 22)

On 8/19/21, she refused to hear and decide my motion to grant me the $57,282.32 excess proceeds from the 8/15/14 HOA sale of late fiance’s home, plus interest at the Nevada legal interest rate when these things were undisputed at that time:

  1. I was the only party who had timely filed a claim for the proceeds
  2. I was the only party who had ever filed a civil claim for the proceeds.
  3. Nevada law (NRS 116.31164(3)(c ) required those proceeds be distributed in the manner proscribed in the statute after the sale in 2014.
  4. All fees that the statute allowed Red Rock to collect Red Rock had collected before the $57,282.32 was declared “excess” as shown on page 3, #10 “In connection with the foreclosure sale, the Association was paid the money it was owed, and RRFS was paid its fees and costs incurred in collecting the debt as allowed by contract and Nevada law. After paying these costs, RRFS was left with funds of $57,282.32.”
  5. Red Rock’s statement in the complaint on page 3, #12, is provably false and rendered the entire interpleader action to be meritless and unwarranted and filed for an improper purpose.“Records in Clark County, Nevada indicate that there are several potential liens and other debts secured by the Subject Property belonging to the defendants in this action. RRFS believes these debts exceed the amount currently in the possession of RRFS.”
  6. Records in Clark County for the property, APN 191-13-811-052, in their entirety were provided to the court in a request for judicial notice that I filed on 3/15/21 and hand-delivered in 3-ring binders to the court on the 11th floor of the Phoenix Building on or about 5/11/21, show exactly that the liens of all the named defendants except me as an individual were released June 3, 2019 or before and so it was impossible for this to have been an innocent mistake. An interpleader action requires the multiple competing interests and potential mu

Petition for the enforcement of the Judicial and Professional Codes of Conduct failed

The State Bar of Nevada refused to investigate complaints of attorney misconduct without a court order.

Linked Table of Contents of Appellant’s Appendices in Nevada Supreme Court

case 84371

I asked the Supreme Court to order the State Bar to investigate because it was an undue hardship on the victim to get a court order.

The petition for Writs of Mandate vs. the State Bar of Nevada and the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline was supported by a 36 -volume appendix that contained all the evidence that had been submitted to the State Bar and the NCJC, but had not been investigated. The uninvestigated complaints are linked below.

FILED DATETOBIN BATES NUMBERDOCUMENT DESCRIPTIONNEVADA SUPREME COURT FILE NUMBER
3/15/2022PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEVADA JUDICIAL AND PROFESSIONAL CODES OF CONDUCT22-08149
3/15/2022PETITION FOR EXCESS PAGES22-08150
3/15/2022EXPANDED TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUMES 1-3622-08152
5/18/2022AMENDED PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEVADA JUDICIAL AND PROFESSIONAL CODES OF CONDUCT22-15670
VOLUMEAPPENDIX VOLUME CONTENTS
1001 -104A-15-720032-C orders that were obtained by fraud22-08156
2105 – 201A-19-799890-CANDA-21-828840-C ORDERS OBTAINED BY FRAUD22-08160
3202-27979295 AND 82294 ORDERS AND 1ST BAR REJECTED COMPLAINT22-08162
4280-4602ND AND 3RD BAR COMPLAINTS AND REJECTIONS22-08163
5461-646NCJD COMPLAINT ATTACHMENTS 1-722-08164
6647-828NCJD ATTACHMENTS 8-1222-08165
7829-946NCJD ATTACH 13 AND 14 NATIONSTAR AND EX PARTE22-08167
8947-1157NCJD Attach 15 obstruction of forced litigation22-08168
91158-1284NCJD Attach 16 EX PARTE STRICKEN PART 122-08169
101285-1431NCJD Attach 16 EX PARTE STRICKEN PART222-08170
111432-1676NCJD Attach 16 190417 EVIDENCE EXHIBITS 1-3 STRICKEN PART 322-08171
121677-1823NCJD Attach 16 190417 EVIDENCE EXHIBITS 4-9 EX PARTE STRICKEN PART 422-08172
131824-1949NCJD Attach 16 190417 PROOFS OF SERVICE EX PARTE STRICKEN PART 522-08173
141950-2064NCJD Attach 16 EVIDENCE VS NATIONSTAR EX PARTE STRICKEN PART 622-08174
152058-2120NCJD Attach 16 ANNOTATED ORDERS AND COURT RECORD PART 722-08175
162121 -22994/24/19 MVAC PER NRCP 60(b) AND CMSJ vs all AND 6/17/19 Motion to intervene as individual per NRCP 24 UNHEARD PART 122-08176
172300-24926/17/19 Motion to intervene as individual per NRCP 24 unheard PART 222-08178
182493-26996/17/19 Motion to intervene as individual per NRCP 24 PART 3 AND 7/22/19 Motion for a new trial PER NRCP 54(b) AND NRCP 59(a)(1)(A)(B)(C)(D)(F) PART 122-08179
192700-29197/22/19 Motion for a new Trial NRCP 54(b) AND NRCP 59(a)(1)(A)(B)(C)(D)(F) stricken PART 222-08180
202920-30377/29/29 motion to dismiss PER NRS 38.310.2; 8/7/19 COMPLAINT ABUSE OF PROCESS CLAIM VS. MORGAN, HONG & OCHOA @ 3025-303122-08181
213038-31683/8/21 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 dismissed with prejudice per NRCP 12(b)(5) res judicata.22-08182
223169-3367NONA TOBIN S THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT 1. ABUSE OF PROCESS 2. RACKETEERING (NRS 207.360(9)(18)(29)(30)(35); NRS 207.390, NRS 207.400(1)(2) 3. FRAUD NRS 205.330, NRS 205.360, NRS 205.372, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.395, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175 4. RESTITUTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED EXCEEDS $15,000 5. EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES PURSUANT TO NRS 42.005, NRS 207.470(1) & (4) 6. SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO NRCP 11(b)(1-4); NRPC 3.1, 3.3, 3.4,3.5(b), 4.1, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 8.3, 8.4 vs. STEVEN B. SCOW; BRODY R. WIGHT; JOSEPH HONG; MELANIE MORGAN; DAVID OCHOA; BRITTANY WOOD withdrawn, not served within 120 days PART 122-08183
233368 – 3543NONA TOBIN S THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT 1. ABUSE OF PROCESS 2. RACKETEERING (NRS 207.360(9)(18)(29)(30)(35); NRS 207.390, NRS 207.400(1)(2) 3. FRAUD NRS 205.330, NRS 205.360, NRS 205.372, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.395, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175 4. RESTITUTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED EXCEEDS $15,000 5. EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES PURSUANT TO NRS 42.005, NRS 207.470(1) & (4) 6. SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO NRCP 11(b)(1-4); NRPC 3.1, 3.3, 3.4,3.5(b), 4.1, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 8.3, 8.4 vs. STEVEN B. SCOW; BRODY R. WIGHT; JOSEPH HONG; MELANIE MORGAN; DAVID OCHOA; BRITTANY WOOD (was withdrawn as it was not served within 120 days) PART 2; 4/12/21 Nona Tobin’s Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin; 4/15/21 Counter-Claimant & Cross-Claimant Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment vs. Counter-Defendant Red Rock Financial Services and Cross¬Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC & Wells Fargo, N.A. and Motion for Punitive Damages and Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.401(1) and/or NRS 42.005; 11/10/21 Nona Tobin’s Three-Day Notice of Intent to Take Default vs. Wells Fargo, N.A. as to Tobin’s Cross-Claims Filed on March 8, 2021; 11/10/21Nona Tobin’s Three-Day Notice of Intent to Take Default vs. Nationstar. as to Tobin’s Cross-Claims Filed on March 8, 2021 and 2/18/21, 5/11/21, 5/21/21, & 5/25/21 NCJD TOBIN COMMUNICATIONS22-08184
243544-37363/15/21 RFJN 2003-2019 PROPERTY RECORD PART 122-08185
253738-39393/15/21 RFJN 2020-2021 PROPERTY RECORD PART 2.22-08186
263940-40444/4/21 RFJN UNADJUDICATED CLAIMS; 4/7/21 RFJN LAWS 210409 NRCP 16.1 DISCLOSURES22-08187 DUPLICATE WAS REPLACED ON 4/12/22 BY 22-11463
274045-41542/23/22 BAR COMPLAINT VS. MELANIE MORGAN22-08189
284155-42592/28/22 WRIGHT FINLEY ZAK BAR COMPLAINT22-08190
294260-43543/2/22 STEVEN SCOW BAR COMPLAINT AND EX A FALSE EVIDENCE22-08191
304355- 4438STEVEN SCOW BAR COMPLAINT EX B-F RETAINED PROCEEDS22-08192
314439-4603STEVEN SCOW BAR COMPLAINT EXHIBITS F -H-522-08194
324604 – 4733BAR COMPLAINT VS. DAVID 3/6/22 OCHOA EXHIBITS A-D22-08195
33.14734 – 4847BAR COMPLAINT VS. OCHOA EXHIBITS E, E-1, E-2, 3-3 AND F22-08196
33.2  ADDS INCORRECTLY NUMBERED EXHIBIT H-1 TO OCHOA EXHIBITS E, E-1, E-2, 3-3 AND F (4734-4847)22-08198
344848 – 5046BAR COMPLAINT VS. OCHOA EXHIBITS G, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, H, ONLINE RECEIPT22-08199
355047 – 5204PRO SE A-21-828840-C FAILED ATTEMPTS TO GET ORDER WITH WRITTEN FINDINGS OF ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT22-08200
365205 – 5282A-21-88840-C 8/19/21, 11/16/21, and 1/18/22 HEARING TRANSCRIPTS22-08218
26 CORRECTED3944-40444/4/21 RFJN UNADJUDICATED CLAIMS; 4/7/21 RFJN LAWS 210409 NRCP 16.1 DISCLOSURES OMITTED IN ERROR FROM THE COURT”S 84371 PUBLIC PORTAL. CORRECTED 4/12/2222-11463
Volumes 22, 23, and 35 were my unsuccessful attempts to written findings of the attorney misconduct that made winning civil litigation a virtual impossibility. Volumes 5-15 related to the judicial misconduct in the 1st action. Because these failed, history repeated itself in the 3rd action.

On 8/11/22, the Supreme Court ruled that an appeal was a speedy and adequate remedy for me, and there was no need its extraordinary intervention.

This order meant that the Nevada Supreme Court was okay with requiring the victim to get a court order with written findings of attorney misconduct as a condition precedent to the State Bar beginning any investigation of alleged violations of ethical rules.

So I tried again.

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…but that led to an obviously unwarranted vexatious litigant restrictive order.

The saga continues…

Vexatious litigant restrictive bench order improperly issued without notice ex parte

2/10/23 not knowing what was going on behind my back,

I turned a proposed order into the court pursuant to EDCR 2.23(b) to grant several unopposed orders as because no one filed an a timely written opposition pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)

If a party doesn’t file a written opposition to a motion, the court should grant the motion as unopposed. Judge Peterson excused Nationstar and Red Rock from this requirement repeatedly in this case.

“Within 10 days after the service of the motion, and 5 days after service of any joinder to the motion, the opposing party must serve and file written notice of nonopposition or opposition thereto, together with a memorandum of points and authorities andsupporting affidavits, if any, stating facts showing why the motion and/or joinder should be denied. Failure of the opposing party toserve and file written opposition may be construed as an admission that the motion and/or joinder is meritorious and a consent to granting the same.”

EDCR 2.20(e)

Order granting motions pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)

EDCR 2.23(b) is a procedural rule telling the movant to draft an order granting the motion and submit it to the judge’s chambers for signatuere if there is no written opposition.

When I followed this rule, Judge Peterson told me to stop or she would issue an order for me to show cause why I shouldn’t be held in contempt. Then she out of the blus, skipped that step and entered a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me. That means that any compaint or motion or opposition I want to file has to first be approved by Judge Peterson and the Chief Judge of the 8th Judicial District Court. Completely unjustified and pretty annoying.

“EDCR 2.23(b) If the time to oppose a motion has passed and no opposition has been filed, counsel for the moving party may submit an order granting the motion pursuant to Rule 2.20 to the chambers of the assigned department.

EDCR 2.23(b)

I was shocked by the court’s 2/15/23 rejection email (without these details) that :

1) there was an ex parte hearing on 2/2/23;

2) the court exempted my opponents unfairly from the court rule (EDCR 2.20(e)) that requires filing a written opposition to a motion,

3) my unopposed 1/23/23 motions scheduled for hearing on 2/28/23 were denied in my absence on 2/2/23, and

My motions were scheduled to be heard on 2/28/23
My motions, scheduled to be heard on 2/28/23, were denied in my absence on 2/2/23. These minutes were published on the website, but not served on the parties, on 2/2/23, and they inaccurately misrepresent that the judge decided the matter in chambers with no one present. However, the judge met ex parte with my opponents as is show in the transcript that was published in the court record on 3/3/23 (2/2/23 ex parte transcript)

4) I was unjustly declared a vexatious litigant in absentia four hours before I filed my opposition to Nationstar’s 1/24/23 motion to have me declared one.

I submitted a new proposed order for the court to deny all my motions on the grounds that EDCR 2.20(e) was not apparently not applicable to my opponents.

I attached 230216 order denying all motions

My proposed order wrote the true facts and the conclusions of law the judge was actually nonsensically drawing.

Steven Scow responded that the court asked him to prepare the order and that he would CIRCULATE it (typically this means approve as to form and content)

The court just rejected my order without specifying a reason.

I resubmitted a detailed request emphasizing how wrong it was to have Steven Scow write an ex parte order given that 1) Scow misrepresents material facts repeatedly, 2) the court did not consider my oppositions; and 3) neither the court nor my opponents complied with court rules when they ex parte deprived me of my substantive rights.

The court reiterated its rejection and just said NO

The court stubbornly insists that i chose not to attend a hearing for which I had no notice and that on 1/23/23 I requested be vacated as moot. See below.

I received no notice of the 2/2/23 hearing. I did not receive a phone call like the court claimed in the transcript.

If the court called, why wouldn’t I have gotten a message? Did they dial the wrong number? Did they only let it ring once? Why didn’t the court send me a Bluejeans link to appear like the court sent for every other hearing i ever went to since this case began in February 2021.
Ex parte communications are improper when they damage the absent party. I don’t see how the judge can think she is being fair by telling them it is not necessary for them to file an opposition to my 1/23/23 motion to reconsider that she was just going to deny it.

On 1/23/23 I had requested that the 2/2/23 hearing be vacated as moot.

I did not receive a Bluejeans link for the 2/2/23 hearing. There was no timely written opposition filed from either of the two attorneys who were specifically agendized for 2/2/23 (Wood and Hong). Neither Turley nor Scow were scheduled on the 2/2/23 agenda

NCJC 2.9 ex parte communications are impermissible if it allows a “procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage” over the absent party

ABA standard 6.31b recommends disbarment if this type ex parte communication is orchestrated by an attorney

By 2/21/23, published Court minutes of the 2/2/23 ex parte hearing did not show my 12/19/22 motion for an order to show cause why written finding should not be forwarded to the State Bar so I submitted another unopposed order granting the motion pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)

Apparently Judge Jessica Peterson thinks it is outrageous that attorneys should be held to any ethical standards.

Here was her answer:

Go away. Shut up.

“The next submission into OIC will result in the court issuing an order to show cause as to why you should not be held in contempt.”

2/21/23 Judge Peterson

3/28/23 – without issuing an order to show cause, and without another peep from me, the court entered a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me for what?

I think Judge Peterson’s impartiality can reasonably be questioned.

Is it unreasonable for me to have to tried to move the court to hold the attorneys, banks or debt collectors accountable to the rule of law and professional ethics standards?

Here are links to the 3/28/23 restrictive order and denial of my 12/19/22, 1/3/23, and 1/23/23 motions in absentia ex parte on 2/2/23 with opposition filed only to the 1/3/23 motions by Red Rock on 1/17/23 and by Nationstar on 1/24/23.

The court denied all my motions and did not consider the motions and replies I filed on these dates 12/14/21, 1/10/22, 1/10/22, 5/30/22, 6/27/22, 2/2/23, 2/20/23 to say that Red Rock and Nationstar should not be listened to because, basically, they are lying to cover up that they are stealing, they don’t have standing to oppose me for various other different reasons.

My 12/19/22 and 1/23/23 motions should have been granted as unopposed, just as my 3/8/21 and 6/27/22 motions should have been granted as unopposed.

but because

Judge Peterson doesn’t think the court rules apply equally to everybody, she’s telling me to shut up when I say that the attorneys are covering up fraud that frequently involves felonies, and she’s oblivious to the fact that the attorneys are lying about everything that matters.

The bottom line

Basically, everything I file is asking the court to look at the evidence because ALL THE VERIFIED EVIDENCE SUPPORTS MY CLAIMS AND NONE SUPPORTS MY OPPONENTS.

Conversely, everything my opponents file is sn opposition to me that they have on standing to make or it is a harassing motion to restrict my access to an evidence -bsed adjuciation of my legitimate claims by an impartial tribunal because NONE OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST ME.

That’s why no court in seven years of litigation has ever held an evidentiary hearing. Even the quiet title trial in 2019 had all the documentary evidence, witnesses, and real parties in interest exlcuded. I’m not kidding.

Cause of Action: Misappropriation of money

Plaintiff Nona Tobin repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein. 

Defendants, and each of them, misappropriated or otherwise improperly took possession of monies which belonged to or should have gone to Plaintiff. 

As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $15,000 and in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 

Defendants’ acts were committed with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages pursuant to NRS 42.005 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 

As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Defendants’ acts, it has become necessary for Plaintiff to secure the services of an attorney, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover fees and costs incurred herein as damages.

Cause of Action: Fraud

The Elements of fraud apply to all the defendants being named in case A-21-828840-C that were opposing counsels to Nona Tobin in Nevada district court cases related to a dispute over the title of 2763 White Sage that was sold at an HOA foreclosure sale in 2014, i.e., in cases A-21-828840-C, A-19-799890-C, A-16-73-0078-C, and A-15-720032-C.

The elements of the cause of action of Fraud on the Court:

1. Defendant makes a false representation as to a past or existing fact.

2. With knowledge or belief by defendant that representation is false or that defendant lacks sufficient basis of information to make the representation;

3. Defendant intended to induce the Court to act in reliance on the representation;

4. Justifiable reliance upon the representation by the Court;

5. Causation and damages to plaintiff Nona Tobin as a result of the Court’s relying on misrepresentation; and

6. Must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and be pled with specificity.

Relevant Nevada court cases

NEVADA JURY INSTRUCTIONS 9.01; 

NRCP 9;

(b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind.  In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally

NRCP 9(b)

Jordan v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 75, 110 P.3d 30, 51 (2005); 

J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 89 P.3d 1009 (2004); 

Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 14 Nev. 441, 956 P.2d 1382 (1998); 

Blanchard v. Blanchard, 108 Nev. 908 (1992);  

Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 111, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992); 

Albert H. Wohlers & Co. v. Bartgis, 114 Nev. 1249, 1260, 969 P.2d 949, 957 (1998);  

Sanguinetti v. Strecker, 94 Nev. 200, 206, 577 P.2d 404, 408 (1978); 

Lubbe v. Barba, 91 Nev. 596, 541 P.2d 115 (1975).