Category: Unequal treatment

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

July 7, 2022 hearing

On 7/7/22, Judge Peterson heard Nona Tobin’s 2nd motion to distribute the interpleaded proceeds to her as the sole claimant with interest and penalties, -1½ years after she failed to hear Tobin’s 1st motion and a year after she granted non-party Red Rock LLC’s Tobin to dismiss Tobin’s unheard, unopposed claims of Conversion, Racketeering, and Fraud with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata.

Judge Peterson also heard Tobin’s motion to correct three prior orders to accurately identify the names of the parties and to attach Tobin’s opposition to factual inaccuracies in the orders.

The judge also accepted and granted the rogue motion of non-party Red Rock LLC’s for attorney fees, and granted the improper renewed motion for a vexatious litigant restrictive order against Tobin.

Judge Peterson granted non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion for attorney’s fees, denied Tobin’s unopposed motions.

Judge Peterson told Tobin that nothing Tobin said (in her unopposed proposed order has any merit by misconstruing the 6/30/22 appellate court ruling of the prior action in this dispute where the dismissal with prejudice of Tobin’s 2nd civil claim for these proceeds was affirmed on the grounds of res judicata and privity, bound this court to preclude all Tobin’s claims of Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering). The court decided Tobin has no claims except for the interpleaded funds, had no right to interest or penalties, and that Steven Scow did nothing wrong by withholding her money for 8+years and because he held it in trust so it was harmless error.

Violation of NCJC 2.6 as grounds for disqualification

Violation of NCJC 2.6 as grounds for disqualification

I contend that Judge Peterson violated NCJC 2.6 by

  • refusing to conduct the evidentiary hearing that was ordered for 8/18/21,
  • denying my 12/14/21 motion for an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes about the findings in the 9/10/21 and 11/30/21 orders that I allege covered up the criminal actions of my oppoenents vis-a-vis their abuse of the HOA quiet title litigation process to steal from many victims,
  • dismissing my unanswered 3/8/21 claims of Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering and my petitions for sanctions vs. Red Rock and Nationstar with prejudice without making my opponents meet their burden of proof
  • exempting my opponents from timely (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B)) filing a responsive pleading to my claims and granting an untimely, rogue motion to dismiss from a non-party.

Legal authorities supporting the proposition that a judge must allow a party to present evidence to support her case

Fact finding is the “basic responsibility” of trial courts “rather than appellate courts.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982) (quoting DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450 n.22 (1974)); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123 (1969) (“appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues”).

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

An evidentiary hearing is required to establish fraud upon the court (NRCP 60(d)(3))

Milam v. Stealth Holdings, LLC, 381 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2012) (“NC–DSH, Inc. v. Garner,125 Nev. 647, 657, 218 P.3d 853, 860–61 (2009)(providing that “[i]t is only after a proper hearing in which the fraud [upon the court] has been established by clear and convincing evidence that relief can be granted.” (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted));”)

List of filings I made that contained evidence that Judge Peterson refused to admit or consider

The list is long because, I believe, Judge Peterson unfairly refused to allow me to assert my actual claims. She kept insisting that all my claims were precluded and nothing was before her but the question of who the interpleaded funds belonged to.

I say that Steven Scow filed the interpleader action in bad faith, knowing that it was meritless and unwarranted and that neither Plaintiff Red Rock nor non-party Red Rock LLC had standing to either pursue and interpleader action nor oppose the court ordering interpleaded funds being distributed to me with interest and penalties for being wrongfully withheld for 8+ years.

My claims for Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering and petitions for sanctions were compulsory counter-claims that should have been granted as unopposed because Red Rock did not file any timely responsive pleading and non-party Red Rck LLC’s motion to dismiss was rogue, untimely, and contained exhibits which the court would have to have considered to make a claims preclusion ruling which would have nessecarily converted it to an MSJ, meaning the factual disputes would have had to have been resolved on a NRCP 56 standard and it could not have been granted as a NRCP 12(b)(5). Further, she refused my motion to amend one time under NRCP 15 for no good reason and didn’t sua spinte move for a more definitive statement if she thought it wasn’t pled to 9(b) standard. She just obviously wanted to be rid of it and me.

3/8/21 unanswered counter- & cross-claims and four requests for judicial notice of the property record, my unadjudicated claims, relevant laws and Sun City Anthem governing documents, and disputed facts in the prior court record (false evidence filed and recorded by my opponents to get the prior courts to bless the theft of my property)

Doc ID# 14 Nona Tobin’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Answer And Counter-Claim vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Cross-Claims Vs. Nationstar Mortgage LLC And Wells Fargo, N.A., And Motion For Sanctions vs. Red Rock Financial Services And Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and/or Nationstar Mortgage dba Mr. Cooper Pursuant To NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005

Doc ID# 15 Request for Judicial Notice
Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Complete Official Clark County 2003-2021 Property Records for APN 191-13-811-052

Doc ID# 18 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of Relevant Unadjudicated Civil Claims and Administrative Complaints

Doc ID# 19 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Sun City Anthem Governing Documents Germane To the Instant Action

Doc ID# 21 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of NRCP 16.1 Disclosures /Subpoena Responses from Discovery in Case A-15-720032-C and Disputed Facts in the Court Record
12/14/21 motion for an evidentiary hearing and replies to Nationstar’s and non-party Red Rock LLC’s opposition and their improper counter-motin for abuse of process and for an unwarranted vexatious litigant restrictive order against me
Doc ID# 75 Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside Orders and for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 60(B)(3) and (D)(3), NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3)

Doc ID# 80 Nona Tobin’s Reply to Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Cots Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs

Doc ID# 81 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Nationstar’s And Wells Fargo’s Joinder And Countermotions For Attorney Fees And A Vexatious Litigant Order

12/19/22 motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar of Nevada for disciplinary action

Doc ID# 103 Tobin Motion for An Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded To The State Bar of Nevada

Doc ID# 108 Corrected Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not be Forwarded to the State Bar

Doc ID# 102 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Brittany Wood

Doc ID# 104 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed with The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Steven Scow

Doc ID# 105 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Melanie Morgan, Esq. (SBN 8215), Akerman, LLP; and Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP, and Draft Alternative Civil Action

Doc ID# 106 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Joseph Y. Hong

Doc ID# 107 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. David Ochoa, Esq. (SBN 10414) and Adam Clarkson, Esq.

Legal research question

Is a final judgment order unfairly entered if the court does not allow one side to present its opposition given that appellate courts generally defer to the district court’s findings of fact ?

Nevada courts generally defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. However, a final judgment order may be unfairly entered if the court does not allow one side to present its opposition, misapplies the law, or makes findings not supported by evidence.

Several of the cases I found emphasize the importance of allowing both sides to present their cases in order to ensure a fair trial. For example, in Milam v. Stealth Holdings, LLC, the court discusses the requirement that parties be “fully heard” on an issue before a district court can grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Similarly, in Solinger v. Solinger, the court reiterates that a district court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly erroneous, and that substantial evidence is required to sustain a judgment. Other cases I found highlight the importance of correctly applying the law in order to avoid an unfair judgment. For example, in Long Valley L. D. Co. v. Hunt, the court held that a judgment must be reversed when the court misapplies a rule of law or erroneously places the burden of proof on the losing party. In KY Invs. NV v. King of Condos, Inc., the court discusses the importance of a district court providing a statement of reasons when granting summary judgment, in order to allow for meaningful appellate review.

Finally, a few cases I found emphasize the deference given to district court findings of fact on appeal. For example, in Pickens v. McCarran Mansion, LLC, the court notes that appellate courts are bound by the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Similarly, in Bonnell v. Lawrence, the court reiterates that the remedy for legal error is by timely motion or appeal, not by independent action for relief from judgment.

How to disqualify a judge

The Nevada Revised Statutes define the grounds and procedure for disqualification

NRS 1.230 outlines the grounds for disqualification, which include both actual and implied bias.

NRS 1.235 sets out the procedure for disqualification, including the requirement to file an affidavit specifying the grounds for disqualification.

The Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) also provides guidance

The Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) also provides guidance on when a judge should disqualify themselves. NCJC Rule 1.2 requires judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, and NCJC Rule 2.11(A) requires judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Violating NCJC does not promote confidence in the judiciary and creates a situation where the judge’simpartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Implicated NCJC provisions in my case

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

Rule 1.2.  Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary.  A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.

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

Rule 2.6.  Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.

      (A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

Rule 2.9.  Ex Parte Communications.

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

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

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

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

      (B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.

      (C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

Rule 2.11.  Disqualification.

      (A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

      (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.

      Rule 2.15.  Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct.

(C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.      

(D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.

Standard of review for assessing if the grounds for disqualification are met

The standard for assessing whether a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would reach that conclusion.

The motion for disqualification must contain affidavits that meets this burden of proof that a reasonable person would also question the judge’s impartiality.

However, the burden of proof is on the movant as the judge is presumed to be unbiased.

“This court gives substantial weight to a judge’s decision not to recuse herself and will not overturn such a decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Goldman v. Bryan, 104 Nev. 644, 649, 764 P.2d 1296, 1299 (1988), abrogated on other grounds by Halverson v. Hardcastle, 123 Nev. 245, 266, 163 P.3d 428, 443 (2007). A judge is presumed to be unbiased, and “the burden is on the party asserting the challenge to establish sufficient factual grounds warranting disqualification.” Id. at 649, 764 P.2d at 1299.

Impact of a disqualification motion

In Debiparshad v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nev. 2021), the Nevada Supreme Court outlined the requirements for disqualification under the NCJC and relevant case law.

(“In Towbin Dodge, we noted that NCJC Rule 2.11, which requires a judge to “disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” does not contain a procedural mechanism for enforcement. Id. at 257, 259, 112 P.3d at 1067, 1069. We specified the procedure for moving to disqualify a judge pursuant to NCJC Rule 2.11, explaining that, as with an affidavit filed under NRS 1.235, a motion to disqualify under NCJC Rule 2.11 must include the facts upon which the disqualification is based and must be referred to another judge for decision. Id. at 260-61, 112 P.3d at 1069-70; see also Turner v. State, 114 Nev. 682, 687, 962 P.2d 1223, 1226 (1998) (applying, without discussion, the NRS 1.235 procedural requirements to a motion to disqualify under both the statute and the NCJC). ”)

Debiparshad v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71, 8 (Nev. 2021) 
How Debiparshad and Towbin Dodge support my case is two-fold:

1) the subject judge (Peterson in my case) can take no further action in the case until the motion to disqualify is resolved, and

2) the disqualification decision must be made by another judge.

This comes as positive news since it would be unreasonable to anticipate Judge Peterson recusing herself now, after 2+ years of ruling against me without any factual or legal justification. This includes her recent actions at an improperly noticed hearing held ex parte, where she issued an unwarranted vexatious litigant bench order against me in absentia, which was converted into a final judgment denying all my motions without notice, good cause, or an opportunity for opposition.

Why this drastic action is necessary rather than just filing an appeal

The order submitted on March 28, 2023, was composed in a manner that made obtaining a precise understanding of the facts and law nearly unattainable for the reviewing court. The judge followed the common practice of having opposing counsel draft the order, resulting in significant misrepresentation of material facts and legal matters. Appellate courts assume that the facts are unchallenged if the order states as such, and no opposition is present within the record.

My previous losses have occurred under these circumstances, where orders are written to suggest that the evidence and the law support the opposing argument.

My motion is timely to void all A-21-828840-C orders

My motion is timely to void all Judge Peterson’s orders as new grounds emerged due to the refusal to allow the 3/28/23 order to accurately reflect that it was issued ex parte without notice, just cause or an opportunity to ppose.

“[I]f new grounds for a judge’s disqualification are discovered after the time limits in NRS 1.235(1) have passed, then a party may file a motion to disqualify based on [Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2 ] as soon as possible after becoming aware of the new information.”

Towbin, 121 Nev. at 256, 112 P.3d at 1067.

Judge Peterson’s impartiality canreasonably questioned be as these provisions of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct are alleged to have been violated.

The required affidavit with supporting evidence will be filed first to the Commission on Judicial Discipline as it has a Nevada Constitutional mandate to ensure that the Nevada judiciary complies with the NCJC.

Rule 1.2.  Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary.  A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

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

Rule 2.6.  Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.

      (A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

Rule 2.7.  Responsibility to Decide.  A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification is required by Rule 2.11 or other law.

Rule 2.9.  Ex Parte Communications.

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

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

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

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

      (2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received.

      (3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.

      (4) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge.

      (5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when authorized by law to do so.

      (B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.

      (C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

      (D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

      Rule 2.11.  Disqualification.

      (A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

      (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.

      Rule 2.15.  Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct.

      (A) A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.

      (B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.

      (C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.

      (D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.

Standard for Review

Other jurisdictions offer guidance on the standard of review as well

In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the reviewing court should inquire into a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the nature of the judge’s conduct, the tone and demeanor of the judge, the scope of the judicial conduct in the context of the length and complexity of the case and issues therein, the extent to which the judge’s conduct was directed at one side more than the other, and the presence of any curative instructions, either at the time of an inappropriate occurrence or at the entry of the final order. When the issue is preserved so that the true facts are known and a reviewing court determines that the judge’s conduct pierced the veil of judicial impartiality, the court may not apply harmless-error review. Rather, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

A-21-828840-C orders are void

If the judge is disqualified because judicial impartiality can be reasonably questioned,

“Disqualification occurs when the facts creating disqualification arise, not when disqualification is established.”); see also Hoff v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 79 Nev. 108, 110, 378 P.2d 977, 978 (1963) (“That the actions of a district judge, disqualified by statute, are not voidable merely, but void, has long been the rule in this state.”); Frevert v. Smith, 19 Nev. 363, 11 P. 273 (1886) (“[T]he general effect of the statutory prohibitions … [is] to render those acts of a judge involving the exercise of judicial discretion, in a case wherein he is disqualified from acting, not voidable merely, but void.”). ”

Debiparshad v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71, 9-10 (Nev. 2021)

9/10/2021 Doc ID# 43 “Order & Judgment On Plainiff (Sic) Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim And Petition For Sanctions And Defendants/ Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgement And Motion For Sanctions”

11/30/2021 Doc ID# 70 Order Clarifying Sept. 10th, 2021 Order and Mooting Notice of Default and Motion to Strike

11/30/2021 Doc ID# 71 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion to Reconsider of Order Dismissing Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions and Defendant/ Counter-claimant Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Sanctions

5/25/2022 Doc ID# 88 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Set Aside 9/10/21 Order And 11/30/21 Orders Pursuant To NRCP 60(b)(3)(Fraud) And NRCP 60(d)(3)(Fraud On The Court) And Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Pursuant To EDCR 7.60(1) And (3), NRS 18.010(2); And, Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s 12/28/21 Countermotions For Abuse Of Process and Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees And Costs

1/9/2023 01/09/2023 Order Doc ID# 115 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motin to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs

1/16/2023 Doc ID# 117 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs

Request for equal treatment

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

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

PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

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

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

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

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

LEGAL STANDARDS AND ARGUMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Koch & Scow LLC repeat this duplicitous pattern throughout.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vexatious litigant order in absentia

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

Minutes served @4:44Pm wrongly reported

“chambers” – not open court

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

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

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

Hyperlinks to documents

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

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

Complaints against Sun City Anthem attorneys have not been investigated

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.

Link to 30-page PDF notice of intent to complain about Adam Clarkson’s bullying to the State Bar

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.

Link to the PDF of the 23-page notice of intent to file a Form 514a complaint against a community association manager
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

Link to PDF of the filed motion for an order to show cause
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:

324604 – 4733 22-081953/6/22 BAR COMPLAINT VS. DAVID OCHOA EXHIBITS A-D  
33 33.1 33.24734 – 4847 22-08196 22-08198BAR COMPLAINT VS. OCHOA EXHIBITS E, E-1, E-2, 3-3 AND F  
344848 – 5046 22-08199BAR 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 B Obstructed litigation and appeal

EXHIBIT C Misrepresented and suppressed evidence

EXHIBIT D Concealed HOA Official Records

EXHIBIT E Disclosed false and falsified records

EXHIBIT E-1 Disputed facts in Red Rock foreclosure files Ochoa disclosed as SCA 176-643

EXHIBIT E-2 Examples of false evidence

EXHIBIT E-3 Red Rock foreclosure file…d and disclosed as SCA 176-643

EXHIBIT F Filed non-meritorious claims

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.

Link to PDF of 3/28/23 order filed without notice or opposition

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.

  • Image gallery image
  • Image gallery image
  • Image gallery image
  • Image gallery image

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”.

Link to PDF of the complaint

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 unanswered 9/2/17 NRED Form 514a

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.

Do not let it pass.

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.

Vexatious litigant restrictive order was unjustly filed without notice or chance to oppose

The draft order was sent to me when it was sent to the judge for signature on Friday afternoon, 3/24/23 .

On Tuesday, 3/28/23, the judge had already signed it, filed it, and it was in effect.

My Request for time to oppose it properly was ignored

3/28/23 request for 30 days on the grounds that it was unfairly adopted at an ex parte hearing and Steven Scow had been given 50 days to prepare the order and the order was fraught with fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts

4/5/23 request to at least attached the opposition that I was able to prepare on 3/27/23 to the order is pending before the Chief Judge who no must review all documents before I can file them in court.

The screenshots below are my corrections to the factual inaccuracies in the order.

Obviously, it would be slightly deceptive to have an appeals court judge see the order as filed and not see that I really did want to oppose it, if given a fair chance.