Link to PDF of the 1/19/22 Transcript
Analysis by Casetext.com Co-counsel AI
For the last four years, I have subscribed to a legal services research service found on casetext.com. On 3/15/23, I upgraded to its new level of service called Co-counsel that includes an OpenAI-enabled document analysis feature that I utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of impartiality in the court hearings. I asked for an analysis of each hearing by providing a series of questions. Below the video and the summary are the Casetest Open AI responses for the 1/19/22 hearing.
Case Text Summary of the 1/19/22 transcript
Pages 1-8
– The document is a transcript of a court hearing in which the defendant, Nona Tobin, is arguing against the dismissal of her counterclaims and alleging misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and a previous judge.
– The case number is A-21-828840-C and the hearing took place on January 19, 2022 in Clark County, Nevada.
– The plaintiff is Red Rock Financial Services and the defendant is Nona Tobin.
– The hearing was presided over by Judge Jessica Peterson.
– Attorneys for the plaintiff include Steven B. Scow, Kerry P. Faughnan, and Aaron Lancaster for Nationstar.
– Nona Tobin is representing herself pro se.
– The hearing concerns a motion by Tobin for an evidentiary hearing to set aside two previous orders and for sanctions, as well as a countermotion by Red Rock Financial Services for attorneys’ fees and costs and a restrictive order against Tobin.
– Judge Peterson states that the only action in front of her is the interpleader action and that Tobin’s counterclaims were dismissed due to the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion.
– Judge Peterson also states that she originally thought an evidentiary hearing might be necessary, but after reviewing the case files, she decided it was not.
– Tobin argues that claim preclusion does not apply because she did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first instance.
– Tobin alleges that the plaintiff won the original lawsuit by cheating, presenting false evidence, and suppressing evidence.
– Tobin also alleges that a previous judge engaged in ex parte communications with the plaintiff, which Judge Peterson admonishes her for.
Pages 9-16
– Nona Tobin argues that the Jimmy Jack, Nationstar settlement was a complete fraud, and that she was excluded from the deal as a necessary party.
– Tobin claims that the plaintiff’s attorneys acquired the first ruling by means of fraud, and that the motion for summary judgment was based on falsified evidence.
– Tobin argues that she has submitted evidence to prove her claims, and that her motions for reconsideration and appeals have been attempts to get a court to make a decision based on verified evidence.
– Tobin requests that the court order her opponents to pay her restitution, and warns that she will appeal if the court refuses to consider her evidence.
– Steven Scow argues that Tobin has brought the same claims multiple times and they have been denied each time, and that her accusations of criminal conduct are inappropriate.
– Scow argues that the volume of documents Tobin submitted in her reply briefs is evidence of her vexatious litigant behavior.
– The court denies Tobin’s motion and does not grant the countermotion, but warns Tobin that she may be declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to file motions.
– The court orders Scow to prepare an order detailing the procedural history of the case.
CaseText Transcript Analysis assesses the implied bias or a lack of judicial impartiality
1/19/22 Transcript Analysis by Casetext.com Co-counsel AI
For the last four years, I have subscribed to a legal services research service found on casetext.com. On 3/15/23, I upgraded to its new level of service called Co-counsel that includes an OpenAI-enabled document analysis feature that I utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of impartiality in the court hearings. I asked for an analysis of each hearing by providing a series of questions. Below are the responses for the 1/19/22 hearing.
Purpose of the Transcript Analysis
This analysis is being used to support a motion to disqualify Judge Peterson from the current case for actual and implied bias.
Link to the PDF of the 4/26/23 Motion to Disqualify
NRS 1.230 outlines the grounds for disqualification, which include both actual and implied bias.
NCJC Rule 2.11(A) requires judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
Rule 2.2. Impartiality and Fairness. A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
Standard of Review: A reasonable person
The standard for assessing whether a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would reach that conclusion.
The motion for disqualification must contain affidavits that meets this burden of proof that a reasonable person would also question the judge’s impartiality.
However, the burden of proof is on the movant as the judge is presumed to be unbiased.
“This court gives substantial weight to a judge’s decision not to recuse herself and will not overturn such a decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Goldman v. Bryan, 104 Nev. 644, 649, 764 P.2d 1296, 1299 (1988), abrogated on other grounds by Halverson v. Hardcastle, 123 Nev. 245, 266, 163 P.3d 428, 443 (2007). A judge is presumed to be unbiased, and “the burden is on the party asserting the challenge to establish sufficient factual grounds warranting disqualification.” Id. at 649, 764 P.2d at 1299.
Identify where in the transcript Tobin told the court that previous decisions had been unfair or based on some type of misconduct or asked for a review of the evidence.
Yes
Tobin makes multiple references to perceived unfairness or misconduct in previous decisions, citing examples such as cheating, presenting false evidence, and suppressing evidence (pgs. 6,7). She also repeatedly asks the court to review the evidence, emphasizing that it is provable and that she wants a decision based on verified evidence (pgs. 9,11).
Tobin makes multiple references to what she perceives as unfairness or misconduct in previous decisions. For example, she claims that her opponent “originally won their lawsuit by cheating” (
Tobin makes several references to her belief that previous decisions were unfair or based on misconduct. For example, she claims that the “Jimmy Jack, Nationstar settlement was complete fraud” (Line 100), that attorneys “acquired that first ruling by means of fraud” (Line 103), and that the motion for summary judgment was “based on Red Rock’s falsified foreclosure fraud” (Line 103). Additionally, she repeatedly asks the court to review the evidence, stating that it “is provable” (Line 104), that the “volume of documents” she submitted “will prove” her claims (Line 105), and that she wants “any court” to “make a decision based on verified evidence” (Line 116).
Identify how the court reacted to Tobin’s allegations.
Rejected
The court was not receptive to Tobin’s allegations. They rejected them outright (pgs. 12-14), warning her against filing repetitive motions, and pushed back against her claims, admonishing her for making unfounded allegations (pgs. 7,8).
The court repeatedly pushed back against Tobin’s allegations, asserting that there was “no proof” of the ex parte communications she claimed occurred. The court also admonished Tobin for making “unfounded, unprovable, and salacious allegations against another judge.”
The court rejected Tobin’s allegations, stating that they had already been addressed in previous cases. The court also warned Tobin that if she continued to file repetitive motions, they would consider declaring her a vexatious litigant.
Describe the court’s reasoning on why Tobin’s motions should be denied.
Multiple reasons
The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied for a few reasons: she is asking the court to make a different decision without any basis in law (pgs. 4,5), her claims are precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata (pgs. 12,14), and her allegations are inaccurate or irrelevant (pgs. 4,5).
The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied because she is repeatedly asking the court to make a different decision without any basis in law. The court has already ruled that Tobin’s counterclaims are barred by the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion, and the court does not need an evidentiary hearing to make this determination. The court also argues that Tobin’s allegations in her motion for reconsideration are inaccurate or irrelevant.
The court argues that Tobin’s claims are precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata, and that it is not the court’s role to review decisions made in other departments of the 8th Judicial District Court.
Describe the court’s reasoning on why all Tobin’s claims of Fraud Racketeering, Conversion, and petitions for sanctions were dismissed with prejudice.
Preclusion, res judicata
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion and res judicata, arguing that she should have taken action in the original cases rather than filing counterclaims in this case (pgs. 4,5,12,14).
The court dismissed Tobin’s counterclaims on the basis of claim preclusion, or res judicata, which prevents a party from relitigating a claim that has already been decided. The court argues that Tobin is asking it to make a different decision without any legal basis to do so.
The court found that Tobin’s claims were precluded by the doctrine of claim preclusion and res judicata. The court stated that if Tobin disagreed with any of the other courts’ decisions, she should have appealed or taken other actions in those cases, rather than filing counterclaims in this case.
Doc No. 85 220119 RTRAN transcript of hearing re Tobin 211214 motion for evidentiary hearing.pdf
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made complimentary statements to or about Steven Scow
Appreciation
While the judge does not make any explicitly complimentary statements about Steven Scow, they do express appreciation for his work on multiple occasions (pgs. 13, 15), such as by acknowledging the effort he has put into the case and thanking him.
The judge does not make any explicitly complimentary statements about Steven Scow, but does express appreciation for his work on multiple occasions. For example, the judge says “Mr. Scow, I know you’ve put a lot of effort into this case as well already” (Line 130) and “Thank you, Mr. Scow” (Line 142).
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made complimentary statements to or about Nona Tobin or her attorney.
No relevant language found.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin or her attorney.
Multiple instances
The judge makes negative statements to or about Nona Tobin or her attorney in multiple places in the transcript. The judge admonishes Tobin for making “unfounded, unprovable, and salacious allegations” (pg. 7, LINE:142), tells her there is “no proof” of her claims (pg. 8, LINES:144, 147), warns her about being declared a vexatious litigant (pg. 12, LINE:127), and states that her claims are “precluded” and “barred” (pgs. 13,14, LINES:125, 126, 138).
The judge makes several negative statements to or about Nona Tobin in the transcript. For example, the judge interrupts Tobin to admonish her for making “unfounded, unprovable, and salacious allegations against another judge” (LINE:142). The judge also repeatedly tells Tobin that there is “no proof” of her claims (LINES:144, 147).
While the judge does not make any overtly negative statements about Nona Tobin or her attorney, there are several instances where the judge expresses frustration or disapproval. For example, the judge warns Tobin that if she continues to file “seriatim motions” the court will have “no other choice” but to declare her a vexatious litigant (LINE:127). Additionally, the judge repeatedly states that Tobin’s claims are “precluded” and “barred” by claim preclusion and res judicata (LINES:125, 126, 138).
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Steven Scow or her attorney.
No relevant language found.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge stated that Tobin’s claims were precluded or that Tobin had no claims.
Lines 107, 112, 116, 121, 125, 126, 129
The judge references claim preclusion and the barring of Tobin’s claims multiple times in the transcript. References can be found on lines 107, 112, 116, and 121 (pgs. 4,5) as well as on lines 125, 126, and 129 (pgs. 12,13).
The judge references claim preclusion multiple times in the transcript. For example, on line 107, the judge states that Tobin’s “counterclaims…were barred by the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion.” The judge also references this on lines 112 and 121. Additionally, on line 116, the judge states that she dismissed “all claims.”
The judge references this several times throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says “There is no basis for this Court to reconsider its prior decision that her claims in this case are precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata” (Line 125) and “It was not to file counterclaims into this case that are barred by the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion and res judicata” (Line 126). Additionally, the judge says “This Court’s decision initially that Ms. Tobin’s counterclaims were precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata was a sound decision” (Line 129).
Identify where in the transcripts the judge stated anything related to Red Rock LLC being a party as a matter of law.
Yes
The judge references Red Rock LLC several times, but most directly addresses their status as a party on line 132, stating that they filed an interpleader complaint (pg. 14).
The judge references Red Rock LLC several times throughout the transcript, but most directly addresses their status as a party on
Review Documents (Full Answers)
Identify where in the transcripts the judge stated why she would not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested.
Two reasons
The judge provided two explanations for why she would not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested. First, she stated that her initial decision to preclude Tobin’s counterclaims was sound (pgs. 13-14). Second, she explained that after reviewing the case files and motions, she determined the hearing wasn’t necessary (pg. 4).
The judge explains that she initially thought she might need an evidentiary hearing, but after reviewing the case files and motions, she decided it wasn’t necessary. Specifically, she states: “Once I actually read the motion, and reviewed the case files, and looked at everything, I decided I didn’t need an evidentiary hearing, which is the Court’s prerogative.”
The judge stated that there was “no reason for the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing” because “the Court’s decision initially that Ms. Tobin’s counterclaims were precluded by claim preclusion and res judicata was a sound decision.”
Identify any negative reference to Tobin
Yes
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. Mr. Scow expresses frustration with Tobin (pgs. 11, 13) and the Court warns her about being declared a vexatious litigant (pgs. 11, 13). Additionally, the Court implies negativity by noting that Tobin is asking for decisions without legal basis and making unfounded allegations (pgs. 4, 7).
While there is no direct negative reference to Tobin, the document does contain some implications that could be seen as negative. For example, the Court states that Tobin “keeps asking this Court to make a different decision without any basis in law to do so” and that she is making “unfounded, unprovable, and salacious allegations against another judge.”
There are several negative references to Tobin in this document. For example, Mr. Scow expresses frustration with having to face the “same claims against the same parties or similar parties seven or eight times” from Tobin. He also states that he doesn’t like being called a criminal, which Tobin has insinuated. Additionally, the Court warns Tobin that if she continues to file “seriatim motions,” they will have “no other choice but to file an order to show cause to declare her a vexatious litigant.”
Identify any positive reference to Tobin’s opponents
No
There is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, but there is mention of them prevailing in earlier cases (pgs. 6,7) and the Court expresses appreciation for Mr. Scow’s efforts (pgs. 13,15).
There does not appear to be any positive reference to Tobin’s opponents in this document, but there is mention of them prevailing in earlier cases. For example, on line 131, Tobin says “My opponent originally won their lawsuit by cheating,” and on line 136, she says “Both Jimmy Jack and Nationstar succeeded in prevailing without any evidence to support their ownership claims.”
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the Court does express appreciation for Mr. Scow’s efforts in the case, saying “I know you’ve put a lot of effort into this case as well already.”
Case Text Summary of the 1/19/22 transcript
Pages 1-8
– The document is a transcript of a court hearing in which the defendant, Nona Tobin, is arguing against the dismissal of her counterclaims and alleging misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and a previous judge.
– The case number is A-21-828840-C and the hearing took place on January 19, 2022 in Clark County, Nevada.
– The plaintiff is Red Rock Financial Services and the defendant is Nona Tobin.
– The hearing was presided over by Judge Jessica Peterson.
– Attorneys for the plaintiff include Steven B. Scow, Kerry P. Faughnan, and Aaron Lancaster.
– Nona Tobin is representing herself pro se.
– The hearing concerns a motion by Tobin for an evidentiary hearing to set aside two previous orders and for sanctions, as well as a countermotion by Red Rock Financial Services for attorneys’ fees and costs and a restrictive order against Tobin.
– Judge Peterson states that the only action in front of her is the interpleader action and that Tobin’s counterclaims were dismissed due to the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion.
– Judge Peterson also states that she originally thought an evidentiary hearing might be necessary, but after reviewing the case files, she decided it was not.
– Tobin argues that claim preclusion does not apply because she did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first instance.
– Tobin alleges that the plaintiff won the original lawsuit by cheating, presenting false evidence, and suppressing evidence.
– Tobin also alleges that a previous judge engaged in ex parte communications with the plaintiff, which Judge Peterson admonishes her for.
Pages 9-16
– Nona Tobin argues that the Jimmy Jack, Nationstar settlement was a complete fraud, and that she was excluded from the deal as a necessary party.
– Tobin claims that the plaintiff’s attorneys acquired the first ruling by means of fraud, and that the motion for summary judgment was based on falsified evidence.
– Tobin argues that she has submitted evidence to prove her claims, and that her motions for reconsideration and appeals have been attempts to get a court to make a decision based on verified evidence.
– Tobin requests that the court order her opponents to pay her restitution, and warns that she will appeal if the court refuses to consider her evidence.
– Steven Scow argues that Tobin has brought the same claims multiple times and they have been denied each time, and that her accusations of criminal conduct are inappropriate.
– Scow argues that the volume of documents Tobin submitted in her reply briefs is evidence of her vexatious litigant behavior.
– The court denies Tobin’s motion and does not grant the countermotion, but warns Tobin that she may be declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to file motions.
– The court orders Scow to prepare an order detailing the procedural history of the case.