Click to Chat

Sample Form Motion to Strike Request for Trial De Novo in Clark County, Nevada

Posted by: on Wed, Feb 04, 2015

Share this post

 

MSTDN

G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 001394

WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR.,
ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 008679

ALBRIGHT,
STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

801 South Rancho Drive, Suite
D-4

Las Vegas, NV  89106

Tel:     (702)
384-7111

Fax:    (702)
384-0605

gma@albrightstoddard.com

bstoddard@albrightstoddard.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

 

EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

 

HARSCH INVESTMENT PROPERTIES –
NEVADA, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, qualified to do business in
Nevada,

 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

vs.

 

JOHN ,

 

Defendant/Counterclaimant.

CASE NO.:     A-

DEPT. NO.:

 

 

 

MOTION   TO STRIKE REQUEST FOR TRIAL DE NOVO

 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, HARSCH
INVESTMENT PROPERTIES – NEVADA, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company,
qualified to do business in Nevada (hereinafter “Harsch”), by and through its
attorneys of record, ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT, and hereby
moves this court for an Order Striking the Request for Trial de Novo filed by
Defendant/Counterclaimant, JOHN (hereinafter
“H”) as H failed to participate in the above entitled case in good
faith during the arbitration proceedings by failing to appear or participate at
all, and has therefore waived the right to request a trial de novo per NAR
22(A).


            DATED
this _____day of February, 2015.

 

ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

 

 

 

By__________________________________________

G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ., #001394

WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR., ESQ., #008679

801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4

Las Vegas, Nevada 89106

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-defendant


 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

TO:      ALL
INTERESTED PARTIES; and

TO:      ALL
COUNSEL OF RECORD

            PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the
undersigned counsel will bring the above and foregoing MOTION TO STRIKE
REQUEST FOR TRIAL DE NOVO
on for hearing on the ______ day of
_______________, 2015, at the hour of _______ __.m., in Department XXVII, of
the above-entitled Court.

DATED
this _____ day of February, 2015.

ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

 

 

 

By__________________________________________

G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ., #001394

WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR., ESQ., #008679

801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4

Las Vegas, Nevada 89106

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-defendant

 

 

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

 

I.    FACTS

 

This is a simple landlord/tenant dispute.
Harsch is suing H, a prior tenant, for unpaid rents and for fees
incurred during an eviction process which occurred when H failed to honor the
lease terms, and which process Defendant H, a licensed immigration attorney,
needlessly complicated and prolonged.  The Complaint in this matter was filed on December 24, 2013.  Defendant John H filed his Answer to the Complaint, including a counterclaim, on January 23, 2014, which Answer listed H’s address as Spring Mountain Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89102, the
leasehold location from which H had been fighting eviction and which he
finally withdrew from only after the filing of his Answer and Counterclaim,
later in January 2014.  H apparently
never filed any notice with the court or the Arbitrator advising of his change
of address.  The matter was assigned to
the Court-Annexed Arbitration Program and an Arbitration Selection List was
sent to both parties in March 2014.
Although this document was sent to H’s old address, due to his failure
to file a notice of any new address, H would have known, as an experienced
attorney, that the matter would be sent to Court Annexed Arbitration unless he
or the other side timely requested an exemption.  On April 15, 2014, Robert O. Kurth, Jr. was
assigned as the Arbitrator.

On July 2, 2014 the Arbitrator noticed an Early Arbitration Conference (see,
the Notice, attached as Exhibit “A” hereto), which was held on June 6,
2014.  Based on H’s office address having changed, Mark Albright, counsel for Plaintiff, sent a courtesy email regarding the Early Arbitration Conference to H at h.com.
The memo stated as follows: “If this is still your email, please call
the arbitrator and notify his office (see contact information below) of your
new address and telephone number.  The
notice of EAC for tomorrow is attached hereto for your convenience.”  See, Email from Mark Albright, attached as Exhibit “B” hereto.  There was no response.  The email
was not returned as undelivered.  It is the same email address H placed on his pleadings and discovery responses.  The following day, June 6, 2014, the
Arbitrator could not reach H and H did not participate in the Early
Arbitration Conference.  Nor, despite
having filed not only an Answer but also a Counterclaim, and despite being
himself an attorney, did H apparently ever make any independent inquiries by
looking up the docket sheet of the case, or calling Plaintiff’s counsel or the
arbitrator, to learn of the case status.
The Arbitrator then issued a Discovery Order (Exhibit “C”
hereto), and scheduled the Arbitration Hearing for September 11, 2014.

Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter sent First Requests for Admissions to Defendant H, which
were mailed to his new law office location at 3355 Spring Mountain Road, on
July 11, 2014.  Thereafter, on August 8, 2014, Defendant H filed his Responses to Plaintiff’s First Requests for Admissions, demonstrating that this new location address was an accurate
address for H.

Attorney H’s modus operandi in this proceeding and in the underlying eviction
proceeding has been to ignore letters, emails, and court hearings.  As set forth in the Plaintiff’s
Pre-Arbitration Hearing Statement, a copy of which is attached (without
exhibits) hereto as Exhibit “D,” this case arises out of a Master Lease
dated March 4, 2009 with H as tenant and Plaintiff as landlord, with rent
specified through March 2012.  The First
Amendment to Lease with a one year extension was dated February 23, 2002 with a
term to expire on March 31, 2013.  On January 18, 2013, a lease renewal proposal letter from Harsch’s landlord was sent to H as tenant, which set forth two different types of renewal
options.  Harsch never heard back from H
regarding either of the two alternative renewal options.  H completely ignored the lease proposal letter.  Thus, H was treated as on a month-to-month lease tenancy from March 31, 2013 until eviction proceedings started in late 2013.  A letter dated May
31, 2013 was sent from Harsch to H notifying him that his holdover rent would
be increasing pursuant to the terms of the lease.  H ignored the letter.  A 30-day Notice to Quit was served on October
31, 2013 to terminate H’s month-to-month tenancy.  H ignored the notice.  A Five Day Notice to Quit was served on H on
December 2, 2013.  H ignored the notice to quit.

A Complaint for Summary Eviction was filed on December 9, 2013.  On December 10, 2013, a Notice to Appear for Hearing was issued by the Justice Court and Judge Zimmerman.  The matter was heard by the Justice Court on December 17, 2013.  H did not appear.
The following day, H filed a Motion to
Vacate the Eviction Order which had been issued following his
non-appearance.  On December 19, 2013, an
Order was entered denying the Motion to Vacate the Eviction Order.  H filed a Notice of Appeal on December 20,
2013 to the District Court.  The District
Court (Judge James Bixler) ordered an eviction.
The Court’s Minute Order, attached hereto as Exhibit “E,” stated
that:


there is no signed lease at this time and the tenant
is in the property on a month to month basis. . . .   The Court does not find any error in the
ruling by Judge Zimmerman and informed Mr.  he has to move out of the
property.

 


H then filed a Writ of Certiorari to the Nevada Supreme Court on January 24, 2014.
His Writ was summarily rejected and denied a week later on January 30,
2014, after he had finally vacated the premises the day before.  Such delay factors by  give a black eye to the legal profession among other business entitles who engage in business
transactions, such as leases, with attorneys who fail to abide by their
contractual obligations and then utilize delay actions (such as failing to
appear) and submitting frivolous filings to prevent the other party from
obtaining a remedy.

H refused to participate meaningfully or properly in the instant rent collection
case when Mr. H rejected the notice to participate in the Early Arbitration
Conference and ignored the letter emailed to him by Albright on June 5, 2014
requesting that he participate.   The following day H again ignored the Early Arbitration Conference, as was his custom in the eviction proceeding.  He
subsequently also ignored all the telephone calls to his office and cell phone
reminding him that the arbitration hearing was starting.

On September 9, 2014, Plaintiff’s Pre-Arbitration Hearing Statement was
hand-delivered by an employee of Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright,
directly to the new local  office of  at Road.  Rule 7.26 of the rules of the Eighth Judicial District Court provide for service upon the attorney or party’s office with a clerk or other person in charge at the office.  The rule provides as follows:

(b) Delivery of a copy with this rule means: (1) by handing it to the attorney or
to the party; or (2) by leaving it at the attorney’s or party’s office with a clerk or other person in charge thereof.

Accordingly, since H is both the party and his own attorney, the Pre-Arbitration Brief was hand-delivered directly to H’s  office.  His  receptionist/clerk/secretary signed the Receipt of Copy, on September 9, 2014.  See, Exhibit “F” hereto, and indicated that they were expecting the Arbitration Brief.

In addition, the Affidavit of Service (filed with the court on September 15, 2014
and attached as Exhibit “G”) indicates as follows:

            On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, I was assigned to deliver the Plaintiff’s
Pre-Arbitration Hearing Statement to Defendant/Counterclaimant, J,
(“Defendant”) and obtain a signature on the receipt of copy thereof.

 

I arrived at the office of Defendant at Road, Building , Suite, Las Vegas, Nevada 89103, shortly after 1:30 p.m. on September 9, 2014.

I entered the  office and asked the secretary if this was Mr. ’s office, to
which she replied “yes, I was expecting these documents” {i.e., the
Pre-Arbitration Hearing Statement}.

 

I then handed her a copy of Plaintiff’s Pre-Arbitration Hearing Statement and
asked her to please sign the Receipt of Copy on behalf of Defendant ,
which she did, a copy of which is attached hereto.



The address to which the Pre-Arbitration Hearing Statement was delivered is the
same law office address listed on a variety of on-line websites for attorney
, including YellowPages.com, Yahoo.com, FindLaw.com, and Immigration
Lawyers in Las Vegas.  It is the same address where Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions were mailed in July 2014, to which H responded, demonstrating the validity of that address.  It was confirmed as H’s new law office address by Albright, Stoddard’s employee, Stephan Hart.

Despite the fact that both sides’ Pre-Hearing Arbitration Statements are almost always
due the same day under the Court Annexed Arbitration Program, such that the
delivery of this statement should have advised H that his own pre-arbitration
statement was also then due, H did not submit any Pre-Hearing Statement of his
own on that date or on any date thereafter.
Furthermore, despite the fact that the submission of such statements
typically signify that a hearing is imminent (as the statement is typically to
be due within ten (10) days of the hearing under the Nevada Arbitration Rules,
but this time period is routinely extended by arbitrators to allow submissions
much closer to the hearing date).  Mr. H
also failed to pick up the phone to inquire of either Plaintiff’s counsel or
the Arbitrator identified on the Plaintiff’s submission, of the date or time of
the Arbitration hearing.

On September 11, 2014, the Arbitration Hearing was held.  Both counsel for Plaintiff and the Arbitrator were in attendance and both called Mr. H at the beginning of the hearing to
ascertain why H was not present and left messages with H (on both his office
and also on his cell phone) that the Arbitrator was starting the arbitration
hearing.  H ignored these various calls
and made no appearance at the hearing.

Moreover, after the hearing concluded, H still did not place a return call to either
Plaintiff’s counsel or the Arbitrator, to explain his absence at the hearing,
to request relief for that absence, or to inquire as to what occurred at the
hearing!  Significantly, although the Arbitrator waited much longer than the NAR deadlines to finally issue an Arbitrator’s Award, giving H several extra weeks to place such a return phone call, H did not ever do so, but, instead, continued to completely ignore this matter for
several months, despite having been served with a Pre-Hearing Statement, and
received phone calls about the hearing in September.  A reasonable attorney would have participated in the Early Arbitration Conference or called the Arbitrator immediately
afterwards to explain his absence.  H’s
behavior here and during the underlying eviction process is to try and delay
and draw out the proceedings to force the Plaintiff to incur unnecessary
attorneys’ fees.

At the hearing, Plaintiff Harsch presented three witnesses.. The Arbitrator
subsequently issued his Arbitration Decision and his Arbitration Award, in
favor of Plaintiff and against H, on December 23, 2014, over three months after
the hearing, during which time period H’s silence and inactivity
continued.  A true and correct copy of
the Arbitration Decision  is attached as Exhibit
“H”
hereto.   A copy of the Award is
attached hereto as Exhibit “I” hereto.
In his Arbitration Decision, the Arbitrator expressly included the
following ruling:

 

The Arbitrator further finds that H did not attend
the Early Arbitration Conference and a Discovery Order along with a Notice to
Appear for Arbitration Hearing was provided to H.  Notwithstanding, H never contacted or
communicated with the Arbitrator or his office directly; did not provide a
pre-hearing statement or brief, and did not submit any evidence in the
arbitration proceeding or at the Arbitration Hearing; and subsequently, did not
participate in good faith at the arbitration proceeding.  Further, the Arbitrator attempted to contact
H prior to the Arbitration Hearing to no avail
.  Further, both the Arbitrator and the
Defendant’s counsel were unable to contact the Defendant H at the telephone
numbers provided.  (Emphasis added.)

On January 20, 2015, H filed his Request for Trial de
Novo.  Said request should be stricken.

II.  LEGAL
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

            Nevada Arbitration Rule 22(A) states as follows:

 

The failure of a party or an attorney to either prosecute or defend a case in good faith during the arbitration proceedings
shall constitute a waiver of the right to a trial de novo.

In
this case, it is obvious that on June 5, 2014 (when H received an email from
Albright, Stoddard), Defendant H was well aware of the name of the Arbitrator,
and knew his office address and knew his phone number.  On July 11, 2014, when the Plaintiff’s
Requests for Admissions, a copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit “J”,
(which showed the name of the Arbitrator in the Certificate of Service attached
thereto) were served on H, H knew the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ addresses,
emails, and phone numbers (which were the same as on the Complaint, and also in
the underlying case), and yet did nothing to contact either the Arbitrator or
Plaintiff’s counsel after serving his responses to the Requests for Admissions
on August 8, 2014.  Indeed, there was no
communication or contact whatsoever by H between August 8, 2014 and January
20, 2015 when the Request for Trial de Novo was filed by H.  In other words, H completely disappeared
from this case and showed no interest therein for six months (in itself longer
than the amount of time which is itself the maximum period allotted from the
date of appointment of an Arbitrator, until an arbitration hearing must be
held)!  This delaying tactic forced
Plaintiff to incur substantial fees preparing for and attending an arbitration
hearing with three witnesses, and now H wants to continue to force the
Plaintiff to incur fees and costs on a simple rent collection case.

Plaintiff
served its Pre-Arbitration Statement on September 9, 2014 by serving H’s law
office directly through a receipt of copy signed by his receptionist in his law
office lobby, at his new local Nevada office.
In other words, the Defendant John , an with a
Las Vegas, Nevada office, who is familiar with the litigation (being the party
hereto, who hotly contested the underlying eviction process), completely and
deliberately ignored this case from August 8, 2014 until January 20, 2015, a period
of almost six (6) months without sending a single inquiry, phone call, letter,
email, or other communication to the Arbitrator or the Plaintiff’s counsel to
determine the status of these proceedings, or to participate in these
proceedings.

It is abundantly evident that even though the Defendant was well aware of the ongoing
discovery, and that the case was in the arbitration program, he intentionally
refused to make any inquiry (no phone calls or emails) whatsoever, including in
response to emails and phone messages sent to him, until he was served with the
Arbitration Award and Arbitration Decision on December 23, 2014, and then
elected to file his request for trial de novo on  January 20, 2015, six (6) months after his
last appearance in these proceedings.
H’s actions make light of the court annexed arbitration program and
should not be countenanced.  This is
particularly evident where Mr. H’s secretary indicated they had been expecting
the Pre-Arbitration Brief.

The purpose of penalty provisions in court-annexed arbitration programs is to
dissuade litigants from ignoring or abandoning the arbitration process and then
seeking a trial de novo after the process has concluded.  Hence, the rule allows the court to strike a
request for trial de novo where a party or an attorney fails “to either
prosecute or defend a case in good faith during the arbitration
proceedings.”  NAR 22(A).  As a matter of law, H’s actions have not
been in good faith.  To allow H’s
behavior would undermine the entire Court Annexed Arbitration Program.  To hold otherwise would destroy all incentive
for parties to participate in the arbitration program.

When there has been no participation at all by a defendant in an arbitration,
striking the de novo request is appropriate.  In the case of New England Merchants Nat.
Bank vs. Hughes
, 556 F.Supp. 712 (E.D. Pa. 1983), the court approved the
denial of the demand for trial de novo by a party who refused to
participate in the arbitration proceedings at all under a similar rule.  The Court explained that “the goals of the
arbitration program and the authority of this court would be seriously
undermined if a defendant were permitted to refuse to attend an arbitration
hearing and then demand trial de novo.”
Id. at 715.

The Nevada Supreme Court in Gittings vs. Hartz, 116 Nev. 386, 996 P.2 898
(Nev. 2000),  held that for purposes of
requesting a trial de novo “this court has equated good faith with
meaningful participation in the arbitration proceedings.”  For example, in Casino Properties vs.
Andrews
, 112 Nev. 132, 911 P.2d 1181 (Nev. 1996), the Nevada Supreme Court
explained that:

 

the purposes of Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration Program are to provide a simplified procedure for obtaining a prompt and equitable resolution of certain civil matters.
NAR 2(a).  In Gilling vs.
Eastern Airlines, Inc
., 680 F.Supp. 169 (DNJ 1988), a federal court dealing
with the issue of good faith participation in arbitration, equated good faith
with meaningful participation and determined that if the parties did not
participate in a meaningful manner, the purposes of mandatory arbitration would
be compromised.  We agree with this
proposition and conclude that appellants did not defend the case in good faith
during the arbitration proceeding because they did not participate in a
meaningful manner.

The very purpose of penalty provisions in court annexed arbitration programs “is to
dissuade litigants from actually seeking a trial de novo.  Without penalty provisions, litigants would have little incentive to take court-annexed arbitration programs
seriously.”  See, Court Annexed Arbitration Programs, Nevada Law Journal, 11 Nev L.J. 282 (fall 2010).

There is a narrow exception recognized in Nevada for car accident cases where
liability is clear and a party does attend and participate in good faith in the
arbitration hearing – in such narrow circumstances, the courts occasionally
excuse the actual party from attending, so long as his attorney attends and
participates in the arbitration hearing.

For example, the Nevada Supreme Court in Gittings v. Hartz, 116 Nev. 386,
996 P.2d 898 (Nev. 2000) upheld a request for trial de novo and ruled that a
motion to strike was improperly granted, even though the defendant had not
personally appeared at the hearing.  However, in doing so, the court identified multiple key factors which distinguish Gittings from this situation (where H – who is both the
party and his own counsel – failed to participate in any discovery, in any
briefing, or to appear in person or through counsel at the
arbitration hearing).  Specifically in Gittings, the key differences noted are as follows: Gittings was represented by counsel.  Gittings’ attorney did appear at the arbitration hearing.
Gittings had participated in discovery and had served interrogatories
and a request for production of documents on Hartz.  Gittings also took the deposition of Plaintiff
Hartz.  Moreover, Gittings’ attorney did appear at the arbitration hearing and conducted cross-examination and presented arguments during the arbitration hearing.
Gittings conducted depositions and discovery as authorized and in
addition prepared and submitted an arbitration brief to the arbitrator.  Additionally, one of the key distinguishing factors between this case and the Gittings case is that in Gittings
the court relied upon the statistics compiled by the office of the District
Court Discovery Commissioner outlining the percentage of cases in which
Allstate Insurance Co. had requested a trial de novo.

In Gittings,  the Supreme Court allowed the trial de novo to move forward because Gittings had participated in good faith in all forms of discovery permitted by the
arbitrator, had prepared an arbitration brief, and had appeared through counsel
at the arbitration hearing itself where defendant’s counsel conducted
cross-examination of witnesses.  An
additional key difference is that Gittings explained that she did not need to
personally attend the arbitration hearing itself because liability was not
an issue
.  She had run through a red
light and struck the passenger side of Plaintiff Hartz’s vehicle.  The impact was significant enough to shatter the windows and bend the frame of Hartz’s vehicle.
Both vehicles were deemed total losses.  The Nevada Supreme Court agreed that under these unique circumstances, it was not necessary for the defendant to personally attend the arbitration hearing, as long as her lawyer did so, because liability was not an issue, only
damages, and since defense counsel was present to participate in the
arbitration, such that no bad faith existed.
The court held that Gittings’ decision not to contest liability at the
hearing or to seek independent medical examination through experts was
insufficient grounds to completely strike the demand for a trial de novo under
these circumstances.

Likewise, in Chamberland vs. Labarbera, 110 Nev. 701, 877 P.2d 523 (Nev. 1994),
the Nevada Supreme Court also held, that in a car accident case with liability
not at issue, and the entire dispute involving solely damages arising from the
car accident, striking the trial de novo was not appropriate in that case where
at least defense counsel, if not his client, was present at the arbitration
hearing and did participate and conducted cross-examination and disputed the
estimated damages.

In other words, there appears to be a minor exception to the general rule that a
party must appear at the arbitration hearing, for car accident cases where
liability is clear and only damages are being contested, and where at least
defense counsel does appear.  In that rare instance, the court has
allowed a trial de novo to move forward where the defendant’s attorney
participated in the discovery and in the arbitration hearing itself, even
though the defendant was not personally present at the hearing.

Here that narrow exception (carved out by two car
accident cases) is not applicable.  This is not a case where Defendant H
participated in the arbitration hearing through his assigned attorney and
presented a defense and cross-examined witnesses.  Mr. H ignored the
hearing altogether, ignored the notice to attend an Early Arbitration
Conference, ignored the notice to attend an Arbitration hearing, ignored the
rule for submission of an Arbitration Brief, even though the other side’s brief
was served on his secretary in his Las Vegas law office (which by Nevada
Arbitration Rules and practice demonstrated that an Arbitration hearing was
days away), and ignored the telephone calls and messages that were left on his
office and cell phone that the arbitration hearing was starting. Then, he
continued to fail to lift a finger for another several months, apparently intentionally
and deliberately indicating that he would not even attempt to salvage or remedy
his failure to participate in the process, but would simply file a trial de
novo request instead, treating everything that had previously occurred, and the
costs and fees that others had expended to properly participate under the
rules, with complete contempt.  Moreover,
this is a simple rent collection case, not a personal injury case where damages
are contested.

III.  CONCLUSION

            Based upon all of the foregoing, it is abundantly evident that H knew of the
arbitration proceedings as early as July 2014 (when he received and responded
to discovery requests that were also sent to the arbitrator, Robert Kurth).1  Mr. H never responded or made an appearance
from August 8, 2014 until January 20, 2015 when he filed his Request for Trial
de Novo.  Mr. H has not participated in
the underlying arbitration proceedings in good faith or in any meaningful
manner.  Consequently, his Request for
Trial de Novo should be summarily stricken and the court should uphold the
Decision entered by the Arbitrator after a full hearing on the merits with
three witnesses in attendance and testifying for the Plaintiff, Harsch
Properties.  The goals of the arbitration
program and the authority of this court would be seriously undermined if a
defendant were permitted to refuse to attend an arbitration hearing and then
simply demand a trial de novo. This is particularly true here, where an
attorney is the defendant and has a history of ignoring eviction and rent
collection procedures.  To allow an
attorney, representing himself in proper person, to ignore the court annexed
arbitration program would eviscerate the public policies supporting that
program. The fact that the brief and other documents were served on his law
office secretary rather than him personally is totally irrelevant under the
court’s local rules.

DATED
this _____day of February, 2015.

ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

 

 

 

By__________________________________________

G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ., #001394

WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR., ESQ., #008679

801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4

Las Vegas, Nevada 89106

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-defendant

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

            Pursuant
to NRCP 5(b), I certify that on this _____ day of February, 2015, I deposited a
true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO STRIKE REQUEST FOR TRIAL DE
NOVO
for mailing in the U.S. Mail at Las Vegas, Nevada, in a sealed
envelope upon which first class postage was prepaid and addressed to:

 

 

            Defendant/Counterclaimant

 

 

Las Vegas, Nevada
89103

Defendant/Counterclaimant

 

 


11It
should be noted that stapled to the back of H’s Responses to Requests for
Admissions was a two sentence document entitled “Notice of Erroneous Service,”
requesting that future pleadings be mailed to a California residence address.  However, this document was NOT filed with the court and, since it was stapled to H’s discovery responses, was not noticed by Plaintiff’s staff or apparently by the Arbitrator. However, LR 7.26
allows service on a party at his business.

 

About the Authors: The law firm of Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright is an A-V Rated Nevada-based full-service law firm having attorneys licensed in Nevada, California and Utah. Our firm’s practice includes a strong emphasis on real estate, secured finance and litigation.

Note: This article, and any other information you obtain at this website, is not offered as legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such, nor is it a solicitation for legal services. Only a licensed attorney can advise you with respect to your specific legal needs. We welcome your contacting our firm to discuss such representation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

About the Authors: The law firm of Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright is an A-V Rated Nevada-based full-service law firm having attorneys licensed in Nevada, California and Utah. Our firm’s practice includes a strong emphasis on personal injury accidents. Call us at 702-384-7111.

Note: This article, and any other information you obtain at this website, is not offered as legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such, nor is it a solicitation for legal services. Only a licensed attorney can advise you with respect to your specific legal needs. We welcome your contacting our firm to discuss such representation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.