gr

LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Post Oftice Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 69505
(775) 3480688
Fax(775) 3480858
Code No. 3795
RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.
State Bar No. 596
CASEYD. BAKER, ESQ.
State Bar No. 9504
SOPHIE A. KARADANIS, ESQ.
State Bar No. 12006
RICHARD G. HILL, LTD.
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
(775) 348-0888
Attorneys for Respondent Matt Merliss
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: CVll-03628
Appellant,
Dept. NO.7
v.
MATT MERLISS,
Respondent.
REPLY TO SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
Respondent, MATT MERLISS, by and through his counsel, RICHARD G. HILL,
LTD., and CASEY D. BAKER, ESQ., replies to the "Supplement to Opposition to o t i ~ n for
Attorney's Fees" filed herein on June 9,2012 by Mr. Coughlin. Mr. Coughlin's supplement
is seriously tardy, and is nonsense. Mr. Coughlin's supplement should be stricken from the
record: This reply is based on the points and authorities below and all papers and pleadings
. on file herein.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
FACTS
As the court is aware, this is an appeal from a summary eviction order
entered in the Reno Justice Court. Merliss believes the court to be familiar with the
F I L E D
Electronically
06-14-2012:04:50:59 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 3020168
, LAWOFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
2
underlying substantive facts of this case, and will not needlessly repeat them here. The
pertinent procedural fads are as follows:
1. On October 27, 2012, the Reno Justice Court entered its Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order for Summary Eviction in case no. REV2011-001708. ROA,
Vol. II, pp. 75-80.
2. On January 14,2012, Coughlin filed his "Opposition to Motion for Attorney's
Fees," even though no such motion had been filed in this case.
3. On March 30,2012, this court entered an order denying Coughlin's appeal
from the summary eviction order. Merliss was the prevailing party on appeal. Merliss filed
and served a notice of entry of that order on the same day.
4. On April 3, 2012, Merliss timely filed and served his memorandum of costs
and disbursements.
5. Coughlin's motion to retax was due by no later than April 9, 2012. Coughlin
did not file any motion to retax as required by NRS 18.110, but instead filed a bizarre,
rambling, and abusive "opposition to memorandum of costs," to which Merliss replied on
April 12, 2012.
6. On April 19, 2012, Merliss timely filed and served his motion for attorney's
fees pursuant to NRS 69.05Q and NRS 7.085.
7. Coughlin's opposition to Merliss' motion for attorney's fees was due by no
later than May 7, 2012. Coughlin did not file any opposition to the motion for fees.
8. On May 9, 2012, Merliss requested submission of his motion for attorney's
fees. That motion remains pending, awaiting the court's ruling.
10. On June 8,2012, Coughlin filed a "motion to alter or amend" the court's
award of costs.
9. On May 22, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Merliss'
memorandum of costs and disbursements.
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ x ~ ~ 28
(775) 346-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
3
11. On June 9, 2012, more than a month after his opposition was due, and
exactly one month after the motion had been submitted for a decision, Coughlin filed the
instant "supplement," in which he purports to finally oppose Merliss' motion for attorney's
fees.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Mr. Coughlin's opposition, ifany, to Merliss' motion for attorney's fees was due
by no later than May 7,2012. DCR 13(3). WDCR 12(2). Coughlin's "supplement" is tardy,
having been filed more than a month after it was due, and exactly one month after the
motion was submitted to the court for a decision. Coughlin's failure to file a timely
opposition should be construed by the court as an admission by Coughlin that the motion
is meritorious and shouldbe granted. DCR 13(3). King v. Cartlidge, 121 Nev. 926, 124 P.3d
1161 (2005).
Coughlin claims that the opposition he filed on January 14, 2012 is "a standing
order and applies and applied to any and all attorney's fees motion (sic) ever submitted in
this matter... " Supplement to Opposition at 5:21-22. This is nonsense and without any
basis in the Rules or case law. Coughlin offers no authority for the proposition that a
litigant can file a pre-emptive opposition to a motion that may, or may not, ever be filed in
the future. Infact, bothWDCR 12(2) and DCR 13(3) specifically require that anyopposition
must be filed" ... within 10 days after service ofa motion... " (Emphasis added). Coughlin's
January 14, 2012 "opposition" was and is a fugitive document with no bearing on this case,
other than to showeither (1) Coughlin's complete incompetence as an attorney, and/or (b)
that the fees he consistently and needlessly inflicted on Merliss throughout this case were
by specific design.
Substantively, Coughlin's "supplement" proves the points made in
Merliss' motion. The fees in this case have reached such astronomical levels solely and
exclusively due to Coughlin's ridiculous ravings and his penchant for confrontation where
none should exist. He continues to file nonsensical rants for no purpose other than to drag
this matter out andcost Merliss additional fees.
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 348'0888
Fax(775) 348-{)858
4
Coughlin's "supplement" is 13 pages long. Approximately one-half of the
document contains nothing but irrelevant and unprofessional personal attacks on Merliss,
his counsel, various local judges, andCoughlin's public defenders. Threaded amongst these
attacks are Coughlin's inappropriate attempts to re-argue the merits of the underlying
eviction. The other half ofthe document consists of irrelevant and unanalyzed string cites
of authoritythat Coughlin copied and pasted from Westlaw. Nowhere in his "supplement"
does Coughlin make any coherent argument, or cite to any relevant authority, as to why
Merliss should not be awarded his fees.
Merliss was undisputedly the prevailing party on appeal. He is entitled to an
award of fees under NRS 69.050 as a matter of right. Coughlin's frivolous and vexatious
efforts to prolong this matter without any basis in law or fact are laid bare in Merliss'
motion. Inthe event it was not obvious already, Coughlin's "supplement" removes all doubt
that an award of fees under NRS 7.085 is also appropriate.
1
Just as described in the motion for attorney's fees, Merliss has now been forced,
yet again, to incur additional fees to respondto Coughlin's "supplement," even though that
document is without any merit whatsoever. Coughlin's blind insistence on continuing his
rampage is not well-founded in either law
m()re harm on Merliss.
or fact. But, rather, it is calculated solely to inflict
As discussed in detail in Merliss' fees motion, Coughlin's filings, and
each of them, have been perfectly and consistently frivolous and vexatious. Coughlin
must be stopped. Procedural sanctions are both necessary and appropriate.
This court possesses the inherent power "of equity and of control over the
exercise of[its] jurisdiction." Jordan v. State, Dept. ofMotor Vehicles, 121 Nev. 44, 59,110
P.3d 30 (2005). That power includes the right to restrict a litigants access to the court's
1 Coughlin's license to practice law in Nevada was suspended by the Nevada
Supreme Court on June 7, 2012. See EXHIBIT 1 hereto, which is a true and correct copy
of that Court's order. Nevertheless, NRS 7.085 still applies to all of Coughlin's conduct
referenced in the motion, and sanctions are appropriate.
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PoSI Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Navada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 3480858
5
processes. Id. In addition, "NRCP 11 permits a district court to impose appropriate
deterrent sanctions on a party who violates that rule by signing court documents that
are frivolous or presentedfor an improper purpose." Id. (Emphasis added). See
also, NRCP 11(C)(2).
Here, Coughlin has demonstrated his overwhelming and consistent propensity
tofile documents solely to vex and harass Merliss. His multiple and voluminous filings, and
each of them, including the instant "supplement," have been so deficient, and so devoid of
merit, as to raise a presumption that every document filed by him from this point forward
will be, and is, frivolous. Merliss specificallyasks the court to make such a factual
finding. Merliss further requests that the court exercise its equitable and
statutoryauthoritytosanctionCoughlin, andprotect Merliss from Coughlin's
abuses, by entering a sanction order to the effect that Merliss is not required
to respond to any further ffiings by Coughlin, until and unless directed to do
so by the court. Merliss asks that the scope of any such order include the June 8, 2012
"motion to alter or amend order granting memorandum of costs" filed by Coughlin. In
addition to the foregoing non-monetary sanctions, Merliss also asks for sanctions in the
amount of $500.00, as and for the fees he incurred to prepare this reply, and that Coughlin
be held in contempt of court if he fails to pay.
Reference is made to the Declaration of Casey D. Baker, Esq., attached hereto
as EXHIBIT 2, for authentication of all exhibits and a discussion of the fees incurred in
preparing this reply.
CONCLUSION
This case is over. Enough is enough. Coughlin lost at every level, and must now
face the consequences of his actions. Merliss is entitled toan award offees pursuant to NRS
69.050 and NRS
tardy, and without any substantive merit. The conte:qts of the "supplement" only reinforce
7.085, as discussed in the instant motion. Coughlin's "supplement" is
the arguments made by Merliss in his motion. The January 14, 2012 "opposition" filed by
LAWOFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PostOffice Box2551 28
Reno, Nevada89505
(775)348-0888
Fax(775)348-0858
Coughlin is a fugitive document that may be considered by the court. DCR 13(3).
WDCR 12(2). Coughlin's failure to timely ifile an opposition to Merliss' motion for
I
I
attorney's fees should be construed as an by Coughlin that the motion should be
granted. DCR 13(3). In addition to the fees requested in the motion, Merliss asks the court
for an additional award of fees in the amount Iof $500.00, which represents two hours of
the undersigned's time to read, decipher, andioppose Coughlin's frivolous "supplement."
Merliss further asks for a sanction order Coughlin to the effect that Merliss need not
respond to any future filings by Coughlin, untfl and unless directed to do so by the Court.
WHEREFORE, Merliss prays for award of fees as prayed for in the motion
for attorney's fees filed herein on April 19, 2b12; for an additional award of fees in the
amount of $500.00, as and for fees incurred preparing this reply; for a sanction order of
the court that Merliss need not respond to ant future filing by Coughlin, until and unless
directedto do so by the court; andfor such further, and additional relief as seems just
to the court in the premises.
AFFIRMATION to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby af"f1rm that the preceding document does not
contain the social security number of any
J.
DATED this \ l-{ day of June,
RICHARD G. HILL, LTD.
CASEYD. BAKER, ESQ.
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Attorney for respondent Matt Merliss
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775)348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
PursuanttoNRCP5(b),IherebycertifythatIamanemployeeof RICHARDG.
HILL, LTD., andthatonthe ~ dayofJune,2012,Ielectronicallyfiledtheforegoing
REPLYTOSUPPLEMENTTOOPPOSITIONTOMOTIONFORATTORNEY'SFEESwit h
theClerkof theCourtbyusingtheECFsystemwhichwillsendanoticeof electronicfiling
tothefollowing:
ZachCoufflhlin,Esq.
1422E. 9 Street,#2
Reno,Nevada89501
)
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 348"()888
Fax(775) 348"()888
EXHIBITINDEX
EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGES
1 July 7, 2012 Order from Nevada Supreme Court 2
2 Declaration of Casey D. Baker, Esq.
5
.. EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
F I L E D
Electronically
06-14-2012:04:50:59 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 3020168
AJ,1
SuPREME! COURT

NEVAl)P.
(O)1!l41A ....
unpublish order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
No. 60838
ZACHARYB. COUGHLIN,ESQ.,BAR
NO. 9473.'
INTHEMATTEROFDISCIPLINEOF
FILED
JUN 07 20tl
ORDEROFTEMPORARYSUSPENSION
REFERRALTODISCIPLINARYBOARD
Barcounsel for the State Bar of Nevada has fIled a petition
pursuant SCR 111 seeking an order from this cOlift temporarily
suspending attorney Zachary B. Coughlin, Bar Number 9473, from the
practice of law and referring him for' disciplinary proceedings. The
petition alleges thaton September 9, 2011, Coughlin shoplifted a.candy
-.f'.
bar and cough drops from a Wal-Martstore. It is
documentation indicating that on November 30, 2011, in the MtmiciPif;ll
Court ofthe City ofReno, Coughlin was found guilty, followin,g abene,h,
trial, of one count ofpetit larceny/theft in violation ofReno Municipal'
Code 8.10.040. Hewasorderedtopay $400 infines aJ;1d fees. Coughlin
appealed his conviction to the Second Judicial District Court, and on
March15, 2012,thejudgmentwasaffirmed.1
IThe. petition does not indicate whether Coughlin informed bar
counseloftheconviction.asrequiredbySCR111(2),
SUPREMECoURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ...,
2
Pursuantto SCR 111, temporary suspension and referral to
the appropriatedisciplinary board are mandatory when an attorney has
beenconvictedofa "serious" crime, which includestheft. SCR111(6)-(8).
Accordingly, pursuant to SCR 111(8), we refer this matter to the
appropriate disciplinary board for the institution of a formal hearing
before a hearingpanelinwhich the sole issue to be determined shallbe
theextentofthedisciplinetobeimposed. Furthermore,pursuanttoSCR..
111(7), we herebytemporarilysuspendattorneyZacharyB.Coughlinfrom
thepracticeoflawinNevada, pendingfinal dispositionofthedisciplinary
proceedings.
ItissoORDERED.2
J.
Saitta .
. . J.
etf!t7
J.
Hardesty
'"
cc: J.ThomasSusich, Chair,NorthernNevadaDisciplinaryBoard
DavidA. Clark, BarCounsel
KimberlyK. Farmer,Executive.Director,StateBarofNevada
ZacharyB.Coughlin
PerryThompson,AdmissionsOffice,UnitedStatesSupremeCoUrt
2This order constitutes ourfmal.disposition ofthis matter. Should
there be any further proceedings regardingCoughlin, they shall be
docketedasa newmatter. .
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
F I L E D
Electronically
06-14-2012:04:50:59 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 3020168
gr 1
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 28
(775) 348-0666
Fax(775 ) 348-0658
Code No. 1520
RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.
State Bar No. 596
CASEY D. BAKER, ESQ.
State Bar No. 9504
SOPHIE KARADANIS, ESQ.
State Bar No. 12006
RICHARD G. HILL, LTD.
652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
(775) 348-0888
Attorney for Respondent Matt Merliss
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, )
) Case No.: CVn-03628
Appellant, )
) Dept. NO.7
v.
)
)
MATT MERLISS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
DECLARATION OF CASEY D. BAKER. ESQ.
CASEY D. BAKER, ESQ., being first duly sworn, deposes and under penalty of
peIjury avers:
1. I am a resident ofthe City of Reno, County ofWashoe, State of Nevada,
and over 18 years ofage. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, except those
matters stated on information and belief, and as to those items I believe them to be true.
This declaration is made in support ofrespondent's Reply to Supplement to Opposition to
Motion/or Attorney's Fees and represents my testimony if called on to present same in
court.
2. J am an attorney duly licensed as such by the State of Nevada to practice
before all courts of this State and maintain my office at 652 Forest Street, Reno, Nevada,
where I am employed as an associate for the law firm of Richard G. Hill, Ltd. I am also
licensed to practice before the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
2
3. My office represents the respondent, Dr. Matthew Merliss, in this matter.
4. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT "I" is a true and correct (redacted) copy of a
billing "activity report" generated by my office showing work performed by my office in
connection with preparing the instant reply. I have only redacted those portions of the
billings which might reveal privileged information (Le., attorney-client andlor attorney
work product) or charges which do not pertain to the instant matter. All charges arising
from the entries on the attached report were actually, reasonably and necessarily incurred
on behalfof my client in this case. The data presented is, essentially, the billings sent tothe
clients in a slightly modified format.
a) The charges for my time were all assessed at the rate of $250.00 per
hour, which is my standard hourly rate. Upon investigation and experience, these rates are
well within the range of fees charged by other attorneys in the community.
5. The total fees incurred by Merliss in connection with thepreparationof
this reply are $500.00.
6. In accordance with the factors enunciated by the Nevada Supreme Court
in Brunzellv. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 85 Nev. 345,349,455 P.2d31 (1969) and as set forth
in NRPC 1.5, I show the Court:
a) I have been practicing law in Nevada for over 6 years. My practice
emphasizes collections, real estate, real estate litigation, construction, construction defect,
business, business litigation and general commercial law.
My current standard hourly rate is $250.00 per hour. Upon inquiry, I
understand that rate to be well within the range of fees charged by other attorneys with
comparable qualifications in the community for similar services. The fees charged were
actually, reasonably and necessarily incurred.
b) All ofthe workthat was actually performed in connection with this
matter is itemized on EXHIBIT "1."The entries on EXHIBIT "I" identified as "CB" were
entered by me, and were tnade as the charges were incurred. The billings show a total of
lAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. Hill
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno. Nevada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
3
3 hours spent on this matter, each and every instance of which was necessary and
reasonable under the circumstances. As the court can see, however, I have only charged the
client for 2 hours of the time I spent preparing the referenced reply. Reference is made to
the declarations of Richard G. Hill and Casey D. Baker, attached tothe motion for attorney's
fees filed herein on April 19, 2012, for a discussion of work that was performed but not
billed to the client.
7. I have personally reviewed the exhibits attached tothe instant motion, and
each exhibit is a true and correct copy of what it purports to be.
8. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
L-(t
DATED this 1 day of June, 2012.
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 348-0888 .
Fax(775) 348-0856
4
EXHIBITINDEX
EXHIBITNO. DESCRIPTION PAGES
1 ActivityReport 1
EXHIBIT1
EXHIBIT1
For the dates: 6113/2012 to 6/14/2012
Client: Merliss, Dr. Matthew J.
Matter: General (Default)
Bill Detail
a ~ e Type Biller Description
6113/2012
6/14/2012
Fee
Fee
CB
CB
Prepare reply to supplement to opposition to motion
for fees.
Edit, revise, and finalize reply to supplement to
oppostion to motion for fees. n/c.
Activity Subtotals
Fees:
Expenses:
Other Charges:
Payments:
Hours. Amount
2.00
1.00
3.00 Hours
$500.00
$0.00
$500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
6/14/2012 P a g ~ 1