1

2
3
4
5
F I LED
Electronically
03-20-2012:04:25:19 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Cour
Transaction # 2837978
6
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
7
IN AND FOR THE COUNT OF WASHOE
8
9
10 ZCH COUGHUN,
11
12
13
v.
Plaintiff;
14
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et al;
Defendants.
/
***
case No.: C11-01955
Dept. No.: 10
15
16
17
18
ORDER DENY PLINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO ALTER OR AMEND
Prsently before the Cour are to separate but similar submissions. First, on
19
Januar 20, 2012, Plaintif ZACH COUGHlN (Plaintiff" filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
20
Per NRCP 59. Following, on Januar 22, 2012, Defendant Crisis IntelVention Selices filed
21
an Opposition to Motion to Alter or Amend. Thereafer, on Januar 31, 2012, the
22 remaining defendants flied an Opposition to Plaintif's Motion to Alter or Amend. On
23 Februar 10, 2012, Plaintiff flied a Reply to Opposition; or in the Alternative, Motion for
24
Eension of Time to File Reply to Opposition. Finally, on February 20, 2012, Defendant
25
fe a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the mater for the Cour's consideration.
26
Second, on Februar 1, 2012, Plaintif flied a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment;
27
or, Pled in the .Alternative, Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order. Thereafer, on Februar 21,
28
2012, Defendant filed an Opposition t Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend. Subsequently,
-1-
1 on March 6, 2012, Defendants filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the
2 matter for the Cour's consideration.
3 Collectively, Plaintiff's two motions to Amend are nearly 100 pages long. Despite
4 the length of Plaintif's motions, however, Plaintif fails to identif the order or orders that
5 he wishes this Court to amend. Rather, Defendants accurately and not unfairly describe
6 Plaintiff's Motion as "a rambling diatribe peppered with vitriolic sarcasm and very little in
7 terms of legal argument." The Court furher finds Plaintiff's language to be inappropriate
8 and his legal arguments unintelligible. In any event, the Court has reviewed its orders
9 entered in this matter, and is convinced that Plaintiff's instant motions do not provide any
10 basis for relief from those orders. Accordingly, the Cour will deny Plaintif's motions.
11 In its Opposition, Defendant Crisis Interention Serices moves for sanctions and
12 attorney's fees. The Court will address the issue of sanctions in a separate order. A to
13 attorney's fees, Crisis Interention Serices asserts that it has incurred $1,000 In atorney's
14 fees opposing Plaintiff's first Motion to Alter or Amend. Afer reviewing the record and all
15 relevant pleadings, it is clear that Plaintif's Motion to Alter or Amend was brought or
16 maintained without reasonable grounds or to harass Defendants. See N.R.S. 18.010(2)(b).
17 Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant have satisfied N.R.C.P. S4(d)(2)(B) as to their
18 motion for attorneys' fees. Consequently, Defendants are entited to attorneys' fees. See
19 N.R's. 18.01O(2)(b).
20 In awarding attorney fees, the Court has discretion to determine what amount is
21
reasonable:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[I]n determining the amount of fees to award, the court is not
limited to one specific approach; it analysis may begin with any
method rationally designed to calculate a reasonable amount,
including those based on a 'lodestar' amount or a contingency
fee. We emphasize that, whichever method is chosen as a
staring point, however, the court must continue it analysis by
considering the requested amount in light of the factors
enumerated by this cour in B v. Golden Gate Nati onal
Bnk . . . [the advocate's] professional qualities, the nature of
the litigation, the work performed, and the result. In this
manner, whichever method the court ultimately uses, te result
-
2
-
1
will prove reasonable as long as the court provides sufcient
reasoning and findings in support of its ultimate determination.
2
Shuete v. Bazer Homes Holdings Corp., 121 Nev. 837, 864-865, 124 P.3d 530, 548-549
3
4
5
6
(2005) (internal citations omitted). The Court has carefully weighed the Brunze/facors
based upon a lodestar analysis and finds that an award of $1,000.00 in attorney's fees is
reasonable. Se Shuete, 121 Nev. at 864865. Accordingly, the Court will enter the
. .
following orders:
7
8
NOW, THEREFORE, I IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or
9
Amend Per NRCP 59 is DENIED.
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment; or,
11
Pled in the Alternative, Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order is DENIED.
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Crisis Interention Serices' Motion for
13
Attorney's fees is GRANTED.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 70 d"" of M,h. 2012.
EVN P ELUOT
District Judge
-3-
1
2
CERTIFICTE OF MAILING
I hereby cerfy that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Cour by
3
using the ECF system which sered the following parties electronically:
4
5
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. for MELISSA MANGIARACINA, PAUL ELCNO, KATHY
6
BRECKENRIDGE, BOARD PRES. OF WLS, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, PAUL ELCANO,
7
EECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WLS BOARD, TODD TORVINEN, WLS BOARD MEMBER
8
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN
9
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ for CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES
10
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this dO
-
HEIDI HOWDEN
Judicial Assistant