Electronically Filed

11/21/2018 2:55 PM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT

1 STEPHEN P. STUBBS, Esq.

2 Nevada Bar No. 10449
626 South Third Street
3 Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 759-3224
4 Facsimile: (702) 293-3289
Email: stephen@stephenpstubbs.com
5 Attorney for John Hunt
6

7 EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
8
JOHN BRIDGFORD HUNT Case No: C-18-334314-A
9
Appellant,
10 vs. Department: VII

11 CITY OF BOULDER CITY, Municipal Court Case: 17CR68

Respondent.
12 OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
13
AND AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO
14 NRS 1.235; AND MOTION TO
STRIKE ORDER
15

16 OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION AND

17 AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO NRS 1.235; AND MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER

18 COMES NOW, Defendant JOHN HUNT (hereafter, “Mr. Hunt”), by and through his

19 attorney STEPHEN P. STUBBS, ESQ., and hereby files this OPPOSITION TO

20 RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR DISQUIALIFICATION AND AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT
21
TO NRS 1.235; AND MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER. Respondent’s Motion is utterly
22
ridiculous, and is a desperate attempt to work around Respondent’s proper appellate remedies by
23
shamefully attacking the Honorable Judge Richard Scotti. Furthermore, City Attorney Steve
24

25 Morris is ignoring NRS 177.015(3), and there was never any improper ex-parte communications

26 between Attorney Stephen Stubbs and Judge Richard Scotti.

27
1
28

Case Number: C-18-334314-A

 I. THE APPEAL FROM THE LOWER COURT VERDICT WAS
PROCEDURALLY PROPER.
1

2 NRS 177.015(3) clearly sets out that a defendant may appeal from either a “final

3 judgment OR VERDICT in a criminal case” (emphasis added). In this case, Respondent agrees

4 in paragraph 3 of Gary Booker’s November 6, 2018 Affidavit that, on August 14, 2018, Judge
5 Pro Tem Margaret Whitaker issued her verdict from the bench (that was recorded into the court
6
record through court minutes) that John Hunt was guilty on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the criminal
7
complaint. John Hunt then properly appealed that verdict and the Boulder City Municipal Court
8
properly sent the appeal to the Eighth Judicial District Court, where the case was assigned to the
9

10 Honorable Judge Scotti. There is nothing improper about John Hunt’s Appeal from the Boulder

11 City Municipal Court, and the Eighth Judicial District Court properly had jurisdiction for the

12 appeal as soon as the Notice of Appeal was filed.

13
II. RESPONDENT’S MOTION IS UNTIMELY.
14
Respondent relies on their erroneous “final judgment” argument (ignoring the “verdict”
15
language from NRS 177.015(3) to conclude that the timing restraints in NRS 1.235(1) do not
16
apply to them. However, as shown above, John Hunt properly appealed Judge Whitaker’s August
17

18 14, 2018 verdict, and there is nothing procedurally wrong with the de novo appeal. Thus,

19 Respondent’s argument fails, and Respondent should have filed their Motion “not less than 20
20 days before the date set for trial or any hearing of the case; or not less than 3 days before the date
21
set for the hearing of any pretrial matter”. NRS 1.235(1). In this case, Appellant filed his Motion
22
to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution and on First Amendment Grounds on September 18, 2018
23
and a hearing was set for October 24, 2018. Thus, pursuant to NRS 1.235(1), Respondent needed
24

25 to file their Motion to Disqualify Judge Scotti no later than October 4, 2018, but they did not.

26 Instead, Respondents filed their Opposition on October 10, 2018, and waited until Judge Scotti

27
2
28
 ruled against them. Respondent only filed their Motion to Disqualify after the Judge Scotti ruled
1 against them, and the case was dismissed/closed. Therefore, because the Motion to Disqualify is
2
untimely, it must be denied. Respondent should instead exercise their appellate rights if they
3
wish.
4
III. THERE WAS NEVER ANY IMPROPER EXPARTE COMMUNICATION
5 BETWEEN ATTORNEY STEPHEN STUBBS AND JUDGE RICHARD
6 SCOTTI.

7 Appellant did not receive the notice that the September 19, 2018 court appearance was

8 taken off calendar, and appeared with Attorney Stephen Stubbs on September 19, 2018.
9
However, the calendar ended without Appellant’s case being called, and Judge Scotti called the
10
case when he noticed Appellant and counsel in the gallery. Then, everything that occurred in
11
open court on September 19, 2018 was scheduling and administrative in nature, while no
12
substantive matters were addressed, which is specifically permitted under Nevada Code of
13

14 Judicial Conduct Rule 2.9(A)(1), and normally/routinely occurs in criminal courts in Nevada.

15 On October 23, 2018, Judge Scotti’s Court Clerk called Attorney Stubbs to inform him
16 that the October 24, 2018 hearing was cancelled. Judge Scotti’s clerk specifically said, “the issues
17
were briefed very well and Judge Scotti has made his decision based on the briefing submitted”.
18
Attorney Stubbs then made a Facebook post to that effect at 1:11pm. Attorney Stubbs made a
19
2nd, comical Facebook post on the subject at 2:42pm.
20

21 On October 24, 2018, in the afternoon, Attorney Stubbs called Judge Scotti’s law clerk

22 to follow up, and was told that Judge Scotti would be preparing a written “Order Granting the

23 Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution”. Attorney Stubbs asked if there were any minutes
24 prepared, and was politely told “no”. The law clerk did not discuss any details or merits of the
25
decision, and simply told Attorney Stubbs the title. Neither did Attorney Stubbs discuss the case
26
in any way. Attorney Stubbs then made a Facebook post about being told that the judge was
27
3
28
 granting the Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution.
1 At no time did Attorney Stubbs have any improper communications with Judge Scotti,
2
nor his staff.
3
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong or improper with the timing of Appellant’s Motion
4
to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution and on First Amendment Grounds. In fact, Nevada
5

6 criminal procedure specifically, not only allows for motions any time “before trial”, but

7 encourages pretrial motions for “any defense or objection which is capable of determination

8 without the trial”. See NRS 174.075(2) and NRS 174.095. There is no requirement under Nevada
9
law that motions be filed after arraignment, initial appearance, nor setting of a trial date. Motions
10
are commonly and routinely filed in Nevada criminal courts prior to arraignment, initial
11
appearance and/or trial settings. Therefore, Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive
12
Prosecution and on First Amendment Grounds was filed timely and appropriately.
13

14 IV. RESPONDENT’S PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST JUDGE SCOTTI ARE

SHAMEFUL AND WRONG.
15
It is clear that Respondent’s are trying to circumvent the normal appellate process, in
16
which they have adequate remedy for any of their allegations, by filing this motion and attacking
17

18 the judgment and character of Judge Richard Scotti. It is shameful. To support their attack, they

19 use the Las Vegas Review Journal as authority in an article that is factually incorrect and biased.
20 The truth is that Judge Scotti was promoted to the construction defect specialty court on August
21
14, 2017, because of his 25 years experience litigating construction defect cases. This was well
22
before the decision referenced in the biased and factually incorrect Review Journal Article that
23
Respondent presented to the Court. Thus, Judge Scotti was never taken off of criminal cases
24

25 because of a decision, as Gary Booker and the Las Vegas Review Journal claim.

26 Judge Scotti made a wise decision based on the evidence and briefing that were presented

27
4
28
 to him. Respondent lost, was found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct (vindictive prosecution),
1 and was further found guilty of violating John Hunt’s 1st Amendment right to protest.
2
Consequently, Respondent’s Motion is nothing more than an epically embarrassing temper
3
tantrum.
4
Dated this 21st day of November, 2018. _/s/Stephen P. Stubbs_______
5 STEPHEN P. STUBBS, Esq.
6 Nevada Bar No. 10449
626 South Third Street
7 Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 759-3224
8 Facsimile: (702) 293-3289
Email: stephen@stephenpstubbs.com
9
Attorney for John Hunt
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
5
28