F I L E D

Electronically
06-14-2012:04:50:59 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 3020168
gr
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
11 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: CVll-03628
12 Appellant,
Dept. NO.7
13 v.
14 MATT MERLISS,
15
16
17
18
Respondent.
REPLY TO SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
Respondent, MATT MERLISS, by and through his counsel, RICHARD G. HILL,
19 LTD., and CASEY D. BAKER, ESQ., replies to the "Supplement to Opposition to o t i ~ n for
20 Attorney's Fees" filed herein on June 9,2012 by Mr. Coughlin. Mr. Coughlin's supplement
21 is seriously tardy, and is nonsense. Mr. Coughlin's supplement should be stricken from the
22 record: This reply is based on the points and authorities below and all papers and pleadings
23 . on file herein.
24
25
26
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
FACTS
As the court is aware, this is an appeal from a summary eviction order
27 entered in the Reno Justice Court. Merliss believes the court to be familiar with the
Post Oftice Box 2551 28 III
Reno, Nevada 69505
(775) 3480688
Fax(775) 3480858
, LAWOFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1 underlying substantive facts of this case, and will not needlessly repeat them here. The
2 pertinent procedural fads are as follows:
3 1. On October 27, 2012, the Reno Justice Court entered its Findings of Fact,
4 Conclusions of Law, and Order for Summary Eviction in case no. REV2011-001708. ROA,
5 Vol. II, pp. 75-80.
6 2. On January 14,2012, Coughlin filed his "Opposition to Motion for Attorney's
7 Fees," even though no such motion had been filed in this case.
8 3. On March 30,2012, this court entered an order denying Coughlin's appeal
9 from the summary eviction order. Merliss was the prevailing party on appeal. Merliss filed
10 and served a notice of entry of that order on the same day.
11 4. On April 3, 2012, Merliss timely filed and served his memorandum of costs
12 and disbursements.
13 5. Coughlin's motion to retax was due by no later than April 9, 2012. Coughlin
14 did not file any motion to retax as required by NRS 18.110, but instead filed a bizarre,
15 rambling, and abusive "opposition to memorandum of costs," to which Merliss replied on
16 April 12, 2012.
17 6. On April 19, 2012, Merliss timely filed and served his motion for attorney's
18 fees pursuant to NRS 69.05Q and NRS 7.085.
19 7. Coughlin's opposition to Merliss' motion for attorney's fees was due by no
20 later than May 7, 2012. Coughlin did not file any opposition to the motion for fees.
21 8. On May 9, 2012, Merliss requested submission of his motion for attorney's
22 fees. That motion remains pending, awaiting the court's ruling.
23 9. On May 22, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Merliss'
24 memorandum of costs and disbursements.
25 10. On June 8,2012, Coughlin filed a "motion to alter or amend" the court's
26 award of costs.
27 III
Post Office Box 2551 28 III
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
2
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1 11. On June 9, 2012, more than a month after his opposition was due, and
2 exactly one month after the motion had been submitted for a decision, Coughlin filed the
3 instant "supplement," in which he purports to finally oppose Merliss' motion for attorney's
4 fees.
5 LAW AND ANALYSIS
6 Mr. Coughlin's opposition, if any, to Merliss' motion for attorney's fees was due
7 by no later than May 7,2012. DCR 13(3). WDCR 12(2). Coughlin's "supplement" is tardy,
8 having been filed more than a month after it was due, and exactly one month after the
9 motion was submitted to the court for a decision. Coughlin's failure to file a timely
10 opposition should be construed by the court as an admission by Coughlin that the motion
11 is meritorious and should be granted. DCR 13(3). King v. Cartlidge, 121 Nev. 926, 124 P.3d
12 1161 (2005).
13 Coughlin claims that the opposition he filed on January 14, 2012 is "a standing
14 order and applies and applied to any and all attorney's fees motion (sic) ever submitted in
15 this matter ... " Supplement to Opposition at 5:21-22. This is nonsense and without any
16 basis in the Rules or case law. Coughlin offers no authority for the proposition that a
17 litigant can file a pre-emptive opposition to a motion that may, or may not, ever be filed in
18 the future. In fact, both WDCR 12(2) and DCR 13(3) specifically require that any opposition
19 must be filed" ... within 10 days after service of a motion ... " (Emphasis added). Coughlin's
20 January 14, 2012 "opposition" was and is a fugitive document with no bearing on this case,
21 other than to show either (1) Coughlin's complete incompetence as an attorney, and/ or (b)
22 that the fees he consistently and needlessly inflicted on Merliss throughout this case were
23 by specific design.
24 Substantively, Coughlin's "supplement" proves the points made in
25 Merliss' motion. The fees in this case have reached such astronomical levels solely and
26 exclusively due to Coughlin's ridiculous ravings and his penchant for confrontation where
27 none should exist. He continues to file nonsensical rants for no purpose other than to drag
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ x ~ ~ 28 this matter out andcost Merliss additional fees.
(775) 346-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
3
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1 Coughlin's "supplement" is 13 pages long. Approximately one-half of the
2 document contains nothing but irrelevant and unprofessional personal attacks on Merliss,
3 his counsel, various local judges, and Coughlin's public defenders. Threaded amongst these
4 attacks are Coughlin's inappropriate attempts to re-argue the merits of the underlying
5 eviction. The other half of the document consists of irrelevant and unanalyzed string cites
6 of authority that Coughlin copied and pasted from Westlaw. Nowhere in his "supplement"
7 does Coughlin make any coherent argument, or cite to any relevant authority, as to why
8 Merliss should not be awarded his fees.
9 Merliss was undisputedly the prevailing party on appeal. He is entitled to an
10 award of fees under NRS 69.050 as a matter of right. Coughlin's frivolous and vexatious
11 efforts to prolong this matter without any basis in law or fact are laid bare in Merliss'
12 motion. In the event it was not obvious already, Coughlin's "supplement" removes all doubt
13 that an award of fees under NRS 7.085 is also appropriate.
1
14 Just as described in the motion for attorney's fees, Merliss has now been forced,
15 yet again, to incur additional fees to respond to Coughlin's "supplement," even though that
16 document is without any merit whatsoever. Coughlin's blind insistence on continuing his
17 rampage is not well-founded in either law or fact. But, rather, it is calculated solely to inflict
18 m()re harm on Merliss. As discussed in detail in Merliss' fees motion, Coughlin's filings, and
19 each of them, have been perfectly and consistently frivolous and vexatious. Coughlin
20 must be stopped. Procedural sanctions are both necessary and appropriate.
21 This court possesses the inherent power "of equity and of control over the
22 exercise of[its] jurisdiction." Jordan v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 121 Nev. 44, 59,110
23 P.3d 30 (2005). That power includes the right to restrict a litigants access to the court's
24 III
25
26
27
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 89505
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.
(775) 348'0888
Fax(775) 348-{)858
4
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1 processes. Id. In addition, "NRCP 11 permits a district court to impose appropriate
2 deterrent sanctions on a party who violates that rule by signing court documents that
3 are frivolous or presented for an improper purpose." Id. (Emphasis added). See
4 also, NRCP 11(C)(2).
5 Here, Coughlin has demonstrated his overwhelming and consistent propensity
6 to file documents solely to vex and harass Merliss. His multiple and voluminous filings, and
7 each of them, including the instant "supplement," have been so deficient, and so devoid of
8 merit, as to raise a presumption that every document filed by him from this point forward
9 will be, and is, frivolous. Merliss specifically asks the court to make such a factual
10 finding. Merliss further requests that the court exercise its equitable and
11 statutory authority to sanction Coughlin, and protect Merliss from Coughlin's
12 abuses, by entering a sanction order to the effect that Merliss is not required
13 to respond to any further ffiings by Coughlin, until and unless directed to do
14 so by the court. Merliss asks that the scope of any such order include the June 8, 2012
15 "motion to alter or amend order granting memorandum of costs" filed by Coughlin. In
16 addition to the foregoing non-monetary sanctions, Merliss also asks for sanctions in the
17 amount of $500.00, as and for the fees he incurred to prepare this reply, and that Coughlin
18 be held in contempt of court if he fails to pay.
19 Reference is made to the Declaration of Casey D. Baker, Esq., attached hereto
20 as EXHIBIT 2, for authentication of all exhibits and a discussion of the fees incurred in
21 preparing this reply.
22 CONCLUSION
23 This case is over. Enough is enough. Coughlin lost at every level, and must now
24 face the consequences of his actions. Merliss is entitled to an award of fees pursuant to NRS
25 69.050 and NRS 7.085, as discussed in the instant motion. Coughlin's "supplement" is
26 tardy, and without any substantive merit. The conte:qts of the "supplement" only reinforce
27 the arguments made by Merliss in his motion. The January 14, 2012 "opposition" filed by
PoSI Office Box 2551 28 11.1
Reno, Navada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 3480858
5
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1 Coughlin is a fugitive document that may be considered by the court. DCR 13(3).
2 WDCR 12(2). Coughlin's failure to timely ifile an opposition to Merliss' motion for
I
I
3 attorney's fees should be construed as an by Coughlin that the motion should be
4 granted. DCR 13(3). In addition to the fees requested in the motion, Merliss asks the court
5 for an additional award of fees in the amount I of $500.00, which represents two hours of
6 the undersigned's time to read, decipher, andioppose Coughlin's frivolous "supplement."
7 Merliss further asks for a sanction order Coughlin to the effect that Merliss need not
8 respond to any future filings by Coughlin, untfl and unless directed to do so by the Court.
9
10 WHEREFORE, Merliss prays for award of fees as prayed for in the motion
11 for attorney's fees filed herein on April 19, 2b12; for an additional award of fees in the
12 amount of $500.00, as and for fees incurred preparing this reply; for a sanction order of
13 the court that Merliss need not respond to ant future filing by Coughlin, until and unless
14 directed to do so by the court; and for such further, and additional relief as seems just
15 to the court in the premises.
16
17 AFFIRMATION to NRS 239B.030
18 The undersigned does hereby af"f1rm that the preceding document does not
19 contain the social security number of any
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuantto NRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of RICHARD G.
3 HILL, LTD., and that on the 4 ~ day of June, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing
4 REPLY TO SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES wit h
5 the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing
6 to the following:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Zach Coufflhlin, Esq.
1422 E. 9 Street, #2
Reno, Nevada 89501
)
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
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
EXHIBIT NO.
1
2
EXHIBIT INDEX
DESCRIPTION PAGES
July 7, 2012 Order from Nevada Supreme Court 2
Declaration of Casey D. Baker, Esq.
5
F I L E D
Electronically
06-14-2012:04:50:59 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 3020168
.. EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
AJ,1 unpublish order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
SuPREME! COURT

NEVAl)P.
(O)1!l41A ....
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF
ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, ESQ., BAR
NO. 9473.'
No. 60838
FILED
JUN 07 20tl
ORDER OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION
REFERRAL TO DISCIPLINARY BOARD
Bar counsel 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 that on 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 of the City of Reno, Coughlin was found guilty, followin,g abene,h,
trial, of one count of petit larceny/theft in violation of Reno Municipal '
Code 8.10.040. He was ordered to pay $400 in fines aJ;1d fees. Coughlin
appealed his conviction to the Second Judicial District Court, and on
March 15, 2012, the judgment was affirmed.1
IThe. petition does not indicate whether Coughlin informed bar
counsel of the conviction.as required by SCR 111(2),
SUPREME CoURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ...,
Pursuant to SCR 111, temporary suspension and referral to
the appropriate disciplinary board are mandatory when an attorney has
been convicted of a "serious" crime, which includes theft. SCR 111(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 hearing panel in which the sole issue to be determined shall be
the extent of the discipline to be imposed. Furthermore, pursuant to SCR ..
111(7), we hereby temporarily suspend attorney Zachary B.Coughlin from
the practice of law in Nevada, pending final disposition of the disciplinary
proceedings.
It is so ORDERED.2
J.
Saitta .
. .
etf!t7
J.
J.
Hardesty
'"
cc: J. Thomas Susich, Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive.Director, State Bar of Nevada
Zachary B. Coughlin
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme CoUrt
2This order constitutes our fmal .disposition of this matter. Should
there be any further proceedings regarding Coughlin, they shall be
docketed as a new matter. .
2
F I L E D
Electronically
06-14-2012:04:50:59 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 3020168
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
gr 1 Code No. 1520
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.
2 State Bar No. 596
CASEY D. BAKER, ESQ.
3 State Bar No. 9504
SOPHIE KARADANIS, ESQ.
4 State Bar No. 12006
RICHARD G. HILL, LTD.
5 652 Forest Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
6 (775) 348-0888
Attorney for Respondent Matt Merliss
7
8 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
v.
MATT MERLISS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: CVn-03628
Dept. NO.7
DECLARATION OF CASEY D. BAKER. ESQ.
CASEY D. BAKER, ESQ., being first duly sworn, deposes and under penalty of
18 peIjury avers:
19 1. I am a resident of the City of Reno, County of Washoe, State of Nevada,
20 and over 18 years of age. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, except those
21 matters stated on information and belief, and as to those items I believe them to be true.
22 This declaration is made in support of respondent's Reply to Supplement to Opposition to
23 Motion/or Attorney's Fees and represents my testimony if called on to present same in
24 court.
25 2. J am an attorney duly licensed as such by the State of Nevada to practice
26 before all courts of this State and maintain my office at 652 Forest Street, Reno, Nevada,
27 where I am employed as an associate for the law firm of Richard G. Hill, Ltd. I am also
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 28 licensed to practice before the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
(775) 348-0666
Fax(775 ) 348-0658
LAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. HILL
1 3. My office represents the respondent, Dr. Matthew Merliss, in this matter.
2 4. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT "I" is a true and correct (redacted) copy of a
3 billing "activity report" generated by my office showing work performed by my office in
4 connection with preparing the instant reply. I have only redacted those portions of the
5 billings which might reveal privileged information (Le., attorney-client andlor attorney
6 work product) or charges which do not pertain to the instant matter. All charges arising
7 from the entries on the attached report were actually, reasonably and necessarily incurred
8 on behalf of my client in this case. The data presented is, essentially, the billings sent to the
9 clients in a slightly modified format.
10 a) The charges for my time were all assessed at the rate of $250.00 per
11 hour, which is my standard hourly rate. Upon investigation and experience, these rates are
12 well within the range of fees charged by other attorneys in the community.
13 5. The total fees incurred by Merliss in connection with the preparation of
14 this reply are $500.00.
15 6. In accordance with the factors enunciated by the Nevada Supreme Court
16 in Brunzellv. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 85 Nev. 345,349,455 P.2d31 (1969) and as set forth
17 in NRPC 1.5, I show the Court:
18 a) I have been practicing law in Nevada for over 6 years. My practice
19 emphasizes collections, real estate, real estate litigation, construction, construction defect,
20 business, business litigation and general commercial law.
21 My current standard hourly rate is $250.00 per hour. Upon inquiry, I
22 understand that rate to be well within the range of fees charged by other attorneys with
23 comparable qualifications in the community for similar services. The fees charged were
24 actually, reasonably and necessarily incurred.
25 b) All of the work that was actually performed in connection with this
26 matter is itemized on EXHIBIT "1."The entries on EXHIBIT "I" identified as "CB" were
27 entered by me, and were tnade as the charges were incurred. The billings show a total of
Post Office Box 2551 28 III
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
2
lAW OFFICE
RICHARD G. Hill
1 3 hours spent on this matter, each and every instance of which was necessary and
2 reasonable under the circumstances. As the court can see, however, I have only charged the
3 client for 2 hours of the time I spent preparing the referenced reply. Reference is made to
4 the declarations of Richard G. Hill and Casey D. Baker, attached to the motion for attorney's
5 fees filed herein on April 19, 2012, for a discussion of work that was performed but not
6 billed to the client.
7 7. I have personally reviewed the exhibits attached to the instant motion, and
8 each exhibit is a true and correct copy of what it purports to be.
9 8. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DATED this
L-(t
1 day of June, 2012.
Post Office Box 2551 28
Reno. Nevada 89505
(775) 348-0888
Fax(775) 348-0858
3
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
EXHIBIT NO.
1
EXHIBIT INDEX
DESCRIPTION PAGES
Activity Report 1
4
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
For the dates: 6113/2012 to 6/14/2012
Client: Merliss, Dr. Matthew J.
Matter: General (Default)
Bill Detail
a ~ e Type Biller
6113/2012 Fee CB
6/14/2012 Fee CB
6/14/2012
Description
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.
2.00
1.00
3.00 Hours
Amount
$500.00
$0.00
$500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
P a g ~ 1