CV11-03628-2686078 (Opposition to Mtn ...)

7/29/2019 CV11-03628-2686078 (Opposition to Mtn ...)

1/4

F I L E DElectronically

02-03-2012:10:51:41 AM

Joey Orduna HastingsClerk of the Court

Transaction # 2741762gr 1 Code No. 2645

HILL

RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.2 State Bar No. 596CASEY D. BAKER ESQ.3 State Bar No. 9504RICHARD G. HILL, LTD.4 652 Forest StreetReno, Nevada 895095 (775) 348-0888Attorney for Respondent Matt Merliss678 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OFNEVADAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE910 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, )) Case No.: CVll-0362811 Appellant, )) Dept. NO.712 v. ))13 MATT MERLISS, ))14 Respondent. ))1516 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT17 Respondent, MATT MERLISS ( MERLISS ), by and through his counsel,18 RICHARDG. HILL, LTD., andCASEYD.BAKER,ESQ.,opposesthemotiontoamendfiled19 herein on January 30, 2012 by appellant, ZACHARY COUGHLIN ( COUGHLIN ). To the20 extent it is even decipherable, Coughlin's motion is nonsense, and filed only to delay this21 matter and drive up fees. This opposition is based on the points and authorities belowand22 all papers and pleadings on file herein.2324

POINTS AND AUTHORITIESMerliss believes the court to be familiar with the substantive and procedural

25 facts of this appeal, and will not needlessly repeat them here.26 Coughlin appears to ask the court for alternative relief; although, as typical, the27 caption of Coughlin's paper has little to do with the actual discernable content of the

Box 255 28895 5


2/4

OFFICEHill

1 document. Coughlin appears to be complaining about this court's order of January 112 2012, wherein the court properly denied his request for a stay of the Reno Justice Court's3 Order Resolving Personal Property Lien.4 Substantively, neither of he rules ofcivil procedure that Coughlin purports to5 invoke in the instant motion apply here. t is therefore logical that the motion was filed to6 delay these proceedings. Because Coughlin's motion lacks any basis in law whatsoever, the7 unarticulated relief he is seeking must be denied.8 Coughlin first asks the court to amend or make additional findings of fact9 under NRCP 52(b). By its terms, that provision only applies when a final judgment has

1 been enteredby the court, either after trial or by summary judgment. See NRCP52( a). No11 final judgmenthas ever been entered by this court in this case. The court's January 11,201212 order is not a judgment because it does not fully and finally resolve all claims of all13 parties. immonsSelf-Storage Partners LLCv. Rib Roof Inc. 127 Nev. Adv. Opin.14 6),247 P.3d 1107, 1108 (March 3, 2011), Lee v. GNLVCorp. 116 Nev. 424, 426,996 P.2d15 416,417 2000). Thus, even if findings of fact were made by the court in its January 1116 2012 order, reliefunder NRCP 52(b) is simply not available to Coughlin. Further, Coughlin17 does not even articulate what findings he wants amended under Rule 52, what additional18 findings he thinks the court should have made, or the evidentiary basis for any such request.19 As to the extent he tries to invoke Rule 52, Coughlin's motion is completely devoid of any20 merit whatsoever.21 Coughlin alternatively asks the court to alter or amend its January 11,2012

order under NRCP 59. Presumably, Coughlin is attempting to invoke NRCP 59(e), which23 provides that [a] motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than 1024 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment. NRCP 59(e) (emphasis5 added). Again, no judgment has ever been entered by this court in this case, so there is no

26 judgment for this court to alter or amend. Coughlin is therefore not entitled to any relief7 under NRCP 59, either.

Office ox 2551 8Nevada 89505

2


3/4

LAW OFFICEHILL

1 Coughlin spends an inordinate amount of time and space pasting string cites2 about appeals into his motion. t s entirely unclear from Coughlin s ramblings whether he3 is simply telling the court that he intends to appeal its January 11, 2012 order, or whether4 he is asking the court to treat the instant motion as a notice of appeal. In any event, the5 Court s January 11,2012 order is not appealable as a final judgment.6 The only thing that is clear from Coughlin s motion is that it is interposed only7 for delay. A review of Section IV A) of Coughlin s motion, beginning at the bottom ofpage8 8, makes this conclusion inescapable. Coughlin s only goal is to delay these proceedings9 as long as possible, and continue to drive up Merliss fees. Coughlin s behavior is so abusive

10 and without any basis in law, it cannot be tolerated any longer by this court. Coughlin s11 motion is a waste of time and resources for the Court and all those involved. Coughlin12 should be sanctioned for his vexatious litigation tactics. NRS 7.085(1)(b).13 WHEREFORE, Merliss prays that Coughlin take nothing bywayofhis motion,14 and that same be denied in its entirety; that Coughlin be sanctioned in the amount of15 500.00, as and for the attorney s fees he has caused Merliss to incur responding to his16 frivolous and dilatory motion; and for such other, further and additional relief as seems just17 to the court in the premises.18192021222324252627

AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not

contain the social security number of any person.t riDATED this day of February, 2012.RICHARD G. HILL, LTD.

CASEY D. B R, ESQ.652 Forest StreetReno, Nevada 89509Attorney for respondent Matt Merliss28Nevada 89505775) 3480686

3


4/4

LAW OFFICEHILL

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEPursuant to NRCP 5 b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of RICHARDG.

3 HILL, LTD., and that on the day of February, 2012, I deposited in the United States4 mail at Reno, Nevada, in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, a true and correct copyof the5 foregoing Opposition to Motion to Amend to:6789

10111213141516171819202222324252627

Zach Couffihlin Esq.1422 E. 9 Street, 2Reno, Nevada 89501

Office Box 255 28775) 348-0666

Documents

CV11-03628-2686078 (Opposition to Mtn ...)