1 0001

JOEL F. HANSEN, ESQ.

2 Nevada Bar No. 1876
HANSEN RASMUSSEN, LLC
3 1835 Village Center Circle
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
4 (702) 385-5533
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
DISTRICT COURT
6
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
7
FRIEDRICH, as Trustee of the
8 JONATHAN
JONATHAN FRIEDRICH REVOCABLE
9 TRUST,

A-14-711287-C
XIX

Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO.
DEPT. NO.

v.

RANCHO BEL AIR PROPERTY

12 OWNERS ASSOCIATION UNIT 2;
CAM, LLC; and DOES 113 PERFORMANCE
10, inclusive,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Defendants
MOTION FOR SUPER SANCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR OPEN
CONTEMPT FOR AND DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDERS OF THE DISCOVERY
COMMISSIONER AND OF THE COURT
Come now, the Plaintiffs by and through their attorney Joel F. Hansen, and file this Motion for
Super Sanctions1 against the Defendants for the continuing egregious and intolerable violation of the
orders of the Discovery Commissioner and of the Court. This Motion is made and based upon the fact
that the Defendants were ordered by Judge Kephart, after he denied their objection to the DCRR of Feb.
22, 2016, and ordered the Defendants to pay sanctions in the amount of $5000.00 on or before May 19,
2016, Defendants defied Judge Kepharts order and did not pay the sanctions in a timely fashion. As
of 5 pm on May 19, 2016, no check or other form of payment had been received from Defendants or
Defendants attorney. Both Mr. Hansen and Mr. Friedrich were present at Hansen-Rasmussen building
at 4:55 pm on May 19. No check arrived by 5pm nor did it appear that anyone had attempted to deliver

26
27
28

Counsel is asking for Super Sanctions because it seems that ordinary sanctions have no
effect upon these Defendants, as will be shown below. See also p. 4, l. 5 where Plaintiffs ask the Court
to bring in the heavy artillery.
Page 1 of 6

1 a check after that time on the 19th.

2

NOTICE OF MOTION

3 TO:

RANCHO BEL AIR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION UNIT 2; PERFORMANCE

CAM, LLC; Defendants; and

4
TO:

James Pengilly, Esq., Defendants Attorney.

5
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will bring the above and foregoing MOTION
6
FOR SUPER SANCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR OPEN CONTEMPT FOR AND
7
DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDERS OF THE DISCOVERY COMMISSIONER AND OF THE
8
COURT on for hearing before the Discovery Commissioner, on the ___ day of ____________, 2015 at
9
the hour of ________, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.
10
11

DATED this 20th day of May, 2016.

12

HANSEN RASMUSSEN, LLC

13

BY:

14
15

/s/ Joel F. Hansen

JOEL F. HANSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1876
1835 Village Center Circle
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Attorney for Plaintiff

16
17

I.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

18 DEFENDANTS APPARENTLY BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN THUMB THEIR NOSES AT

THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE COURT AND GET AWAY WITH IT
19
20

The history of the discovery battles in this case which the Plaintiffs have been forced to wage in

21 order to compel the Defendants to disgorge information and to give proper responses to discovery
22 requests and to obey the Courts Orders has been long and tortuous. Plaintiffs have been before the
23 Discovery Commissioner on no less than five occasions.

So much has occurred that it is hard to

24 summarize the continuing egregious behavior and downright obnoxious violations of the
25 Commissioners and the Courts Orders. But here are some examples.
26

In the DCRR resulting from the Aug. 21, 2015 hearing on Plaintiffs Countermotion to Compel

27 Discovery, the Commissioner recommended:

28

The Commissioner further recommends that the Defendants produce to the Plaintiff by
Page 2 of 6

Sept. 18, 2015, the materials named in section #3, #4, and #5 of the subpoena, including
any and all records of the history of how the four properties mentioned were exempted
from payment, and any and all records explaining why and how it has come to pass that
these four properties are exempted from the payment of any assessment to the HOA
Unit #2 and why the Rancho Bel Air HOA 2 has not pursued payment of any type of
assessment regarding these four properties.

2
3
4
5

Then, in the DCRR resulting from the hearing of Jan. 25, 2016 on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel

6 and Motion for Sanctions for Refusal to Engage in Good Faith Discovery the Commissioner stated:
7

Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions for Refusal to Engage in Good
Faith Discovery having come on regularly for hearing before the Discovery
Commissioner on January 25, 2016, and the Discovery Commissioner having reviewed
the written Points and Authorities submitted by the parties, and oral argument being
presented, the Discovery Commissioner finds that there was no excuse or justification
for the dilatory and evasive responses of the Defendants, and that the Defendants have
engaged in sandbagging of the Plaintiff by giving evasive responses to Plaintiffs
Discovery Requests, and/or by claiming that Defendants did not have such documents,
and/or that Defendants had never received such document--all without setting forth
proper evidence, reasons, or justification for such responses, and/or by objecting that a
discovery request or interrogatory was vague and ambiguous, when it was in fact very
clear; therefore Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Sanctions is
granted.

8
9
10
11
12
13
....
14
15

COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDED, Defendant is SANCTIONED $5,000.00

attorneys fees for Plaintiff having to bring the motion; payment due to Mr. Hansen 30
days from this date (1/25/15). (Making the payment due on 2/24/16.)

16
Not wanting to pay the price of their sinful behavior, these obstreperous Defendants objected to
17
the DCRR and delayed the day of reckoning until Judge Kephart summarily denied their unfounded
18
objections and ordered them to pay the $5,000 by May 19, 2016. May 19th came and went without any
19
payment being made to Mr. Hansens office. Both Mr. Hansen and Mr. Friedrich waited at Mr. Hansens
20
law office from 4:45 pm to 5pm on May 19, 2016, but nothing was delivered, and no check had been
21
received in the mail as of that date.
22
In the meantime, the Defendants were ordered to submit proper responses to Plaintiffs Requests
23
for Admission, due to the fact that the Defendants had objected to most of them with their standard
24
vague and ambiguous objection and thus had not given proper responses. Plaintiffs brought a motion
25
to compel proper responses, which was granted, but then responded with the majority of the responses
26
still objecting that the requests were vague and ambiguous and making half hearted changes to the
27
balance of the responses. Therefore Mr. Hansen brought Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Proper Responses
28
Page 3 of 6

1 to Requests for Admissions and for Sanctions for Failure To Obey the Order of the Commissioner which
2 was heard on May 9, 2016. The Plaintiffs argued:
3
4
5

The conduct of the Defendants in responding, or better said, avoiding responding, to these
Requests for Admission, both the first time, and then after being ordered to clean up their act,
continuing with their unfounded, and defiant vague and ambiguous objections, should be
punished severely by the Commissioner and the Court. Either their pleadings should be stricken
or they should be subjected to very heavy fines. If a $5,000 sanction didnt teach them a lesson,
its time to bring in the heavy artillery.

6
As a result, the Commissioner again recommended sanctions:
7
8
9
10
11
12

Commissioner finds there are and have been very clear orders in place in this case, but
the responses provided initially were insufficient and inadequate, at best, and that
Defendants abused the discovery process, which is why those prior orders were entered
the way they were. Commissioner notes that based on the failures on Defendants part
to properly respond to discovery, the Commissioner had even considered striking
Defendants Answer to the Complaint.
Nevertheless, Commissioner recommends as follows:
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED by the Discovery Commissioner that the
Defendants be Sanctioned $5,000.00 in attorneys fees for Plaintiff having to bring this
motion. Payment is due on or before June 8, 2016, to be paid to Mr. Friedrich in care
of Mr. Hansen.

13
14

So now, the Defendants have been sanctioned twice, each time for $5000.00, and were ordered

15 to pay the first $5000.00 by May 19, 2016, which they did not do, in the face of having a second sanction
16 granted against them while payment was still due for the first sanction!!
17

Mr. Friedrich and Mr. Hansen are at a loss as to how to get the Defendants to obey the orders of

18 the Commissioner and of the Court except for the Commissioner and the Court to punish them with such
19 heavy sanctions that they wont forget the lesson they should have learned long ago. They deserve to
20 get that severe spanking most of us still remember receiving from an-out-of patience father. The
21 equivalent of the severe spanking for these defendants would be a finding of contempt with a night in
22 jail being one sanction, plus a monetary sanction of at least $25,000.00 being the other. Mr. Friedrich,
23 a retired construction supervisor on a fixed income, has been forced to expend over $21,000.00 to obtain
24 these orders against the Defendants, and yet they still refuse to obey. Mr. Friedrich has had to borrow
25 money and go into debt in order to pay his attorneys fees. Now he is incurring the cost of bringing this
26 Motion for Super Sanctions because they STILL HAVENT OBEYED. They continue to violate this
27 Courts orders with impunity.
28
Page 4 of 6

Plaintiff is asking for sanctions under NRCP 37 (a)(4) and (b)(2). Section (b)(2) provides that

2 any or all of the following sanctions may be imposed on the Defendants for the violations of this Courts
3 Orders:
4

(2) Sanctions--Party. If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a

person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey
an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (a)
of this rule or Rule 35, or if a party fails to obey an order entered under Rules 16, 16.1,
and 16.2 the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the
failure as are just, and among others the following:
(A) An order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other
designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in
accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
(B) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated
claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in
evidence;
(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until
the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or
rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party;
(D) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating as a
contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a physical
or mental examination;
....
In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the
party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising that party or both to pay the
reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the court
finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjust.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

CONCLUSION
17
Pursuant to NRCP 37, the Plaintiffs move the Discovery Commissioner to impose sanctions in
18
the amount of at least $25,000, in addition to the $10,000 already ordered, and to do as the
19
Commissioner threatened to do in the last hearing--to strike the Defendants Answer to the Complaint,
20
For failure to obey the Courts orders, Rule 37 allows the Court, under 37 (b)(2)(C), to strike the
21
Defendants pleadings, or to render a judgment by default against the disobedient party. Plaintiffs move
22
the Commissioner to strike the answer of the Defendants and enter default judgment against them. In
23
addition, 37(b)(2)(D) provides that the Commissioner can order the Defendants to be held in contempt
24
of Court, a sanction which the Commissioner should impose upon the Defendants for their continued,
25
inexcusable, arrogant, illegal, and just plain intolerable disobedience to the law. The Defendants,
26
meaning the officers and members of the board of directors of Unit #2 and Gerald Northfield, an owner,
27
///
28
Page 5 of 6

1 officer, and manager of Performance CAM should spend a night in jail. They are, in essence, civil
2 criminals, and ought to be treated accordingly.
3
DATED this 20th day of May, 2016.
4

Respectfully Submitted:
HANSEN RASMUSSEN, LLC

5
BY:
6
7
8
9

/s/ Joel F. Hanen

JOEL F. HANSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1876
1835 Village Center Circle
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

10

Pursuant to NRCP 5 (b), I hereby certify that on this 20th day of May, 2016, I served a copy of
the foregoing MOTION FOR SUPER SANCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR OPEN
11 CONTEMPT FOR AND DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDERS OF THE DISCOVERY
COMMISSIONER AND OF THE COURT as follows:
12
X
Electronic Service - via the Courts electronic service system; and/or
13
G
U.S. Mail By depositing a true copy thereof in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid
14
and addressed as listed below; and/or
15

Facsimile By facsimile transmission pursuant to EDCR 7.26 to the facsimile number(s)

shown below and in the confirmation sheet filed herewith. Consent to service under
NRCP 5(b)(2)(D) shall be assumed unless an objection to service by facsimile
transmission is made in writing and sent to the sender via facsimile within 24 hours of
receipt of this Certificate of Service; and/or

Hand Delivery By hand - delivery to the address listed below.

16
17
18

19 James W. Pengilly, Esq.

PENGILLY LAW FIRM
20 1995 Village Center Cir., Suite 190
Las Vegas, NV 89134
21 Attorney for Defendants
22

/s/ Lisa McMillan

An Employee of HANSEN " RASMUSSEN

23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 6 of 6