F I L E D

Electronically
05-17-2012:03:50:09 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2961529
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
McCarthy & Holthus, LLP
Kristin Schuler-Hintz, Esq. Nevada SBN 7171
Christopher M. Hunter, Esq., Nevada SBN 8127
9510 West Sahara, Suite 110
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Phone (702) 685-0329
Fax (866) 339-5691
Attorney for Defendants:
Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. & Quality Loan Service Corporation
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR WASHOE COUNTY
Case No.: CV08-01709
JAMES S. CARPENTIER; and JOAN E. ))
10 CARPENTIER,
Plaintiffs ~
Department No: 7
11
12
13
AAMES FUNDING CORPORATION DBA
vs. ~ ~
14 AAMES HOME LOAN, a California )
corporation; WINDSOR MANAGEMENT )
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS,
INC. AND QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR RUL
11 SANCTIONS AND OPPOSTION TO
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
ORDER, OR NEW TRIAL, OR PLED IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CO. , a California corporation; )
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, I N C . ~
a TEXAS corporation; QUALITY LOAN )
SERVICE CORPORATION, a California )
Corporation; and DOES I - XX, inclusive, ~
Defendants
22 COMES NOW Defendants, Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. ("RCS") and Quality Lo
23 Service Corporation ("Quality" and collectively "Defendants"), by and through its counsel 0
24
record, Christopher M. Hunter, Esq., of McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, and files this Request fo
25
26
27
28
Imposition of Rule 11 Sanctions against Plaintiffs' Counsel and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motio
to Alter or Amend Order, or New Trial, or Pled in the Alternative, Motion for Reconsideratio
("New Motion").
- 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
This Opposition is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points an
Authorities, and upon all pleadings and documents herein, as well as any argument that may b
presented at the hearing of this, or any other motions/matters; the Court is requested to tak
judicial notice as appropriate.
Dated: 5/17/2012 McCarthy & Holthus, LLP
IslChristopher M. Hunter
Christopher M. Hunter, Esq.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
BACKGROUND
This action concerns real property in Washoe County, Nevada known as 2873 Sunn
Slope Dr., Sparks, Nevada ("Subject Property"). Plaintiffs filed this action on July 8, 2008. 0
June 23, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and served the Motion 0
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not oppose the Motion and on July 15,2010 the Court entered an Orde
granting the Motion for Summary Judgment. Notice of Entry of the Order was filed b
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants and served on Plaintiffs on July 15, 2010. Plaintiffs never filed a Motion t
Reconsider the Order and never appealed the Order.
On December 31, 2011, eighteen months after entry of the summary judgment Order
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Set Aside the Judgment. This Court denied that Motion pursuant t
Order dated April 20, 2012.
Now, almost one month later, Plaintiffs' counsel has essentially filed the same Motion t
Set Aside Judgment as he previously filed. Plaintiffs' counsel again ignores the Rules of Civi
Procedure by filing an improper Motion for Reconsideration once again including completel
improper and unprofessional allegations (this time that counsel was incarcerated because of som
question regarding his competency).
- 2
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
28
LEGAL ANALYSIS
"A district court may reconsider a previously decided issue if substantially differen
evidence is subsequently introduced or the decision is clearly erroneous." Masonry & Til
Contractors Ass'n ofS. Nevada v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Ltd., 113 Nev. 737, 741, 941 P.2d 486
489 (1997). Indeed, the Nevada Supreme Court has made it clear that reconsideration is onI
appropriate in "very rare instances" where new issues of law or fact support a contrary ruling.
Moore v. City of Las Vegas, 92 Nev. 402, 405, 551 P.2d 244,246 (1976). Moreover, a motio
for reconsideration which raises no new issues oflaw or fact is superfluous. Id.
Here, Plaintiffs fail to present any new evidence and repeat the arguments presented i
the previous Motion to Set Aside. This Court has already entertained Plaintiffs' claims an
issued a well reasoned opinion explaining why they are unavailing. Now, in the absence of an
new evidence or change in controlling law, Plaintiffs bring the New Motion hoping the Co
will change its mind. As evidenced by the legal standard set out above, the purpose 0
reconsideration is to correct clear error or account for changed circumstances-not to give eve
sore loser a "do over."
Even more egregious is the "new evidence" which counsel cites-the fact that the previou
foreclosure has now been rescinded. Plaintiffs' counsel may, in fact, not even be in touch wit
his clients because Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. has now entered into a loan modificatio
agreement which, in turn, gave rise to the rescission of the foreclosure. The rescission of th
foreclosure results in all of the issues being raised by counsel being rendered moot.
- 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
SANCTIONS SHOULD BE LEVIED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL
The New Motion filed by Plaintiffs calls out for Rule 11 sanctions. The document i
wholly frivolous, indicates a disregard for the spirit, intent and processes of the Court system an
sanctions may be the only manner in which Mr. Coughlin will be deterred from such frivolou
filings in the future. Please see generally, Greenburg v. Saia, 822 F .2d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 1987
which holds that a violation of Rule 11 is complete when the improper Complaint is filed. Pleas
see also Circuit Judge Goodwin's concurring opinion in Headwaters, Inc. v. Us. Forest Service
399 F.3d 1047, at 1057 where, in a case involving issues of res judicata, the Judge stated:
"I concur in the majority opinion, but write separately to remind the district court
on remand that if the factual record developed after remand shows that a party or
counsel were, as suspected by the district court, in fact gaming the system to
prolong unnecessary litigation, the court has discretionary remedies in the nature
of costs and fees to protect the court from imposition."
Based on the fact that a loan modification has been entered into it strongly appears tha
Mr. Coughlin has not consulted with his clients before filing the New Motion.
CONCLUSION.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants request that this Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion an
award sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel for the cost of defending the Motion.
21 Respectfully submitted by:
McCarthy & Holthus, LLP
22
IslChristoher M Hunter
23 Christopher M. Hunter, Esq.
9510 W. Sahara, Suite 110
24 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
25
26
27
28
- 4
AFFIRMATION
1
2 The undersigned affinns that this document does not contain the social security number
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
28
of any person.
Dated: 5/17/2012 McCarthy & Holthus, LLP
IslChristopher M. Hunter, Esq.
Christopher M. Hunter, Esq.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on the 17th day of May, 2012, a true and correct copy of th
foregoing Request for Imposition of Rille 11 Sanctions against Plaintiffs' Counsel an
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration was forwarded by United States Mail
postage prepaid and by fax to the addresses listed below.
Eric B. Zimbelman, Esq.
3333 E. Serene Ave., Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89074
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
P.O. Box 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Is/Joni Rispalje
An Employee of McCarthy & Holthus, LLP
- 5