Electronically Filed

11/19/2018 1:19 PM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT
AFFT

DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY,NEVADA
５
    ６     ７     ８

JOHN BRIDGFORD, Casc No.: C-18-334314-A

Dcpt.No.: II
Appcllant,
Date: Dccembcr 4,2018
VS. Tilnc: 9:00a.m.
    ９

BOULDER CITY, DECLARATION OF JUDGE

RICHARD SCOTTIPURSUANT TO
Respondent. RULE NRSl.235
10

11

12 I, Judge Richard F. Scotti, declares and says:

13 1. The Court is writing this affidavit pursuant to NRS 1.235 in response to

14 Respondent's Motion For Disqualification and Affidavit Pursuant to NRS 1.235; and Motion

15 to Strike Minute Order.

1` 2. While the above-referenced Motion was filed on 1ll07ll8, the Court was not

17 served with a courtesy copy of same.

18 3. The Court has never had any bias or prejudice towards The City of Boulder City

19 or Attorney Stephan Stubbs and has made every effort to ensure all parties were treated

20 equally and received notice of any hearings or Court rulings. I had no pre-existing

21 relationship with Mr. Stubbs, and I believe the last time I saw him was at some campaign

22 event about four (4) years ago (see Transcript of September 19,2018 hearing attached as

23 Exhibit l,p. 5, lines 13-23). Since that time I have never spoken with Mr. Stubbs outside of

24 open Court, on the record. The Court denies any allegations of bias or prejudice set forth in

25 Respondent's Motion For Disqualification and Affidavit Pursuant to NRS 1'235 for the

26 reasons set out in the chronology below.

27 4. On August 23,2018 an Order setting a Status Check for transcripts was

28 electronically filed by our JEA Melody Howard. The Order stated there will be "a status

Richard Fo Scotti
District Judge

Dcpartment Two
Las Vegas,NV 89155

Case Number: C-18-334314-A

 I check for transcripts on for hearing, in Chambers-with no appearances by the parties or
) attorneys, onthe 19th day of September2OlS." (See Exh.2).
3 5. On September 6,2018 there was a Reply to Status Check for Transcripts filed in
4 Odyssey, which stated, "The Boulder City Municipal Court is not a Court of Record. It has
5 never been so designated by the City Council of the City of Boulder City, pursuant to NRS
‘

5.010(2). Consequently, there is no transcript to be provided ." (See Exh. 3).

    ７

6. In Odyssey, this matter was set for an in Chambers status check to be heard on
8 September 19,2018.

9 1 . On September 1 9, 2018 the Court conducted hearings on the Oral Misdemeanor

l0 Appeals that were set to be heard on that day. At the beginning of the last matter scheduled

ll for the 10:00 a.m. Misdemeanor Appeals calendar, in open Court, and on the record (JAVS),

t2 Mr. Stubbs stood up and stated that he received notice that a hearing on his case was to be

l3 heard that day. (See Exh. 1). While the Law Clerk proceeded to check Odyssey to figure out
t4 why Mr. Stubbs had appeared, Mr. Stubbs told the Court that he is not able to file a transcript

l5 in this matter because Boulder City Municipal Court is not a Court of record. He also

l6 requested a briefing schedule on a Motion to Dismiss which the Court had not yet seen.

t7 NCJC 2.9 expressly permits ex-parte communications for SCHEDULING PURPOSES where

r8 no party receives a "procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage." In any event, the Court

l9 kept all this dialogue ON THE RECORD to document that no improper communications

20 occurred. The Court proceeded to issue a briefing schedule as follows: Opposition to the

2t Motion due on or before October 10,2018and Reply brief due on or before October 17,2018.
)1 The Court set a hearing date on October 24,2018 at 9:30 a.m. The Court documented the

23 foregoing communication in the COURT MINUTES, posted on Odyssey, and thus gave all

24 parties EQUAL NOTICE of the briefing schedule. All of this constituted permissible conduct

25 and communication. (See Exh. 4).

26 8. The Court Clerk on the day of the above-referenced hearing was Elizabeth
,,1 Vargas. She noted in her Minutes of the hearing that a copy of the Minutes were emailed to

28 Steven Morris, Esq. and Stephen Stubbs, Esq. on September 28,2018. The Court Clerk also

Richard F. Scotti
District Judge

Department Two
Las Vegas, NV 89155
 I provided a copy of these Minutes to the Department2Law Clerk on September28,2018. (See
, Exh. 4). The Court gave The City of Boulder City twenty-one (21) days from the date of the
3 September 19,2078 hearing to f,rle an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Oppositions are
4 normally due within ten ( 10) days after filing of a motion.
5 9. Once the Court Minutes were posted by the Court Clerk, Elizabeth Vargas, on

6 September 28,2018, The City of Boulder City had twelve (12) days left to file an opposition.
7 The City of Boulder City then timely filed their opposition on October 10,2018. Mr. Stubbs

8 timely filed his reply on October 17,2018.

9 I 0. The day before the hearing date of Oct ober 24, 20 1 8, the Court asked the Law

l0 Clerk to notify the parties that the papers from the parties were sufficient to enable the Court
il to resolve this matter on the papers and without further argument, which the Court preferred to
t2 do because it was in trial.

l3 I 1. When this Court moves a matter from the Hearing Calendar to the Chamber

t4 Calendar the Court's reason is usually that the parties' briefs are sufficient to inform the Court

15 of all relevant facts and law, and no further argument is needed or efficient. This is a

l6 particularly appropriate practice for matters such as this where the parties are not at liberty to

t7 supplement the record on appeal.

l8 12. The Law Clerk called BOTH PARTIES on October 23,2018, to inform them that
l9 the papers from the parties were sufficient to enable the Court to resolve this matter on the

20 papers and without further argument, which the Court preferred to do because it was in trial.

2t In the call to the City, the call went to voice mail, so the Law Clerk left a similar message. In
'r1 the call to Mr. Stubbs, Mr. Stubbs asked the Law Clerk if she knew when the Judge would

23 issue a decision and she stated a decision would be issued within the next week because the

24 Court is currently in trial.

25 13. On October 24,2018 Mr. Stubbs called the Law Clerk and asked when the

26 Minutes would be posted. The Law Clerk stated that the Judge is finalizing the minutes and

27 they will be sent to the Court Clerk to be posted. Although the Law Clerk does not remember

28 the exact wording she used, she may have referred to the Minutes as the "Motion of

Richard F. Scotti
District Judge

Department Two
Las Vegas, NV 89155
 １
Dismissal" or "Motion dismissing case" as those are the words that I had used in talking to the
２
３ Law Clerk during the preparation of the Minutes. In any event, the Law Clerk is adamant that

she did NOT read the minutes, did NOT discuss the minutes, did NOT provide a copy of the
４

minutes to Mr. Stubbs, and did NOT believe this brief administrative contact needed to be
５

disclosed to the Judge. Mr. Stubbs said thank you and asked if the Law Clerk could email him
６

a copy of the Minute Order. The Law Clerk stated she was not allowed to send him an email
７

of the proposed Minute Order and that the Court Clerk would post it on Odyssey. Mr. Stubbs
８

said thank you and hung up the phone. Thereafter, over the next few days Mr. Stubbs called a
９

few more times to find if the Court had posted the Minutes. The Law Clerk sent the final
１
０

Minute Order via email to the Court Clerk, Elizabeth Vargas, on October 29,2018 and asked
１
１

her to post the Minute Order and, by direction of the Court, to rush it if possible because five
１
２

(5) days had passed since the scheduled hearing date. The Court Clerk posted the Minutes on
１
３

Odyssey on October 29,2018, and thus properly SERVED BOTH SIDES. (See Exh. 5).
１
４

14. As can be seen from these facts, the City received equal notice of the scheduling
１
５

of briefing, equal notice of the posting of the Minutes, and equal notice of the substance of the
１
６

Minutes. The only communications that this Court had with Mr. Stubbs involved non-
１
７

substantive scheduling matters, including the scheduling of the release of the Minutes
８
１

dismissing the case.

１
９

15. I performed all of my duties "fairly and impartially" (NICJC 2.2),"without bias or
２
０

prejudice" (NCJC 2.3), and "competently and diligently."(NcJc 2.5). In all communications
２
１

with the parties, the Court gave "no party a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage."
２
２

crcJc 2.e).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct this 19ft day of
２
３
２
４

November, 2018.
２
５
２
６
２
７
８
２

Richard F. Scotti
District Judge

Department Two
Las Vegas, NV 89155
 1 CBRTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on or about the date signed, a copy of this Order was electronically
3 served and/or placed in the attomey's folder maintained by the Clerk of the Court and/or

4 transmitted via facsimile and/or mailed, postage prepaid, by United States mail to the proper
5 parties as follows:

6 Stcvc Morris,Esq.
smorisの bcnv.org
7
Stcvc Morris,Esq.
8
8等 勝i轟騰:I』 v・
9 401 Califorllia Avc.
Bouldcr City,NV 89005
10

11 灘 :1淑戦Ъ
:書 聡hbbttcom
12

ο
/s/滋 ′め′
f力 Wα rグ
lil

15 Xl:宙 晋 血
::[協 eA雨 飩
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

28

Richard F. Scotti
District Judge

Department Two
Las Vegas, NV 891 55
EXHIBIT l
 Eiectronica‖ yF‖ ed
llノ 19′ 201812:56 PM
Steven D.Grlerson

1 RTRAN
2

5 DISTRICT COURT
6 CLARK COUNttY,NEVADA
7

8 JOHN BRIDGFORD HUNT, CASE#: C-18-334314-A

9 Appellant, DEPT.2
10 VS.

11
BOULDER CITY OF,
12 Respondent,
13

14
BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD SCO丁 丁￨,DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15 WttDNESDAY,SEPTEM BER 19,2018

16
購 ORDER′ S Ю υGH DRAF7 7RANSCRPT OF HEARJNG」
17 APPEAL FROM LOWttR COURT
18
APPEARANCES:
19 Forthe Appe‖ anti STEPHEN P.SttUBBS,ESQ.
20

21 For the Respondent: STⅣ EN L.MORRIS,ESQ.

Not Present
22

23

24

25
RECORDED BY: DALYNE EASLEY,COURT RECORDER

Rough Draft― Page l

Case Number C-18‐ 334314‐ A
２
３
Las Vegas, Nevada, Wednesday September 19, 2018

[Matter began at 'l 0:15 a.m.]

４

MR. STUBBS: Your Honor, we did receive notice to be

５

here at 10:00 for the John Hunt versus Boulder City.

６

THE COURT: Hunt versus Boulder City.

７

MR. STUBBS: Uh-huh. I noticed that it was on the 3 a.m.

８

calendar on-line however, we received notice to be here at 10.

９

THE COURT: ln what form did you receive that notice?

０

MR. STUBBS: lt was in my folder. Wefiled -

１

THE COURT: Well, someone's gonna - my clerk's gonna

２

pull up the minutes right now to ref resh my memory.

３

MR. STUBBS: Okay, well this is the initial appearance with

４

a de novo appeal from the City of Boulder City.

５

THECOURT: Oh, okay.

MR. STUBBS: lt's the very initial appearance.
THE COURT: Are you the appellant or respondent?
１
８

MR. STUBBS: We are the appellant but I represent the

９
１

defendant.
２
０

THECOURT: Alright. Tell you what, why don't you have

２
１

a seat, l'll get to you right after this then, thank you.
２
２

MR. STUBBS: Thank you.

３
２

[Matter paused at 10:16 a.m.]

２
４
２
５

Rough Draft - Page 2

１
[Matter resumed at 10:18 a.m.]
２

THECOURT: So, the remaining parties, why don't you

３

come forward, identified yourself , tell me what your case number is.
４

Anyone find the minutes yet?

５

MR. STUBBS: The case number was C-1 8-334314-A.

６

THE COURT: Alright, whoever's found the minutes will

７

they please read them? Why don't you read the minutes?
８

THE COURT CLERK: Well, there are no minutes, the first

９

hearing is -
０

THE COURT: Oh, okay, there are no minutes.

１

MR. STUBBS: Yes, it's an initial appearance, Your Honor.

２

THE COURT: Okay, I get it.

３

MR. STUBBS: Boulder City is one of two jurisdictions in all

４

of Nevada that their Municipal Courts are not courts of record. And
５

so --
︲
６

THE COURT: I understand.

︲
７

MR. STUBBS: -- when we do an appeal because there is

︲
８

no reporter or no record we start all over again as if nothing

９
︲

happened before. And so I did file a pretrial motion yesterday.

２
。

THE COURT: Oh, I didn't see that.

２
︲

MR. STUBBS: So, ordinarily with these de novo reviews,

２
２

this is for us to set the calendar of what's going to be happening -

２
３

THE COURT: Right.

２
４

MR. STUBBS: -- moving forward. And since lfiled the

２
５

motion yesterday usually what happens is there's a briefing schedule

Rough Draft - Page 3

 １
set and‐ ‐
２

THE COURT: Why don't:go ahead and set a briefing

３

scheduie then and you can let the other side know?
４

MR STUBBS: Sure
５

THE CO∪ RT: Alnght,sO thirty days for the,l guess,

６

petitioner's brief,you w ant thirty days― ―

７

M R STUBBS: We've a!ready filed ours,Your Honor

８

THE COURT: Oh,yeah,al口 ght

９

M R STUBBS: Yeah,and it's the‐ ‐for appe‖ ant's motion

０

to dismiss‐ ‐
１

THE COURT: ljust don't have any paperwork on this

２

M R STUBBS: Totally get it

３

THE COURT: !don't even know if this is an eviction

４

matter or a misdemeanor appeal or some other civil or a de novo

５

request from」 ustice Court Why don't you te‖ rne what this case
６
︲

is?
︲
７

M R SttUBBS: lt's a nnisdemeanor case,Your Honor

８
︲

THE COURT: Alnght,misdemeanor appeal

︲
９

M R STUBBS: 丁here are four counts,1's a misdemeanor

２
０

case, and then i filed,yesterday i filed the motion to dismiss for

つ４      つ４     っ４     ︵
︲

vindictive prosecution and on First Amendment grounds

２

THE CO∪ RT: Very good

３

M R STUBBS: And so w hat needs to be set is the

４
２       っ‘

opposition in reply in― hearing

５

THE COURT: Yep,let's go ahead and do that Thirty days

Rough Draft - Page 4

 1 f rom today for the opposition to the opening brief .

2 MR. STUBBS: lt's usually twenty, Your Honor. lt's

J usually set thirty days out for hearing.
4 THE COURT: Tell you what, since you have a lot of

5 thoughts on how you want this done, why don't you tell me how
6 you want it done.
7 MR. STUBBS: Your Honor, may we do twenty days for
I the opposition, five days for the reply and then we can have hearing
I in thirty days?
10 THE COURT: Very good, we're gonna do that, it's my
11 order.
't2 MR. STUBBS: Thank you.
'13 THE COURT: Why don't you put your client's name on the

14 record?
15 MR. STUBBS: John Bridgeford Hunt, Your Honor.
16 THECOURT: Alright, the record will reflect that Mr' Hunt
is present.
18 MR. STUBBS: lt's good see You, Judge.
19 THE COURT: lt's good to see you. How are you doing?
20 MR. STUBBS: I haven't seen you in years, actually.
21 THE COURT: lt's been a long time, hasn't it?
22 MR. STUBBS: Yeah, last time was at Rob Bare's election
23 fundraiser was the last time we spoke.
24 THE COURT: Wow.
25 MR. STUBBS: That was before you were elected, Your

Rough Draft - Page 5

１
Honor.
２

THECOURT: Yeah.
３

MR. STUBBS: And l've never been before Your Honor.

４

THE COURT: Alright, well, it's good to see you. Maybe

５

I'll see more of you. I'm handling a lot of these misdemeanor

６

appeals now .
７

MR. STUBBS: l'm sure you certainly will.

８

THE COURT: Alright, the Court Clerk will go ahead and

９

give you the dates.

０

THE COURT CLERK: Twenty days is October 10th, and

１

five days would be - it's five business days, right?

２

THECOURT Yes.
３

THE COURT CLERK: OkaY, October 17th.

４

THE COURT: And then the hearing date?

５

THE COURT CLERK: Twenty daYs after?

︲
６

THE COURT: We said thirty - did you want thirty days

︲
７

after?
︲
８

MR. STUBBS: Yes, thirtY daYs is fine.

︲
９

THE COURT: Thirty days after.

２
０

MR. STUBBS: No, no, thirty days from today.

２
︲

THE COURT: Thirty days from today. That's good too.

２
２

THE COURT CLERK: That's October 17th -- or wait, no.

２
３

MR. STUBBS: Um, have to be after that, the next week.

２
４

THE COURT CLERK: The next week would be October

２
５

24th.

Rough Draft - Page 6

1 MR. STUBBS: Awesome.
2 THE COURT: And usually I step out for these scheduling
3 transcript issues so usually this is something lwould just let my law
4 clerk handle but you guys were here so we took care of it.
5 MR. STUBBS: And I did submit a courtesy copy of the
6 motion to the Court yesterday.
7 THE COURT: Perfect, l'll look at it right away.
8 MR. STUBBS: Thank You.
9 THE COURT: Alright, thank you very much.

10 [Matter ended at 10'.22 a.m.l

11
******
12 ATTEST: I do hereby certify that I have truly and correctly
transcribed the audio/video proceedings in the above-entitled case to
13
the best of my ability.
14

15
Court Recorder/Transcriber
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Rough Draft - Page 7

EXHIBIT 2
 Eiectronica‖ y Filed
8′ 23ノ 20184:27 PM
Steven D.Grierson

1
OSCH
2

3
DISTRICT COURT

4
CLARK COUNTY,NEVADA

5
JOHN BRIDGFORD HUN′ I｀
, Casc No.: C‐ 18‐ 334314‐ A
6 Dcpt,No,: II
Appenant,
7 Date: Scptember 19,2018
VS. Timci Chambcrs
8
CITY OF BOULDER CITY, STATUS CHECK FOR
9 TRANSCRIPT
Rcspondcnt,
10

11

12 TOI ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD

13 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thatthe undersigncd will bring a status chcck liDr transcripts

14 on liDr hearing,in chambers― with no appearance by the parties or attorneys,on thc 1 9til

15 day of Scptembcr,2018. .

16 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that NRS 189,030 requires transmittal of

17 the transcript of the case to district court.As such,the Appellant is required to seⅣ e

18 and rlle the lower court's written transcript within ninety(90)days of the Notice of

19 Appeal being rlled.viOlation of this policy l■ ay result in thc appeal being dismissed.

20 A brieling schcdule wili bc issucd upon fllin3 0fthC transcript,

21 ITIS S0 0RDERED.
22 Dated this 22nd day of August,2018,

23

24

25 DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

26

27

28

Richard Fo Scotti
〔
)istrict Judgc

「、
I)cpttnlcnt´ vo
L′ as Vcgas,NV 89i55

Case Number C-18-334314-A

 I CERTIFICATE OT' SERVICE
, I hereby certify that on or about the date signed, a copy of this Order was electronically
3 served and/or placed in the attorney's folder maintained by the Clerk of the Court and/or

4 transmitted via facsimile and/or mailed, postage prepaid, by United States mail to the proper
r parties as follows:

6 Stephen P, Stubbs, Esq.

1 Steven L. Morris, Esq,
City Attorney
8

9
lsl Melody tloward
l0
u Judicidl Executive Assistant
c- 18-333019-A
l2 Status Check for Transcript

13

l.l
l5

t6

l7

18

t9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Richard Ir, Scotti

District Judge

Depanment 'l wo
l.us Vegas, NV 89155
EXHIBIT 3
 Electronically iled
09/06/2018

1
DISBRICT COURT CLERK OF THE URT
2

3 C1ar.k County, Nevada

4

5 ,John Bridgford llunt, Appeltant (s) Case No r C-18'-334314-A

6 Vs. Departnent 2

1 Bou.Lder Cicy Nevada CiLv of, Respondent(s) Municipal Court Case: 1?CR68

9 ?o: Appellant's Attorneyl SEephen p. $t"ubbs

10 to: Respondentrs Att.Orney: SEeven 1,, l"{c"r'ris
11

t2 COI'}flIS IppealiDg tr) .rudgo Vlctor Mltlcr, s Jrnuary

4, 20Le Order 8e , I"toilon to Dirmirs for
13 Proadcr,rtorlrl tdlconduct) 2) OudEc pf,o T6a
MatgarBt 'ittri,takrr'a lugrust 1.4, 2018
D€nl,a], of Doferrdant, s Motion to Di"sliss fo!
l{ virilj'ctive 9folacutlon; rnd 3) .rudge p.o
t.n Judge Whlteke:,i rrrgurt 1{, ?O18
15 trinding th.h Dcfcndant ras CuiIEy on
Countr 1, 3, {/ and 5 o! th€ Crj"riinal
Conplalnq
16
.l'7
REPLY TO STATUS CHECK FOR TRANSCRIPTS
ro
iq

23 The tsoulder City i{unicrpai is not a Ccurt cf record. i: has nev€r

Court:

2L h:een so designated by t:he City Counci,J. of the City of .Boulder CiLy, prrr$iiant

22 to N8.S 5. 010 (2 ) . Consequently, t.here is no uranscrict to be provideci.

23

)i Dated rl,:s d!*., o{ --&7ffil:3; zore

aq

26
BernadeLt e Cra{Anr
)7 Ccurt Admi nist r:ator.
2B
EXHIBIT 4
 Cyorwe-t for boutder c\ry
Ｆ
ｒ
ｏｔ
ｍ︰
Ｓｅ
ｎ

Vargas, Elizabeth
201810:23 AM
﹂Ｃ
ｃ
︰

Martinez, T
Subject: C334314 Hunt v. Boulder City
Attachments: minutes,pdf

Dear counsel,

Please see the attached Minutes for the September 19, 2018 hearing.

Tha nk you,

Liz Vargas
District Court- Courtroom Clerk ll

.
C‐ 18‐ 334314‐ A

D:STRiCT COUR丁
CLARK COUNTY,NEVADA

Criminal Appeal COURT ⅣIINUTES Septeコnber 19′ 2018

C-18-334314-A John Bridgford Hunt′ Appenant(s)

Boulder City ot Respondent(S)

September19,2078 10:00 AM Appeal From Lower Court

HEARD BY: Scotti, Richard F. COURTROOM: RJC Courtroom 03B

COURT CLERK: Elizabeth Vargas

RECORDER: Dalyne Easley

PARTIES Stubbs′ Stephen P. Attorney for Appellant

PRESENT:

JOURNAL ENTRIES
二ⅣIr.Stubbs量 forlned the Courtthere was no recorder′ and therefore would be no record of
proceedings in the lower court stated a pretrial motion was filed.COURT ORDERED′ briefing
schedule SET,Opposition to the Ⅳlotion due on or before October 10′ 2018′ Reply Brief due on or
before C)ctober 17′ 2018.COURT FURTHER ORDERED′ hearing date SET.

10/24/18)30 AM HEARINGI MOTION TO DISMISS

CLERKIS NOTE:A copy of these rrlmutes were emailed toi Steven Morris′ Esq。 (sh10rris@wmb―
law.net)and Stephen Stubbs′ Esq。 (stephen@stephenPstubbs,com).//eV 9/28/18

PRINT DATE: 09/28/2018 Page 1 of 1 Minutes Date: September 19,201.8

C… 18‐ 334314‐ A D:STR:CT COURT
CLARK COUNW,NEVADA
Crimina:Appeal COURT M:NUTES September 19, 2018
C‐ 18-334314‐ A John B‖ dgford Hunt,Appellant(s)
VS
Boulder City of,Respondent(S)

September 19,201 8 10100 AM Hearing:Appea:

HEARD BY: Scotu,Rlchard F, COURTR∞ M: R」 C Courtroom 03B
COURT CLERK:Vargas,Elizabeth
RECORDER: Easley,Dalyne
REPORTER:
PART:ES PRESENT:
Stephen P,Stubbs Attorney for Appe‖ ant

JOURNAL ENTRIES
Mr.Stubbs informed the Courtthere was no recorder,and therefore would be no record of proceedings in
the:ower court:stated a pret‖ al molon was filed.COUR丁 ORDERED,b‖ eing schedule SE丁 ;Opposilon
to the Motion due on or before(Dctober 1 0,2018,Reply Brief due on or before October 17,2018,C(DURT
FURttHER ORDERED,hea‖ ng date SE丁 .

10/24/189:30 AM HEARING:MOT10N TO D:SMISS

CLERKIS NOttE:A copy ofthese minutes were emailed to:Steven Mortts,Esq.(s:mornscDwmbJaw.net)

and Stephen Stubbs,Esq.(stephen(⊃ stephenpstubbs.conl).〃 eV 9/28/18

Printed Date1 9ノ 29/2018 Page l ofl Minutes Date: September 19,2018

Prepared by:E‖ zabeth Vargas
EXHIBIT 5
Martinez, Tayler

From: Martinez, Tayler

Sent: Monday, October 29,2018 9:50 AM
To: Garcia, Louisa
Cc: Bloom, Connie; Jones, Michelle; Howard, Melody
Subject: MO C334314
Attachments: MO C334314.docx

Good morning! O

Can you please take care of this MO C334314, which Grants Appellant's Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution?
Also,,can you please rush this and try and get it out today?

Thank you !

Tayler Martinez, Esq.

Law Clerk to the Honorable Judge Richard Scotti
Eighth Judicial District Court Department II
702,"-671-4322

l:r

a,
DEPARTMENT II
MINUTE ORDER NoTES

CASE: C334314
RE.: JOhn Huntvs.Ciw of BOuldcr Ciり
DATE: 10/25/2018

The Court GRANTS Appellants Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution and on First Amendment Grounds. The Court
finds that the City vindictively prosecuted Appellant John Hunt when they resurrected their 2016 complaint against Mr. Hunt
containing 3 additional claims, only six (6) days after Mr. Hunt filed a Civil Rights lawsuit against the City. Additionally, the
Court finds Appellant satisfies the requirements needed to establish a presumption of vindictive prosecution and the
prosecution fails to prove that the increase in severity of the charge did not result from any vindictive motive. The only
evidence that the prosecution provides this Court to rebut Appellants claim of vindictive prosecution is that City Attorney
Mr. Olsen was preparing for retirement and did not have a paralegal. This evidence is not sufficient to indicate that the
increased charges could not have been brought before the defendant exercised his right. Almost Eleven (1.1) months elapsed
between when the City dismissed all charges and Mr. Hunt filed his civil rights lawsuit. The prosecution had ample time to
prepare a complaint the eleven (1L) months previous to Mr, Hunt filing his civil rights lawsuit.

Furthermore, the Court finds that the City incorrectly states the law of vindictive prosecution. The city lists in their
opposition three ways in which vindictive prosecution can occur. However, these three instances are merely examples of
when vindictive prosecution can occur and do not constitute an exclusive list. The Court agrees with Appellants broader
statement of the law, which provides that "Vindictive Prosecution occurs when the government brings criminal charges in
response to a defendant exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right." tJ.S. v. Jenkins,sO4 F.3d 694,699 (9th Cir.
2008). ln this case, the prosecution brought criminalcharges against Mr. Hunt 6 days after Mr. Hunt exercised his statutory
and constitutional rights to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Boulder City. The filing of the criminal
complaint only days after Mr. Hunt filed his civil rights lawsuit, coupled with the facts that the City of Boulder City previously
dismissed the criminal case rising from June 8,2OL6 and has not received any additional evidence, clearly indicates that the
prosecution had a vindictive motive when they refiled their complaint on June 5,2017 .

The,Court also dismisses the Obstruction Charge against Mr. Hunt on First Amendment Grounds. Mr. Hunt was asserting his
Amendment Right of freedom of speech when he was walking back and forth in the crosswalk. The City of Boulder knew
1',1

that [Mr. Hunt was protesting and still charged him with Obstruction even though the police previous to this incident sent
out a press release asking people to use the crosswalk during the enforcement activity. The obstruction charge is an
tsbridgment of free speech and must be dismissed.
i'j., : ,
C… 18‐ 334314‐ A D:STR:CT COURT
CLARK COUNTY,NEVADA
Criminal Appeal COURT MINUTES October 29,2018
C‐ 18‐ 334314-A John Bridgford Hunt, Appellant(s)
VS
Boulder City of, Respondent(s)

Odober29,2018 11:00 AM Minuto Order

HEARD BY: Scotti,Richard F. COURTR∞ M: Chambers
COURT CLERK:Garcia,Louisa
RECORDER:
REPORTER:
PART:ES PRESENT:
JOURNAL ENTRIES
The Court GRANTS Appellants Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution and on First Amendment
Grounds. The Court finds that the City vindictively prosecuted Appellant John Hunt when they resurrected
their 2016 complaint against Mr. Hunt containing 3 additional claims, only six (6) days after Mr. Hunt filed
a Civil Rights lawsuit against the City. Additionally, the Court finds Appellant satisfies the requirements
needed to establish a presumption of vindictive prosecution and the prosecution fails to prove that the
increase in severity of the charge did not result from any vindictive motive. The only evidence that the
prosecution provides this Court to rebut Appellants claim of vindictive prosecution is that City Attorney Mr.
Olsen was preparing for retirement and did not have a paralegal. This evidence is not sufficient to indicate
that the increased charges could not have been brought before the defendant exercised his right. Almost
Eleven (1 1) months elapsed between when the City dismissed all charges and Mr. Hunt filed his civil
rights lawsuit. The prosecution had ample time to prepare a complaint the eleven (1 1) months previous to
Mr. Hunt filing his civll rights lawsuit.

Furthermore, the Court finds that the City incorrectly states the law of vindictive prosecution. The city lists
in their opposition three ways in which vindictive prosecution can occur. However, these three instances
are merely examples of when vindictive prosecution can occur and do not constitute an exclusive list. The
Court agrees with Appellants broader statement of the law, which provides that Vindictive Prosecution
occurs when the government brings criminal charges in response to a defendant exercising a protected
statutory or constitutional right. U.S. v. Jenkins, 504 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir. 2008). ln this case, the
prosecution brought criminalcharges against Mr. Hunt 6 days after Mr. Hunt exercised his statutory and
constitutional rights to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Boulder City. The filing of the
criminal complaint only days after Mr. Hunt filed his civil rights lawsuit, coupled with the facts that the City
of Boulder City previously dismissed the criminal case rising from June 8, 2016 and has not received any
additional evidence, clearly indicates that the prosecution had a vindictive motive when they refiled their
complaint on June 5,2017.

The Court also dismisses the Obstruction Charge against Mr. Hunt on First Amendment Grounds. Mr.
Hunt was asserting his 1st Amendment Right of freedom of speech when he was walking back and forth
in the crosswalk. The City of Boulder knew that Mr. Hunt was protesting and still charged him with
Obstruction even though the police previous to this incident sent out a press release asking people to use
the crosswalk during the enforcement activity. The obstruction charge is an abridgment of free speech
and must be dismissed.

Printed Date:10′ 30′ 2018 Page 1 of 1 Minutes Date: October 29,2018

Prepared by:Loulsa Garc:a