4 19 12 0204 1708 03628 hill and baker's motion for attorney's fees tagged

7/29/2019 4 19 12 0204 1708 03628 Hill and Baker's Motion for Attorney's Fees Tagged

1/47

gr 1 Code No. 2010

LAW OFFICEG. 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 Merliss6789

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

10 ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ))))))))))

1112 v13 MATT MERLISS,141516

Appellant,

Respondent.

Case No.: CVll-03628Dept. NO.7

MOTION FORA ITORNEY S FEES17 Respondent, MATT MERLISS, byand through his counsel, RICHARDG HILL,18 LTD., and CASEY D BAKER, ESQ. moves the court, pursuant to NRS 69.050 and NRS19 7.085, for an award of attorney s fees. This motion is based on the above-referenced20 statutes, the record on appeal ( ROA ), the points and authoritiesbelow, and all papers and21 pleadings on file herein .22 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES23 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY24 1. This is an appeal from a summary eviction entered in the Reno Justice Court25 ( RJC ). Reference is made to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for26 Summary Eviction entered by the RJC on October 27, 2012 for the facts of the underlying27 eviction. ROA, Vol. II, pp. 75-80.28

775) 348-08885 346-0856

F I L E DElectronically

04-19-2012:04:14:36 PM

Joey Orduna HastingsClerk of the Court

Transaction # 2901160


2/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425267

28lAW OFFICEHill

Office Box 2551da 89505775) 348-08885) 348-0858

2. Coughlin filed his first notice of appeal in the eviction case on November 3,2011 two days after he was properly and lawfully locked out of the property. ROA Vol. III,pp. 229-233. Coughlin inexplicably filed an additional notice of appeal on November 232011. ROA Vol. III, P.5.3. Since filing his first notice of appeal, Coughlin has deliberately engaged ina pattern of abusive, vexatious, and most importantly, expensive behavior in both thisappeal and in the case below. Coughlin continued to file motions and other documents, andengage in other inappropriate and time-consuming behavior in the RJC, both before andafter the first ROA was finally sent up to this court, some seven weeks after the first noticeof appeal was filed. The court is asked to take judicial notice, pursuant to NRS 47.130 thatthe RJC sent up a supplement to the ROA on January 4 2012 which consisted of 21additional items. t is beyond any doubt that Coughlin's behavior has been specific llyc lcul ted to cause Merliss to needlessly incur additional attorney's fees and costs. Bywayof example and not necessarily limitation:

3.1. On November 13 2011 almost three weeks after the eviction wasgranted in open court, and two weeks after he was properly and legally locked out of theproperty, Coughlin was found to be living in the basement ofthe home. Coughlin's trespassled to his arrest. That necessitated additional motion practiceandother activity by Merliss'counsel. Even now, Coughlin refuses, or is unable, to grasp that what he was doing wasunacceptable, both criminally and in the context of this litigation. SeeNRS 22.020. Priorto being caught illegally squatting on the property, Coughlin had increased his personalattacks on Merliss, his counsel, and others, most ofwhom were only tangentially involvedin the eviction matter. See, e.g., the Complaint Coughlin attempted to file against all ofthose individuals in case no. CVU-03126.

3.2. For weeks after he first filed his notice of appeal, Coughlincontinued to file additional motions and other papers in the Reno Justice Court, even while

2


3/47

123456789

1011121314151617181922122232425262728LAW OFFICEG. HILLBox 2551

(775) 348-0888

avoiding that court's efforts to set a hearing on those motions. SeeROA Vol. IV pp. 22-23.During that time, Coughlin supplemented his motion practice with dozens of lengthy andabusive emails to both the justice's court and counsel- the purpose of which was simply tokeep the fight going. All of Coughlin's behavior during that time required substantialadditional work by Merliss' counsel, far beyond anything in a "normal" eviction.

3.3. After a lengthy hearing, Coughlin was granted additional time toremove his belongings from the property in late December 2011.1 Of course, the removalprocess itself was not without substantial further bickering and unnecessary difficulty, allof which was brought on by Coughlin's insistence on creating confrontation where noneshould have existed.

3-4. For example, Coughlin chose to spend the first of his two allotteddays sending combative emails to both Judge Sferrazza and Merliss' counsel, instead ofdiligently trying to remove his belongings. At one point, Coughlin even announced that hewas entitled to a stay of the proceedings, and that would allow him to return to, and retakepossession of, the property. Judge Sferrazza notified Coughlin that a stay had been denied.See EXHIBIT 1 which is a true and correct copy of the referenced em ails of December 222011. Because Coughlin chose to waste half of his allotted time trying to pick a fight overthat which was already moot, he failed to remove all of his belongings from the property.2This, of course, led him to file a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") in this

1 Coughlin had one week from the time the court ruled, on October 25 2011 thathe would be evicted, until he was locked out on November 1 2011. Then, he was comingand going on the property for another two weeks. Yet, during this time, he failed toremove any of this possessions. In that regard, the court should know that Mr. Coughlinis a hoarder.

2 Even though Coughlin removed at least one full U-Haul box truck of hisbelongings from the property, he still left mountains of"junk" behind. For example, therewere no less than 13 automobile seats in the basement. The backyard was full, up to thetop of the six foot fence, with discarded televisions, car body parts, tires, and brokenfurniture.3


4/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728LAW OFFICEG HILLNevada 69505

court, which is discussed further, below. When Coughlin'sTRO motion was denied, that,in turn, led him to physically attempt to interfere with Merliss' efforts to dispose of theproperty Coughlin had chosen to abandon. Predictably, the end result was substantialadditional fees incurred by Merliss, which was, of course, Coughlin's goal all along.

3.5. In addition to his continued activity in the RJC, Coughlin has filedhun re s ofpages of abusive, and often nonsensical, materials with this court, in whichhe has repeatedly sought relief to which he was not even arguably entitled. In many of hisfilings, Coughlin failed to even identify, much less analyze, the controlling law on thesubject. Nevertheless, Merliss was forced to respond to those filing, lest the court takeMerliss' silence as an admission under DCR 13 3) that Coughlin's requests weremeritorious.

3.6. For example, Coughlin's December 30, 2011 motion for atemporary restraining order was 2 pages long, excluding exhibits. Coughlin, a lawyer,failed to identify or discuss the controlling law, NRCP 65 b) and NRS 33.010, in anywayIn addition to being procedurally deficient, that motion was substantively without any meritwhatsoever, and this court so found. See this court's Order dated January 11, 2012.Nevertheless, Merliss was forced to incur attorney's fees to respond to that frivolousmotion, and, as a safe-harbor, delay his efforts to clean out and re-Iet the property, causinghim further damage.

3.7. On January 12, 2012, after his motion for a TRO was denied,Coughlin chose to resort to the self-help tacticof physically interfering with Merliss' effortsto clean out the property. See Merliss' motion for order to show cause filed herein onJanuary 20, 2012 for further particulars. Those antics ultimately led to Coughlin's arrest,and additional motions and hearings, continuing his tactic of causing Merliss more andmore fees.

3 B On January 14, 2012 in this case, Coughlin filed a document titledOpposition to Motion for Attorney's Fees, even though no such motion had been filed.

4


5/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728LAW OFFICEHILL

775) 348-0888

3.9. On January 30, 2012, Coughlin filed a motion to alter or amendthis court's January n, 2012 order underNRCP 52 b) or 59. Once again, Coughlin's motionwas without any merit whatsoever, but nevertheless required a full response. Coughlincompletely ignored the fundamental, threshold requirement that no judgment had beenentered in this case, and, therefore, no relief was available to him under the rules hepurported to invoke. Each and every one ofCoughlin's numerous and lengthy motions havebeen so devoid of any factual or legal basis so as to be sanctionable in and amongthemselves. NRS 7.085. NRCP neb).

3.10. On February 2, 2012, Coughlin filed a notice to set a hearing inthis case in Department 10. He cited irrelevant and inapplicable statutes in support of hisnotice. Merliss incurred fees in moving the court to strike Coughlin's fugitive andnonsensical notice.

4. The overriding problem Merliss has consistently faced when responding toCoughlin's mUltiple and lengthy filings has been that Coughlin, an attorney, was able to atleast identify just enough law so that his motion or other papers could not be leftunopposed. Coughlin never presented any true legal analysis to the court, but hisinvocation of arguably relevant statutes, or, at least, possible legal theories (e.g. TRO),forced Merliss to respond to each of his frivolous filings. Merliss could not risk the courtaccepting some random citation in Coughlin's papers and entering an adverse rulingbecause Merliss had not opposed it. See DCR 13(3). Often, as was the case with the seriesof documents Coughlin filed from April 5 through April 9, 2012, Coughlin simplyregurgitated and refiled the same document over and over, but with a different title and(sometimes) a different prayer for relief. That string of filings, in particular, did not containany relevant citation to any controlling authority, or any cogent analyses, to support anyrelief Coughlin claimed he was requesting. Cf., NRCP 7(b). Because Coughlin knew enoughto at least ask for some recognizable form of relief in the caption and prayer for relief,Merliss could not simply ignore Coughlin's papers. And to make matters worse, because

5


6/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728LAW OFFICEG HILL

75) 348-0888

Coughlin's motions were so devoid of any coherent analysis, Merliss' counsel was oftenforced to brief the entire document for the court, rather than focusing his opposition on anyparticular element or other aspect of the law. All of this resulted in an extraordinaryamount of fees needlessly heaped upon Merliss to try to conclude what should have beena simple "no-cause" summary eviction.

5. Coughlin is an attorney duly licensed as such by the State of Nevada. Hisstate bar number is 9473.

6. Since Coughlin filed his first notice of appeal on November 3, 2012, Merlisshas incurred $42,065.50in attorney's fees. As explained by Mr. Hill in his declaration(EXHIBIT 4, hereto), those fees do not include a substantial amount of editing and otheractivities performed by him in this case. Under NRS 69.050, this court is authorized toaward Merliss, as the prevailing party on appeal, his fees for "all services rendered" in hisbehalf. An award offees is also available, and appropriate, under NRS 7.085, for Coughlin'sfrivolous and unnecessary defense and extension of this matter. It is hard to imagine amore appropriate case than this in which to award the maximum amount justified by thesubstantial evidence before the court.

L W1. Reference is made to NRS 69.050 ("In the event of an appeal, the district

court is authorized to award to the prevailing party all costs of court as now allowed by lawincurred by such party, and also a reasonable attorney fee to be fixed and allowedby the district courtfor all services rendered in behalfofthe prevailingparty ).

2. Reference is made to NRCP 54(d)(2)(A) ( A claim for attorney fees must bemade by motion.")3. Reference is made to NRS 7.085, which provides in full as follows:

1. a court finds that an attorney has:(a) Filed, maintained or defended a civil action orproceedinB in any court in this State and such action or defenseis not well-grounded in fact or is not warranted byexisting law or by an argument for changing the existinglaw that is made in good faith; or

6
http:///reader/full/42,065.50http:///reader/full/42,065.50


7/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728G. HILL2551

(b) Unreasonablyand vexatiously extended a civilaction or proceeding before any court in this State,the court shall require the attorney personally to pay theadditional costs, expenses and attorney's fees reasonably incurredbecause of such conduct.

2 The court shall liberally construe the provisionsofthissection in favor of awarding costs, expenses and attorney's fees inall appropriate situations. It is the Intent of the Legislaturethat the court award costs, expenses and attorney s feespursuant to this section and impose sanctions pursuantto Rule 11 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure in allappropriate situations to Iunish for and deter frivolousor vexatious claims and efenses because such claimsand defenses overburden limited Judicial resources,hinder the timely resolution of merItorious claims andincrease the costs ofengaging in business and providingprofessional services to the public.NRS 7.085 (emphasis added).

ANALYSISI. MERLISS IS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF FEES UNDERNRS 69.050 ANDNRS7.085

Attorney's fees are not recoverable absent a statute, rule or contractualprovision tothe contrary. Bobby Berosini Ltd. v. PETA 114 Nev. 1348, 1356, 971 P.2d 383(1998) Here, the authority for an award of fees is provided by two statutes.

NRS 69.050 provides thatthe prevailing party on an appeal from justice 's courtis to be awarded a reasonable attorney fee ... for all services rendered on his behalf inconnection with this case. Merliss is entitled to his fees because he is the prevailing partyin this appeal. Seethis court 's order dated March 30, 2012. Since the notice of entry ofthecourt's order was served by Merliss on March 30, 2011, this motion is timely. NRCP54(d)(2)(A). The proof required by NRCP 54(d)(2)(B) is set forth below and in theDeclaration of Casey D Baker, attached hereto as EXHIBIT 3. Reference is also made tothe Declaration of Richard G Hill, attached hereto as EXHIBIT 4.

An award of fees against Coughlin, an attorney representing himself, is alsoappropriate under NRS 7.085. That statute is remedial, and requires a liberal

7


8/47

1234567891011121314151617181922122232425262728W OFFICEG HILL2551

construction of its own provisions. That law requires the court to award fees upon afinding th t Coughlin either

(a) Filed, maintained or defended a civil action or proceeding inany court in this State and such action or defense is notwell-grounded in fact or is not warranted by existing lawor by an argument for changing the existing law that ismade in good faith; or(b) Unreasonably and vexatiously extended a civil actionor proceeding before any court in this State

NRS 7.085(1)(a)(b) (emphasis added).Here, the court need look no further th n its own file and the 2,000 + pageROA

to conclude th t Coughlin has behaved unreasonably, vexatiously, nd th t none of hisarguments have been well-grounded in either fact or law. In fact, his rants and ravings

have been nothing more than him exacting revenge on Merliss nd all those associated withhim. As such, a fee award is mandatory. As to the amount of fees, NRS 7.085 providesth t

the court shall require the attorney personally to pay theadditional costs, expenses and attorney's fees reasonably incurredbecause of such conduct.NRS 7.085(1) (emphasis added).

As proven above and below, the frivolity and vexatiousness of Coughlin'smaintenance and extension of this matter has been so beyond reason, and so outrageous,nd the nexus of his behavior to the fees incurred by Merliss so direct nd indisputable, th t

nothing less th n a full award of those fees should even be considered by the court. To notimpose the full measure of the harm Coughlin has caused would reward and encourage hisvexatiousness in this and other cases. There needs to be a day of reckoning for Coughlin'santics.

IIIIIIIII

8


9/47

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223456

2728LAW OFFICEHILL, Nevada 8950575) 348-0888

II. COUGHLIN HAS INFUCTED 42,065.50IN ATIORNEY'S FEES UPONMERLISS SINCE THE FILING OF HIS FIRST NOTICE OF APPEAL.

At every stage of this proceeding, both in and out of court, Coughlin hasdeliberately engaged in a patternofoutrageousand abusive behavior specifically calculatedto cause Merliss to needlessly incur attorney's fees and costs. In its Order dated March 30,2012, at 2, this court recognized that the record in this case "exceeds 2,000 pages." As thecourt is surely aware by now, that observation is but of the tip of the iceberg that isCoughlin's abusive, frivolous, and vexatious style of litigation in this matter. The time forCoughlin to face the consequences of his actions is now. This court can no longer ignore thefact that Coughlin, a licensed attorney and current member of the bar, had one, and onlyone agenda in this case - to drive up fees for Merliss. In this regard, and only in this regard,he has been wildly successful. The stated intent of NRS 7.085(2), and the implied intentof NRS 69.050, is to "punish for and deter" precisely this type of behavior.

This was a summaryeviction case. Summary proceedings are informal. Theyare designed and intendedbythe Legislature to "dispense fair and speedy justice." NJCRCP105. For that reason, the parties are not entitled to conduct discovery. No formal hearingsare required. No money is at directly at stake. The only thing at issue in a summaryproceeding is possession of the property. NRS 40.253(6). G C Wallace Inc. v. Dist.Court 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 64, 262 P.3d 1135 (October 6, 2011). Here, the residence wassubject to a month-to-month tenancy that could be, and was, properly terminated for no-cause by the use of a court-approved form. Summary eviction proceedings are designedto be simple, so that landlords and tenants can conduct them without the need for counsel.The Nevada Supreme Court has promulgated dozens of forms, and made those formsavailable online, so that the entire proceeding, from beginning to end, can take placewithout substantial drafting thatwould require an attorney. Summary eviction proceedingsshouldnever require hundreds ofbillable hours by an attorney to complete. Yet, here, duesolelyto Coughlin's unbelievable propensity for confrontation, his irrational refusal to deal

9


10/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728LAW OFFICEG. HILL

with the realityof the situation he created, and his single-minded focus on causing as muchdamage to as many people as he possibly can, the hours and fees in this case have beendriven out of all reasonable control.

Substantively, all Coughlin had to do to stop the eviction below was to show,by admissible evidence, that a single, material factual dispute existed for trial. AnvuiLLC v C.L. Dragon LLC 123 Nev. 212, 215, 163 P.3d 405 (2007). He could not even dothat, despite filing hundreds of pages of briefs with the court, and despite the courtallowing him two hearings, which lasted in excess of 10 hours, in which to present hisclaims. Judge Sferrazza did not deny Coughlin the entry of even a single pieceof evidence.But still, despite all of his ravings, Coughlin could not meet this very lowburden of proof.That was because, without exception, each and every word Coughlin uttered in pursuitof his frivolous defenses was completely and absolutely without merit. That was just thebeginning, but it illustrates perfectly the foundation upon which Coughlin built his appealin this court.

Once he finally managed to perfect his appeal and file his brief(s) in this court,Coughlin could not point to a single, specific, articulable error by the RJC. He improperlyfiled two appellate briefs, in excessof50 pages, plus a CD, but still could not even identify,much less meet, or even approach, his evidentiaryburden of showing that the lower court'sdecision was clearly erroneous and not based on substantial evidence. See Cibellini vKlindt 110 Nev. 1201, 1204, 885 P.2d 540 (1994). Coughlin could not coherentlyidentify the factual bases for his appeal because there were none, just likethere were no factual bases for the ridiculous and unsupported defenses ofhabitabilityIretaliationldiscrimination he attempted to set up in the RJC.Coughlin's defenses below, his appeal, and every motion and other paperCoughlin has filedhave been perfectly frivolous. See BLACK'S LAw DICTIONARY 677 (ih ed. 1999)( frivolous, adj. lacking a legal basis or legal merit; not serious; not reasonablypurposeful. ) Cf., NRS7.085(1)(a). His efforts to extend this matterin spite of that frivolity

10


11/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728AW OFFICEHILL

have been perfectly vexatious. See id. at 1559 ( vexatious, adj (Of conduct) withoutreasonable or probable cause or excuse; harassing; annoying.")

The preposterous, unfounded, unsupported, and largely unarticulated legal"arguments" Coughlin attempted to make in the hundreds upon hundreds of pages he hasfiled in this court are more than enough to justify a full award offees to Merliss under NRS7.085. But that is to say nothing ofthe sarcastic, abusive, derogatory vitriol and personalattacks Coughlin has repeatedly heaped on Merliss, his counsel, this court, the RJC, courtstaff, his public defenders, various prosecutors, Nevada Court Services employees, NVEnergy, and any number of other witnesses, lawyers, judges, and private individuals whowere unfortunate enough to have crossed his path in the past eight months. For someunknown and unexplained reason, Coughlin has chosen litigation in general, and this casein particular, as his forum for lashing out at anyone and everyone he perceives as evenremotely connected to, or responsible for, the downward spiral in which he finds his life.Merliss is precisely within the class of person, and has suffered precisely thetype ofharm, that both NRS 69.050 and NRS 7.085 were designed to preventand remedy.

In considering this matter, it must not escape the court's attention thatCoughlin literally took every single opportunity that presented itself to him to delay,frustrate, and abuse this court's andthe RJC's processes, and all participants in this matter.Several times, Coughlin's antics have ended in his arrest or citation by the Reno PoliceDepartment. For example, on November 15, 2011, after he burst into the undersigned'soffice, disrupting a deposition, and was thereafter parading up and down the street filmingand yelling obscenities, Coughlin was cited shortly after leaving counsel's office. SeeDeclaration of Richard G. Hill, Exhibit 2 to the motion for order to show cause filed in theRJC on November 21, 2011. ROA, Vol. III, pp.18-33. And on January 12, 2012, when hewas arrested for jaywalking while attempting to prevent Merliss' contractor from disposingofthe things Coughlin had abandoned at the property. That day, shortly before his arrest,


12/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425267

28LAW OFFICEG. HILLOffice Box 2551evada 89505

Coughlin had been climbing on the contractor's truck, falsely accusing the contractor ofstealing his things, and feigning injury to prevent the contractor from entering the WasteManagement transfer station. See Merliss' second motion for order to show cause, filedherein on January 20,2012. See also, Coughlin's motion to alter or amend, filed on January30, 2012, at 4:7, in which he states Richard Hill keeps doing his Reno PD thing, I keepgetting arrested .. . Coughlin has repeatedly and falsely accused Mr. Hill of bribing theReno Police to arrest him. Coughlin, of course, has never explained the relevance of thisridiculous accusation to these proceedings. But his intent is obviously only to defame Mr.Hill and deflect attention from his, Coughlin's, habitual criminal behavior.

In addition to the physical confrontations and harassment Coughlin has doledout, he has sent hundreds of emails to the undersigned and Mr. Hill during the course ofthese proceedings. Much like his court filings, those emails often contained page after pageof nonsensical string cites of irrelevant legal authority, laced with abuse and name-calling.Any original thought contained in those em ails usually consisted of some derogatory insultor other personal tirade against Merliss or his counsel, in one form or another. Coughlin'scommunications, some of which have been made exhibits in this proceeding, were moreoften than not confused, confusing, and bizarre. His refusal to deal with reality, hisinsistence on creating confrontation at every turn, his flagrant abuses of this court'sprocesses, and, ultimately, his criminal behavior, have cost Merliss an astounding amountof fees, all of which Coughlin should pay pursuant to the mandate of NRS 7.085.

But there is more According to his internet postings, Coughlin fancieshimself as a landlord's worst mother effin (sic) nightmare. Coughlin states that hesometimes defends tenants for free just for shetz (sic) and gegs (sic). See EXHIBIT 2attached hereto, which is a true and correct copy of a printout from Coughlin's YouTubepage, which he operates and maintains under the username 25teddyjames. These twostatements alone strip away any veneer oflegitimacy for any of Coughlin's legal

12


13/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728LAW OFFICEHILL89505775) 348-0888

arguments" in this case. Perhaps even more disturbing, Coughlin is obviously andblatantly proud of the fact that his antics have cost Merliss, and others, such a staggeringamount offees. See Coughlin's Supplement to Motion to Vacate Hearing on Order to ShowCause, at 6:15-16, where he states .AND RICH ND CASEY CAN ENJOY THE MONEYTHE (sic) JUST EARNED. ND BY GAWD, THEY DID E RN IT, DIDN'T THEY?(emphasis in original). This all proves that Coughlin's behavior was intentional.

To call Coughlin's litigation "tactics" unprofessional would be anunderstatement of historic proportions. But unfortunately for Merliss, all of Coughlin'snonsense has had to be read, absorbed, analyzed, and dealt with by Merliss' counsel,whether or not a formal response was ever filed with the court. Due to the consistent andpervasive incoherency of each and every one of Coughlin's filings, all of that activity hastaken a spectacularly disproportionate amountofcounsel's time. That, ofcourse, has endedup costing Merliss an obscene amount of money, which is exactly the result Coughlinnotonly intended, but proclaimed from the beginning as his goal.

Coughlin has gone to great lengths to make the court, Merliss, and anyone elsewho would listen, aware that he, Coughlin, claims to be without financial resources. SeeCoughlin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, filed herein on February 16,2012. He repeatedly rails against what he perceives as disparate treatment of him, andthose he believes to be wealthy, privileged, or even employed, including Merliss, hiscounsel, and members of the judiciary and local police force. See, e.g, Coughlin's motionto alter or amend order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed herein onApril 5, 2012. But even if that were the case, that Coughlinhas less financial resources thanothers, that does not give him the right to foist the costs of his gamesmanship on those whohave been unfortunate enough to become involved in litigation with him.

A suit at law is not a children's game, but a serious efforton the part of adult human beings to administer justice.Tremps v. scot Oils, Inc., 561 F.2d 41, 44 (7th Cir. 1977) (emphasis added).

13


14/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425267

28OFFICEHILL255

That is a concept th t Coughlin, a current member of the bar, does not yetgrasp, but needs to learn. NRS 69.050 nd NRS 7.085 re designed nd specificallyintended to teach th t lesson to litigants such as Coughlin, to deter future similar acts.Here, either as a result of his complete indifference,or by specific design, Coughlin's anticshave cost Merliss a very large mount of very real money. Merliss does no t havethe luxuryof representing himself without incurring actual fees, as Coughlin does. Instead, Merlisswas forced to pay real lawyers to practice real law in the face of Coughlin's childish,frivolous, nd reckless abuses of the court system. The fees inflicted upon Merliss tolitigate, nd eventually prevail, in this matter, shouldbe borneby Coughlin, the sole, direct,and proximate cause of th t harm. NRS 7.085. NRS 69.050.

ON LUSIONCoughlin is a grown man, nd n attorney. t is time for him to face the

consequences of his actions. This court can no longer tolerateor ignore the financial h rmCoughlin has purposefully nd recklessly inflicted on Merliss in this case. Merliss hasincurred a staggering mount of fees in this m tter due ex lusively to Coughlin'sunprofessional, frivolous, nd abusive litigation tactics, including his often criminalbehavior. Merliss is entitled to recoup those fees now. NRS 69.050. NRS 7.085. Coughlinis entitled to nd prays for n award of fees in the mount of $42,065.50pursu nt to thereferenced statutes.

WHEREFORE, Merliss prays for n order of this court, pursu nt to NRS69.050 nd NRS 7.085, awarding Merliss his attorney's fees in this m tter in the amountof $42,065.50, plus any sums reasonably incurred in responding to any additional papersth t may be filed in this case by Coughlin; nd for such other, further, nd additional reliefas seems just to the court in the premises.

14
http:///reader/full/42,065.50http:///reader/full/42,065.50http:///reader/full/42,065.50http:///reader/full/42,065.50


15/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122

232425262728OFFICEG. HILLOffice Box 2551. Nevada 89505

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

contain the social security number of any person.

DATED this \q day of April, 2012RICHARD G. HILL, LTD.


16/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728AW OFFICEHILL2551

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

HILL, LTD., and that on the \ day of April, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoingMotion/or Attorney s ees with the Clerk ofthe Court by using the ECF system which willsend a notice of electronic filing to the following:

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


17/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

EXHI IT INDEX

OFFICEHILL

348"()6BB

EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGES2 Emails dated 12 22 11

2 Coughlin s YouTube page 83 Declaration of Casey D Baker 134 Declaration of Richard G Hill 3


18/47


04-19-2012:04:14:36 PM




19/47

Page lof2

Casey BakerFrom: Sferrazza, Pete [[email protected]: Thursday, December 22, 2011 2:33 PMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]: Stancil, KarenSubject: RE: inventory continuedDear Mr Coughlin:The stay was denied. You will need to ask the District Court for a stay.Pete SferrazzaFrom: Zach Coughlin [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, December 22,201112:09 PMTo: Sferrazza, Pete; [email protected] Subject: inventory continuedDear Judge Sferrazza and Mr BakerAdditionally some rare book are missing, family photographs/keepsakes/heirlooms/media, I believe thehammer weighted action casio 88 key PX 330 is the model number, I believe, I will have tocheck ...... Further, this is all moot at this point as I have filed a Supersedeas Bond of 250, and accordingto NRS 40.385, I automatically get a stay of eviction and am entitled to return to the property andcontinue in possession. The tatute sets the Supersedeas Bond which yields a stay) at 250 i frent is under 1000, unlep the Court wishes to rule that I am a commercial tenant.However, if the court does rule that I am a commercial tenant, the No Cause Eviction Noticein this case, under NRS 40.253 makes a Summary Eviction Proceeding impermissible, asSummary Eviction Proceedings are not allowed against commercial tenants where only a No causeEviction Notice is filed. Its one or the other, but Mr. Hill and Baker cannot have it both ways. Further,the Courts Order of December 21, 2011 is just that, and Order, its not an agreement, its not asettlement, etc, etc. and the audio record clearly reflects that.NRS 40.385 Stay of execution upon appeal; duty of tenant who retains possession of premises to payrent during stay. Upon an appeal from an order entered pursuant to NRS 40.253:1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a stay of execution may be obtained by filing with thetrial court a bond in the amount of 250 to cover the expected costs on appeal. In an action concerning alease of commercial property or any other property for which the monthly rent exceeds 1,000, the courtmay, upon its own motion or that of a party, and upon a showing of good cause, order an additionalbond to be posted to cover the expected costs on appeal. A surety upon the bond submits to thejurisdiction of the appellate court and irrevocably appoints the clerk of that court as the surety s agentupon whom papers affecting the surety s liability upon the bond may be served. Liability of a surety maybe enforced, or the bond may be released, on motion in the appellate court without independent action.2. A tenant who retains possession of the premises that are the subject of the appeal during thependency of the appeal shall pay to the landlord rent in the amount provided in the underlying contractbetween the tenant and the landlord as it becomes due. f the tenant fails to pay such rent, the landlordmay initiate new proceedings for a summary eviction by serving the tenant with a new notice pursuant toNRS 40.253.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq.

4 18 2012
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


20/47

Page 2 of2

817 N. Virginia St. 2Reno NV 89501tel: 775 229 6737fax: 949 667 [email protected] Bar No: 9473

** Notice** This message and accompanying documents are covered by the electronic Communications Privacy Act, 8U S c 2510-2521, and may contain confidential information intended for the specified individual s) only. If you are notthe intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hei:eby notified that you havereceived this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contentsof this information is strictly prohibited. This message s confidential, intended only for the named recipient s) andmaycontain ;nformation that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. tyouare not the intended recip;ent s), you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution orany action taken oromitted to be taken in reliance on the contents of this information s prohibited andmay be unlawful. If y u receive:this message in error, or are not the named recipient s), please notify the sender, delete this e-mail from yourcomputer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receiptby anyone other than the named recipient s) isnot a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.

No virus found in this message.Checked byAVG - www.avg.comVersion: 2012 0 18901 Virus Database: 2109/4696 Release Date: 12122/11

411812012
mailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/www.avg.commailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/www.avg.com


21/47

EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT


04-19-2012:04:14:36 PMJoey Orduna Hastings

Clerk of the CourtTransaction # 2901160


22/47

25teddyjames YouTube Page of8

Browse I Movies I Upload Create Account I Sign In

o 2 150Subscribenil25teddyjames '-tideo views:::- : ' F:::-r1 \ : I j r : I ) ~ ~ ~ ? ' f C r h r t ( 3 ) J w l

~ - Uploaded videos 1 10 o f 52 Play All About 25teddyjames

Crealed by 25ted dYJ : fnesLatest Acti vity lvIa r 24. 2012Date JOlnerl .ian 6 201'AM 0249 Jackson and Palin Lady an ...

2GleOrJ,jam., 1 1 e - N 1week.About IIlis usef

l H H o r c j ' $ worst motl ler eH in' nig ll lmClre Hell .defcntllen;)nl's for lee someti rnes. jll st for shetzand egs .. ,why o u l c l a landlord get to retaliateaga in st d tenant tor : s serting ttl(:i r rigtlts underthe US ConsI'ution. or Nevada statutes and casela .1 ;Hu1 COufi rules? I e ll me tha t. btl etch?Age 35Hometown giant hole in iGeSAM 0238 karma decided to be a b tc ... Country United Slates2SleddY}3meS 4 v1 0'(o/5 1 week aoo

Featured Playlists

SAM 0237 Uploaded videosL 2r,(( dcJYlanu: sview all

SAM 0250 Nevada Journalis Melissa U ..

SAM 0254 jackson you are white and ...251 Ct ( o : u r . c ~ 4 VI(: \ ' /S 1 . ,Ieek aqn

http://www.youtube.com/user/25teddyjames 4/2/2012
http://www.youtube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.youtube.com/user/25teddyjames


23/47

25teddyjames - YouTube Page 2 n 8

SAM 0253 nuticles are stupid castrati. ..251eddy,ames 6 \1C h S 1 el : a{ n

hill contractor took latter dec 22 and 2 ..25 tL'ddYClme5 6 V'le'.\1' 1 ,\nnk ."' )ort."Il0 ro/lc:e ItP. '1 fIl(JIli 111OnlC.


24/47

25teddyjames - YouTube Page 3 0f8

'. ~ -

SAM 0290 when USPS Buck Hyde Atta ...25leddYl'mleS 2 \I 'WS 1 l'I k ago

VID 20120107 125103 rpd laura harriso . ..25teddyJOjm6S l t wAek aoo

FILE0001 moment of entry guns draw...25tCddY13mC5 VlC\VS 1 ..00k 0190

FILE0001 moment of entry guns draw...251eddYJrHoos 11 VIOWS 1 week d ~ I Oaccommg (0 .'htshoo counly o;hanff deputy nlZ}'.aro, youwill co to Jail for obs ln JCMn mere Iy l . C 8 u ~ , l t ~ O t J ro'/o acamera Wi th you 01 0 (J{ Or wh o lIu IS u V l c l l r ~ g yOu at

criticism of duralde arrest patent con . ..25\Oddy}iIlOOS 2 i1CY15 I wne; , IWIfenD police d e p ( 1 f ~ n l 1 r x : fJOOtt'UghlllCh younU. e-;q, ,rJbhou C()l.JlUy pUDI1C dr:frmrior m , ~ I I C l O U S proseulhon l l o n ~wrongful arre'J.t h(=l . lean btmy dogall. t ~ s q hu'.[er hyl;m

SAM 0290 when USPS Buck Hyde Alta . ..25teddy)n ll1e5 : V l l , ~ 1 W(Jf k aOt)

SAM 0297 wcso 3 1512 eviction foota ...26teddyJamrn; 13 'INIS 1 \',eek flO

212012ttp ://WWW .yolitube.com/user/25teddyjames
http://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjameshttp://www.yolitube.com/user/25teddyjames


25/47

2Steddyjames - YouTube Page 4 of8

"YZ'Jmr.,1'I.4.Cl!.AAouti. I I ' W ' I t . . , C ' . , y , r ~ ~ l " ' - l l I " \ , ' t \ ' t r > o t u ' ; l I r t ; ) e . : J , . . c Jlton.Io' < l L o I I 1 . . - d , , , , , , , ~~ r . r . ~ . ' f I . " " I < : ' Q . I ' I ( , ~ U U l l n ' : l ; ] l 'iI:i ~ t n j : " ' ~ ' R t o o ( W t ~ __ I I ~ I I \ I r : l I ' ~f ' I l C I ' I C o < A n . ~ ~ O I 0 1 ' f r . I I d . ' ~ b e / l t U ' d U O Q l ' l .... b'T1t''''''""c1ItJlu'U.liII ''MXI\'l''

Washoe County Sheriffs Deputies Our ..;';5tfldrty}ames is V l e 1 } i ~ 2 \"P.t+>S aqaOcta I p.:i{)e fo r CanOil.lC fU Vlncont Jn n"\f-) \. '1011 J.;IIQVlflcnllt PosUlon DEPUTY SHERIFF W .lshon Cnunty fl t l f2010 Baso Pay , 6 1 20 Ove n".\(! flod Callback CuUCCIN!

Reno Police Department Sargent Paul. ..251pddyJamcs 124 ' . I P . W 2 ~ e l l . t = i ClOOJa) lillk IU c u ~ ~ t Q ( J ,t um. --I of (I 0nW'l alxlso or r n c . e ~ RPDOttU:.'f Wr':'ftley Lmuy IOU TrTlVlf, Lrxw ill (l,rf" 11)(1 (,I SarqulllPaul Srlre y.,r.lmrng oy an H o l l n g s ~ i l l Ih Thp r .

11711 Hearing Motion to Stay Summ .. .23 lecidyJames 54 VIf 4 mnnl11S 0Nnvemhcr 7 , 20 '1 post Sl. lllIIlary E-V1C: \lOO O'

\ ' I C b o n 12 1 I"'t'rfoc1t: .,1 re i ) flv 0950 1 rnall r T l f 7 ' I ~ s t:r,o(=lt lhU\OJ J mer1I$S casey t>akor nCJ1;.m l q 1111 milo I

ulead created merliss cross court aud ...2:iIec1dyJsloos 2-1 V/P. 'hS t\ molllhs H.

conclusion cross examination of merli ..251:dOyy.Jmes 32 VlC....-:; .! r.,onths tllJOs11nmary oV\C IOf) unl;Mf ul rlr.I;11114 r IIp.vart.1 1 1 ~ 40 ~ ~ : ~ n r ~" 18


26/47

25teddyjames - YouTube Page 5 of8

conclusion cross examination of merli. ..e d d y ) a m e 5 :\0 VlAYIS .\ mon t s ; '{lO

summary CVlClion ul)1.';,,'1ul del illner nOY.ltJa nr1i " J 253 nrg11 &15 1[1 rm iJl,a tory vl,w:allOCl hahuat;dlly Illlll Ol ttuchO 1

r ~ r . m a C C O ~ J O I Reno Jus ICC COIJl1 Sfeffill7..a :I r\o-ao


27/47

25teddyjames YOllTllbe Page 6 of8

Nevada Court Services banging 3 min ...2r.toddWHTleS [)7 VIP.WS 5 months a(10hUPS 1 1 5 ~ ; IUnvu I \ ,(l r . ~ jI"I


28/47


Nevada Court Services continuous ba .. .2 5 1 ( ~ ~ m e ' 65 Vle\'Js 5 montns I?Ohllps}1 kytirlvo hve,coml')rld=4 (j38132f5128t1cI(1 =l 30B4638F32F5F28 :> cl- J08


29/47


Coughlin explaining faults of Green A ...251P.


30/47


04-19-2012:04:14:36 PM




31/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

gr

LAW OFFICEHILLOffice Box 2551Nevada 69505348"()888348"()858

Code No. 1520RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.State Bar No. 596CASEY D. BAKER ESQ.State Bar No. 9504RICHARD G. HILL, CHARTERED652 Forest StreetReno, Nevada 89509(775) 348-0888Attorney for Respondent Matt Merliss


ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, )) Case No.: CVll-03628Appellant, )

v. )) Dept. NO.7)MATT MERLISS, ))Respondent. ))DECLARATION OF CASEY D. BAKER ESQ.

CASEY D. BAKER ESQ., being first duly sworn, deposes and under penalty ofperjury avers:

1. I am a resident ofthe City of Reno, County ofWashoe, State of Nevada,and over 18 years of age. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, except thosematters stated on information and belief, and as to those items I believe them to be true.This declaration is made in support of respondent s Motion for Attorney s Fees andrepresents my testimony if called on to present same in court.2. I am an attorney duly licensed as such by the State of Nevada to practicebefore all courts of this State and maintain my office at 652 Forest Street, Reno, Nevada,where I am employed as an associate for the law firm of Richard G. Hill, Ltd. I am alsolicensed to practice before the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.


32/47

123456789

10111213141516178

19202122232425267

28LAW OFFICEHILL, Nevada 89505775) 348-0668

3. My office represents the respondent, Dr. Matthew Merliss, in this matter.4. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT I is a true and correct (redacted) copy ofa

billing activity report generated by my office showing work performed since November3,2012 as part of my office's representat ion of Dr. Merliss in connection with this matter.I have only redacted those portions of the billings which might reveal privilegedinformation (Le., attorney-client andlor attorney work product) or charges which do notpertain to the instant matter. All charges arising from the entries on the attached reportwere actually, reasonably and necessarily incurred on behalfof my client in this case. Thedata presented is, essentially, the billings sent to the clients in a slightly modified format.

a) The charges for my time prior to March 1, 2012 were all assessedat the rate of 225.00 per hour, which was my standard hourly rate at that time. Thecharges for my time beginning on and after March 1, 2012 were all assessed at the rate of

250.00 per hour, which is my standard rate now. Upon investigation and experience,these rates are well within the range of fees charged by other attorneys in the community.

5. The total fees incurred by Merliss in connection with this matter sinceNovember 3, 2012 are $42,065.50.

6. In accordance with the factors enunciated bythe Nevada Supreme CourtinBrunzellv. Golden Gate Nat. Bank 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 P.2d31 (1969) and as se t forthin NRPC 1.5, I show the Court:

a) I have been practicing law in Nevada for over 6 years. My practiceemphasizes collections, real estate, real estate litigation, construction, construction defect,business, business litigation and general commercial law.

My current standard hourly rate is 250.00 per hour. Upon inquiry, Iunderstand that rate to be well within the range of fees charged by other attorneys withcomparable qualifications in the community for similar services. The fees charged wereactually, reasonably and necessarily incurred.

2


33/47

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324256728LAWOFFICEG. HILL2551Nevada 89505348"()888

b) ost of the work thatwas actually performed in connection withthis matter is itemized on EXHIBIT 1. Reference is made to the Declaration of RichardG. Hill, Esq., filed herewith, for a discussion of work that was performed by him, but notbilled to the client. The entries on EXHIBIT 1 identified as CB were entered by me. Theentries identified as RGH were entered byMr. Hill. The charges identified as SLH wereentered by my secretary, Sherri L. Hill. The entries on EXHIBIT 1 were made as thecharges were incurred. The billings show a totalof176.78hours spent on this matter, eachand every instance of which was necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.

In that regard, it is important for the court to understand that this caserequired substantially more work than a normal eviction case would have or shouldhave required. All of his work was necessitated solely due to the unpredictable, erratic, andabusive behavior by the tenant, Mr. Coughlin, as described in the instant motion. Asdiscussed by Mr. Hill in his declaration, I, too, have not charge Dr. Merliss for a significantamount of time I have spent dealing with this matter, including time spent in consultationwith Mr. Hill, and in dealing with the property. The end result obtained for the client wasa complete victory, both in the underlying eviction and in this appeal. As a result, Dr.Merliss is now able to re-Iet his property on River Rock

c) Mr. Hill has been practicing law in Nevada for over 33 years. Hispractice, like mine, emphasizes collections, real estate, real estate litigation, construction,construction defect, business, business litigationandgeneral commercial law. Mr. Hill hasspoken at real estate seminars in the legal community. He is frequently consulted by otherattorneys in the legal community on collections, real estate, procedure, business,construction and related issues. He maintains an extensive library on collections,construction, real estate and real estate litigation issues, in addition to an extensive libraryon litigation and trial issues.

3
http:///reader/full/of176.78http:///reader/full/of176.78


34/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728LAW OFFICEG. HILL

(775) 346-0686

Mr. Hill s standard hourly rate throughout this case has been 350.00 perhour. Upon inquiry, I understand those rates to be well within the range offees charged byother attorneys with comparable qualifications in the community for similar services.

7. I have personally reviewed the exhibits attached tothe instant motion,andeach exhibit is a true and correct copy of what it purports to be.

8. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.qJATED this day ofApril, 2011.

4


35/47

1234567891

1213415167

18192222

2345

267

28

EXHIBIT INDEX

L W OFFICEill

Nevada 89505775) 348-0888

5

EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION P GES1 Activity Report 7


36/47

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1


37/47

Richard G. H i I ~ I L _ t _ d _ . _ Activity Report~ -For the dates: 1113/2011 to 4119 2012Client: Merliss, Dr. Matthew J.Matter: General Default)iU DetailDate TyPe Biller Description Hours Amount11/3/2011 Fee ROH emails w cdb; reviewing today's ravings by ZC 0.30 1 1 ) ~ . 0 0111412011 Fee ROB review 46 pages of drivel faxed from RJC - look for 0040 $140.00disbilitv motion - none found

-1116/2011 Fee CB Prepare for hearing re: deposit and inspection. 2.00 $450.00111712011 Fee ROB email to client multiple drivebys over the 0.25 $87.50weekend11/712011 Fee ROB to & from house - video 3 0040 $140.00111712011 Fee CB Attend hearing. 8:00 - 10:00. Email to client. 2.00 $450;,,0011/7/2011 Fee ROB phone w PI & setting up tomorrow; emails to & from 0.33 $115.50

client11/7/2011 Fee CB Receive and review stack of new motions. 0.50 $112.5011/8/2011 Fee ROB to & from & through the house; email to client 0040 $140.001118/2011 Fee CB Receive and review tenant's opposition to memo of 0.50 $112.50:costs. Telephone with court (x2).111812011 Fee CB Telephone with client. 0.20 $45.00111812011 Fee CB Instructions to staff. Edit request for submission. 0.10 $22.5


38/47

Richard G. Hill Ltd. Activity Report11115 2011 Fee RGH meet wi contractor at river rock - secure the place; 0.80 280.00photos of the basement11116 2011 Fee RGH -- phone w/ client 0.25 87.5011117 2011 Fee CB Email from Coughlin. 0.10 22.5011117 2011 Fee RGH meetw/CDB- lengthy email 0.66 $ 2 3 L , ~ 0from and to ZC i ~ l '11117 2011 Fee CB Meet with RGH 0.50 1 1 2 : ~ 91111712011 Fee CB Telephone (x2) with Reno Justice Court. Email to 0040 90.00client.11117 2011 Fee CB Begin drafting motion for order to show cause. 0.20 45.0011 18 2011 Fee CB Finalize motion for order to show cause. 0.60 135.0011118 2011 Fee CB Email from Coughlin. 0.10 22.5011118 2011 Fee CB Prepare opposition to motion to release property. 1.00 225.0011118 2011 Fee CB Continue preparing opposition to motion to contest 1.50 337.50personal property lien.11/19/2011 Fee RGH 11/18 edit declaration - contempt 0040 140.0Q11119 2011 Fee RGH 11118 -emails w/ ZC 0.25 87.5011120/2011 Fee CB Prepare oppositions to motions to return property, 1.50 337.50waive transcript costs. Multiple emails fromCoughlin.1112112011 Fee CB Finish preparing oppositions to various motions. 2.30 517.5011121 2011 Fee RGH phone w/ insurance company 0.25 87.501112112011 Fee RGH to & from house - photos for hearing; interview 0.50 175.00witness11 2112011 Fee RGH haggling - phone & emails w/ zach 0.33 115;911/2112011 Fee RGH to & from house X2 ... nlc 0.00 O . t J ~1112112011 Fee CB Prepare for hearing. To and from River Rock 2.00 450.00property to retrieve wallet and client files with RGH.1112112011 Fee CB Continue to prepare for hearing. Multiple emails 1.50 337.50from and to Coughlin. Telephone with court.11122 2011 Fee CB Emails from Coughlin. 0.10 22.5011122 2011 Fee CB To and from courthouse to review files re: motion in 1.50 337.50appeal. Additional online file review.11122 2011 Fee CB Telephone with client. 0.20 45.001112512011 Fee RGH huge emails w/ Zc. ....numerous phone calls, he calls 1.50 525.00

up pretending to be somebody else .... last 4 days11128 2011 Fee CB Multiple emails from Coughlin over Thanksgiving 0.50 112.50weekend.11128/2011 Fee CB Telephone to court re: redact 33 . Prepare notice of 0.30 0.00redaction. nlc11129/2011 Fee CB Email from Coughlin. Review lease agreement. 0.20 45.00Email to client.11130/2011 Fee CB Email from Coughlin with attached motion. Email to 0.30 67.:50

Coughlin.11/30/2011 Fee CB Telephone with insurance adjuster. Emails to and 0.40 $90.00from client.11130/2011 Fee CB Telephone with court re: updated docket. 0.10 22.5011130 2011 Fee CB Prepare opposition to group of motions delivered on 2.50 562.5(}:Thanksgiving.12/1/2011 Fee CB Edit and fmalize opposition to bundle of motions, and 1.70 382.5(}'declaration of CDB in support thereof, and allexhibits.12 212011 Fee CB Review statute. Letter to Coughlin. 0.50 112.5012/2/2011 Fee CB Telephone from Phil Stewart. Email to Merliss. 0.40 90.00,1212 2011 Fee CB To and from property to meet with insurance guy. No 0.50 112.50show.

4 19 2012 Page 2


39/47

Richard G. Hill, Ltd. Activity Report12 2 2011 Fee CB Revise letter to Zach. 0.20 $4$.0012 512011 Fee CB Multiple emails over the weekend from Coughlin and 0.30 6 7 ~ ~ 9court. Order from court. Email to client. . : ; \\12 512011 Fee CB To and from walkthrough with Farmers Insurance. 1.00 $225.0Q

Receive and review more motions from Coughlin.Email to client.12/6/2011 Fee CB Telephone from court. Fax from court. Email to 0,80 $180.00client. Review lease and other documents inpreparation for hearing .

.12/7/2011 Fee CB Assist in preparation of exhibits and things to be 0.70 $157.50produced to city attorney.12 8 2011 Fee CB Email from Coughlin. 0.10 22.5d12 9 2011 Fee CB Email and fax from Coughlin. Prepare for hearing. 1.50 $337.50Email to Coughlin.12/9/2011 Fee CB Emails to and from client.- 0.40 ~ } ( X O O12/13/2011 Fee CB Multiple emails from and to client. 0.20 $45:i)9'12 1312011 Fee CB Telephone to Darlene Sharpe. 0.40 $9IQO i . ~ :1: /12113 2011 Fee CB Telephone with Phil Stewart (x2). 0.10 $12.5@)12 13 2011 Fee CB To and from River Rock property to walk house. 0.60 $135.0012/13/2011 Fee CB Emails to and from client. 0.30 $67.5012 13 2011 Fee CB Telephone to Phil Stewart. Instructions to secure 0.10 $22.50'property.12 13 2011 Fee CB Review CD to go to DA. Instructions for staff. 0,70 $157.5012113 2011 Fee CB Telephone with Farmer's Insurance (x2). 0.30 $67.50;12 13 2011 Fee CB Telephone with RPD. 0.30 $67.5012 13 2011 Fee CB Email from Coughlin with another emergency motion. 0.20 $45.0012113 2011 Fee CB Email to client. 0.20 $45.0012114 2011 ee CB Meet with Phil Stewart. 0.20 $45.0012/14/2011 Fee CB Prepare letter to RPD re: recent break-in. Try to file 1.00 $225.00'online, To and from police station.12 1412011 Fee CB Email to Coughlin. Email to client. 0.10 2 2 . 5 0 ~12 1412011 Fee CB Emails from and to Darlene Sharpe. 0.20 $45.0012 1412011 Fee CB Online research re: Coughlin's business license. 0.60 1 3 5 ~ 0 0Telephone with business license office. I12 14 2011 Fee CB Email from Coughlin. 0.10 $ .J2.S0f12/15/2011 Fee CB Multiple emails and huge fax from Coughlin. 0.40 $90.001211512011 Fee CB Meet with Darlene Sharpe. 1.00 $225.0012 1512011 Fee CB Email from and to client. 0.10 $22.50'12 15 2011 Fee CB Emails with client. 0.10 $22.5012 15 2011 Fee CB Telephone with insurance adjuster. 0.10 $22.5012 15 2011 Fee CB To and from meeting with insurance adjnster. 1.00 $225.00'12/15/2011 ee CB Multiple emails from and to Darlene Sharp. 0.60 $135.00'12116 2011 Fee CB Emails from Sharpe. 0.20 $45.0012/16/2011 Fee CB Email to insurance adjnster. 0.10 $22.5012 16 2011 Fee CB Prepare opposition to second motion to contest 1.10 $247.50personal property lien.12116 2011 Fee CB Telephone (x2) with Phil Stewart. Email to client 0.10 $22.5012 1812011 Fee CB Prepare reply n support ofmotion for order to show 1.00 $225.00cause.

4/19/2012 Page 33: +

} ' ~ ,


40/47

Richard G Hill Ltd. Activit:: R e p Q ~ t, otl

12/19/2011 Fee CB Emails and faxes from Coughlin. Emails to and from 0.30 67.50client.12119/2011 Fee CB Edit and fmalize opposition to motion to contest 1.10 247.50personal property lien.12/19/2011 Fee CB Edit and fmalize reply in support ofmotion for order 1.70 382.50to show cause.12119/2011 Fee CB Finalize reply in support of motion for order to show 0.60 135.00cause. Prepare declaration ofCDB. Prepare order toshow cause.12/19/2011 Fee CB Prepare for hearing, including preparation of 4.00 900.00examinations ofRGH Phil Stewart, Darlene Sharpe.Includes some legal research.12/1912011 Fee CB Prepare argument and examination of Coughlin. 1.00 225.0012/20/2011 Fee CB Final preparations for hearing. 1.50 337.5012 20 2011 Fee CB Attend hearing on personal property lien. 9:30 - 4:00. 6.50 1,462.5012/20/2011 Fee CB Telephone with client. 0.10 22.5012/2112011 Fee CB Receive and review order from court. Instructions to 0.10 2 2 , ~ , 1 1 .

staff. -12 22 2011 Fee CB To and from property to video and open for Coughlin. 1.00 225.00',Telephone with contractor.12/22/2011 Fee CB Emails from Coughlin. Further research re: 1.00 225.00;jurisdiction issues. Emails to client.12 23 2011 Fee CB Email from Coughlin. Review supreme court forms 0.30 67.50'and instructions re: stay.12 23 2011 Fee CB To and from property to open it up for Coughlm. 0.30 67.50:12 23 2011 Fee SLH Drive by house on way back from post office, about 0.00 0.0010:45 am. Tum offMill, and see a couple of peopleare walking across River Rock toward house, carryingboxes. Zach walks out into street to greet them, then

starts to head back toward the house when he noticesme. He stops in the middle of the street and beginstaping me with the video camera. I try driving aroundhim, but he moves so he is still blocking me. He getsout his cellphone and starts photographing or tapingme. I creep a bit closer (about 2' away), but still hedoesn't move. So I backed up, turned around, andheaded back to the office. There was an emptyV-Haul truck parked on Pine. [N C]12 23 2011 Fee CB To and from the property for fmal walkthrough. 0.60 135.0012 27 2011 Fee CB Multiple emails and faxes from Coughlin. 0.50 112.50::12/27/2011 Fee CB More emails from Coughlin. 0.20 45.0012 28 2011 Fee CB More emails and motions etc. from Coughlin. 0.50 112.50:

12 29 2011 Fee CB Emails from Judge Sferrazza . 0.10 22.5012/29/2011 Fee CB Email to Coughlin. 0.10 22.5012 30 2011 Fee CB Emails and another emergency motion from Coughlin. 0.50 112.5012 30 2011 Fee CB Opposition to emergency motion forTRO. 3.60 810.00113/2012 Fee CB Multiple emails from Coughlin over the holiday 0.30 67.50weekend.113/2012 Fee CB Edit, revise, and fmalize opposition to emergency 2.50 562.50 'motion for TRO.113/2012 Fee CB Legal research in preparation for drafting motion todismiss appeal. 0.50 112:50~ ~ .

4 19 2012 Page 4


41/47

Richard G. Hill Ltd. Activity Report,

11612012 Fee CB Appeal - Receive and review reply from Coughlin. 0.60 1 3 5 . 0 ~Instructions to staff.-111112012 Fee CB Receive and review order re: TRO. Meet with RGH 0.50 112.50Emails to and from client.111112012 Fee CB Instructions to staff. Receive and review new filings 0.20 45.00

by Coughlin in first (premature) appeal, and lawsuit,and new TPO case against Coughlin.1112 2012 Fee RGH to & from house - meet with contractor - major 0.66 231.00filming

1112 2012 Fee RGH to & from transfer station - zach acting up & hassling 0.25 8l50contractor111212012 Fee RGH 3-5:30 morning - dealing with zach - transfer station 2.00 700.QOwith the cops; at the house with zach & cops; RIC apply for and get TPO (2 trips); back to the house-deal with the cops; video the house in morning and

late afternoon charge @ 2 hours1113 2012 Fee CB Email from Coughlin - supplemental reply to motion 0.20 45.QQdenied two days ago. .1113 2012 Fee CB To and from house for walkthrough. n/c. 0.40 0.00:111312012 Fee CB Telephone from contractor. 0.10 22.50,1117 2012 Fee CB Appeal - Prepare motion for order to show cause. 1.30 292.50111712012 Fee CB Appeal - receive and review opposition to motion for 0.20 45.00attorney's fees (??).1117/2012 Fee CB Appeal - edit and revise motion for order to show 0.30 67.50cause.111812012 Fee CB Appeal - revise motion for order to show cause. 0.20 45.00:111812012 Fee CB Appeal- Prepare declarations ofRGH and Stewart in 1.20 270.00

support of motion for OSC. Prepare proposed order.

.1119/2012 Fee CB Finalized motion for order to show cause and related 1.60 360.00'declarations.1120 2012 Fee CB Meet with Phil Stewart re: motion for OSC. 0.20 45.00'

1127/2012 Fee CB Email from Coughlin. 0.10 22.50'

1130 2012 Fee CB Email to Coughlin. Email to client. 0.10 22.501/30/2012 Fee CB Email to Coughlin. 0.10 22.50 .113112012 Fee CB Telephone from Darlene Sharpe. Email to client. 0.20 45.00113112012 Fee CB Emails from Sharpe. Email from client. 0.10 22.501/3112012 Fee CB Receive and review new motion from Coughlin. 1.50 337,50Legal research and analyze appropriate response tomotion. ; ;l2 1 2012 Fee CB Appeal - prepare opposition to motion to amend. 1.70 382.5@212 2012 Fee CB Appeal - edit opposition to motion to amend. 0.30 67.502 212012 Fee CB Receive and review notice to set. Review rules and 0.20 45.00statutes cited in notice - none apply.

4 1912012 Page \ ' ~ f


42/47

Richard G. Hill Ltd. Activity Report2/3/2012 Fee CB Edit opposition to motion to amend. 0.10 22.502/3/2012 Fee CB Prepare opposition and motion to strike notice to set 0.50 112.50hearing.2/6/2012 Fee CB Appeal- receive and review Coughln's opening brief. 0.30 67.5021712012 Fee CB Appeal - Receive and review second opening brief. 1.50 337.50Begin drafting answering brief.21712012 Fee CB Appeal - receive and review motion for extension of 1.00 225.00time. Begin drafting opposition and motion to strike.21712012 Fee CB Email to client. 0.20

2/8/2012 Fee CB Appeal - prepare opposition to motion for extension. 2.00 450.002/8/2012 Fee CB Telephone from court to set sc hearing. Email to 0.20 45.00client.2/912012 Fee CB Appeal revise opposition to motion for extension. 0.50 112.502110/2012 Fee CB 20 page email from Coughlin. Email to client. 0.40 90.0Q.2116/2012 Fee CB Appeal - Prepare answering brief. LIO 247.50211712012 Fee CB Appeal- email from Coughlin. 0.10 22.502/1712012 Fee CB Appeal- legal research and continue to prepare 3.00 675.00answering brief.

- .2/2112012 Fee C Continue to prepare answering brief. 3.00 675.0q2/22/2012 Fee C Appeal - Continue to prepare Answering Brief. 6.00 1,350.00Includes substantial review and citation to enormousrecord on appeal, distillation and analysis ofCoughlin's barely-articulated arguments, andadditional legal research.2/22/2012 Fee CB Appeal Receive and review supreme court 0.10 22.59

deficiency notice. Review relevant NRAP.2/23/2012 Fee CB Appeal- Continue to prepare answering brief. Major 4.80 1,080.00editing to reduce to 5 page limit.2/23/2012 Fee CB Appeal - additional editing ofAnswering Brief. 1.50 337.50_2/23/2012 Fee CB Prepare motion for leave to exceed page limit. 0.50 Il2.50j2/24/2012 Fee CB Appeal - Finalize answering brief. 4.10 922.5Oi2/2412012 Fee CB Appeal - Finalize motion to exceed page limit. Draft 0.30 67.501declaration ofCDB.2/24/2012 Fee CB Appeal - finalize answering brief. 0.50 112.502127/2012 Fee CB Appeal- draft errata to answering brief. nlc 0.10 0.002/27/2012 Fee CB Email from Coughlin. 0.10 22.502/27/2012 Fee C Receive and review deficiency statement from court. 0.10 22.50Email to client.3/5/2012 Fee CB Letter from Farmers. Emails to and from client. 0.10 25.003/8/2012 . Fee CB Receive and review 47 page motion from Coughlin. 0.50 125,003/8/2012 Fee CB Receive and review second motion from Coughlin. 0.10 25.0Q:;3/8/2012 Fee CB Receive and review order denying Coughlin's motion 0.10 25.0t[to proceed IFP on appeal.

3/2112012 Fee CB sc -meet with Stewart. View video online. 1.50 375.0();.Prepare for hearing.4 19 2012 Page 6


43/47

Richard G. Hill Ltd. Activity Report312212012 Fee CB OSC - prepare for hearing, including testimony, 4.00 1,OOO.OQexhibits, argwnent, and legal research.3123/2012 Fee CB OSC fmal preparations for OSC hearing. 1.00 250.003/2312012 Fee CB Additional preparation for OSC hearing. 1.50 375.003 23 2012 Fee CB To and from courthouse for OSC hearing. 10:30 2.00 500;0012:30. ' Ol/t312612012 Fee CB Prepare for reswnption of OSC hearing. 1.00 2 5 0 ' ~ 93126/2012 Fee CB To and from court for continuation of OSC hearing. 1.00 250.003127/2012 Fee CB Email to Merliss. 0.10 25.003/2712012 Fee CB Telephone from client. 0.20 50.0Q4/212012 Fee CB Prepare motion for fees. 3.30 825.0()4 2 2012 Fee CB Review memo of costs. 0.20 50.0Q4/312012 Fee CB Legal research re: recoverable costs. Edit memo of 2.00 500.00costs. Continue to prepare motion for fees.4/512012 Fee CB Receive and review motion to alter or amend denial 0.40 100.00

ofIFP Review relevant pleadings. Email to client.4/9/2012 Fee CB Receive and review new ftlings (x3) from Coughlin. 0.50 125.004 9 2012 Fee CB Prepare reply to opposition to memo of costs. 2.00 500.004 10 2012 Fee CB Prepare response to opposition to memo of costs. 3.50 875.004 11 2012 Fee CB Edit and fmalize reply to opposition to memo of 0.50 125.0q:costs.4111/2012 Fee CB Edit and revise reply to opposition to memo of costs. 0.50 125.004/1212012 Fee CB Edit, revise, and fmalize reply in support of memo of 3.00 750.00costs.4/1212012 Fee CB Prepare opposition to motion to alter or amend denial 2.00 500',9P

ofIFP Wi4 13 2012 Fee CB Prepare opposition to motion to alter or amend order 1.00 250.00'denying appeal.4 16 2012 Fee CB Finish opposition to to motion to alter or amend order 3.30 825.00,affrrming swnmary eviction order.4/1712012 Fee CB Continue to prepare motion for fees. 3.20 800.00'4/1812012 Fee CB Major edit and revision of motion for fees, including 4.00 1,000.00;extensive review of file and ROA4 18 2012 Fee CB Finalize opposition to motion to alter or amend order 0.30 75.00afftrming eviction.4/1812012 Fee CB Final edit and revision of motion for fees, including 1.80 450.00review and citation to the ROA.4/1812012 Fee CB Prepare declartion ofRGH 0.50 125.004 19 2012 Fee CB Finalize motion for fees. 1.00 250.00,'4 19 2012 Fee CB Prepare declaration of CDB in support of motion for 0.80 200.00fees.

4/19/2012 Page


44/47

EXHIBIT

\,11' ; I, '1

EXHIBIT


04-19-2012:04:14:36 PM




45/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

gr

LAW OFFICEHILLNevada 8950577 5) 348.o ssa

Code No. 1520RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ.State Bar No. 596CASEYD. BAKER, ESQ.State Bar No. 9504RICHARD G. HILL, CHARTERED652 Forest StreetReno, Nevada 89509(775) 348-0888Attorney for Respondent Matt Merliss


ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, )) Case No.: CVll-03628Appellant, )) Dept. NO.7v. ))MATT MERLISS, ))Respondent. )-------------------------)DECLARATION OF RICHARD G. HILL ESQ.

RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ., being first duly sworn, deposes and under penaltyof perjury avers:

1. I am a resident of the Cityof Reno, County ofWashoe, State of Nevada,and over 18 years ofage. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, except thosematters stated on information and belief, and as to those items I believe them to be true.This declaration is made in support of respondent's Motion or Attorney s Fees andrepresents my testimony if called on to present same in court.

2. I am an attorney duly licensed as such by the State of Nevada to practicebefore all courts of this State and maintain my office at 652 Forest Street, Reno, Nevada.I am also licensed to practice before the United States District Court for the District of


46/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425267

28l W OFFICEG Hill775) 348-0888

Nevada, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I havepracticed law in Nevada for over 33 years.

3. My office represents the respondent, Dr. Matthew Merliss, in this matter.4 Although I had substantial personal involvement in this matter, including

many personal interactions with Mr. Coughlin, my associate, CaseyD Baker, Esq., was, andis, primarily responsible for the handling of this case within our office.

5 Pursuant to our normal office procedures, Mr. Baker and I consultfrequently about his cases. I also sometimes review Mr. Baker's work product before it getsfiled with the court. I do so either at Mr. Baker's request, or on my own volition. I routinelycharge the client for my time spent reviewing and editing Mr. Baker's work.

6 In this case, Mr. Baker and I realized very quickly that Mr. Coughlin'sbehavior was unpredictable and erratic, and that this was not going to be a normalsummary eviction case. From the very first contact with him, it was clear that Coughlinintended to cause our client to incur needless fees and costs dealing with his fabricationsand lack of ethics. Since Coughlin had no clients, it was clear he intended to make thismatter the focus of his daily activities. t was also clear that he suffered from profoundemotional and mental problems that manifested themselves in aggressive and calculatedreckless behavior.

7 As a result, I spent more time than I normally would have on this case, bothin consulting with Mr. Baker, and in editing his work; and in dealing with and monitoringMr. Coughlin.

8. In fact, in this case, I reviewed, at least once, nearly every paper Mr Bakerprepared before it was filed. That is not the normal protocol in our office, but was duesolely to Mr. Coughlin's behavior in this litigation, and the fact that his behavior wasunreasonably driving the fees in this case at an alarming rate, as described in the instantmotion.

2


47/47

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

9. Outofcompassion for Dr. Merliss, I did not charge him for thebulk of thevast amount of my time spent in consultation with Mr. Baker, and in editing his workproduct. Nor did I charge for most of the time I spent dealing with Mr. Coughlin, theproperty in question, or my countless interactions with the police and prosecutors as aresult of Coughlin's antics, including stalking me and my staff. In addition, I felt anenormous amountofprofessional embarrassment, that a member of he Nevada Bar couldso readily and recklessly abuse the processes of our courts solely for the satisfaction ofinflicting harm on others. The fees requested are far below the amountof time, energy andfocus provided by me and my staff on this matter.

10 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.FFIRM TION Pursuant to NRS 239B 030

The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does notcontain the social security number of any person.

DATED this e ~ y ofApril, 2012

4 19 12 0204 1708 03628 hill and baker's motion for attorney's fees tagged

Documents