9 18 13 WLS Mtn for More Definite Statement CV11-01896-3910275

7/27/2019 9 18 13 WLS Mtn for More Definite Statement CV11-01896-3910275

1/12

F I L E DElectronically

09-18-2013:06:01:13 PMJoey Orduna Hastings

Clerk of the CourtTransaction # 4006198

1 21JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.Nevada Bar No. 6653SHANNON D. NORDSTROM, ESQ.3 Nevada Bar No. 8211LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.4 9080 West Post Road, Suite 100Las Vegas, Nevada 891485 (702) 382-1500(702) 382-1512 - fax6 [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants89

1

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OFTHE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THECOUNTY OF WASHOE1112 ZACH COUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,vs.

15 WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et al.16 Defendants.17

)) CASE NO.: CV11-01896) DEPT. NO.: 8

))))))

DEFENDANTS MOTION FORA MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, ORIN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TODISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE ACLAIM

18 DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, OR N THEALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM192

Defendants Washoe Legal Services ( WLS ), a Nevada Corporation, and Paul Elcano,individually and in his capacity as Executive Director ofWLS (hereinafter collectively referred

2 to as Defendants ) by and through their attorneys of record, Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer &22 Garin, P.C., bring this Motion for a More Definite Statement, or in the Alternative, Motion to23 Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim based on Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 8 12(e), and24 12(b)(5).25

1126

1127

1128


2/12

rv

This Motion is based on the Memorandum o Points and Authorities below, togethe2 with the pleadings and files herein, and any argument this Court permits.3 Dated this 18th day of September, 2013.4 LIPSON NEILSON COLE SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.56789

10

1213

~ / ~ ~By: ~ O ~ S = E P ~ H ~ P ~ . ~ G ~ A ~ R = I ~ N ~ E = S = Q ~ .Nevada Bar No. 6653SHANNON D. NORDSTROM, ESQ.Nevada Bar No. 8211LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C9080 West Post Road, Suite 100Las Vegas, Nevada 89148(702) 382-1500(702) 382-1512 - [email protected]

ttorneys for Defendants14 MEMOR NDUM OF POINTS ND UTHORITIES15 I Introduction16 Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants fails to identify the basis for relief and does no17 state specific claims for relief or counts. In fact, even in the Complaint Plaintiff concedes it w18 require a substantial revision or amending. JJ Based on the use o buzz words and lega19 conclusions, it appears the following claims may be at issue: (1) Violations of Title VII of th20 Civil Rights Act o 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.; (2) Violation o the Equal Pay Act, 22 USC 206(d); (3) Tortious Discharge in Violation o Public Policy; (4) Breach o Contract; (522 Intentional Infliction o Emotional Distress; (6) Section 1983 claim; 7) Whistleblowe23 Retaliation; and (8) Punitive Damages. However, it remains entirely unclear whether Plaint24 pursues these theories or any theories, considering Plaintiff fails to allege separate counts o25 proper allegations to identify the same.26 I2728

1 Complaint at 4: 1-2, 13.2


3/12

The matter is currently before the Court on Defendants' Motion for a More Definit2 Statement as permitted under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 12 e).2 For Defendant t3 prepare an appropriate response to the Complaint, including identifying the nature of th4 appropriate response and applicable defenses, Plaintiff must be required to identify whic5 theories of recovery he actually asserts against the Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff mus6 clearly set these theories out as separate counts. Therefore, Defendants request the Cou7 order Plaintiff to file a more definite statement.8 In the alternative, the Court should not allow Plaintiff's generic and conclusory claim9 and allegations to proceed, as pled. Plaintiffs Complaint is lacking in both facts and supportin

10 legal theories. Accordingly, Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed pursuant to Nevada Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(5).

12 II13

The Court Possesses the Authority to Order A More Definite StatementThe Court has wide discretion to require the plaintiff to provide a more definit

14 statement.3 Federal Courts4 have held that even though a complaint is not defective fo15 failure to designate the statute or other provision of law violated, the judge may in h16 discretion, in response to a motion for more definite statement under Fed.R Civ. P.12(e17 require such detail as may be appropriate in the particular case 518 The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court order requiring the plaintiff to plead th19 elements of the prima facie case and to identify the transaction or occurrence giving rise t202122

2{ NRCP 12(e) states, If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguou23 that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definitstatement before interpOSing a responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and th24 details desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10 days after notice of thorder or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion wa25 directed or make such order as it deems just.26 3 Warth v Seldin 422 U.S. 490 501-502 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).27 4 Nelson v Heer 121 Nev. 832, 834, 122 P.3d 1252, 1253 (2005) (recognizing that federal decisioninvolving the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide persuasive authority to a Nevada court.)28

5 McHenry v. Renne 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996).3


4/12

the claim, to comply with Rule 8. 6 Motions for a more definite statement are encouraged t2 clarify insufficient complaints. 7 Even where there is no ground for a motion to dismiss3 vagueness and lack of detail should be attacked by a motion for a more definite statement.4 III.5

Plaintiff s Complaint Does Not Comply With Rules 8(a),(e) and 10(b), RequiringA More Definite StatementNevada Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) states that a pleading which sets forth a claim fo6

7 relief shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim. Each averment of a Complainshall be simple, concise, and direct. g Rule 8(e) expressly contemplates allegations8 separate counts and Rule 1O b) mandates separate counts ... whenever separation facilitate9 the clear presentation of the matters set forth. The purpose of requiring that separate claim10111213

be stated in separate counts of the complaint is to give notice to the court and to the partieof the claims being presented.10

Plaintiffs Complaint is not simple, concise, or direct, and does not allege separatcounts. This leaves the Court and Defendants to guess as to what specific theories o14 recovery Plaintiff asserts. It is unreasonable to expect a defendant to respond to a complain15 when the alleged violations are not properly stated. 11 After the title Complaint for Damages

16 on the first page of Plaintiffs pleading, wherein several theories of recovery are potentiall17 identified, there is not a single title setting forth the separate claims for relief in the Complaint18 Indeed, Plaintiffs causes of action are listed under the Prayer for Relief' section in Plaintiff19 pleading and consist of claims for damages. Plaintiff fails to identify any claims for relief.202122 6 Bautista v Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000).23 7 Galbraith v County o Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002).24 8 Ybarra v City o San Jose, 503 F.2d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 1974), quoting Harman V Valley Nat l Ban252627

o Ariz., 339 F.2d 564 567 (9th Cir. 1964), quoting 2 Moore's Fed. Practice 1112.08 pp. 2245-46.9 NRCP 8(e).10 Am Jur Pleading 15011/ Byrne V Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075,1129-30 (11th Cir. 2001) (characterizing the plainti ffs failure to identif28 his claims enough for the defendant to frame a responsive pleading as shotgun pleading, and declining to makthe defendant respond).

- 4 -


5/12

At some point - on summary judgment motion or at final pretrial conference - the cou2 is confronted with the time-consuming tasks it avoided earlier - rearranging the pleadings an3 discerning whether the plaintiff has stated a claim, or claims, for relief, and whether th4 defendant's affirmative defenses are legally sufficient. 12 Furthermore, the judicial work tha5 results from shotgun pleadings is far more time consuming than the work required up front t6 prevent the case from proceeding beyond the pleadings until the issues are reasonably we7 defined. 13 For judicial economy, this work should be done up front. The Complaint8 verbose, confusing, and entirely conclusory. Indeed, Plaintiff attaches 99 pages of exhibits fo9 this Court and Defendants to decipher, in support of generic and conclusory statements tha1 Defendants committed violations. 14 Notably, Plaintiff acknowledges the Complaint

deficient and will require substantial revision or amending. 1512 Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court grant this motion and order Plaintiff t13 file a more definite statement of his claims.14 IV. If The Court Finds Plaintiff Adequately Identifies His Claims For Relief, The CouShould Dismiss Plaintiff s Claims Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) For Failure TState A Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted16 A complaint should be dismissed when a plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relie17 can be granted. 16 A plaintiff fails to state a claim if it appears beyond a doubt that th18 claimant can prove no set of facts that would entitle it to relief. 7 In considering the motion, th192222232425262728

court must accept all of Plaintiff's factual allegations as true and construe them in Plaintiff'favor. 8 However, the court is not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as

13/ ld at 1130 n 1 06 (citation omitted).14/ Complaint at 7: 12-26; 10: 13-14.151Complaint at 4: 1-2, 13.16 NR P 12(b)(5).17 Buzz Stew LLC v City o North Las Vegas 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008).18 Id at 672.

- 5 -


6/12

Licr'0' 8 l-5 ;~ : . J ) C \ o~ . o C O f F ;v : . 8 > ~z0 v;. ,rr;

~ ~ ~ > t::QJ ~dO:0J;

factual allegation. 19 Indeed, the Court is not required to suspend reality nor ignore vague o2 conclusory allegations in the Complaint. 20 As set forth below, Plaintiff fails to state claims fo3 which relief can be granted.45678910111213141516

171819202122232425262728

1 Violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. 2000 eet seq. and the Equal Pay Act, 29 USC 206 d)Plaintiff's Complaint does little more than generically cite to Title VII of the Civil Right

Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act in support of these purported claims. At best, Plaintiattaches 99 pages of exhibits in support of hese claims and to contend Defendants committeviolations of these statutes. 21 However, the mere reference to 99 pages of exhibits fails tidentify the factual allegations Plaintiff relies on in support of these claims. In effect, dismissaof these claims is warranted.

2 Tortious Discharge in Violation of Public Policy WhistleblowingRetaliationThe essence of a tortious discharge claim is the wrongful, generally retaliator

termination of employment through means that are contrary to public policy.22 A tortioudischarge claim is severely limited to those rare and exceptional cases where the employer'conduct violates strong and compelling public policy. 23 Reporting an employer's illegal actioto an outside authority ( whistle blowing ) is one type of wrongful discharge recognized aactionable under Nevada law.24 The Nevada Supreme Court has explained that whistlblowing activity is entitled to protection only when the employee's actions are not merelprivate or proprietary, but instead seek to further the public good. 25 Courts protect whistl

19 Papasan v Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 2944 (1986).20 See Pareto v Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998); Clegg v Cult AwarenesNetwork, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994).21 Complaint at 7:12-26; 10:13-14.22 See D Angelo v Gardner, 107 Nev. 714,819 P.2d 206 (1991); Allum v Valley Bank of Nevada, 11Nev. 1313,970 P.2d 1062 (1998); Hansen v Harrah s, 100 Nev. 60, 675 P.2d 394 (1984).23 l .24 Wiltsie v Baby Grand Corp., 105 Nev. 291, 293, 774 P.2d 432,433-434 (1989).25 l . at 293,434 (citing to Wagner v City of Globe, 150 Ariz. 82, 722 P.2d 250, 257 (1986)).

- 6 -


7/12


8/12

emotional distress and (3) actual or proximate causation. 3 Extreme and outrageous conduc2 is that which is atrocious, intolerable, or outside all possible bounds of decency. 323 In this case, Plaintiff fails to make any factual averments substantiating his claim fo4 liED. This claim is premised on the following statement, Mr. Coughlin experienced sever5 emotional distress due to the violations committed by WLS. This included suffering loss o6 morale, confidence, self-esteem, humiliation and loss of reputation. 33 Once again, Plainti7 fails to identify the purported violations that give rise to this claim. Plaintiff also fails to identif8 that such alleged violations rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct to suppo9 a claim for liED. Based on such deficiencies, Plaint iffs presumed claim for liED should b10 dismissed.

5 Section 983 claim12 To state a claim under 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured b13 the Constitution and laws ofth United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation wa14 committed by a person acting under color of state law. 34 Plaintif fs Complaint generically cite15 to 1983 case law without any factual averments supporting this claim. In effect, Plaintiff fail16 to properly plead this claim and dismissal is proper.17 III18 III19 11202

23245 31 Olivero v Lowe 116 Nev. 395, 398-99, 995 P.2d 1023, 1025-26 (2000) (Citations omitted).

32 Maiuike v Agency Rent-A-Car 114 Nev. 1 4 953 P.2d 24, 26 (1998).33 Complaint at 8:6-8.

26278 34 Parratt v Taylor 451 U. S. 527, 535 (1981) (overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v Williams

474 U. S. 327, 330-331 (1986)).8


9/12

23456789

1011

c;::' 12 l-B ,ti '5 13~ , , ~ 8~ ' O u )C f ) g > ~ 14J:::: Z co'0 tn : r . ~ ( l jl. : ~ 8g > t : 15f. __ if.~ ~226 160:3l)

17181922122232425262728

6 Punitive amagesAs a rule, there is no cause of action for punitive damages by itself.35

punitive-damages claim is not a separate or independent cause of action.36 Rather, punitive-damages award is an element of recovery37 a type of relief 38 or an additionaremedy.39 Punitive damages are a derivative sort of damages40 awarded as a mere incidenof the cause of action in which they are sought. 41 Punitive damages cannot be awarded unta plaintiff proves an underlying cause of action.42

Plaintif fs cause of action for punitive damages is not a legitimate cause of action andit is further contingent upon liability. Accordingly, Plaintif fs punitive damage claim identifie

35/ Watson v. Dixon, 352 N.C. 343, 532 S.E.2d 175, 146 Ed. Law Rep. 555 (2000); Bird v. Rozier, 94P.2d 888 (Wyo. 1997).36/ South Port Marine, LLC v. GulfOil Ltd. Partnership, 234 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2000); Byrne V Nezhat, 26F.3d 1075, 50 Fed. R. Servo 3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2001); Contractor s Safety Ass n V. Cal. Compo Ins. Co., 48 Ca2d 71, 307 P.2d 626 (1957); Palmer V. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 684 P.2d 187, 38 U.C.C. Rep. Servo 1150 (Colo1984); McLain V. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876 13 So. 2d 221 (1943); Fosterv. Sikes, 202 Ga. 122 4S.E.2d 441 (1947); Klein wort Benson North America, Inc. v. Quantum Financial Services, Inc., 181/11. 2d 214, 22

III. Dec. 496, 692 N.E.2d 269 (1998); Sebastian V. Wood, 246 Iowa 94 66 N.W.2d 841 (1954); Wolfv. BonanzInv. Co., 77 Nev. 138 360 P.2d 360 (1961); Barberv. Hohl, 40 N.J. Super. 526, 123 A2d 785 (App. Div. 1956Crawford v. Taylor, 58 N.M. 340, 270 P.2d 978 (1954); Mathies v. Kittrell, 1960 OK 175, 354 P.2d 413 (Okla1960); Carnation Lumber Co. v. McKenney, 224 Or. 541, 356 P.2d 932 (1960); Hilbert v. Roth, 395 Pa. 270, 14A2d 648 (1959); Norman V Arnold, 2002 UT 81 57 P.3d 997 (Utah 2002); Zedd V Jenkins, 194 Va. 704, 7S.E.2d 791 (1953); Errington V. Zolessi, 9 P.3d 966 (Wyo. 2000).

37/ Gould V Starr, 558 S.W.2d 755 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977); PS Food Systems, Inc. V Ward Foods, Inc70 AD.2d 483 421 N.Y.S.2d 223, 27 U.C.C. Rep. Servo 1381 (1st Dep't 1979).38/ Klein wort Benson North America, Inc. V. Quantum Financial Services, Inc., 181 III. 2d 214, 229111. De

496 692 N.E.2d 269 (1998).39/ South Port Marine, LLC V GulfOil Ltd. Partnership, 234 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2000); DeBry V. CascadEnterprises, 879 P.2d 1353 (Utah 1994).40/ Edmond V Fairfield Sunrise Village, Inc., 132 Ariz. 142 644 P.2d 296 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1982).41/ Moskovitz V Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. 69 Ohio St. 3d 638, 1994-0hio-324, 635 N.E.2d 331 35 Al.R.5t

841 (1994).42/ Gaia Technologies Inc. V Recycled Products Corp., 175 F.3d 365, 43 Fed. R. Servo 3d 946 (5th Ci1999); Metroplex Corp. V. Thompson Industries, Inc., 25 Fed. Appx. 802 (10th Cir. 2002) (applying Pennsylvanlaw and requiring proof of an underlying tort); Watson v. Dixon, 352 N.C. 343, 532 S.E.2d 175 146 Ed. Law Rep555 (2000); Akin v. Santa Clara Land Co., Ltd., 34 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2000). City ofRenoSilver State Flying Serv., 84 Nev. 170, 180,438 P.2d 257,264 (1968). (Compensatory damages must be awardebefore the court can award punitive damages).

9


10/12

'-Pc::c'e


11/12

23456789

1011

E' 12.:l ;\ : 13~ ~ Q. 5 ' Cf co tr;lfJ6> 7I ~ Z ~ 14t;: vgn'g > t:.. 15~ ~ ~'CJz ~ 16~0E.c... ,

171819202122232425262728

AFFIRMATIONPursuant to NRS 239B.030)The undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document, DEFENDANTS

MOTION FORA MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TODISMISS FOR FAILURETO STATEACLAIMfiled in Case No. CV11-01896, does not containthe Social Security Number of any person.

Dated this 18th day of September, 2013.LIPSON NEILSON COLE SELTZER GARIN, P.C.r / ~ ~By: ~ J O ~ S = E = P = H ~ P . ~ G ~ A ~ R = I ~ N ~ E = S = Q ~ . - - - - - - - - - - -

Nevada Bar No. 6653SHANNON D. NORDSTROM, ESQ.Nevada Bar No. 8211LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER GARIN, P.C9080 West Post Road, Suite 100Las Vegas, Nevada 89148(702) 382-1500(702) 382-1512 - [email protected] for Defendants

- 11 -


12/12

LJ:::cc' ' i8Od ;:;.....-:~ a c : : c{1r r ~ > ~c f ~ Za r iU .. o 6 bf1

- (U 0~ ~ > t :- :r~ ~ jZ35d,g0r-

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

CERTIFICATE O SERVICEI certify that on the 18th day of September, 2013, I served a true and correct copy o

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, OR IN THEALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM upon thfollowing parties, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

Zach Coughlin1471 E 9th StreetReno, NV 89512Plaintiff n proper person

An employee ofLipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer Garin, P.C

- 12 -

Documents

9 18 13 WLS Mtn for More Definite Statement CV11-01896-3910275