District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL - Chilling Effect Lawsuit: January 2013

Monday, January 28, 2013

Nevada Retraction Laws. You Must Give a "Remedy" BEFORE you File a Frivolous SLAPP Lawsuit

Nevada Retraction Laws

"Under Nevada law, a defamation plaintiff may recover no more than special damage unless a proper retraction demand has been made on the publisher and a retraction has been refused. In order to provide that protection the retraction must be published within twenty days from receipt of the demand. NRS §41.331, et seq.

What A Retraction Demand Should Contain
Generally, the person making the demand should tell you what was said, why it is defamatory, what the true facts are, and how when and where they want a retraction published. NRS §41.336(2). If the demand does not contain all those elements it may be legally insufficient, but do not treat it as such. If a valid question is raised and you learn that you were in error, go ahead and correct the error and apologize. If the letter does not contain a clear or sufficient demand for retraction your lawyer should contact the person making the demand to clarify what is desired.

What a retraction demand cannot do is require you to phrase the retraction in a certain manner.

As long as you comply with the law's requirements for contents and placement of a retraction you need not use the particular language demanded by a potential plaintiff. NRS §41.337.

What A Retraction Should Contain
A retraction must make it clear that the fact complained of was actually untrue. Simply saying that a person has complained or alleges something to be untrue is insufficient. You should fairly set forth what was said, that it was untrue, and that you apologize for the error.

You should publish the retraction in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the original defamation. Try to publish to the same audience who received the original untruth. If the story was broadcast on the Monday news at 6:00 (unless time constraints forbid it) publish your retraction on the same day and time. If the defamation was in a headline, you may need a headline correcting the mistake followed by an appropriate story.
An example of a retraction might be:

Headline: This Paper Made A Mistake About John Smith
Last Friday we published a story saying John Smith was arrested for illegal possession of a still. The story was in error. We should have reported that John Brown was arrested for the violation. Mr. Smith was not arrested and according to the police is not a suspect or in any way involved in the case. We apologize for any inconvenience or distress our error may have caused to Mr. Smith.

The Lawyer’s Role In Drafting Retractions

When you learn of defamation you should immediately contact counsel. Your lawyer should review any initial correction preceding a demand letter, and should be involved immediately if you receive a retraction demand letter. A legally sufficient retraction is an extremely effective shield against a defamation suit; don't give it up by failing to keep your attorney in the loop."

...

""When you are served with a Complaint, notify your Editor and your attorney immediately. In the normal course you have only twenty days to answer the Complaint. Nevada Court Rule 12. If an extension is not obtained by your attorney, or an Answer or other response is not filed, a default may be entered against you.

On occasion the opposing party will give no extension and your attorney may need all that twenty days to investigate the case and prepare a response. Accordingly, it is very important that you notify your lawyer immediately.

Once you are aware that a lawsuit may be filed, be careful to preserve evidence. If you are contacted by anyone outside your paper about the case, refuse to discuss it and keep careful notes of what was said. The foundational elements for admitting evidence are essentially the same as those for a good news story. Record what was said, by whom, when, where and how (i.e. by phone, in person etc.).

If you have notes, tapes, video outtakes, etc., be careful to keep them safe. Your attorney will certainly want to review them with you.

In general, as the defendant in a defamation case, you can expect to see a process which proceeds as follows:

1.) Normally, before an Answer is filed, your attorney will file a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. This is an attempt to defeat some or all of the allegations of the Complaint. For example, the Complaint may seek general damages for defamation, which would be barred by an adequate retraction. A Motion to Dismiss would try to get rid of that claim so that it would not even have to be answered.

2.) Once the court rules on the Motion to Dismiss your lawyer will file an Answer. The Answer sets out your admissions and denials of various allegations as well as your affirmative defenses. Affirmative defenses state a reason the Plaintiff cannot recover other than a denial that what he says happened. They may include the truth or substantial truth of what was published, lack of constitutional malice under the First Amendment, consent by the Plaintiff, and a host of other possibilities.

3.) Under certain circumstances the Answer may also set forth counterclaims against the Plaintiff, cross-claims against another defendant, or third party claims against someone outside the lawsuit.

4.) Following the filing of the Answer the parties generally engage in discovery. Since the reputation of the Plaintiff is a direct issue in any defamation case, discovery may be very broad, indeed. In addition, the Plaintiff will try to discover your notes and sources. They are privileged under the Shield Law, but the Nevada Supreme Court has held that you cannot refuse to reveal them and then present them at trial. Las Vegas Sun v. District Court, 104 Nev. 508, 761 P.2d 849 (1988). Accordingly, you and your attorney must make a reasoned decision whether to reveal notes and sources. That may depend on a number of factors including the potential effect on other sources and promises of confidentiality, as well as the general philosophical reluctance to give access to notes.

5.) When your attorney is satisfied with the amount of discovery obtained (often that will focus on the Plaintiffs damages) the next step will often be a Motion for Summary Judgment. That motion asks the court to decide that based on the uncontradicted facts shown by Affidavits and other evidence, you are entitled to win as a matter of law.

6.) If the Motion for Summary Judgment is not granted in its entirety, you will probably proceed to trial. Keep in mind that a trial is often only one step in a process which leads to appeals. Judges may allow Plaintiffs to do things with which Courts of Appeal disagree. Newton v. NBC, 930 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1990).

The entire process is long and often stressful and difficult. Try to keep as informed as possible about what's happening. Feel free to call your lawyer and ask questions. Ask her or him to send you copies of everything that's filed in the case. Ask for an overview of the strategy and tactics being used by your attorney. Those are things you are entitled to know, and you will feel better for knowing them. Above all, try to maintain a sense of humor and a sense of perspective. Things could be worse; you could have been charged with criminal libel."

Source of Above Quotes and Lot's More Information
http://www.nevadapress.com/nevadapress.com/Handbook_4_Defamation.html

Hey what if the Lawyer is the One Suing?

What if there was no Retraction asked for and YET the Plaintiff WINS Automatically with no retraction requests or First Amendment Adjudication before filing a SLAPP suit, costing his Target. aKa Defendant Time and Money, Stress, and Massive Intellectual Property.

Sues and Yet did not Ask for RETRACTON FIRST, Hmmm....??

Say, If you don't ask for a Retraction, Can you STEAL Massive Domain Names and Delete Massive Blogs and Online Content of your "Target"? aKa Defendant in your Chilling Speech, SLAPP Lawsuit ?

Nevada Retraction Laws DO Not APPLY to Nevada Lawyers According to the District of NEVADA as the LAWS are simply tossed aside like the parting of the Red Sea for SPECIFIC, Privileged Las Vegas Law Firms.

Get Educated on Anti-SLAPP Law in Washington. See the Evil SLAPP Plaintiff WILL File on their TURF, not YOURS, So...

"Anti-SLAPP Law in Washington

Note: This page covers information specific to Washington. For general information concerning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), see the overview section of this guide.

You can use the Washington Act Limiting Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, found at Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.525, to counter a SLAPP suit filed against you. The statuteallows you to file a special motion to strike any claim against you that is based on your public statements about an issue of public concern. The anti-SLAPP law allows for a stay of all discovery, pending hearings, and motions, with certain exceptions. If a court rules in your favor, it will dismiss the plaintiff's case early in the litigation and award you attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and ten thousand dollars in damages.

Activities Covered By The Washington Anti-SLAPP Statute

To challenge a lawsuit under Washington's anti-SLAPP act, you must show that the claim(s) against you is based on your written or spoken acts "involving public participation and petition". Washington defines statements involving "public participation and petition" in 5 ways:

(1) Statements made in a "legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding or other governmental proceeding authorized by law,"
(2) Statements made regarding any issues under consideration by any branch of the government,
(3) Statements that are reasonably likely to encourage public participation and interest in an issue being considered by the government,
(4) Statements made "in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public concern," or
(5) "Any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public concern, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition."

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.525 (4)(a-e). As an online publisher, you are most likely to rely on the fourth category above. It applies to written statements in a public forum on an issue of public concern.

Washington courts have not yet explicitly ruled on whether the Internet is a public forum; however, Washington's anti-SLAPP law is explicitly modeled on California's statute, and federalcourts in Washington have looked to California law in interpreting Washington's statute. In California, a publicly accessible website is considered a public forum. While California law is not binding on Washington courts, it might be persuasive.

Many different kinds of statements may relate to an issue of public concern. The statute itself does not define "public concern," but courts in Washington have found that the national health care crisis, or internal happenings in a fire department qualify. Here too, California law can be persuasive to Washington courts; see CMLP's page on California's anti-SLAPP statute for more examples of protected, and unprotected, speech.

Washington's law explicitly does not apply to prosecutions brought by the state. Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.525 (3).

How To Use The Washington Anti-SLAPP Statute

The Washington anti-SLAPP statute gives you the ability to file a motion to strike (i.e., to dismiss) a complaint brought against you for engaging in protected speech or petition activity (discussed above). If you are served with a complaint that you believe to be a SLAPP, you should seek legal assistance immediately. Successfully filing and arguing a motion to strike can be complicated, and you and your lawyer need to move quickly to avoid missing important deadlines. You should file your motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute within sixty days of being served with the complaint. (Note that if the plaintiff serves you with an amended complaint, the 60-day deadline will run from service of the amendment.) A court may also allow you to file the motion after sixty days, but there is no guarantee that it will do so. Keep in mind that, although hiring legal help is expensive, you can recover your attorneys' fees if you win your motion.

One of the benefits of the anti-SLAPP statute is that it enables you to get the SLAPP suit dismissed quickly. After receiving your motion to strike, the court must hold a hearing on your motion within thirty days, unless the court's docket is overbooked. Until your motion is decided, all discovery and other hearings will be stayed (unless the plaintiff can show good cause for continuing some discovery).

Washington courts follow a two-step process when deciding a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP law. First, you (as the party looking to invoke the anti-SLAPP statute) must show by apreponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff's claim is based on your speech protected as involving public participation. (See above.) Once you successfully show that your online writing involves public participation, the burden shifts to the plaintiff for step two. The plaintiff must clearly show “by clear and convincing evidence a probability” of winning the lawsuit; if the plaintiff fails to show this, the court will dismiss the claim.

Whoever loses the motion to strike (either you or the plaintiff) has the right to an immediate appeal.

What Happens If You Win (or Lose) A Motion To Strike

If you win your motion to strike under Washington's anti-SLAPP statute, the court will dismiss the lawsuit (or the parts of the lawsuit found to be SLAPPs). You will also be entitled to receive your attorneys' fees, your court costs, and an automatic statutory damage award of $10,000. The court may also sanction the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney.

Normally, nothing happens if you lose your motion to strike (other than the lawsuit continuing against you). However, if the court finds that your motion under the anti-SLAPP law was entirely frivolous or solely intended to delay the lawsuit, the court can award attorneys' fees, court costs, and an automatic statutory damage award of $10,000 to the plaintiff.

If you succeed in fending off a SLAPP lawsuit in Washington, you may be able to bring a claim of malicious prosecution against the original plaintiff. While Washington does not have a special form of process for a "SLAPPback" claim, the elements of a malicious prosecution claim are similar. You should consult an attorney to see whether such a claim may be viable in your case."

Source of Anti-SLAPP Law in Washington Information, Post

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-washington

"Anti-SLAPP Law in Nevada." " Activities Covered By The Nevada Anti-SLAPP Statute" "How To Use The Nevada Anti-SLAPP Statute" "What Happens If You Win A Motion To Dismiss". Get Educated on Nevada SLAPP Laws.

" Anti-SLAPP Law in Nevada

Note: This page covers information specific to Nevada. For general information concerning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), see the overview section of this guide.

Nevada's Anti-SLAPP statute is codified as Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.635-70. There is little case law interpreting it. However, Nevada courts have held that Nevada's Anti-SLAPP statute should be read similarly to California's, upon which it is based.

Activities Covered By The Nevada Anti-SLAPP Statute

According to the language of Nevada's Anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant may file a special motion to dismiss "if an action is brought against a person based upon a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition." Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.660(1). One case,John v. Douglas County School District, 219 P.3d 1276 (2009), found that the Nevada statute should be construed just as the California statute, upon which it was based. However, in Metabolic Research, Inc. v. Ferrell, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02453 (D. Nev. 2009), the U.S. District Court for Nevada determined that the statute only protects those citizens who are engaging in the right to petition-and only when petitioning a government official.

According to John v. Douglas County School District, Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute bars claims from people who attempt to abuse other citizen's rights who attempt to petition the government and allows for claims against citizens who do not petition the government in good faith. The purpose is to prevent citizens from being the subject of costly litigation in an attempt to abridge their right to free speech under both the Nevada and U.S. Constitutions. John, 219 P.3d at 1282. A "good faith communication" includes:

Communication that is aimed at procuring any governmental or electoral action, result or outcome;
Communication of information or a complaint to a legislator, officer or employee of theFederal government, this state or a political subdivision of Nevada, regarding a matter reasonably of concern to the respective governmental entity; or a
Written or oral statement made in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, which is truthful or is made without knowledge of its falsehood.

Nev. R. Stat. 41.637.

The types of suits that have been successfully dismissed under Nevada's Anti-SLAPP statute are:

Statements by public utility board members who discussed the viability of a contract:Rebel Communications, LLC v. Virgin Valley Water Dist., No. 2:10-CV-0513-LRH-PAL (D. Nev. Mar. 20, 2012).
State litigation, an advisory opinion from the Financial Institutions Division, and a complaint filed with the Financial Institutions Division: Nevada Association Services, Inc. v. Premsrirut, No. A-11-637300-C, 2011 WL 7803899 (Nev. Dist. Ct. Aug. 24, 2011).
A complaint made about an employee of a political subdivision (a school district in Nevada), and an article published in a school newspaper: Archey v. Nelson, Case No. 35671, 2010 WL 3711513 (Nev. Dist. Ct. Aug. 10, 2010).

How To Use The Nevada Anti-SLAPP Statute

If a SLAPP suit is filed against you, you may request a special motion to dismiss the complaint. Additionally, the attorney general or chief legal officer of the political subdivision of the state may defend the person against whom the suit has been filed. If you are served with what you believe to be a SLAPP suit, you should seek legal assistance immediately in order to maneuver the complicated legal process and to avoid missing critical deadlines. The special motion to dismiss must be filed within sixty (60) days of service of the complaint.

Once filed, the special motion to dismiss is considered at the summary judgment standard, and all discovery will be stayed. A judge will rule on the motion within 30 days. However, if the motion is denied, you do not have the ability to file for an interlocutory appeal. See Metabolic Research, Inc. v. Ferrell, 693 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012).

What Happens If You Win A Motion To Dismiss

If you are successful, the court will award reasonable costs and attorney's fees, unless the Attorney General, or the chief legal officer or the attorney of a political subdivision, provided the defense. You may also bring a separate action to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs of bringing the separate action. Nev. R. Stat. 41.670.

It is important to note that Nevada's Anti-SLAPP statute is a "free from judgment" statute, not a "free from litigation" statute. The Ninth Circuit recently interpreted the statute in a similar way as California's statute, stating that those who prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion are immune from civil liability, but are not immune from a lawsuit. Metabolic Research, 693 F.3d at 802. Those defendants facing litigation can request fees and costs at the conclusion of the case. Id. "

Source of Information Regarding Nevada SLAPP Lawsuits

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-nevada

"Nevada Needs A Revised Anti-SLAPP Statute, But The Ninth Circuit Gives Us Some Daylight"

"As a lawyer licensed in five states (MA, FL, CA, AZ, and NV) and who practices free speech law nationwide, I am in a position to comment on the relative merits of various states' views on First Amendment principles. Among the many states where I have worked on cases, Flori-duh is the worst. Hands down.

It has no anti-SLAPP law to speak of. Its state legislation intended to deter frivolous litigation, Fla. Stat. 57.105, looks great on the books but is a "paper tiger." While the statute was amended in 2002 to give it some real teeth, the state judiciary generally does not apply it. As a result, Flori-duh is a hotbed of frivolous SLAPP litigation.

If Nevada does not update its anemic anti-SLAPP law, it bears the risk of becoming the Florida of the West – at least with respect to frivolous SLAPPs. That risk is laid bare for all to see in the recent case of Metabolic Research v. Ferrell, despite the fact that the Ninth Circuit seems to have tossed in a prescription to cure some of the symptoms of the Nevada anti-SLAPP statute's lack of a fully developed spine.

What Happened?

From the Ninth Circuit's opinion:

On October 20, 2009, Scott J. Ferrell, an attorney practicing law in Orange County California, sent “demand letters” to Metabolic Research, Inc. (“Metabolic”), at its address in Las Vegas, Nevada, and to General Nutrition Centers, Inc. (“GNC”), at its address in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The demand letters purported to notify the recipients that they had violated California Civil Code §§ 1750-1756, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), by falsely advertising the properties and potential benefits of a product named Stemulite, which they marketed as a natural fitness supplement. Ferrell represented that he was acting on behalf of Michael Campos, Thomas Hess, and Sarah Jordan, all of whom he alleged purchased Stemulite in California, in reliance on the supposed false advertising, and had not received the purported benefits.

Op. at 7027. Ferrell demanded that Metabolic and GNC "cease their false advertising of Stemulite" (Op. at 7027), identify purchasers of the substance, provide refunds to them all, disgorge profits from Stemulite sales, and implement a corrective advertising campaign. A failure to do so would be met with a lawsuit."

Source of Quotes on Nevada SLAPP Laws

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/nevada-needs-revised-anti-slapp-statute-ninth-circuit-gives-us-some-daylight

"The Court then went on to list the ways that Ferrell, and other similarly-situated defendants, might find justice. The Ninth noted that despite the fact that Ferrell couldn't appeal at this point, he still had a potential award of fees and costs later on. This might be true, but it is a small comfort if he can't afford to litigate the matter for that long. The Ninth then reminded us of the existence of Rule 11, the laughable sanctions mechanism in the Federal Rules. Rule 11 sanctions against even the most outrageous filings are slightly more common than rainbow sherbet flying out of a unicorn's ass.

The Ninth then threw in some very interesting dicta, in which it seemed to lay out an instruction manual for litigants (at least in Federal Court) who seek review of lower court decisions, when an anti-SLAPP statute fails to provide a right to an interlocutory appeal.

First, a litigant in federal court may ask the district court to certify and the court of appeals to accept an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) as involving controlling questions of law the resolution of which will speed the termination of the litigation. Secondly, in truly extraordinary cases, a writ of mandamus is available. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (the All Writs Act codifying the common law writ of mandamus); Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 377 (2004). We have had recourse to the writ of mandamus to protect first amendment rights where we feared that the Mohawk decision foreclosed collateral order appeals. See Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1154-56 (9th Cir. 2010). Ferrell did not seek to avail himself of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), nor did he seek mandamus in this Court. We, therefore, express no opinion on how we might have decided such an appeal or application had one been brought. We conclude that an immediate appeal is not necessary to protect the rights in Nevada Revised Statute § 41.660.

Source of Quotes on Nevada SLAPP Laws

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/nevada-needs-revised-anti-slapp-statute-ninth-circuit-gives-us-some-daylight

District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL - Nevada SLAPP Lawsuit to STOMP Free SPEECH

Pro Se Defendant / Pro Say Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox Requests Judge Sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Admitting or Denying Conflict

Request for Judge to Sign a Disclosure Admitting or Denying Conflict.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142313093/District-of-Nevada-Case-Number-212-cv-02040-GMN-PA-Conflict-of-Interest-Disclosure-Request-January-12th-2013

************

Original Complaint

ORIGINAL Complaint Filed - SLAPP Lawsuit, Chill Free Speech, First Amendment Legal Threat, Free Speech Suppression, Free Speech Legal Threat - State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL

Defendant Crystal Cox Complaint Answer State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL

Counterclaim

Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, Counter Claim - Counter Lawsuit

Plaintiff Motion to Strike Counterclaim and Complaint Answer

Unconstitutional Denial of Due Process. NEVADA Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL. Plaintiff Motion to Strike Defendant's Complaint Answer and Counterclaim

Objection / Response in Opposition to to PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT CRYSTAL COX’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND ANSWER.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142674444/Objection--Response-in-Opposition-to-to-PLAINTIFFS%E2%80%99-MOTION-TO-STRIKE-DEFENDANT-CRYSTAL-COX%E2%80%99S-COUNTERCLAIMS-AND-ANSWER

Plaintiff Files for Preliminary Injunction and WINS

EX PARTE MOTION / Proposed Order for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Filed by Plaintiffs, District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Document Number 2

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142406400/Ex-Parte-Motion-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-and-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction

Document 2-1 Marc J. Randazza Declaration in support of Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142406320/Document-2-1-Marc-J-Randazza-Declaration-in-support-of-Ex-Parte-Motion-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-and-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction

SUPPLEMENT TO EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, Document #6.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142405386/SUPPLEMENT-TO-EX-PARTE-MOTION

Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox Response / Objectionto to EX PARTE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Filed by Plaintiffs, Document 29
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142332681/Defendant-Crystal-Cox-Objection-to-TRO-Injunctive-Relief

Memorandum To Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox Response / Objection to to EX PARTE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142332992/Memorandum-to-Objection-to-Injunctive-Relief-and-Temporary-TRO-in-Favor-of-Plaintiff

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, Document 12
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142405610/REPLY-IN-SUPPORT-OF-PLAINTIFFS%E2%80%99-MOTION-FOR-TEMPORARY-RESTRAINING-ORDER-AND-MOTION-PRELIMINARY-INJUNCTION

ORDER Granting 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Motion Hearing set for 1/7/2013 03:00 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro re 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Responses due by 12/28/2012. Replies due by 1/4/2013. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/14/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR) (Entered:12/17/2012), Document Entry 14
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142332117/Exhibit-TRO-A-Letter-From-Ron-Green-Ltr-to-Cox-encl-TRO-Order

REPLY to Response to 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs / REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against Cox and Bernstein, Document 28
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142405052/REPLY-IN-SUPPORT-OF-PLAINTIFFS-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-Against-Cox-and-Bernstein

REPLY to Response to MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant Crystal L Cox Document 30
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142333607/Opposition-to-Document-28---Google-Drive

Defendant Crystal Cox’s Objection to PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT CRYSTAL COX’S FUGITIVE SURREPLY TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO LR 7-2

District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Court Docket Entry 35

Judge Refuses to Sign Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Admit or Deny Conflict, Judge

DENIES Motion to Sign COI Disclsure.

Judge Denies to Recluse, Remove, Disqualify Herself as Judge in District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL as Requested in a Motion filed by Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox.

" MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 1/7/2013 before
Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Crtrm Administrator: Michael Zadina; Pla Counsel:
Ronald Green; Def Counsel: None present; Court Reporter/FTR #: Araceli
Bareng; Time of Hearing: 3:49-4:09 a.m.; Courtroom: 7D;

The Court makes preliminary remarks and hears representations from Mr.
Green regarding the 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

IT IS ORDERED that 19 Motion forJudges and Clerks to Sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure is DENIED;

20 Motion Requesting the Recusal, Removal of District Judge is DENIED;

31 Motion to Strike Defendant Cox's Reply to Response is DENIED; and

2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Mr. Green
shall file a proposed order consistent with the Court's ruling."

************

Pro Se Defendant / Pro Say Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox Files Motion Requesting to Remove Judge in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL

First Request by Pro Se Defendant / Pro Say Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox to Remove Judge from State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL.

Motion Requesting the Reclusal, Removal of Judge Gloria M. Navarro, First Request, filed by District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Pro Se Defendant Crystal L. Cox - Pro Se Counter Plaintiff