1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5

)
1
TRAN
CASE NO . A-62 4 9 32-C
DEPT. NO . 3
DI STRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
* * * * *
VENETIAN RESORT HOTEL
)
CAS INOr LLC .
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
REPORTER ' S TRANSCRI PT
)
OF
vs.
) MTN TO STAY EXECUTION
)
)
TWO ROADS LAS VEGAS,
)
)
Defendant .
)
BEFORE THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS HERNDON
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
DATED : WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1 3 , 2 0 1 0
REPORTED BY: SHARON HOWARD, C . C.R. NO. 7 4 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
2 5
2
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff: MICHAEL FEDER, ESQ .
For the Defendant: WILLIAM COULTHARD, ESQ .
* * * * *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2
0
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
25
3
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA; WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1 3 , 2 0 1 0
P R O C E E D I N G S
* * * * *
THE COURT: Page 1 3, Venetian vs.
Two Roads. Welcome back, gentlemen .
MR. FEDER: Good morning.
MR. COULTHARD: Good morning.
MR. FEDER: On behalf of Venetian, your
Honor, Michael Feder and Michael Lynch from Lewis and
Roca .
Joel Henriod was going to be here, but he had to go
upstairs to give an oral argument. He may be down here in
the interim, and he may come to the table.
Also with us is Fred Crowl, general counsel for
Venetian. Gus Cruger associate general counsel for
Venetian. And, again, Patrick Dumont, vice-pres ident of
corporate finance of Sands Corporation .
MR. COULTHARD: Good morning, your Honor.
Bill Coulthard and Matthew Carter from Kemp, Jones, and
Coulthard appearing on behalf of the tenant of Two Roads,
LLC.
Also present in court, again, is Mr. Fisher, Tony
Fisher, general manager and operator of Dos Caminos.
THE COURT: All right. We are on for the
5
10
1 5
20
25
4
23
emergency motion to stay execution on appeal and motion to
2
1
certify the j udgment as final . My sense was, I thi nk last
3 t ime I indicated I would certify it as final. I don' t
4 think there was any opposition to that .
MR . FEDER: I don ' t think we had
6
opposition to that , your Honor .
7 THE COURT: So that aspect of things will
8 be granted .
9 MR. COULTHARD: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Granting one part of it , we ' re
1 1 starting good.
12 MR. COULTHARD: That ' s probably the
1 3 easier, uncontested aspect . But housekeeping on a matter
1 4 that ' s obviously important.
This i s our emergency motion for, I guess, a
16 continued stay of the execution, your Honor . We came
17 before you on September 2 9th, on an order to show cause on
1 8 summary eviction. After lengthy hearings your Honor
1 9 granted Venetian ' s summary eviction order, and then
afforded us to oral -- temporary stay that is in place
2 1 now.
22 On October 6 , 2010, you ordered granting the summary
eviction . It was actually entered by the court and that
2 4 written order i s in place .
Today, really we ' re dealing with the continuation of
5
10
1 5
20
2 5
5
1
1 4
the stay throughout the appeal process. And I think
2 importantly, for purposes of today ' s proceedings, Venetian
3 Casino Resorts moved for summary eviction pursuant to NRS
4 40. 2 53. And when you review those statutes, it the n
provides under 40. 380 and 40. 38 5 , the procedures whereby
6 an appeal can be taken and a stay can be obtained.
7 The controlling statute for today ' s proceedings is
8 NRS 40. 38 5. It ' s clear that if a tenant is subj ect to an
9 order of summary eviction and they desire to appeal that ,
then they can e ffectuate a stay by posting a cost bond.
1 1 And i n a commercial lease setting, where the monthly
1 2 rental amount is over $1 , 000. 00 per month, they post a
13 cost bond and they pay their current rent for that period,
that time frame that the appeal i s running . And so I
think that ' s pretty darn clear under 40. 38 5.
1 6 I ' m sure the court has read it , but i t says, upon
1 7 appeal from order entered pursuant to 40. 2 53. That ' s the
1 8 summary eviction order . That ' s what happened. That ' s in
1 9 the order granting summary eviction.
We have -- following that hearing -- I apologi z e
2 1 because initially they didn't -- the exhibits didn ' t get
22 attached to the moving papers. We then, in preparation
23 for the hearing realiz ed that. I know we faxed a copy
2 4 over an errata . I have a clean copy for the court, if I
may . I think given the importance of it
5
10
15
20
2 5
6
2 3
THE COURT : I got the errata .
2
1
MR . COULTHARD: I think maybe mark the
3 errata , if that ' s okay with the court, as Exhibit A, would
4 be important . We did file that.
Anyway, 40. 38 5 provides a stay of execution may be
6 obtained by filing with the trial court a bond in the
7 amount of $2 50. 00 to cover the expected costs on appeal .
8 Two Roads posted the bond with the court on October 6th ,
9 2010 . And we provided the notice of posting a bond. It ' s
actually Exhibit B to the errata .
11 And then recogni zing that it would be unfair for a
12 landlord to be saddled with a tenant that wasn ' t paying
13 rent during an appeal , it actually goes on and says, a
14 tenant who retains possession of the premises that are the
subj ect of the appeal , during the pendency of the appeal
16 shall pay to the landlord rent in the amount provided in
17 the underlying contract between the tenant and the
18 landlord as it becomes due .
19 That's right out of the statute . And consistent with
that requirement and really following up on the discussion
21 we had on S eptember 2 9th, Two roads on October 6th, 2010
2 2 paid the current amount of rent due, consistent with the
invoice for October of 2010, presented $148 , 22 5 . 48 to
2 4 Venetian. That ' s Exhibit A to the errata . With the cover
letter that says this i s pursuant to our rights under the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
2 5
7
statute, we ' re paying the October 2 010 rent .
So I believe at that point we ' ve met our statutory
obligation under NRS 40.3 8 5 to obtain a stay.
In the alternative, we then also moved under 6 2 --
NRCP 62 . Let me address the opposition really that we got
to the stay under 40 . 3 8 5 is narrow. And the bul k o f the
lengthy pleading filed by Venetian really goes to the
issue of equities and really is in response to the, I
believe, to the 62 -- NRCP 62 request, where you do weigh
those factors. And I can address them. Essentially the
bul k of this comes down to you ' re a dead beat tenant.
THE COURT: Let ' s stay confined to the
Chapter 40 argument for right now. That ' s my bigger
concern, then Rule 62 and supersedeas bonds. Those are
generally more applicable to j Udgments. Posting a
supersedeas bond and j udgment amount for appeal, as
opposed to a situation where, in my mind, you have a
specific statute governing the issue, as opposed to a
general appeal rule .
MR. COULTHARD: Okay. I ' d be happy t o do
that, because I think that is where -- the fight, whether
we ' ve met that statute.
And so really the opposition comes down to, they say
that it is discretionary with the court, number one. It ' s
a discretionary stay with the court. Which frankly, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
2 4
2 5
with
not.
not
we
the
And
or
the
the
stay
8
Supreme
j ustice
3 month
thei r position.
the
the
this
j urisdictional of
3
all due respect , when you read that statute it is
The discretion lies with the tenant as to whether or
they pay a cost bond. And if we post that cost bond,
may obtain a stay of execution.
There is some discretion for the court to increase
amount of that cost bond. I would acknowledge that .
I think that either the court can do that sua sponte
at the request of the Venetian. But at this j uncture
statute provides for a cost bond, $2 50. 00. And then
second part we have to do is pay the rent.
So they say two things really in opposition. This
isn' t contemplated within an appeal t o the Nevada
Court. That generally these -- the way I read it
i s generally these summary eviction issues g o only before
court , and so, what , the stay is only a short 2 or
period from j ustice to district court. That's
But when you take a look at NRS 2. 2 5 3 , it
specifically says that our affidavit , in l egal defense to
summary eviction, can be filed in the j ustice court or
district court . Clearly the amount in controversy in
case was district court level . We ' re way beyond the
limit of j ustice court . We're in excess
mil l ion dollars in controversy in this case .
5
10
1 5
20
25
9
17
1 But not only does the statute provide for this court
2 to adj udicate this is sue, but, in fact, Venetian fi led
3 their order to show cause in the district court . So it ' s
4 an acknowledgment this court has initial j urisdiction to
hear this issue , grant the summary eviction.
6 Well, if we appeal where does that go . It goes to
7 the Nevada Supreme Court. Clearly we ' re not precluding
8 from seeking a stay during the pendency of that appeal .
9 The other i ssue I think is that it ' s not
discretionary with this court. Again, the plain language
1 1 of the statute says that the stay shall be i ssued --
1 2 excuse me . I t does not. I t says, we may -- the tenant
1 3 may obtain a stay if they do the following two steps, post
14 the bond, pay the rent. Which we did. Again, the only
discretion the statute provides this court i s in the
16 discretion of the amount of the cost bond.
So I think we've met our obligation under the statute
1 8 to obtain a stay. I think the very purpos e of the appeal
1 9 will be flat out defeated. Absent a stay we will be
evicted summarily, i f you don ' t grant the stay. And it i s
21 clear we will have irreparable inj ury.
22 The Nevada Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that
23 real property and its attributes are considered unique.
24 And loss of real property rights generally result in
i rreparable harm. The very purpose of this appeal will be
2
1 0
1 5
1 throated if we don't have the ability to challenge that .
We will be evicted and that will be the end of the
3 tenant's opportunity to stay in here . And we will have
4 suffered irreparable injury in the form of losing our
5 ability to operate in this unique real property premises .
6 That i s quintessential irreparable injury that we a re
7 faced with absent this stay.
8 I can run through the other factors , your Honor, i f I
9 need to . But I don ' t think under the statutory const raints
10 that Hanson is controlling . But if you feel we need to
1 1 run through those, this i s obviously important t o my
12 client . I believe every one of those Hanson factors bode
1 3 in favor o f granting this stay, in favor of Two Roads
1 4 being able to stay i n this space .
I f there i s any questions about that i n your Honor ' s
1 6 mind, then I want the opportunity t o make a record and
1 7 addres s thos e .
1 8 THE COURT : Let me let them address the
1 9 statute first . Then we ' ll s ee where we go from there .
2 0 MR. FEDER: Your Honor, I think we l aid
2 1 out our position with respect t o the statute . You know,
22 pertaining to the factor we brought about about the terms
2 3 o f the time frame between the two . The more important
24 part i s the second part of the argument we raised . And
25 that i s when you read the statute, it is a discretionary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 1
aspect with respect to how the language i s drafted.
What they're trying to say, your Honor, which I
believe the statute was ever intended for, nor if you look
at the may language that you see in Rule 62 , it als o talks
about may be granted upon posting a supersedeas bond .
There actually is a correlation between the two .
Rule 62 does not lay out all the Hanson factors . Hanson
and everything else is in direct relat ionship to 62 , which
talks about may grant a stay .
Similarly here, it talks about a may factor with
respect to what needs to occur . What they ' re arguing is
by s imply posting $2 5 0 . 00 , they automatically get a stay .
I don ' t believe that was ever intended by the legislature.
Any intent you can read in the statute, it ' s
discretionary .
THE COURT : How can you read that any
other way . I ' ve got to agree -- I mean, j us t by reading
the statute with Mr . Coulthard, regardle s s of whethe r
you ' re John Doe living i n a studio apartment down town or
Two Roads with a giant restaurant in the Venetian, the
intent, as I read that statute, is you may get a stay when
you pay this cost bond . That ' s you pay that bond and the
stay i s in effect .
I don ' t think there is anything that s ays I have the
discretion if you paid the money to not let you have a
5
10
1 5
20
2 5
12
1 9
1 stay, not let you stay in there . The only discretion I
2 think the court has to deal with it i s if you are not then
3 paying rents, then you you have to file a new
4 proceeding, which I think is ridiculous . But that ' s what
the statute says . But that ' s almost summarily you' re out
6 now, because you didn ' t pay the rents, kind of thing.
7 MR . FEDER: I think I know we ' re you're
8 coming from, your Honor . From reading the statute, the
9 statute to me had to be read in conj unction with what is
normally done when a stay is needed or required . When you
1 1 read 6 2 , again, it ' s the may language . I mean, then we ' re
1 2 focusing upon which brings back the discretion, which we
1 3 believe leads back to the application of al l of the Hanson
1 4 factors .
The Hanson factors are there in es s ence to balance
1 6 the harms that the parties need to deal with with respect
1 7 t o what amount -- irrespective, you don ' t get t o the bond
1 8 portion or the bond argument, the cost bond, the
discretion o f whether it ' s higher than that amount, until
you ' ve satisfied the other elements that are required .
2 1 When you read 2 6-0, your Honor, that says --
22 THE COURT : Let me ask you this then .
23 Don ' t you think tha
t
the legislature would have
24 recogni zed -- and there i s a difference between
structuring appeals and stays on a judgment -- or monetary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
23
2 4
2 5
1 3
judgment versus taking people out of their home . That ' s
the focus of where the summary eviction statutes care
from.
MR. FEDER: I t also applies to 62-C , your
Honor, that injunctive relief i s a procedure there that
also lays out argument that the Hanson factors would apply
there as well .
So when you really lay out what the elements
required, I don't think you can overlook the Hanson
factors. I think just this gets down to i f you reach and
meet the elements required in Hanson, then you look to
this with respect to whether an amount of what this cost
bond would be the equivalent to .
I n terms of -- and again, the may language . And that
t o u s i s where i t gets directly correlated to what the
62-D o r 62-C language talks about . And it also references
when you read 62-C, when an appeal i s taken b y the
appellant giving the supers edeas bond, may obtain a stay,
subject to . It ' s the s ame may language, your Honor.
I n essence whether you read i t the way they're trying
t o say about what they ' re creating i s by s imply putt ing up
$2 5 0 . 0 0 , putting aside what Section 2 says about what they
shall be required to , there is a difference in that
language . Two has shall language versus the may language
i n Subsection 1 . When you take that into account and you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
1 4
read that , they need to also still satisfy those Hanson
elements and go through those . Otherwise, anybody, any
time you deal with a tenant s ituation where the argue and
raise a defense or not -- your Honor already rule t heir
defense is unreasonable -- whether you rai s e it or not or
create one, you can just come in and say, okay, here i s
$2 5 0 . 0 0 bond. We ' ve done what we need to do . We ' ve now
stayed it . I don ' t believe that was the intent here .
Especially with respect to the amount of damages we're
talking about here .
Because effectively what we ' re getting here, your
Honor -- we laid i t out in the papers -- a stay here on
summary eviction, also stays our abi lity t o g o after this
in the monetary damage case .
So I don ' t believe those two can be looked at i n
correlation that way . I think it ' s not an automati c
recourse . The language i n here does not say that . I f the
l egislature was intending i t to be i t would have said they
will automatically get a stay upon the posting o f a
$2 5 0 . 00 bond. It does not say that , your Honor . I t does
not have the direct language . I f the legi slature intended
for it to get to that l eve l , they would have included that
specific language. It ' s not there . So I don ' t think we
can overlook all of thes e Hanson factors and apply a l l o f
the Hanson factors . You only get t o that l eve l , your
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
2 5
1 5
Honor, if you can satisfy those Hanson elements. And to
our position, as we laid out, they don ' t get anywhere
close to it .
He has now raised a new argument which I didn ' t raise
in the papers about real property. It was never rai sed.
In the papers it talks about losing the business. Which
i s a lost business . That ' s a profit case. We deal with
those s ituations regularly. It ' s a s imple damage case.
But I can go through all the Hanson factors, your
Honor, if your Honor wants me to, because we ' ve laid it
out pretty well. I don ' t believe you get to that level
and that statute until you satisfy those Hanson elements.
I don ' t believe this was intended, nor -- I' l l say I don ' t
believe that was the intent of this statute, to supersede
the requirements of the elements for a stay pending any
type of an appeal. Not even i n a situation with a
landlord tenant, your Honor.
THE COURT : Well, I disagree with you .
I ' ll tell you that i n my experience the way I described it
i s exactly how the j ustice court treat s i t and district
court treats it. Which is when you s eek t o remove
s omebody -- I ' m always focused on the individual, s ince
that was the geneses of what i t was all about. And
bus inesses are j ust getting the benefit of what the
individual gets in a home situation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
1 6
But whenever somebody is about to be evicted from
their home, they post that $2 5 0 . 00, they aut omatically get
a stay . Then the shal l language is in order for your stay
not to dissolve on your head, you have to be paying the
rent every month from there on out . You may have been
evicted because you weren't paying any rent in the past,
but if you ' re going to appeal the ruling and you filed the
$25 0 . 0 0 to get it up to district court to look at what the
JP did, then you have to be paying your rent every month
thereafter, o r then they are going t o come in and you have
no grounds t o ward off being actually physical taken out
of the property .
But I think the statute does direct itself not to --
the court has discretion t o do this, that, or the other,
but the stay of execution may be obtained . That's the
party. A party may obtain a stay upon filing a bond.
So I don ' t think we get to the factors. I think the
statute i s pretty express i n my mind i n terms of what the
intent of the legislate was in terms o f people, o r a s I
said, businesses that have been ordered sumarily
evicted .
I will tell you some of the factors, I do think that
there is an irreparable harm argument to the defendant to
be taken out of this business, based upon what ' s taken
place. It ' s obvious that the obj ect of thei r appeal gets
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
1 7
25
defeated f they ' re taken out of the bus iness when they ' re
trying to appeal to stay in the busines s .
The only questionable thing i s , like many injunction
hearings , is reasonable likelihood of succes s on the
merits . I disagreed with their pos ition in what the
interpretation was . But I have never before believed that
just because I disagree that the s even people above me
aren ' t going to disagree with me . It happens .
So I can ' t s ay that they don ' t have a reasonable
likelihood of convincing, whether it ' s the En Banc Supreme
Court or a panel of the Supreme Court that their position
is more meritorious then what I thought it was .
So in any event , what I kind of wanted us to -- I ' m
going to grant you the stay . But in terms of the cost
bond, I do agree that $25 0 . 0 0 , again, contemplates the
s ituation that I just tal ked about with the individual
gett ing evicted from the home, appeal ing from justice
court to district court . I think what we ' re dealing with
here i s going t o have substantially different costs then
what we ' re dealing with in a normal getting evicted from
your apartment type situation .
So what is your pos ition on that .
MR. FEDER: Our position, your Honor, we
it laid and we dealt with the harms that were going to
occur to the Venetian, inclusive . In es s ence thes e are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
2 4
18
2 5
the contemplations, mediation, arbitration process with
respect to damage type awards.
We ' re effectively, by granting a stay, we getting
stayed with respect to the ability to collect upon what we
believe is past due damages of over 3 . 3 million dol lars,
plus interest . So we believe because of the effect iveness
that that ' s going to have on our ability to ever col lect
upon this monetary j udgment , they should be required to
bond that entire amount . The entire 3 . 3 mill ion, pl us
interest with respect t o the underlying damage case .
I know that it ' s not normally part of what a summary
eviction is about with the possessory aspects, but given
the effect of what this stay will have, I think that ' s a
fair and r8asonable amount to be posted, your Honor .
THE COURT : Mr . Coulthard .
MR . COULTHARD : The statute specifically
states cost bond on appeal , not supersedeas bond .
What we ' re dealing with are the filing fees, the
costs that will be incurred in prosecuting this appeal .
That is not legal fees. That is not -- they don ' t have an
underlying j udgment as t o this 3 million dollar rental
amount . S o, I mean, $1 , 5 0 0 , $2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 , if you look at
what is defined in costs, what can actually be incurred
more than adequately protects them.
The important thing to note , your Honor, i s they're
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
1 9
2 3
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 1
22
2 4
getting the current rent . They are right now, based upon
your order, we ' re living under your interpretation o f the
second amendment . The original deferred rent hasn ' t even
-- that second amendment is still in force and effect . So
that -- under your interpretation, which we , with all due
respect , adamantly dispute . We think there is another
interpretation, all of which I argued before and I won ' t
do now. But they are getting the benefit of that second
amendment . Current rents are being paid . So they ' re not
i n any way harmed.
As t o their past due rents, he said i t himsel f ,
interest . That ' s if they do prevail, and that your
decision is held up on appeal and affirmed on appeal . And
they do pursue a monetary j udgment . At that j uncture
we ' re going to be able t o do some discovery and contest
that . I assure you it will be contested.
But there i s prej udgment interest , and interest under
these documents that under our court rules protect them
from that . There is no methodology for a supersedeas
bond, which because there is no monetary j udgment . It is
a cost bond, $1,50 0 . 0 0 . $2, 50 0.0 0 i s more than we will
incur in costs on this appeal . So I would suggest that
would be more than enough. I f you do increase that
amount , we want some time t o get i t posted.
THE COURT : Okay .
2 0
1 9
2 4
25
1 Wel l , I ' m going to -- your last comments hit on my
2 number , which I wrote down $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 . Large commercial
3 business leases obviously entail a lot more complexities
4 then normal residential apartment leases . But that
5 doesn ' t mean that all those complexities and the various
6 aspect s of what was to be paid under the lease, whether
7 it's the first amendment , the second amendment, whe ther
8 it ' s past due rents , current rent s , the various other
9 things that were in there I can ' t remember all the
1 0 language now but there was a lot of things the money
1 1 was supposed t o be going t o in this lease.
1 2 The cost bond on appeal doe sn ' t really say you need
13 to account for al l those things right now, just what are
14 the costs on appeal , what is a reasonable amount .
15 And again , this can be related in front of the
1 6 Supreme Court , the issues relating t o the stay o r the bond
17 up to the Supreme Court as well. But I think $2,500. 0 0
1 8 cost bond i s appropriate .
MR. FEDER: One fact we want t o bring up.
2 0 That i s one of the things at i ssue i n this case i s the
2 1 s econd amendment has a -- that the defined distribution of
22 proceeds . Your Honor has ruled, based upon when we care
23 in here , that their interpretation was unreasonable.
Therefore that definition o f distribution of proceeds no
longer applies . I t should now go back to the distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
24
2 5
21
of proceeds under the original operating agreement .
What we're getting at , your Honor, is putting the
rent payment prior to the application of the management
fee, which is at the cornerstone here . For the purpose of
the order, we'd also like to be clear that it's t his
second amendment , how it's going to be distributed in
terms of proceeds goes back to rent , steps up in front of
any obligation to pay even management fees. That would be
fair .
THE COORT: Regardless of what took place
i n the summary eviction, what 4 3 8 5 states very expre ssly
is you get the appeal upon the posting of the bond, and
thereafter the stay you have to pay the rent . It doesn't
speak to any other contractual conditions and obligations
you may have. That's all part of your breach of contract
action, whatever you may bring at some point in time . But
I ordered the stay and they have to make their monthly
rental payments. They'll be obligated to pay each t ime
thereafter, or a s I said, under 4 2 5 3 , you file a new
proceedings saying they haven't made their payments now
and we want them out out .
MR. FEDER: Part and parce l , we want to
see the order after it's prepared.
So we're clear with respect to what's in the order .
I s your order going to say that we don't get the Hanson
5
10
15
20
2 5
22
17
2 4
factors, we're j ust looking at Section 40. 35 8 . So we can 1
2 be clear .
3 THE COURT : The order can include what I
4 said about the factors a moment ago . But I don't think
the factors are what rule .
6 Oftentimes when you are ruling on something, I'l l
7 address part of what you brought up, even though I think
8 the statute expressly gives them the right to stay o nce
9 they have filed the bond, I still think the factors weigh
in favor of the defense, as I said .
1 1 On the irreparable harm issue, I think i f the appeal
12 gets defeated, I think they have a reasonabl e likelihood
1 3 of success on the merits. That's a low standard . It's
14 j ust is there a reasonable interpretation of that that
somebody other than myself might disagree with me on, so
1 6 that things weigh i n favor o f them .
MR. FEDER : The papers lay out our
1 8 position . I'm not going t o argue i t now, in terms of
1 9 equity or i rreparable harm and the li kelihood of
success .
2 1 Can I request t o the extent they do miss a payment
22 that this court -- I know we have to go through the
2 3 process of the 5-day notice.
THE COURT : That's whole thing where the
statute comes in, You file a new proceedings, i t doesn't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 3
guarantee that it gets tracked to my department . Then you
have to move to consolidate it in . I'll do anything on
shortened time .
MR. FEDER: We may be back with the same
argument being raised, a circular argument all over
again .
THE COURT : As far as I'm concerned I
think Mr . Coulthard would be hard pressed to obj ect to
this -- is that if you are proceeding a new proceeding
based upon violations of condition of a stay, you don't go
back and relitigate the contract and propriety of summary
eviction . You're j ust litigating whether or not we missed
our payment, and therefore, are we out out .
MR. FEDER: Would there be any obj ection
to me saying this court maintains j urisdiction i f there is
a need o r necessity for subsequent --
THE COURT : I think i t i s incumbent upon
the court to retain j urisdiction . I think the way the
statute says, file a new proceeding, that makes it hard to
understand -- it should be a proceeding within the same
court . I'm the one that issued the stay. I'm the one to
oversee if any conditions are being met or not .
MR. FEDER: Thank you, your Honor .
MR. COULTHARD : Even though I'm unhappy
with the first ruling, your Honor, I wouldn't obj ect to
5
10
1 5
20
2 5
24
1 4
2 4
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
1 1
12
1 3
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
2 1
22
2 3
this coming back before your Hono r . So we'll prepare the
order . Thank you, very much .
THE COURT : Submit it to Mr . Feder before
it --
MR. FEDER: Your Honor, one point I want
to clarify again . If we're back in this process and
dealing with this issue on a failure to pay rent going
forward, does your Honor take the position they put up
another $2 , 500. 00 bond again, or i f they fai l to pay, the
stay is lifted.
We're trying to get clarity.
THE COURT : I'm not going to prospect ively
say anything other then the statute i s pretty clear i n
saying i f you don't make your rental obligations you lose
your right t o maintain your status, essentially. That's
my interpretation o f the statute .
Now if we come here trying to figure out when the
rent was paid and when it was received, was i t received on
the first day or the second day or things l i ke that , we'll
be getting into parceling out what the facts were
surrounding i t and the propriety o f removing the stay or
not . As opposed to we're two weeks into November, we've
never seen a payment . They're telling to go pound sand.
We kind of can't prospectively say I 'd automatically kick
them out . I have t o hear what they have to say.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
MR. FEDER: Base on the facts. Thank you,
your Honor .
THE COURT : All right .
MR. COULTHARD : Thank you, your Honor .
MR. MILLER: Thank you, your Honor .
* * * * *
5
10
15
2 0
25
I

W
'

\

o
wa
ra
2 6
13
1 CERTI FICATE
2 OF
3 CERTI FIED COURT REPORTER
4
* * * * *
6
7
8 I , the undersigned certified court reporter in and for the
9 State of Nevada , do hereby certify:
11 That the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the
12 time and place therein set forth; that the testimony and
all obj ections made at the time of the proceedings were
1 4 recorded stenographically by me and were thereafter
transcribed under my direction; that the foregoing is a
16 t rue record of the testimony and of all obj ections made at
17 the time of the proceedings.
18
19
,/---".".
2 1
22
23 Sharon
C . C . R. #7 45
24
27
< Dates >
<
<
<
3 . 3 1 8 : 5 , 1 8 : 9 .
may. 5 : 25 .
OCTOBER 1 3 , 2010
1 : 2 9 , 3 : 1 . 4 > .
October 2010 40 7 : 13 .
7 : 1 . 40. 2 5 3 . 5 : 4,
October 6 , 2010 5 : 17 .
4 : 22 . 40. 3 58 . 22 : 1 .
October 6th, 2010 40. 3 80 5 : 5 .
6 : 2 1 . 40. 3 8 5 5 : 5 , 6 : 5 ,
October 6th, 2010. 7 : 3 , 7 : 6 .
6 : 8 . 40. 38 5 . 5 : 8 ,
S eptember 2 9th 5 : 15 .
4 : 17 . 4253 2 1 : 1 9 .
September 2 9th, 43 8 5 2 1 : 1 1 .
two 6 : 2 1 .
#7 45 2 6 : 27 .
$1 , 000. 00 5 : 12 . 5 > .
$1 , 500 1 8 : 22 . 5-day 22 : 23 .
$1 , 500. 00 .
1 9 : 2 1 .
$1 48 , 22 5 . 48 6 > .
6 : 23 . 62 7 : 4, 7 : 9 , 7 : 1 4,
$2 , 000. 00 1 8 : 22 . 1 1 : 4 , 11 : 7 ,
$2 , 500 . 00 1 9 : 2 1 , 1 1 : 8 , 1 2 : 1 1 .
20: 17 , 2 4 : 9 . 62-C 1 3 : 4, 1 3 : 1 6 ,
$2 , 500. 00 . 20: 2 . 13 : 17 .
$2 50 . 00 6 : 7 , 62-D 1 3 : 1 6 .
1 1 : 12 , 1 3 : 22 , 62 . 7 : 5 .
1 4 : 7 , 1 4 : 20,
1 6 : 2 , 1 6 : 8 ,
17 : 15 . < 7 > .
$250 . 00. 8 : 10 . 745 1 : 35 .
< 1 > . < A > .
1 . 1 3 : 2 5 . A-62 49 32-C 1 : 2 .
1 3 3 : 5 . ability 10: 1 ,
10: 5 , 1 4 : 1 3 ,
1 8 : 4 , 1 8 : 7 .
< 2 > . able 10: 14 ,
2 8 : 1 6 , 1 3 : 22 . 1 9 : 1 5 .
2 . 2 5 3 8 : 1 9 . above 17 : 7 .
2010 6 : 2 3 . Absent 9 : 1 9 ,
2 6-D 1 2 : 2 1 . 10: 7 .
account 1 3 : 2 5 ,
20: 1 3 .
< 3 > . acknowledge 8 : 7 .
3 1 : 3 , 8 : 17 , 8 : 2 5 , acknowledgment
1 8 : 2 1 . 9 : 4 .
action 2 1 : 1 6 .
actually 4 : 2 3 ,
6 : 10, 6 : 1 3 ,
1 1 : 6 , 1 6 : 1 1 ,
1 8 : 2 3 .
adamantly 1 9 : 6 .
address 7 : 5 , 7 : 10,
10: 17 , 10: 1 8 ,
2 2 : 7 .
adequately
1 8 : 2 4 .
adj udicate 9 : 2 .
affidavit 8 : 20.
affirmed 1 9 : 1 3 .
afforded 4 : 20 .
ago 2 2 : 4 .
agree 1 1 : 17 ,
17 : 15 .
agreement 2 1 : 1 .
almost 1 2 : 5 .
already 1 4 : 4 .
alternative 7 : 4 .
amendment 1 9 : 3 ,
1 9 : 4 , 1 9 : 9 ,
20: 7 , 20: 2 1 ,
2 1 : 6 .
amount 5 : 12 , 6 : 7 ,
6 : 1 6 , 6 : 22 ,
7 : 1 6 , 8 : 7 , 8 : 22 ,
9 : 1 6 , 1 2 : 17 ,
1 2 : 1 9 , 1 3 : 1 2 ,
1 4 : 9 , 1 8 : 9 ,
1 8 : 1 4 , 1 8 : 22 ,
1 9 : 2 4 , 20: 1 4 .
anybody 1 4 : 2 .
Anyway 6 : 5 .
apartment 1 1 : 1 9 ,
17 : 2 1 , 20: 4 .
apologize 5 : 20.
appeal 4 : 1 , 5 : 1 ,
5 : 6 , 5 : 9 , 5 : 1 4 ,
5 : 17 , 6 : 7 , 6 : 1 3 ,
6 : 1 5 , 7 : 1 6 ,
7 : 1 9 , 8 : 1 3 , 9 : 6 ,
9 : 8 , 9 : 1 8 , 9 : 2 5 ,
1 3 : 17 , 1 5 : 1 6 ,
1 6 : 7 , 1 6 : 2 5 ,
17 : 2 , 1 8 : 17 ,
1 8 : 1 9 , 1 9 : 13 ,
1 9 : 22 , 20: 12 ,
VENETIAN vs. TWO ROADS 10/1 3 /2010
2 8
20: 1 4, 2 1 : 12 ,
2 2 : I I .
appealing 1 7 : 17 .
appeals 12 : 25 .
APPEARANCES 2 : 1 .
appearing 3 : 2 1 .
appellant 1 3 : 18 .
applicable 7 : 15 .
application 12 : 13 ,
2 1 : 3 .
applies 1 3 : 4,
20: 2 5 .
apply 1 3 : 6,
1 4 : 2 4 .
appropriate
20: 1 8 .
arbitration
1 8 : 1 .
argue 1 4 : 3 ,
2 2 : 18 .
argued 1 9 : 7 .
arguing 1 1 : 1 1 .
argument 3 : 1 3 ,
7 : 13 , 10: 24,
1 2 : 1 8 , 1 3 : 6 ,
1 5 : 4, 1 6 : 2 3 ,
2 3 : 5 .
aside 1 3 : 22 .
aspect 4 : 7 , 4 : 1 3 ,
1 1 : 1 .
aspects 1 8 : 12 ,
20: 6 .
associate 3 : 1 6 .
assure 1 9 : 1 6 .
attached 5 : 22 .
attributes 9 : 2 3 .
automatic 1 4 : 1 6 .
automatically
1 1 : 12 , 1 4 : 1 9 ,
1 6 : 2 , 2 4 : 2 4 .
awards 1 8 : 2 .
< B > .
back 3 : 6 , 1 2 : 12 ,
1 2 : 1 3 , 20: 2 5 ,
2 1 : 7 , 2 3 : 4 ,
2 3 : 1 1 , 2 4 : 1 ,
2 4 : 6 .
balance 1 2 : 15 .
Banc 1 7 : 10.
Base 25 : I .
based 1 6 : 2 4 , 1 9 : 1 ,
20: 22 , 2 3 : 10.
beat 7 : I I .
becomes 6 : 18 .
behalf 3 : 9 ,
3 : 2 1 .
believe 7 : 2 , 7 : 9 ,
10: 12 , 1 1 : 3 ,
1 1 : 13 , 1 2 : 1 3 ,
1 4 : 8 , 1 4 : 1 5 ,
1 5 : 1 1 , 1 5 : 1 3 ,
15 : 1 4 , 1 8 : 5 ,
1 8 : 6 .
believed 1 7 : 6 .
benefit 1 5 : 2 4 ,
1 9 : 8 .
beyond 8 : 23 .
bigger 7 : 13 .
Bill 3 : 20.
bode 10: 12 .
bonds 7 : 14 .
breach 2 1 : 15 .
bring 20: 1 9 ,
2 1 : 16 .
brings 1 2 : 12 .
brought 10: 22 ,
22 : 7 .
bul k 7 : 6 , 7 : 1 I .
business 1 5 : 6 ,
1 5 : 7 , 1 6 : 2 4,
1 7 : 1 , 1 7 : 2 ,
20: 3 .
businesses 1 5 : 2 4 ,
1 6 : 20.
< C > .
Caminos 3 : 2 4 .
Carter 3 : 20.
CASE 1 : 2 , 8 : 23 ,
8 : 2 5 , 1 4 : 1 4,
1 5 : 7 , 1 5 : 8 ,
1 8 : 10, 20: 20.
Casino 1 : 1 1 ,
5 : 3 .
cause 4 : 1 7 , 9 : 3 .
CERTI FICATE
2 6 : 1 .
CERTI FIED 2 6 : 3 ,
2 6 : 8 .
certi fy 4 : 2 , 4 : 3 ,
2 6 : 9 .
challenge 1 0 : 1 .
chapter 7 : 1 3 .
circular 2 3 : 5 .
clarify 2 4 : 6 .
clarity 2 4 : 1 1 .
CLARK 1 : 7 .
clean 5 : 2 4 .
clear 5 : 8 , 5 : 15 ,
9 : 2 1 , 2 1 : 5 ,
2 1 : 2 4 , 2 2 : 2 ,
2 4 : 13 .
Clearly 8 : 22 ,
9 : 7 .
client 10: 1 2 .
close 1 5 : 3 .
collect 1 8 : 4 ,
1 8 : 7 .
comes 7 : 11 , 7 : 23 ,
22 : 25 .
coming 1 2 : 8 ,
2 4 : I .
comments 20: 1 .
commercial 5 : 1 1 ,
20: 2 .
complexities 20: 3 ,
20: 5 .
concern 7 : 1 4 .
concerned 2 3 : 7 .
condition 23 : 10.
conditions 2 1 : 1 4,
23 : 22 .
confined 7 : 12 .
conj unction
12 : 9 .
considered 9 : 2 3 .
consistent 6 : 1 9 ,
6 : 2 2 .
consolidate
23 : 2 .
constraints
10: 9 .
contemplated
8 : 1 3 .
contemplates
VENETIAN vs. TWO ROADS 10/ 1 3 /2010
1 7 : 1 5 .
contemplations
2 9
1 8 : 1 .
contest 1 9 : 15 .
contested 1 9 : 1 6 .
continuation
4 : 2 5 .
continued 4 : 1 6 .
contract 6 : 1 7,
2 1 : 1 5, 2 3 : 1 1 .
contractual
2 1 : 1 4 .
controlling 5 : 7,
1 0 : 1 0 .
controversy 8 : 22,
8 : 2 5 .
convincing
1 7 : 1 0 .
copy 5 : 23, 5 : 2 4 .
cornerstone
2 1 : 4 .
corporate 3 : 18 .
Corporation
3 : 18 .
correlated
1 3 : 1 5 .
correlation 1 1 : 6,
1 4 : 1 6 .
cost 5 : 1 0, 5 : 1 3,
8 : 4, 8 : 7, 8 : 1 0,
9 : 1 6, 1 1 : 22,
1 2 : 1 8, 1 3 : 12,
17 : 14 , 1 8 : 1 7,
1 9 : 2 1, 2 0 : 12,
20 : 1 8 .
costs 6 : 7, 1 7 : 1 9,
1 8 : 1 9, 1 8 : 2 3,
1 9 : 2 2, 2 0 : 1 4 .
COULTHARD 2 : 4,
3 : 8, 3 : 1 9, 3 : 2 0,
3 : 2 1, 4 : 9, 4 : 12,
6 : 2, 7 : 2 0,
1 1 : 1 8, 1 8 : 1 5,
1 8 : 1 6, 2 3 : 8,
2 3 : 2 4, 2 5 : 4 .
counsel 3 : 1 5,
3 : 1 6 .
COUNTY 1 : 7 .
cover 6 : 7, 6 : 24 .
create 1 4 : 6 .
creating 1 3 : 2 1 .
Crowl 3 : 1 5 .
<
Cruger 3 : 1 6 .
Current 5 : 13,
6 : 22, 1 9 : 1,
1 9 : 9, 2 0 : 8 .
D > .
damage 14 : 1 4,
15 : 8, 18 : 2,
1 8 : 1 0 .
damages 14 : 9,
1 8 : 5 .
darn 5 : 15 .
DATED 1 : 2 9 .
day 2 4 : 1 9 .
dead 7 : 1 1 .
deal 12 : 2, 12 : 1 6,
14 : 3, 1 5 : 7 .
dealing 4 : 2 5,
17 : 1 8, 1 7 : 2 0,
1 8 : 1 8, 2 4 : 7 .
dealt 1 7 : 2 4 .
decision 1 9 : 13 .
defeated 9 : 1 9,
17 : 1, 22 : 12 .
defendant 1 : 2 1,
2 : 4, 1 6 : 2 3 .
defense 8 : 2 0,
1 4 : 4, 14 : 5,
22 : 1 0 .
deferred 1 9 : 3 .
defined 18 : 2 3,
2 0 : 2 1 .
definition
2 0 : 2 4 .
department 2 3 : 1 .
DEPT . 1 : 3 .
described 1 5 : 19 .
desire 5 : 9 .
difference 12 : 2 4,
1 3 : 23 .
different 1 7 : 1 9 .
direct 11 : 8,
1 4 : 2 1, 1 6 : 1 3 .
direction 2 6 : 1 5 .
directly 1 3 : 15 .
disagree 1 5 : 1 8,
1 7 : 7, 1 7 : 8,
2 2 : 15 .
disagreed 1 7 : 5 .
discovery 1 9 : 1 5 .
discretion 8 : 3,
8 : 6, 9 : 1 5 , 9 : 1 6,
11 : 2 5, 12 : 1,
12 : 12, 12 : 1 9,
1 6 : 1 4 .
discretionary
7 : 2 4, 7 : 25 ,
9 : 1 0, 1 0 : 2 5,
1 1 : 15 .
discussion 6 : 2 0 .
dispute 1 9 : 6 .
dissolve 1 6 : 4 .
distributed
2 1 : 6 .
distr
i
buti on
2 0 : 2 1, 2 0 : 24,
2 0 : 25 .
DISTRICT 1 : 6,
1 : 2 7, 8 : 1 7 ,
8 : 22, 8 : 23, 9 : 3,
1 5 : 2 0, 1 6 : 8,
1 7 : 18 .
documents 1 9 : 18 .
Doe 1 1 : 1 9 .
dollar 18 : 2 1 .
dollars 8 : 25,
1 8 : 5 .
done 12 : 1 0,
1 4 : 7 .
Dos 3 : 2 4 .
Douglas Herndon
1 : 2 6 .
down 3 : 13, 7 : 1 1,
7 : 2 3, 1 1 : 1 9,
1 3 : 1 0, 2 0 : 2 .
drafted 1 1 : 1 .
due 6 : 18, 6 : 2 2,
8 : 1, 18 : 5, 1 9 : 5,
1 9 : 11, 2 0 : 8 .
Dumont 3 : 17 .
during 6 : 1 3, 6 : 1 5,
9 : 8 .
< E > .
easier 4 : 1 3 .
effect 1 1 : 23,
1 8 : 1 3, 1 9 : 4 .
effectively 1 4 : 11,
VENETIAN vs. TWO ROADS 1 0 /1 3 /2 0 1 0
30
1 8 : 3 .
effectivenes s
1 8 : 6 .
effectuate 5 : 10.
either 8 : 8 .
elements 1 2 : 20,
1 3 : 8 , 1 3 : 1 1 ,
1 4 : 2 , 1 5 : 1 ,
1 5 : 12 , 1 5 : 15 .
emergency 4 : 1 ,
4 : 1 5 .
En 17 : 10.
end 10: 2 .
enough 1 9 : 2 3 .
entail 20: 3 .
entered 4 : 2 3 ,
5 : 17 .
entire 1 8 : 9 .
equities 7 : 8 .
equity 22 : 1 9 .
equivalent
1 3 : 13 .
errata 5 : 2 4 , 6 : 1 ,
6 : 3 , 6 : 10,
6 : 2 4 .
Especially 1 4 : 9 .
ESQ 2 : 2 , 2 : 4 .
es s ence 1 2 : 1 5 ,
1 3 : 20, 17 : 2 5 .
Ess entially 7 : 10,
2 4 : 15 .
event 17 : 13 .
everything 1 1 : 8 .
evicted 9 : 20,
10: 2 , 1 6 : 1 ,
1 6 : 6 , 1 6 : 2 1 ,
17 : 17 , 17 : 20.
evicti on 4 : 1 8 ,
4 : 1 9 , 4 : 23 , 5 : 3 ,
5 : 9 , 5 : 1 8 , 5 : 1 9 ,
8 : 1 5 , 8 : 2 1 , 9 : 5 ,
1 3 : 2 , 1 4 : 1 3 ,
1 8 : 12 , 2 1 : 1 1 ,
2 3 : 1 2 .
exactly 1 5 : 20.
exces s 8 : 2 4 .
excus e 9 : 12 .
EXECUTION 1 : 1 6 ,
4 : 1 , 4 : 1 6 , 6 : 5 ,
8 : 5 , 1 6 : 1 5 .
exhibits 5 : 2 1 .
expected 6 : 7 .
experience
15 : 1 9 .
express 1 6 : 1 8 .
expressly 2 1 : 1 1 ,
22 : 8 .
extent 2 2 : 2 1 .
< F > .
faced 10: 7 .
fact 9 : 2 , 20: 1 9 .
factor 10: 22 ,
1 1 : 10.
factors 7 : 10,
10: 8 , 10: 1 2 ,
1 1 : 7 , 1 2 : 1 4 ,
12 : 1 5 , 1 3 : 6 ,
13 : 10, 1 4 : 2 4 ,
14 : 2 5 , 1 5 : 9 ,
1 6 : 17 , 1 6 : 22 ,
22 : 1 , 2 2 : 4,
22 : 5 , 22 : 9 .
facts 2 4 : 20,
2 5 : 1 .
fail 2 4 : 9 .
failure 2 4 : 7 .
fair 1 8 : 1 4 ,
21 : 9 .
far 2 3 : 7 .
favor 10: 1 3 ,
22 : 10, 22 : 1 6 .
faxed 5 : 23 .
FEDER 2 : 2 , 3 : 7 ,
3 : 9 , 3 : 10, 4 : 5 ,
10: 20, 12 : 7 ,
13 : 4, 17 : 2 3 ,
20: 1 9 , 2 1 : 22 ,
2 2 : 17 , 2 3 : 4,
2 3 : 1 4 , 2 3 : 2 3 ,
2 4 : 3 , 2 4 : 5 ,
2 5 : 1 .
fee 2 1 : 4 .
feel 10: 10.
fees 1 8 : 1 8 , 1 8 : 20,
2 1 : 8 .
fight 7 : 2 1 .
figure 2 4 : 17 .
file 6 : 4 , 12 : 3 ,
2 1 : 1 9 , 2 2 : 2 5 ,
23 : 1 9 .
filed 7 : 7 , 8 : 2 1 ,
9 : 2 , 1 6 : 7 ,
22 : 9 .
filing 6 : 6 , 1 6 : 1 6 ,
1 8 : 1 8 .
final 4 : 2 , 4 : 3 .
finance 3 : 18 .
first 10: 1 9 , 2 0 : 7 ,
23 : 2 5 , 2 4 : 1 9 .
Fisher 3 : 2 3 ,
3 : 2 4 .
flat 9 : 1 9 .
focus 1 3 : 2 .
focused 1 5 : 2 2 .
focusing 1 2 : 12 .
following 5 : 20,
6 : 20, 9 : 1 3 .
force 1 9 : 4 .
foregoing 2 6 : 1 1 ,
2 6 : 1 5 .
form 10: 4 .
forth 2 6 : 12 .
forward 2 4 : 8 .
frame 5 : 1 4 ,
10: 2 3 .
frankly 7 : 2 5 .
Fred 3 : 1 5 .
front 20: 1 5 ,
2 1 : 7 .
< G > .
general 3 : 1 5 ,
3 : 1 6 , 3 : 2 4 ,
7 : 1 9 .
generally 7 : 1 5 ,
8 : 1 4 , 8 : 15 ,
9 : 2 4 .
genes es 1 5 : 2 3 .
gentlemen 3 : 6 .
gets 1 3 : 10, 1 3 : 1 5 ,
1 5 : 2 5 , 1 6 : 2 5 ,
22 : 1 2 , 2 3 : l .
getting 1 4 : 1 1 ,
1 5 : 2 4 , 17 : 17 ,
17 : 20, 1 8 : 3 ,
1 9 : 1 , 1 9 : 8 ,
2 1 : 2 , 2 4 : 20 .
VENETIAN vs . TWO ROADS 1 0 / 1 3 /2010
31
giant 1 1 : 20.
give 3 : 1 3 .
given 5 : 2 5 ,
1 8 : 12 .
gives 2 2 : 8 .
giving 1 3 : 18 .
governing 7 : 1 8 .
grant 9 : 5 , 9 : 20,
1 1 : 9 , 17 : 1 4 .
granted 4 : 8 , 4 : 1 9 ,
1 1 : 5 .
Granting 4 : 10,
4 : 22 , 5 : 1 9 ,
10: 1 3 , 1 8 : 3 .
grounds 1 6 : 11 .
guarantee 23 : 1 .
gues s 4 : 15 .
Gus 3 : 1 6 .
< H > .
Hanson 10: 10,
10: 12 , 1 1 : 7 ,
1 2 : 1 3 , 12 : 15 ,
1 3 : 6 , 1 3 : 9 ,
1 3 : 1 1 , 1 4 : 1 ,
1 4 : 2 4 , 1 4 : 2 5 ,
1 5 : 1 , 1 5 : 9 ,
1 5 : 12 , 2 1 : 2 5 .
happened 5 : 1 8 .
happens 17 : 8 .
happy 7 : 20.
hard 2 3 : 8 ,
2 3 : 1 9 .
harm 9 : 25 , 1 6 : 2 3 ,
2 2 : 1 1 , 22 : 1 9 .
harmed 1 9 : 10 .
harms 1 2 : 1 6 ,
17 : 2 4 .
head 1 6 : 4 .
hear 9 : 5 , 2 4 : 2 5 .
hearing 5 : 20,
5 : 2 3 .
hearings 4 : 18 ,
17 : 4 .
held 1 9 : 13 .
Henriod 3 : 12 .
hereby 2 6 : 9 .
higher 12 : 1 9 .
hit 20: 1 .
home 13 : 1 , 1 5 : 2 5 ,
1 6 : 2 , 17 : 17 .
HONORABLE 1 : 2 6 .
HOTEL 1 : 10.
housekeeping
4 : 13 .
Howard 1 : 35 f
2 6 : 2 6 .
< I > .
importance 5 : 2 5 .
important 4 : 14 ,
6 : 4, 10: 1 1 ,
10: 23 , 18 : 2 5 .
importantly 5 : 2 .
in . 23 : 2 .
include 22 : 3 .
included 14 : 22 .
inclusive 17 : 25 .
increase 8 : 6 ,
1 9 : 23 .
incumbent 2 3 : 17 .
incur 1 9 : 22 .
incurred 18 : 1 9 ,
1 8 : 23 .
indicated 4 : 3 .
individual 1 5 : 2 2 ,
1 5 : 2 5 , 17 : 1 6 .
initial 9 : 4 .
initially 5 : 2 1 .
inj unction 17 : 3 .
inj unctive 1 3 : 5 .
inj ury 9 : 2 1 , 10: 4 ,
10: 6 .
intended 1 1 : 3 ,
1 1 : 1 3 , 1 4 : 2 1 ,
1 5 : 13 .
intending 1 4 : 18 .
intent 1 1 : 1 4 ,
1 1 : 2 1 , 1 4 : 8 ,
1 5 : 1 4 , 1 6 : 1 9 .
interest 18 : 6 ,
1 8 : 10, 1 9 : 12 ,
1 9 : 17 .
interim 3 : 14 .
interpretation
17 : 6 , 1 9 : 2 ,
1 9 : 5 , 1 9 : 7 ,
20: 2 3 , 22 : 14,
2 4 : 1 6 .
invoice 6 : 2 3 .
irreparable 9 : 2 1 ,
9 : 2 5 , 10: 4 ,
10: 6 , 1 6 : 2 3 ,
22 : 1 1 , 2 2 : 1 9 .
irrespective
12 : 17 .
is sue 7 : 8 , 7 : 1 8 ,
9 : 2 , 9 : 5 , 9 : 9 ,
20: 20, 2 2 : 1 1 ,
2 4 : 7 .
issued 9 : 11 ,
2 3 : 2 1 .
i s sues 8 : 1 5 ,
20: 1 6 .
itself 1 6 : 13 .
< J > .
Joel 3 : 12 .
John 1 1 : 1 9 .
Jone s 3 : 20 .
JP 1 6 : 9 .
JUDGE 1 : 27 .
j udgment 4 : 2 ,
7 : 1 6, 1 2 : 2 5 ,
1 3 : 1 , 1 8 : 8 ,
1 8 : 2 1 , 1 9 : 1 4 ,
1 9 : 20 .
j udgments 7 : 1 5 .
j uncture 8 : 9 ,
1 9 : 1 4 .
j urisdiction 9 : 4,
2 3 : 1 5 , 2 3 : 18 .
j urisdictional
8 : 2 4 .
j ustice 8 : 1 6 ,
8 : 17 , 8 : 2 1 ,
8 : 2 4 , 1 5 : 20,
17 : 17 .
< K > .
Kemp 3 : 20.
kick 2 4 : 2 4 .
kind 12 : 6 , 17 : 13 ,
2 4 : 2 4 .
VENETIAN vs . TWO ROADS 10/ 1 3 /2010
32
< L > .
laid 1 0 : 2 0 , 1 4 : 1 2 ,
1 5 : 2 , 15 : 1 0 ,
1 7 : 2 4 .
landlord 6 : 12 ,
6 : 1 6, 6 : 1 8 ,
1 5 : 17 .
language 9 : 10 ,
1 1 : 1 , 1 1 : 4 ,
12 : 11 , 1 3 : 14 ,
1 3 : 1 6 , 1 3 : 1 9 ,
1 3 : 2 4 , 1 4 : 17 ,
1 4 : 2 1 , 1 4 : 23 ,
1 6 : 3 , 2 0 : 1 0 .
Large 2 0 : 2 .
LAS 1 : 1 9 , 3 : 1 .
last 4 : 2 , 2 0 : I .
lay 1 1 : 7 , 1 3 : 8 ,
22 : 17 .
lays 1 3 : 6 .
l eads 1 2 : 13 .
lease 5 : 11 , 2 0 : 6 ,
2 0 : I I .
leases 2 0 : 3 ,
2 0 : 4 .
legal 8 : 2 0 ,
1 8 : 2 0 .
legisl ate 1 6 : 1 9 .
legisl ature 1 1 : 1 3 ,
1 2 : 2 3 , 1 4 : 18 ,
1 4 : 2 I .
lengthy 4 : 1 8 ,
7 : 7 .
l etter 6 : 2 5 .
level 8 : 23 , 1 4 : 22 ,
1 4 : 2 5 , 1 5 : 1 I .
Lewis 3 : 1 0 .
lies 8 : 3 .
lifted 2 4 : 1 0 .
likelihood 1 7 : 4 ,
1 7 : 1 0 , 22 : 1 2 ,
2 2 : 1 9 .
limit 8 : 24 .
litigating
2 3 : 12 .
living 1 1 : 1 9 ,
1 9 : 2 .
LLC 1 : 1 1 , 3 : 22 .
longer 2 0 : 25 .
look 8 : 1 9 , 1 1 : 3 ,
1 3 : 1 1 , 1 6 : 8 ,
1 8 : 22 .
looked 1 4 : 1 5 .
looking 22 : 1 .
lose 2 4 : 14 .
los ing 1 0 : 4 ,
1 5 : 6 .
loss 9 : 2 4 .
lost 1 5 : 7 .
lot 2 0 : 3 , 2 0 : 10 .
low 22 : 13 .
Lynch 3 : 10 .
< M > .
maintain 2 4 : 1 5 .
maintains 2 3 : 15 .
management 2 1 : 3 ,
2 1 : 8 .
manager 3 : 2 4 .
mark 6 : 2 .
matter 4 : 1 3 .
Matthew 3 : 2 0 .
mean 1 1 : 1 7 , 1 2 : 1 1 ,
1 8 : 22 , 2 0 : 5 .
mediation 1 8 : 1 .
meet 1 3 : I I .
meritorious
1 7 : 12 .
merits 1 7 : 5 ,
22 : 1 3 .
met 7 : 2 , 7 : 22 ,
9 : 1 7 , 2 3 : 22 .
methodology
1 9 : 1 9 .
Michael 2 : 2 ,
3 : 10 .
MILLER 2 5 : 5 .
million 8 : 25 ,
1 8 : 5 , 1 8 : 9,
1 8 : 2 I .
mind 7 : 17 , 1 0 : 1 6 ,
1 6 : 1 8 .
mi ssed 2 3 : 12 .
moment 2 2 : 4 .
monetary 12 : 2 5 ,
1 4 : 1 4 , 1 8 : 8 ,
1 9 : 1 4 , 1 9 : 2 0 .
money 1 1 : 2 5 ,
2 0 : 10 .
month 5 : 12 , 8 : 1 7 ,
1 6 : 5 , 1 6 : 9 .
monthly 5 : 1 1 ,
2 1 : 17 .
morning 3 : 7 , 3 : 8 ,
3 : 1 9 .
motion 4 : 1 ,
4 : 1 5 .
move 2 3 : 2 .
moved 5 : 3 , 7 : 4 .
moving 5 : 22 .
MTN 1 : 1 6 .
myself 2 2 : 15 .
< N > .
narrow 7 : 6 .
neces sity 2 3 : 1 6 .
need 1 0 : 9 , 1 0 : 1 0 ,
12 : 1 6 , 1 4 : 1 ,
1 4 : 7 , 2 0 : 1 2 ,
2 3 : 1 6 .
needed 1 2 : 10 .
needs 1 1 : 1 1 .
Nevada 1 : 7 , 3 : 1 ,
8 : 1 3 , 9 : 7 , 9 : 22 ,
2 6 : 9 .
new 1 2 : 3 , 1 5 : 4 ,
2 1 : 1 9 , 2 2 : 2 5 ,
2 3 : 9 , 2 3 : 1 9 .
NO . 1 : 2 , 1 : 3 f
1 : 3 5 .
nor 1 1 : 3 , 1 5 : 1 3 .
normal 1 7 : 2 0 ,
2 0 : 4 .
normally 1 2 : 1 0 ,
1 8 : 1 1 .
note 1 8 : 25 .
notice 6 : 9 ,
2 2 : 2 3 .
November 2 4 : 22 .
NRCP 7 : 5 , 7 : 9 .
nrs 5 : 3 , 5 : 8 , 7 : 3 ,
8 : 1 9 .
number 7 : 2 4 ,
2 0 : 2 .
< 0 > .
obj ect 1 6 : 2 5 ,
VENETIAN vs . TWO ROADS 1 0 / 1 3 /2 0 1 0
3 3
2 3 : 8 , 23 : 25 .
obj ection 2 3 : 1 4 .
obj ections 2 6 : 1 3 ,
2 6 : 1 6 .
obligated 2 1 : 1 8 .
obligation 7 : 3 ,
9 : 1 7 , 2 1 : 8 .
obligations 21 : 1 4 ,
2 4 : 1 4 .
obtain 7 : 3 , 8 : 5 ,
9 : 1 3 , 9 : 1 8 ,
1 3 : 1 8 , 1 6 : 16 .
obtained 5 : 6 , 6 : 6 ,
1 6 : 1 5 .
obvious 1 6 : 2 5 .
obvious ly 4 : 1 4 ,
1 0 : 1 1 , 2 0 : 3 .
occur 1 1 : 1 1 ,
1 7 : 25 .
October 6 : 2 3 .
Oftentimes 22 : 6 .
Okay 6 : 3 , 7 : 2 0 ,
1 4 : 6 , 1 9 : 2 5 .
once 2 2 : 8 .
One 4 : 1 0 , 1 0 : 1 2 ,
1 4 : 6 , 2 0 : 1 9 ,
2 0 : 2 0 , 2 3 : 2 1 ,
2 4 : 5 .
one . 7 : 2 4 .
operate 1 0 : 5 .
operating 2 1 : 1 .
operator 3 : 24 .
opportunity 1 0 : 3 ,
1 0 : 1 6 .
opposed 7 : 1 7 ,
7 : 1 8 , 2 4 : 22 .
oppos ition 4 : 4 ,
4 : 6 , 7 : 5 , 7 : 2 3 ,
8 : 12 .
oral 3 : 13 , 4 : 2 0 .
order 4 : 17 , 4 : 1 9 ,
4 : 2 4 , 5 : 9 , 5 : 17 ,
5 : 18 , 5 : 1 9 , 9 : 3 ,
1 6 : 3 , 1 9 : 2 ,
2 1 : 5 , 2 1 : 2 3 ,
2 1 : 2 4 , 2 1 : 2 5 ,
2 2 : 3 , 2 4 : 2 .
ordered 4 : 22 ,
1 6 : 2 0 , 2 1 : 17 .
original 1 9 : 3 ,
2 1 : I .
Otherwise 1 4 : 2 .
overlook 1 3 : 9 ,
1 4 : 2 4 .
oversee 2 3 : 22 .
< P > .
Page 3 : 5 .
paid 6 : 22 , 1 1 : 2 5 ,
1 9 : 9 , 2 0 : 6 ,
2 4 : 18 .
panel 1 7 : I I .
papers 5 : 22 ,
1 4 : 12 , 1 5 : 5 ,
1 5 : 6 , 22 : 17 .
parcel 2 1 : 22 .
parceling 2 4 : 2 0 .
Part 4 : 10 , 8 : 11 ,
1 0 : 2 4 , 1 8 : 1 1 ,
2 1 : 15 , 2 1 : 22 ,
22 : 7 .
parties 12 : 1 6 .
party 1 6 : 1 6 .
past 1 6 : 6 , 1 8 : 5 ,
1 9 : 1 1 , 2 0 : 8 .
Patrick 3 : 17 .
pay 5 : 1 3 , 6 : 1 6 ,
8 : 4 , 8 : 1 1 , 9 : 1 4 ,
1 1 : 22 , 12 : 6 ,
2 1 : 8 , 2 1 : 13 ,
2 1 : 1 8 , 2 4 : 7 ,
2 4 : 9 .
paying 6 : 1 2 , 7 : 1 ,
1 2 : 3 , 1 6 : 4 ,
1 6 : 6 , 1 6 : 9 .
payment 2 1 : 3 ,
22 : 2 1 , 2 3 : 1 3 ,
2 4 : 2 3 .
payments 2 1 : 1 8 ,
2 1 : 2 0 .
pendency 6 : 15 ,
9 : 8 .
pending 1 5 : 1 5 .
people 1 3 : 1 ,
1 6 : 1 9 , 1 7 : 7 .
per 5 : 12 .
period 5 : 1 3 ,
8 : 17 .
pertaining
1 0 : 22 .
physical 1 6 : 1 I .
place 4 : 2 0 , 4 : 2 4 ,
1 6 : 2 5 , 2 1 : 1 0 ,
2 6 : 12 .
plain 9 : 1 0 .
plaintiff 1 : 1 3 ,
2 : 2 .
pleading 7 : 7 .
plus 1 8 : 6, 1 8 : 9 .
point 7 : 2 , 2 1 : 1 6 ,
2 4 : 5 .
portion 1 2 : 1 8 .
position 8 : 1 8 ,
1 0 : 2 1 , 1 5 : 2 ,
1 7 : 5 , 1 7 : 1 1 ,
1 7 : 22 , 1 7 : 2 3 ,
22 : 1 8 , 2 4 : 8 .
possession 6 : 1 4 .
possessory
1 8 : 12 .
post 5 : 12 , 8 : 4 ,
9 : 1 3 , 1 6 : 2 .
posted 6 : 8 , 1 8 : 1 4 ,
1 9 : 2 4 .
Posting 5 : 1 0 , 6 : 9 ,
7 : 1 5 , 1 1 : 5 ,
1 1 : 1 2 , 1 4 : 1 9 ,
2 1 : 1 2 .
pound 2 4 : 23 .
precluding 9 : 7 .
prej udgment
1 9 : 17 .
premises 6 : 1 4 ,
1 0 : 5 .
preparation
5 : 22 .
prepare 2 4 : 1 .
prepared 2 1 : 23 .
present 3 : 2 3 .
presented 6 : 23 .
press ed 2 3 : 8 .
pretty 5 : 1 5 ,
1 5 : 1 1 , 1 6 : 1 8 ,
2 4 : 13 .
prevail 1 9 : 12 .
prior 2 1 : 3 .
probably 4 : 12 .
procedure 1 3 : 5 .
procedures 5 : 5 .
VENETIAN vs . TWO ROADS 1 0/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 0
34
proceeding 12 : 4 ,
2 3 : 9 , 23 : 1 9 ,
2 3 : 2 0 .
proceedings 5 : 2 ,
5 : 7 , 2 1 : 2 0 ,
2 2 : 2 5 , 2 6 : 1 1 ,
2 6 : 1 3 , 2 6 : 17 .
proceeds 2 0 : 22 ,
2 0 : 2 4 , 2 1 : 1 ,
2 1 : 7 .
proces s 5 : 1 , 1 8 : 1 ,
2 2 : 2 3 , 2 4 : 6 .
profit 1 5 : 7 .
property 9 : 2 3 ,
9 : 2 4 , 1 0 : 5 ,
1 5 : 5 , 1 6 : 12 .
propriety 2 3 : 1 1 ,
2 4 : 2 I .
prosecuting
1 8 : 1 9 .
prospectively
2 4 : 12 , 2 4 : 2 4 .
protect 1 9 : 1 8 .
protects 1 8 : 24 .
provide 9 : 1 .
provided 6 : 9 ,
6 : 1 6 .
provides 5 : 5 , 6 : 5 ,
8 : 10 , 9 : 15 .
purpose 9 : 1 8 ,
9 : 2 5 , 2 1 : 4 .
purpos es 5 : 2 .
pursuant 5 : 3 ,
5 : 1 7 , 6 : 25 .
pursue 1 9 : 14 .
put 2 4 : 8 .
putting 1 3 : 2 1 ,
1 3 : 2 2 , 2 1 : 2 .
< Q > .
ques tionable
1 7 : 3 .
questi ons 1 0 : 1 5 .
quinte ssential
1 0 : 6 .
< R > .
rais e 1 4 : 4 , 14 : 5 ,
1 5 : 4 .
raised 1 0 : 2 4 ,
1 5 : 4 , 1 5 : 5 ,
2 3 : 5 .
reach 1 3 : 1 0 .
read 5 : 1 6 , 8 : 1 ,
8 : 14 , 1 0 : 2 5 ,
1 1 : 1 4 , 1 1 : 1 6 ,
1 1 : 2 1 , 1 2 : 9 ,
12 : 1 1 , 12 : 2 1 ,
1 3 : 1 7 , 1 3 : 2 0 ,
14 : I .
reading 1 1 : 17 ,
12 : 8 .
real 9 : 2 3 , 9 : 2 4 ,
1 0 : 5 , 1 5 : 5 .
realized 5 : 23 .
really 4 : 25 , 6 : 2 0 ,
7 : 5 , 7 : 7 , 7 : 8 ,
7 : 2 3 , 8 : 12 ,
1 3 : 8 , 2 0 : 12 .
reasonable 1 7 : 4 ,
1 7 : 9 , 1 8 : 14 ,
2 0 : 1 4 , 22 : 1 2 ,
22 : 14 .
received 2 4 : 18 .
recognized
12 : 2 4 .
recognizing
6 : 1 I .
record 1 0 : 1 6 ,
2 6 : 1 6 .
recorded 2 6 : 1 4 .
recourse 1 4 : 17 .
references
1 3 : 1 6 .
Regardless 1 1 : 18 ,
2 1 : 1 0 .
regularly 1 5 : 8 .
related 2 0 : 1 5 .
relating 2 0 : 1 6 .
relationship
1 1 : 8 .
relief 1 3 : 5 .
relitigate
2 3 : 1 I .
remember 2 0 : 9 .
remove 1 5 : 2 1 .
removing 2 4 : 2 1 .
rent 5 : 1 3 f 6 : 1 3 ,
6 : 1 6 , 6 : 2 2 , 7 : 1 ,
8 : 1 1 , 9 : 14 ,
1 6 : 5 , 1 6 : 6 ,
1 6 : 9 , 1 9 : 1 ,
1 9 : 3 , 2 1 : 3 ,
2 1 : 7 , 2 1 : 1 3 ,
2 4 : 7 , 2 4 : 1 8 .
rental 5 : 12 ,
1 8 : 2 1 , 2 1 : 1 8 ,
2 4 : 14 .
rents 12 : 3 , 12 : 6 ,
1 9 : 9 , 1 9 : 1 1 ,
2 0 : 8 .
repeatedly 9 : 22 .
REPORTED 1 : 3 5 .
REPORTER 2 6 : 3 ,
2 6 : 8 .
REPORTER' S 1 : 1 4 .
request 7 : 9 , 8 : 9 ,
2 2 : 2 1 .
required 1 2 : 1 0 ,
1 2 : 2 0 , 1 3 : 9 ,
1 3 : 1 1 , 1 3 : 2 3 ,
1 8 : 8 .
requirement
6 : 2 0 .
requirements
1 5 : 1 5 .
residential
2 0 : 4 .
RESORT 1 : 1 0 .
Resorts 5 : 3 .
respect 8 : 1 ,
1 0 : 2 1 , 1 1 : 1 ,
1 1 : 1 1 , 12 : 1 6 ,
1 3 : 1 2 , 1 4 : 9 ,
1 8 : 2 , 1 8 : 4 ,
1 8 : 1 0 , 1 9 : 6 ,
2 1 : 2 4 .
response 7 : 8 .
restaurant
1 1 : 2 0 .
result 9 : 2 4 .
retain 2 3 : 1 8 .
retains 6 : 1 4 .
review 5 : 4 .
ridiculous 1 2 : 4 .
rights 6 : 2 5 ,
9 : 2 4 .
Roads 1 : 1 9 , 3 : 6 ,
VENETIAN vs . TWO ROADS 1 0 / 1 3 /2 0 1 0
3 5
3 : 2 1 , 6 : 8 , 6 : 2 1 ,
1 0 : 1 3 , 1 1 : 20 .
Rocha 3 : 1 1 .
rule 7 : 1 4 , 7 : 1 9 ,
11 : 4 , 1 1 : 7 ,
14 : 4 , 22 : 5 .
ruled 2 0 : 22 .
rules 1 9 : 1 8 .
ruling 1 6 : 7 , 2 2 : 6 ,
23 : 2 5 .
run 1 0 : 8 , 1 0 : 1 1 .
running 5 : 14 .
< S > .
s addled 6 : 12 .
s and 2 4 : 23 .
Sands 3 : 1 8 .
satisfied 12 : 2 0 .
s atisfy 1 4 : 1 ,
1 5 : 1 , 1 5 : 12 .
s aying 2 1 : 2 0 /
2 3 : 15 , 2 4 : 14 .
s ays 5 : 1 6 , 6 : 1 3 ,
6 : 2 5 , 8 : 2 0 ,
9 : 1 1 , 9 : 12 ,
1 1 : 2 4 , 1 2 : 5 ,
12 : 2 1 , 1 3 : 22 ,
23 : 1 9 .
s econd 8 : 1 1 ,
1 0 : 24 , 1 9 : 3 ,
1 9 : 4 , 1 9 : 8 ,
20 : 7 / 2 0 : 2 1 ,
2 1 : 6 , 2 4 : 1 9 .
S ection 1 3 : 22 ,
22 : 1 .
seek 1 5 : 2 1 .
s eeking 9 : 8 .
seen 2 4 : 23 .
sense 4 : 2 .
s et 2 6 : 1 2 .
setting 5 : 1 1 .
s even 1 7 : 7 .
shal l 6 : 1 6 , 9 : 1 1 ,
1 3 : 2 3 , 1 3 : 2 4 ,
1 6 : 3 .
Sharon 1 : 3 5 ,
2 6 : 2 6 .
short 8 : 1 6 .
shortened 2 3 : 3 .
show 4 : 1 7 , 9 : 3 .
Similarly 1 1 : 1 0 .
s imple 1 5 : 8 .
simply 1 1 : 12 ,
1 3 : 2 1 .
situation 7 : 17 ,
14 : 3 , 1 5 : 1 6 ,
1 5 : 2 5 , 1 7 : 1 6 ,
1 7 : 2 1 .
situations 1 5 : 8 .
somebody 1 5 : 22 ,
1 6 : 1 , 22 : 15 .
space 1 0 : 1 4 .
specific 7 : 18 ,
1 4 : 2 3 .
specifically 8 : 2 0 ,
18 : 1 6 .
sponte 8 : 8 .
standard 22 : 13 .
starting 4 : 1 1 .
State 2 6 : 9 .
stated 9 : 22 .
states 1 8 : 17 ,
2 1 : 1 1 .
status 2 4 : 15 .
statute s 5 : 4 ,
13 : 2 .
statutory 7 : 2 ,
1 0 : 9 .
stayed 1 4 : 8 ,
18 : 4 .
stays 12 : 2 5 ,
14 : 13 .
stenographically
2 6 : 14 .
steps 9 : 1 3 ,
2 1 : 7 .
structuring
12 : 2 5 .
studio 1 1 : 1 9 .
sua 8 : 8 .
subj ect 5 : 8 , 6 : 1 5 ,
1 3 : 1 9 .
Submit 2 4 : 3 .
Subsection
1 3 : 2 5 .
subsequent
2 3 : 1 6 .
substantially
17 : 1 9 .
!
success 1 7 : 4 ,
22 : 1 3 , 2 2 : 2 0 .
suffered 1 0 : 4 .
suggest 1 9 : 2 2 .
summarily 9 : 2 0 ,
12 : 5 , 1 6 : 2 0 .
summary 4 : 1 8 ,
4 : 1 9 , 4 : 2 2 / 5 : 3 ,
5 : 9 , 5 : 18 , 5 : 1 9 ,
8 : 15 , 8 : 2 1 , 9 : 5 ,
1 3 : 2 , 1 4 : 1 3 ,
1 8 : 1 1 , 2 1 : 1 1 ,
2 3 : 1 1 .
supersede 1 5 : 14 .
supersedeas 7 : 1 4 ,
7 : 1 6 , 1 1 : 5 ,
1 3 : 1 8 , 1 8 : 1 7 ,
1 9 : 1 9 .
supposed 2 0 : 1 1 .
Supreme 8 : 14 , 9 : 7 ,
9 : 22 , 1 7 : 1 0 ,
1 7 : 1 1 , 2 0 : 1 6 ,
2 0 : 17 .
surrounding
2 4 : 2 1 .
< T > .
table 3 : 1 4 .
talked 1 7 : 1 6 .
talks 1 1 : 4 , 1 1 : 9 ,
1 1 : 1 0 , 1 3 : 1 6 ,
1 5 : 6 .
temporary 4 : 2 0 .
tenant 3 : 2 1 , 5 : 8 ,
6 : 12 , 6 : 1 4 ,
6 : 1 7 , 7 : 1 1 , 8 : 3 ,
9 : 12 / 1 0 : 3 ,
1 4 : 3 , 1 5 : 1 7 .
terms 1 0 : 22 ,
1 3 : 1 4 , 1 6 : 1 8 ,
1 6 : 1 9 , 1 7 : 1 4 ,
2 1 : 7 , 22 : 1 8 .
testimony 2 6 : 12 ,
2 6 : 1 6 .
thereafter 1 6 : 1 0 ,
2 1 : 1 3 , 2 1 : 1 9 ,
2 6 : 1 4 .
therein 2 6 : 12 .
They ' ll 2 1 : 1 8 .
VENETIAN vs . TWO ROADS 1 0 / 1 3 /2 0 1 0
5 : 7 .
3 6
though 22 : 7 ,
2 3 : 2 4 .
throated 1 0 : 1 .
throughout 5 : 1 .
Today 4 : 25 , 5 : 2 ,
Tony 3 : 2 3 .
took 2 1 : 1 0 .
town 1 1 : 1 9 .
tracked 23 : 1 .
TRAN 1 : 1 .
transcribed
2 6 : 1 5 .
TRANSCRI PT 1 : 1 4 .
treats 1 5 : 2 0 ,
1 5 : 2 I .
trial 6 : 6 .
true 2 6 : 1 6 .
t rying 1 1 : 2 ,
1 3 : 2 0 , 1 7 : 2 ,
2 4 : 1 1 , 2 4 : 17 .
Two 1 : 1 9 , 3 : 6 ,
3 : 2 1 , 6 : 8 , 8 : 12 ,
9 : 1 3 , 1 0 : 1 3 ,
1 1 : 2 0 , 1 3 : 2 4 ,
1 4 : 15 , 2 4 : 22 .
two . 1 0 : 23 ,
1 1 : 6 .
type 1 5 : 1 6 , 17 : 2 1 ,
1 8 : 2 .
< U > .
uncontested
4 : 1 3 .
underlying 6 : 1 7 ,
1 8 : 10 , 1 8 : 2 I .
undersigned
2 6 : 8 .
understand
2 3 : 2 0 .
unfair 6 : I I .
unhappy 2 3 : 2 4 .
unique 9 : 2 3 ,
1 0 : 5 .
unreasonable 1 4 : 5 ,
2 0 : 2 3 .
unti l 12 : 1 9 ,
1 5 : 12 .
upstairs 3 : 1 3 .
written 4 : 2 4 .
wrote 2 0 : 2 .
V > . <
various 2 0 : 5 ,
20 : 8 .
VEGAS 1 : 1 9 , 3 : I .
Venetian 1 : 1 0 ,
3 : 5 , 3 : 9 , 3 : 1 6 ,
3 : 1 7 , 4 : 1 9 , 5 : 2 ,
6 : 2 4 , 7 : 7 , 8 : 9 ,
9 : 2 , 1 1 : 2 0 ,
17 : 25 .
versus 1 3 : 1 ,
13 : 2 4 .
vice-president
3 : 17 .
violations
23 : 10 .
vs 1 : 1 6 , 3 : 5 .
< W > .
wanted 1 7 : 13 .
wants 1 5 : 10 .
ward 1 6 : I I .
WEDNES DAY 1 : 2 9 ,
3 : l .
weeks 2 4 : 22 .
weigh 7 : 9 , 2 2 : 9 ,
22 : 1 6 .
Welcome 3 : 6 .
whatever 2 1 : 1 6 .
whenever 1 6 : 1 .
whereby 5 : 5 .
whether 7 : 2 1 , 8 : 3 ,
11 : 1 8 , 1 2 : 1 9 ,
1 3 : 12 , 1 3 : 20 ,
14 : 5 , 1 7 : 1 0 ,
20 : 6 , 2 0 : 7 ,
23 : 12 .
whole 22 : 2 4 .
will 4 : 7 , 9 : 1 9 ,
9 : 2 1 , 9 : 2 5 ,
1 0 : 2 , 1 0 : 3 ,
14 : 1 9 , 1 6 : 22 ,
18 : 1 3 , 1 8 : 1 9 ,
1 9 : 1 6 , 1 9 : 2 l .
WILLIA 2 : 4 .
within 8 : 13 ,
23 : 2 0 .
VENETIAN vs . TWO ROADS 1 0 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 0