Three days before trial, Virgin Valley Water District Board (VVWDB) attorney Jedidiah (Bo) Bingham said he was not ready after four and one-half years of litigation and 11 previous vacated trial delays.
On May 15, 2018, the owners of Paradise Canyon (DBA the Wolf Creek Golf Course of Mesquite, NV, filed a civil action against the VVWDB in a Las Vegas District Court.
The Plaintiffs want a jury to decide if the Water Board complied with the Covenant, good faith, and fair dealing provisions in contract law by raising their irrigation water rate from a local rate of $250 per share to $1,115 per share. That is the amount Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) pays for Virgin river water diverted from the Mesquite-Bunkerville area to the Las Vegas Metropolitan area.
The first trial date was set for October 14, 2019, and vacated. Court dates on April 6, 2020, and June 22, 2020, July 27, 2020; December 02, 2020; February 22, 2021, July 12, 2021; December 07, 2021; June 08, 2022, and August 17, 2022, were also vacated primarily to hear Bingham’s failed attempt to shift the case from a water rate issue to a series of allegations aimed against the owners of Paradise Canyon. Judge Timothy Williams rejected all such claims, as did the Nevada Supreme Court when twice presented with attempts to bypass the Judge and have them hear his arguments.
Finally, after what appeared to be agreements between the litigants’ subpoenas were issued and Judge Williams set aside Thursday, October 27, 2022, to begin hearing a series of motions in limine [i] before a trial set for Monday, October 31. During the Thursday hearing, Bingham said he was not ready for a Monday trial.
How did this [trial delay issue] get on the limine motion calendar Judge Williams asked Bingham. We agreed to a trial date. I gave you the date, and you are stuck with it unless there is something beyond contemplation, The Judge tells Bingham.
I have 20,000 documents to review, Bingham says, and I lost one of my attorneys. Another attorney is not available, and I have witness conflicts, he continues. We thought the case would settle, he added.
Bingham brings six supporting attorneys to the case, all paid with public funds by the VVWDB. In addition, Bingham attempted to involve the City of Mesquite in the dispute, an act further rejected by the Judge. Three attorneys represent the Plaintiffs at their business expense, and they continually declare themselves ready for trial.
I wish you would settle; the Judge tells Bingham; leave and go away; Judge Williams half-heartedly pleads.
“I have more motions,” Bingham tells the Judge. “What do you mean,” Judge Williams asks.” When making summary motions, you have specific responsibilities,” the Judge lectures Bingham.
Then Bingham goes for roughly three hours rehashing previous grievances against the Judge for his previous rulings against him.
Finally, Plaintiff’s attorney interrupted, telling the Judge they filed motions against Bingham’s request. “We are prepared; there are no remaining claims, ” the Plaintiff’s attorney said. “The court has dispensed with all the motions. Nothing left,” the attorney said. However, there is a problem; they admitted. We do not have all the exhibits because the VVWDB attorneys refused to meet with us,” they said.
And the Plaintiffs attorney pointed to more than 20 witnesses subpoenaed by Bingham without appropriate references and details. The attorney told the Judge that during the previous day, a rule 2.67 conference[ii], they did not ask for a continuance. We agreed to the trial date. There is no factual basis to extend the trial; he told the Judge, adding, “this is the first I heard of a witness scheduling problem. The attorney said this request for a delay is a position they brought upon themselves.
Judge Williams asked Bingham, “Why all the documents, adding that we have a firm trial date with all issues covered by stipulations of the parties involved. Bingham rambled about the order in which the Judge heard his motions. Then, Judge Williams reminded Bingham that when parties cannot agree, they go in order as presented.
Jeffery Sylvester, attorney for the Plaintiff, reminded the Judge of the 5-year rule in Civil cases, [iii]pointing out that May 15, 2023 (irrespective of any Covid-19 consideration) is five years.
Bingham’s attempt to introduce chaos and complexity into the proceeding did not go well with the Judge. Judge Williams told Bingham, as he had previously, that the case was not as complex as presented. “As we pulled away the layers, it became more and more straightforward,” and “I have spent a lot of time on this Case.” Did the district comply with the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair dealing provision of contract law by introducing the outside SNWA rate into the local market,” the Judge, as said before, remained Bingham. That is an issue of fact for the Jury to decide,” the Judge said.
To Bingham, he said, “I don’t know what to do with you guys. I don’t want chaos,” in this case, Judge Williams said. “I am concerned about whether you are ready to go in light of your issues. In looking at the exhibits and number of your witnesses, you have a lot on your plate; he told Bingham. “It is time to go to trial. I don’t know what to do; in this case, the Judge again said.
Jeffery Sylvester, for the Plaintiff, again told the Judge, “we are ready to go. The reason why it will be chaotic is that they have not prepared, he said. “We made our pre-trial disclosure, and only last moment did they say they objected but did not follow the rules, Sylvester argued.
The Judge lectured Bingham on how the moton setting process worked, telling him that sometimes you go on and on. I need to set this for trial; the Judge added, “I don’t have a problem waiving the five-year rule; he added.
Judge Williams gave the attorneys until the end of the next day to present an agreement that both sides would waive the five-year rule.
Later that same day, attorneys for both parties presented the Judge with a stipulation that they agreed to extend the time to prosecute the action to December 31, 2023.
The Judge agreed with the extension and, because of other trials on his calendar, set this case for April 22, 2023.
In the meantime, the Judge, in preparation for the trial, will hear motions in limine.
[i] Motions in limine ask the court to order the opposing party, its counsel, and witnesses not to talk about, or even mention, certain facts or evidence in the presence or hearing of the jury.
[ii] Prior to any calendar call or final pretrial conference, the designated trial attorneys for all the parties must meet together to exchange their exhibits and lists of witnesses, and arrive at stipulations and agreements, all for the purpose of simplifying the issues presented in the case.
[iii] Under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 41(e), the court is obliged to dismiss any suit that is not brought to trial within five years.
