Yes, I agree with this-
If Calasse wanted to become a party, the burden was on him to file a motion to intervene. Nevada law could not possibly be clearer on this.
Once again, it was a lawsuit for custodianship. You don’t name anyone personally when you do that. You get custodianship and then you file a motion to cancel shares and notice the shareholders. That’s how it is done in Nevada. Good luck trying to change how they do things.
Kind of like how you keep ignoring the fact that the NVSC will refuse to address anything to do with the propriety of the lower court judgment and will only want an answer to one question: why didn’t Calasse move to intervene to be added as a party and preserve his right to appeal?
You do realize that the NVSC itself already has blown this argument out of the water in the OTSC itself, right? It’s asking why Calasse didn’t intervene. And cited case law noting that a party in his shoes must intervene to be a party.
A court does NOT unilaterally add parties. Never. They only determine who is required UPON APPLICATION. Thus, it was up to Calasse to file for joinder by way of a motion to intervene. And then the court would have made a decision as to whether he was a required party.
Joinder only occurs upon application of (1) a party making a motion to add a non-party, or (2) a non-party making a motion to intervene. And then the court decides if the application has merit.
I’ll make it more elementary for you. The only way to reverse an order of a lower court is through an appeal. But the Chief Justice of the NVSC is not asking to address the merits of that lower court Order at all in the OTSC, is he? No, he wants the issue of standing to be addressed.
When a court addresses joinder under Rule 19, it’s not about the court mandating to a plaintiff or defendant that an additional party be joined to a lawsuit.
Joinder in this context is about a party making a motion to add a party and THEN the court deciding whether to grant the request. A court NEVER unilaterally adds a party. It has to be on application from someone.
Hence, GS was under no requirement to join anyone. It was incumbent upon Calasse to move for joinder by filing a motion to intervene. And then the lower court would likely have granted the application. But he didn’t do it.
Here, if Calasse wanted joinder, if he wanted to be a party, he had to make a motion for joinder. If he had, maybe the court would have said he was required. But he didn’t. He blew his chance.
If the NVSC was inclined to do as you claim, the OTSC would have directed GS to answer why Calasse was not named as a party. Instead, they have put the pressure on Calasse to explain why he didn’t move for joinder via intervention.
I don’t think you are grasping just how rare it is for these writs to be granted. You aren’t grasping just how profound of a procedural error has to have occurred, or how important of a process issue has to be involved, for a Court to issue a writ.
And do you think that a court is going to grant a writ because Calasse might argue that he wasn’t given proper notice when he ended up appearing and contesting? These writs are rarely granted. It has to be a major process concern.
If you seriously think that a court will grant a writ because Calasse will convince them that there was a major process error re: notice in a case where he appeared and fully contested the issue… Good luck with that one.
And again: this inquiry will not be considered on this Order to Show Cause. If Calasse wants to thereafter waste his time seeking a writ, rather than pursuing the wiser option of suing his counsel for malpractice, then good luck to him. He’ll need it.
And seeking a writ, and even a higher court simply agreeing to hear a writ, should not be grounds for anyone to claim the $. A higher court would still have to decide after agreeing to hear the case.
