IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF NEVADA
`
`FILED |
`
`SCHEELER,
`KORY
`ALEJANDRA
`
`AND
`ROSALES,
`
`INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant
`
`Docket No. 89987
`
`VS
`
`INDIVIDUALLY,
`BILL HIRSCHI,
`HIRSCHI HOLDINGS,
`LLC,
`A
`NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY; THE HIRSCHI
`1978
`TRUST, A NEVADA TRUST; AND
`RONALD
`REYNOLDS,
`AS
`TRUSTEE OF THE HIRSCHI 1978
`TRUSTEE
`
`
`
`
`Respondents
`
`
`
`48NODJAIdNS30WIND
`
`
`
`NMO¥S'VHG9vzi13
`
`C202£0YdV
`
`OZYBeteotde
`CIA!
`
`DOCKETING STATEMENT CIVIL APPEALS
`
`GENERAL INFORMATION
`
`Appellants must complete this docketing statement in compliance with Nevada
`Rules of Appellate Procedure (NRAP) 14(a). The purpose of the docketing
`statementis to assist the Supreme Court in screening jurisdiction, identifying issues
`on appeal, assessing assignment
`to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17,
`scheduling casesfor oral argumentand settlement conferences, classifying cases for
`expedited treatment, and compilingstatistical information.
`
`WARNING
`
`This statement must be completed fully, accurately, and on time. NRAP 14(c). The
`Supreme Court may impose sanctions on counsel or the appellant if it appears that
`the information provided is incomplete or inaccurate.
`/d. Failure to fill out the
`statement completely or to file it in a timely manner constitutes grounds for the
`imposition of sanctions, including a fine and/or dismissal of the appeal. /d.
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`75 - \WS\\
`
`

`

`A complete list of the documents that must be attached appears as Question 28 on
`this docketing statement. Failure to attach all required documents will result in the
`delay of your appeal and mayresult in the imposition of sanctions. /d.
`
`This court has noted that when obligations under NRAP 14 to complete the
`docketing statement properly and conscientiously are not taken seriously, valuable
`Judicial resources of this court are wasted, making the imposition of sanctions
`appropriate. See KDI Sylvan Pools v. Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 344, 810 P.2d 1217,
`1220 (1991). Please use divider pages to separate any attached documents.
`
`1. Judicial District: Eighth=County: Clark
`
`Judge: Hon. Gloria Sturman District Ct. Case No.: A-19-802414-C
`
`Department: 26
`
`2. Person filing this docketing statement:
`
`Kory Scheeler (Pro Se)
`
`9425 Benedict Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89161
`
`702-875-4498
`
`kscheeler5 1@protonmail.com
`
`Client name(s) (if represented by counsel):
`
`If this is a joint statement by multiple appellants, add the
`names and addressesof the other appellants and, if applicable,
`the namesof their counsel and have them sign the certification
`below.
`
`Alejandra Rosales
`
`Pro Se
`
`1428 Blazing SandStreet,
`
`Las Vegas, NV 89110
`
`702-303-4594
`
`Alley669@gmail.com
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`bo
`
`

`

`Client name(s) (if represented by counsel):
`
`certify I concur in the filing of this statement.
`
`March 31, 2025
`
`3. Nature of disposition below (check all that apply):
`L_] Judg
`fter
`bench
`trial
`udgment after bench
`tria
`LJ Judg
`fter
`jury
`verdi
`udgmentafter jury
`verdict
`[_] Summary judgment
`XX] Default judg
`efault
`judgment
`[_] Grant/Denial of NRCP 60(b)relief
`[_] Grant/Denial ofinjunction
`[_] Dismissal:
`[_] Lack ofjurisdiction
`[_] Failure to state a claim
`[_] Failure to prosecute
`[_] Other (specify):
`[_] Divorce Decree:
`[|] Original
`|_| Modification
`[_] Grant/Denialof declaratory relief
`[_] Review of agency determination
`[_] Other disposition (specify):
`
`4. Does this appeal raise issues concerning any of the following?
`[_].Child Custody
`[] Venue
`[_] Termination of parental rights
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`

`

`5. Pending and prior proceedingsin this court. List the case name and docket
`number ofall appeals or original proceedings presently or previously pending
`before this court which arerelated to this appeal:
`
`None
`
`6. Pending and prior proceedingsin other courts. List the case name, number
`and court of all pending and prior proceedings in other courts whichare related
`to this appeal (e.g., bankruptcy, consolidated or bifurcated proceedings) and
`their dates of disposition:
`None
`
`7. Nature of the action. Briefly describe the nature ofthe action and theresult
`below:
`
`This matter arises out of a dispute between the parties over the validity of
`various loan agreements entered into between the parties, and the validity
`of those agreements under NRS 645B.920 and NRS 645E.920 which
`provides for the voiding of the agreements by the Borrower (The
`Defendants) in the event the Lender (Plaintiff's Hirschi Holdings LLC
`and The Hirschi 1978 Trust) is not properly licensed as a loan originator
`in the State of Nevada. It has been well established that the Plaintiffs did
`not possess the required Nevadalicense when making loans to the
`Defendants. The statute is clearly written therefore the loan contracts are
`void and unenforceable. The contracts were in violation of public policy
`and therefore are not enforceable. Public policy prevents Plaintiffs from
`seeking damages under an illegal contract. The court has authority to
`declare that a judgement is void and has done so previously in multiple
`rulings. These issues are included in the Defendants original motion. This
`appeal was consolidated with an earlier appeal related to the process of
`service in this matter.
`
`8. Issues on appeal. State concisely the principal issue(s) in this appeal:
`The Scheeler & Rosales Defendant filed a NRCP Rule 60 Motion to Set
`Aside Default Judgement and Motion to Stay Rule 62 on September 26,
`2024, which was Denied by the Court on December 23, 2024. The original
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`4
`
`

`

`action was filed by the Plaintiff’s on September 23, 2019.
`
`9. Pending proceedingsin this court raising the sameor similar issues. If you
`are aware of any proceedings presently pending before this court which raises
`the sameor similar issues raised in this appeal, list the case name and docket
`numbers andidentify the same or similar issue raised:
`Noneasof the date of this Docketing Statement
`
`10.Constitutional issues: Does this appeal challenge the constitutionality ofa
`Nevada Statute or ordinance?
`DX] No. Continue to #11.
`[_] Yes:
`a.
`Identify the Nevadastatute or ordinance being
`challenged:
`Is the State, any State agency,or a State officer or
`employee a party to this appeal in an official capacity?
`[]Yes [_]No.
`
`b.
`
`11. Other issues.
`a. Doesthis appeal involve any of the following issues?
`
`[_] Reversal of well-settled Nevada precedent(identify the case(s))
`
`[_] Anissue arising under the United States and/or Nevada Constitutions
`
`[_] A substantial issue offirst impression
`
`[x] Anissueofpublic policy
`
`[_] An issue where en bancconsiderationis necessary to maintain uniformity
`ofthis court's decisions
`
`[_] A ballot question
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`

`

`b. If so, explain: Violation of NRS 645B.920 and NRS 645E.920
`
`12.Assignment to the Court of Appeals or retention in the Supreme Court.
`Briefly set forth whether the matter is retained by the Supreme Court or
`presumptively assigned to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17, and cite the
`subparagraph(s) of the Rule under which the matterfalls.
`
`The Appellant believes the Nevada Supreme Court should retain the case.
`
`13.Trial. If this action proceeded to trial, how many days did thetrial last?
`days.
`[_] bench trial
`
`[_] jury trial?
`
`Wasit a:
`
`14.Judicial Disqualification. Do youintend to file a motion to disqualify or have
`a justice/judge recuse him/herselffrom participation in this appeal? See NRAP
`35. If so, which Justice/Judge?
`No
`
`15.Oral argument. Would you object to submission of this appeal for disposition
`without oral argument? [_] Yes
`No
`
`TIMELINESS OF NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`16.Date the written judgment(s) or order(s) appealed from was/werefiled in the
`district court: November 4, 2024
`
`If no written judgmentor order has beenfiled in the district court, explain
`the basis for seeking appellate review:
`
`17.Date written notice of entry of the judgment(s) or order(s) was/were served:
`December30, 2024 and July 10, 2024
`Wasservice by:
`[Xx] Electronic or personaldelivery
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`

`

`><] Mail
`
`18.Were any motions seeking relief under NRCP 50(b), 52(b), 59, or 60 or seeking
`rehearing or reconsideration filed in the district court either before or after the
`notice of appeal wasfiled? (attach a copy of the motion)
`[_] No, continue to # 19.
`
`Yes:
`
`a. Specify the type of motion and the date the motion wasfiled in the
`district court (check all that apply)
`[_] NRCP 50(b)
`[_] NRCP 52(b)
`[_] NRCP 59
`><] NRCP 60
`[_] Rehearing/Reconsideration
`b. Date the motion was served:
`
`Date filed:
`Date filed:
`Datefiled:
`Date filed: September 9, 2024
`Date filed:
`
`c. How was the motion served:
`[_] Electronic or personal delivery
`><] Mail
`d. Date the written order resolving the motion wasfiled: December30,
`2024
`
`e. Date written notice of entry of the order resolving the motion was
`served: December 30, 2024
`
`f. Wasservice by:
`[_] Electronic or personaldelivery
`[><] Mail
`
`19.Are there any motions other than those identified in #18 abovestill pending in
`the district court?
`[_] Yes. Identify the motion andthe date it was filed in the district court:
`
`i] No.
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`~l
`
`

`

`20.Date the notice of appeal wasfiled in the district court: January 20, 2025
`
`If more than one party has appealed from the judgmentororder, list the date
`each notice of appeal was filed and identify by name the party filing the
`notice of appeal:
`
`21.Specify the statute or rule governing the time limit for filing the notice of
`appeal, e.g., NRAP 4(a) or other:
`NRAP 4(a)
`
`SUBSTANTIVE APPEALABILITY
`
`22.Specify the statute or other authority granting this court jurisdiction to
`review the judgment or order appealed from:
`.
`NRAP 3A(b)(1)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(2)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(3)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(4)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(5)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(6)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(7)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(8)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(9)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(10)
`[|_|] NRAP 3A(b)(11)
`[_] NRAP 3A(b)(12)
`[|] NRS 38.205
`[_] NRS 233B.150
`[_] NRS 703.376
`[_]Other(specify):
`
`b. Explain how each authority provides a basis for appeal from the judgment
`or order:
`The District court's December 30, 2024 orderis a final order resolving all
`claims betweenall parties.
`
`23.List all parties involved in the action or consolidated actions in the district court:
`a. Parties:
`KORY SCHEELER and ALEJADRA ROSALES INDIVIDUALLY,
`Appellant
`vs
`INDIVIDUALLY, HIRSCHI HOLDINGS, LLC, A
`BILL HIRSCHI,
`NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; THE HIRSCHI
`1978
`TRUST, A NEVADA TRUST; AND RONALD REYNOLDS, AS TRUSTEE
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`

`

`OF THE HIRSCHI 1978 TRUSTEE
`Respondents
`
`b. If all parties in the district court are not parties to this appeal, explain in
`detail why those parties are not involved in this appeal, e.g., formally
`dismissed, not served, or other:
`The corporate entities are not involved in this appeal.
`
`24.Give a brief description (3 to 5 words) of each party's separate claims,
`counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims and the date of formal
`disposition of each claim.
`All claims were formally disposed of by Default Judgement on December 30,
`2024 and July 10, 2024
`
`25.Did the judgment or order appealed from adjudicate ALL ofthe claims alleged
`below and the rights and liabilities of ALL ofthe parties to the action or
`consolidated actions below?[X]Yes[] No
`
`26.1f you answered "No" to question 25, complete the following:
`a. Specify the claims remaining pending below:
`
`b. Specify the parties remaining below:
`
`c. Did the district court certify the judgment or order appealed from as a
`final judgment pursuant to NRCP 54(b)? [x] Yes
`[_] No
`
`d. Did the district court make an express determination, pursuant to NRCP
`54(b), that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for
`the entry ofjudgment? [_] Yes
`[Xx] No
`
`27.1f you answered "No" to any part of question 26, explain the basis for seeking
`appellate review (e.g., order is independently appealable under NRAP 3A(b)):
`The orderis a final judgement disposing ofall claims, therefore it
`is independently appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1)
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`9
`
`

`

`28.Attach file-stamped copies of the following documents:
`e
`The latest-filed complaint, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims
`
`Any motion(s)
`motion(s)
`
`identified in questions 18 and the order(s) resolving the
`
`Any motions identified in question 19
`
`Orders or NRCP 41(a)(1) dismissals that formally resolve each claim,
`counterclaim, cross- claim and/or third-party claim asserted in the action or
`consolidated action below, even if not at issue on appeal
`
`All orders that finally disposes of any parties in the action below, evenif not
`at issue on appeal
`
`Any other order challenged on appeal!
`
`Notices of entry for each attached order
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read this docketing statement,
`that
`the information provided in this docketing statement
`is true and
`complete to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and that I have
`attachedall required documentsto this d
`
`ing statement. March 31, 2025
`
`Date
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on the3Ist day of March, 2025, I served a copy of this completed
`docketing statement uponall parties to this appeal:
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`10
`
`

`

`[_] by electronic means to registered users of the court’s electronic
`filing system
`
`If served other than throughthe court's electronicfiling system,
`
`enter the names and email address of the parties served by this
`
`meansandattach a copy of each party’s written consent
`
`authorizing service by this means. See NRAP 25(c)(2)
`
`[_] by personally serving it upon him/her;
`
`[x] by mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the
`
`following address(es):
`
`
`Kory Scheeler
`
`March 31, 2025
`Date
`
`Hutchison & Steffen PLC
`
`10080 W. Alta Drive #200
`
`Las Vegas, NV 89145
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`11
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed
`9/9/2024 10:56 PM
`Steven D. Grierson
`CLE
`OF THE CO
`
`KORY SCHEELER
`9425 BENEDICT DRIVE
`LAS VEGAS, NV 89161
`702-875-4498
`kscheeler5 1 @protonmail.com
`DEFENDANT PRO SE
`
`EIGHT JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNT, NEVADA
`
`BILL HIRSCHI, INDIVIDUALLY, HIRSCHI|CASE NO.: A-19-802414-C
`HOLDINGS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY; THE HIRSCHI 1978
`TRUST, A NEVADA TRUST; AND RONALD) pep. No:26
`REYNOLDS, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
`HIRSCHI 1978 TRUSTEE
`
`HEARING REQUESTED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`KORY SCHEELER, INDIVIDUALLY:,
`ALEJANDRA ROSALES, INDIVIDUALLY:
`THE LORETO TRUST; KORY SCHEELER
`AS TRUSTEE OF THE LORETO TRUST;
`RICKMAN, LLC A NEVADA LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY; ZHOME
`INNOVATION, LLC A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY:
`ELSINORE V LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY; ELSINORE IV LLC,
`A NEVADALIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY; ELSINORE II LLC, A NEVADA
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY:
`ELSINORE LLC, A NEVADALIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY: ELSINORE
`HOLDINGS NV LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY; DOESI-X; ROE
`CORPORATIONSI-X;,
`
`Defendant
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-
`NRCP60(13)(4)
`MOTION TO STAY-RULE 62(B)
`
`
`
`|
`PECEIVED |
`DEFENDANT'S RULE 60(b)(4) MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
`
`
`MOTION10 SiH ABQD5 JUDGMENT-NRCP 60(B)(4)MOTION TO STAY-RULE 62(B) «|
`ELIZABETA. BROWN
`RECEIVED
`CLERK OFSUPREMEou
`
`DEPUTY CLER
`
`APR 03 2025
`
`ELIZABETH A. paGase Number: A-19-802414-C
`CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`tM
`
`to
`
`12
`
`13
`
`15
`
`16
`™
`
`18
`
`19
`
`JUDGMENT, AND
`
`
`
`
`RULE 62 (b) MOTION
`TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGEMENT PENDING
`HEARING
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTKORY SCHEELER,in proper person, pursuant to NRCP
`
`60(b)(4), hereby moves the Court for an order to Set Aside the Default and the Default
`
`Judgemententered December1, 2023, and for an order vacating the Judgementfor attorney’s
`
`fees and costs entered March 1, 2024, herein for the reasons set forth below. DEFENDANT
`
`further respectfully requests pursuant to NRCP 62(b) that this Court stay the execution ofsaid
`
`judgement(s) until such time as this motion can be heard.
`
`Dated this 9th of September, 2024.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Ce
`Defendant Pro Se
`
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`The court mayset aside a final order or judgement pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;
`
`(2) Newly discovered evidence which by duediligence could not have been discovered in
`time to movefor a newtrial under Rule 59(b)
`
`(3) Fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party:
`
`MOTION T'O SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-NRCP 60(B}(4)MOTION TO STA Y-RULE 62(B)- 2
`
`r 60(b) for the following reasons:
`
`a0
`21
`
`22
`
`24
`
`25
`28
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`(4) Thejudgementis void; or
`
`to
`
`lo
`
`(5) The judgementhasbeensatisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgement upon
`
`whichit is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated,or it is no longer equitable that
`
`an injunction should have prospective application.
`
`SUMMARY OF MOTION
`
`1. The PLAINTIFFS judgement(s) is void pursuant to NRS 645B and 645E.
`
`The underlying reliance of the Plaintiff's judgement is based on loan contracts to the
`
`various DEFENDANTSthat were made by the PLAINTIFFSin violation of NRS645B and
`
`645E. The instant Complaint is replete with admissions on the PLAINTIFFS’ partto this effect
`
`as well as in-depth exposition of the longstanding lender / borrower relationship between the
`
`parties. Despite the factual scenarios and legal theories that PLAINTIFFS had put forward,it is
`
`also impossible for PLAINTIFFS to deny that a person must be licensed as either a mortgage
`
`broker or a mortgage banker in Nevada before he or she may make loans secured by deeds of
`
`trust. Generally, a person must be licensed as either a mortgage brokeror a mortgage bankerin
`
`Nevada before he or she may make loans secured by deedsoftrust. "It is unlawful for any person
`
`to offer or provide any of the services of a mortgage company or mortgage loan originatoror
`
`otherwise to engagein, carry on or hold himself or herselfout as engaging in or carrying on the
`business of a mortgage company or mortgage loan originator without
`first obtaining the
`
`applicable license issued pursuant to this chapter, unless the person: (1) Is exempt from the
`
`provisions ofthis chapter; and (2) Complies with the requirements for that exemption." NRS
`645B.900; see also NRS 645E.900 (providing the same for mortgage bankers).
`Upon information and belief, none of the Plaintiffs are either a licensed mortgage
`‘
`xs
`<
`:
`broker or mortgage banker in Nevada, noneofthe Plaintiffs possess a certificate ofexemption
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from the Mortgage Lending Division. and none of the Plaintiffs have disputed these facts
`
`during the courseofthis litigation.
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-NRCP60(B)(4)MOTION TO STAY-RULE 62(B) -3
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2
`
`

`

`i]
`
`aa
`
`Pay
`
`27
`
`28
`
`The DEFENDANTis informed and believe that PLAINTIFFS do not possess a certificate
`
`of exemption from either chapter, notwithstanding the fact that PLAINTIFFS had commenced
`
`the instant action against the DEFENDANTto enforce loans that were intended to be secured by
`
`deeds oftrust against properties in Nevada.
`
`The penalties for making loansin violation of NRS chapters 645B and 645E are severe.
`
`NRS 645B.920 provides that "If a person .
`
`.
`
`. violates the provisions of NRS 645B.900 or
`
`645B.910, any contracts entered into by that personfor the mortgage transaction are voidable by
`
`the other party to the contract." NRS 645E.920is forall practical purposes identical to NRS
`
`645B.900 exceptit has changed the references to NRS 645E.900 and 645.910.
`
`A voidable contract can be made valid by subsequent judicial decision but is invalid until
`
`that decision is rendered(if ever). See, LN Mem. LLC Series 5105 Portraits Place v. Green Tree
`
`Loan Servicing LLC, 399 P.3d 359, 360 (Nev. 2017) (analyzing conflicting lawregarding acts in
`
`violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay) (citingJn re Pierce, 272 B.R. 198, 207 n.21 (Bankr.
`
`5.D. Tex. 2001). Accordingly, because PLAINTIFFS have expressly violated NRS 645B.900
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and/or 645E.900 byfailing to obtain a mortgagelicense orcertificate of exemption, PLAINTIFFS4
`
`mortgage loans which are the subject of the instant action are voidable and invalid. The
`
`DEFENDANThasdeclared those loan contracts void in earlier pleadings in this matter. For this
`
`reason, the default judgement must be declared void and be set-aside or dismissed.
`
`2. Contracts that violate public policy are not enforceable.
`
`The Supreme Court of Nevada hasheld that the “court will not enforce contracts that violate
`
`public policy” Clark v, Columbia/HCA, 25 P.3d 215 (Nev. 2001).
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-NRCP 60(B)(4)MOTION TO STAY-RULE 62(B) - 4
`
`
`
`

`

`3. NRS 645E.920is forthright and clearly written, therefore the loan contracts are voi
`
`bo
`
`Go
`
`and unenforceable.
`
`See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Compact v. Hinkel 488 P.2d 1151
`
`(Nev. 1971) “Ourstatute is forthright and clearly written. The exclusionary provisions of
`
`the policy are void and unenforceable because they are repugnant to the intent of the
`
`statute and against public policy”. A/so See Westpark Owners Assn. v.
`
`
`
`The Eighth
`
`
`
`Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada 167 P.3de 421 (Nev. 2007) “When the
`
`language of a statute is unambiguous, the courts are not permitted to look beyond the
`
`statute itself when determining its meaning”.
`
` 330, 337, 372 P.2d 679, 682 (Nev. 1962) (a judgmentthat is based on a void order ofpublication
`
`attach and the district court had no powerto entera valid judgement); Foster v. Lewis, 78 Nev.
`
`4. The court has authority to declare that a judgement is void, and has done so
`
`previously.
`
`See C.H.A. Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting, 106 Nev. 381, 794 P.2d 707
`
`(Nev. 1990) Gudgment reversed becauseservice was notproperlyeffected, jurisdiction did not
`
`is void); Leasepartners Corp.v.Brooks Trust 942 P. 2d 182 (Nev. 1997) (the district court erred i
`
`
`granting summary judgementin favor of Brooks Trust...); Berosini Lid v.PETA 971 P.2d 383
`
`(Nev. 1998) (the District Court abused its discretion in awarding respondents/cross-appellants
`
`costs and in awarding attorneysfees).
`
`5. All judgement debtor examination requests by the PLAINTIFFSshould be stayed
`
`by the Court.
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-NRCP 60(B)(4)MOTION TO STAY-RULE 62(B)- 5
`
`

`

`PLAINTIFFS counsel is currently attempting to schedule a Judgement Debtor Examination
`
`of the DEFENDANT. The DEFENDANTrequests that the court stay any Judgement Debtor
`
`Examinationsuntil this motion is heard and ruled on bythe court.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Defendantis accordingly entitled to an order setting aside the Default and the Default Judgement
`
`entered hereinfor the reasonslisted above. Defendant requests a hearing onthis matter.
`
`Defendantalso requests that any Judgement Debtor Examinations be stayed by the court, to
`
`allow for this motionto be heard and ruled on by the court.
`
`DATEDthis 9"day of September, 2024
`
`oo
`Respectfully Submitted
`
`
`Defendant Pro Se
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-NRCP60(B)(4)MOTION TO STAY-RULE 62(B) - 6
`
`

`

`MSTA
`KORY SCHEELER
`9425 BENEDICT DRIVE
`LAS VEGAS, NV 89161
`702-875-4498
`kscheeler5 | @protonmail.com
`DEFENDANTPRO SE
`
`EIGHT JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNT, NEVADA
`
`BILL HIRSCHI, INDIVIDUALLY, HIRSCHI|CASE NO.: A-19-802414-C
`HOLDINGS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY; THE HIRSCHI 1978
`TRUST, A NEVADA TRUST; AND RONALD! DEPT. NO; 26
`REYNOLDS, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
`HIRSCHI 1978 TRUSTEE
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-
`NRCP60(B)(4)
`MOTION TO STAY-RULE 62(B)
`
`KORY SCHEELER, INDIVIDUALLY:,
`ALEJANDRA ROSALES, INDIVIDUALLY:
`THE LORETO TRUST; KORY SCHEELER
`AS TRUSTEE OF THE LORETO TRUST:
`RICKMAN, LLC A NEVADA LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY; ZHOME
`INNOVATION, LLC A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;
`ELSINORE V LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY; ELSINORE IV LLC,
`A NEVADALIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY; ELSINORE IT LLC, A NEVADA
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY:
`ELSINORE LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY; ELSINORE
`HOLDINGS NV LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY; DOESI-X; ROE
`CORPORATIONSI-X;,
`Defendant
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`
`CERTIFICATE OF U.S. MAILING
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-NRCP 60(B)(4}MOTION TO STA Y-RULE 62(B) - 7
`RECEIVED
`
`APR 03 2025
`
`ELIZABETH A. BROWN
`CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
`DEPUTY CLERK
`
`

`

`I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on the 9th day of September, 2024, I placed a true and correct
`
`copyof the foregoing MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGEMENTNRCP60(b)(4) AND
`
`MOTION TO STAY RULE62(B)in the United States Mail in Las Vegas, Nevada withfirst-
`
`class postage prepaid, addressed to the following:
`
`HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
`
`10080 WEST ALTA DRIVE, SUITE 200
`
`LAS VEGAS, NV 89145
`
`Defendant Pro Se
`
`26
`
`Je
`
`28
`
`
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-NRCP 60(B)(4}MOTION TO STAY-RULE 62(B) - 8
`
`

`

`NEOJ
`
`Electronically Filed
`12/30/2024 8:34 AM
`Steven D. Grierson
`CLERK
`OF THE CO
`
`Kinb
`
`Todd W. Prall (9154)
`2||HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
`3
`Peccole Professional Park
`10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200
`4||Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
`Telephone: 702-385-2500
`Facsimile: 702-385-2086
`
`5
`
`tprall@hutchlegal.com
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
`
`6
`7
`
`8
`
`2
`
`10
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`
`
`CASE NO. A-19-802414-C
`BILL HIRSCHI, individually; HIRSCHI
`11 HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevadalimited liability|]DEPT. NO. 26
`company; the HIRSCH1 1978 TRUST, a
`12|Nevada Trust; and RONALD REYNOLDS,
`13
`as trustee of the HIRSCHI 1978 Trust
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
`
`KORY SCHEELER,individually;
`ALEJANDRA ROSALES, individually;
`I7||PURSANG,LLC, a Nevadalimited liability
`18
`company; LORETO TRUST,a Nevada Trust;
`RICKMAN, LLC,a Nevada limited liability
`company; ELSINORE HOLDINGS NV,
`LLC, a Nevadalimited liability company;
`20||ELSINORE LLC, a Nevadalimitedliability
`>]
`company; ELSINORE II, LLC, a Nevada
`limited liability company; ELSINOREIV,
`LLC, a Nevada limited liability company;
`ELSINOREV, LLC, a Nevada limited
`liability company; ZHOME INNOVATION,
`LLC, a Nevadalimited liability company;
`24||DOESI-X; ROE Corporations 1-X.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`VS.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`16
`
`19
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`26 | (ee irir
`
`RECLIVED
`27
`2g MAR 21 2025
`EIZABETHA. BROWN
`
`CLEIK OF SUPREME COURT
`DEPUTY CLERK
`
`APR 0 3 2025
`
`Page l of3
`
`ELIZABETH A. BROWN
`CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
`DEPUTY C&A8e Number: A-19-802414-C
`
`

`

`bo
`
`Oofeo~sSDHA
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that an Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendant
`
`Kory Scheeler’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment-Motion to Stay was entered in the above-entitled
`
`action on the 23" day of December, 2024, a copy ofwhichis attached hereto.
`
`DATEDthis 30" day of December, 2024.
`
`HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
`
`fs/ Todd W. Prall
`
`Todd W. Prall (9154)
`Peccole Professional Park
`10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
`tprall@hutchlegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of3
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC
`
`and that on this 30" day of December, 2024, I caused the above and foregoing documententitled
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER tobe served as follows:
`
`by placing same to be deposited for mailing in the United States Mail, in a sealed
`envelope upon whichfirst class postage was prepaid in Las Vegas, Nevada;
`and/or
`
`to be served via email (to Kory Scheeler ONLY); and/or
`
`pursuant to NEFCR(9), to be electronically served through the Eighth Judicial
`District Court’s electronic filing system; and/or
`
`to be hand-delivered:
`
`|
`
`CL]
`
`to the attorneys and/orparties listed below:
`
`Kory Schecler
`9425 Benedict Drive
`Las Vegas, NV 89161
`kscheelerS |(@protonmail.com
`
`Pro Se Defendant
`
`Alejandra Rosales
`1428 Blazing Sand Street
`Las Vegas, NV 89110
`
`Pro Se Defendant
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Cindy Simmons
`
`An employee of Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC
`
`Page 3 of3
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`12/23/2024 4:1 PM,
`
`CLERK OF THE CGURT
`
` Electronically Hiled
`
`ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
`GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT
`KORY SCHEELER’S MOTION TO
`SET ASIDE JUDGMENT-MOTION
`TO STAY
`
`ELECTRONICALLY SERVED
`12/23/2024 4:17 PM
`
`ho
`
`Qn
`
`ORDR
`David J. Malley (8171)
`Todd W, Prall (9154)
`HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
`Peccole Professional Park
`10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
`Telephone: 702-385-2500
`Facsimile: 702-385-2086
`bwirthlin@hutchlegal.com
`tprall@hutchlegal.com
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`BILL HIRSCHI, individually; HIRSCHI
`HOLDINGS,LLC, a Nevada limited liability
`company; the HIRSCHI 1978 TRUST, a
`Nevada Trust; and RONALD REYNOLDS, as
`trustee of the HIRSCHI 1978 Trust
`
`CASE NO. A-19-802414-C
`
`DEPT. NO. 26
`
`VS.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`KORY SCHEELER,individually;
`ALEJANDRA ROSALES, individually;
`PURSANG, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
`company; LORETO TRUST,a Nevada Trust;
`RICKMAN, LLC, a Nevadalimited liability
`company; ELSINORE HOLDINGSNV, LLC,
`a Nevada limited liability company;
`ELSINORE LLC, a Nevada limited liability
`company; ELSINORE I], LLC, a Nevada
`limited liability company; ELSINORE IV,
`LLC, a Nevada limited liability company;
`ELSINORE V, LLC, a Nevada limitedliability
`company; ZHOME INNOVATION, LLC, a
`Nevada limited liability company; DOES I-X;
`ROE Corporations 1-X.
`
`Defendants.
`
` “
`
`RECTIVED
`
`APR 03 2025
`
`EUIZABETH A, 889.WN
`CLERK OF SE" 3L2 °° COURT
`DEPT. C oRK
`
`1 of 4
`
`Case Number: A-19-802414-C
`
`

`

`ao4TOAheeBH
`
`=oSo
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2]
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Defendant Kory Scheeler’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment-NRCP 60(b)(4) / Motion to
`
`Stay-Rule 62(B) came before the Court on October 29, 2024 (the “Motion”). Todd W. Prall
`
`appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendant Kory Scheeler appeared Pro Se. The Court,
`
`having read and considered the Motion as well as the opposition and reply briefs thereto and
`
`having heard the arguments of counsel and Defendant, good cause appearing, enters the
`
`following findings and conclusions:
`
`1,
`
`This Motionis the third time Scheeler has sought to set aside the judgment in
`
`this case against him.
`
`2.
`
`On April 19, 2024, Scheeler filed Defendant's Rule 60 Motion to Set Aside
`
`Default and Default Judgment, and Writ Pursuant Thereto and Defendants Request
`
`for
`
`Evidentiary hearing and/or Discovery Re: service and Rule 62(b) Motion to Stay Execution of
`
`Judgment Pending Hearing (the “First Motion to Set Aside”).
`
`3.
`
`On July 9, 2024, the Court entered an Order Denying the First Motion to Set
`
`Aside. The Court included specific findings and conclusions in the Order Denying the First
`
`Motion to Set Aside.
`
`To the extent applicable,
`
`this order incorporates the findings and
`
`conclusions set forth in the Order Denying the First Motion to Set Aside.
`
`4,
`
`On July 14, 2024, Scheelerfiled a Motion for Reconsideration (the ‘Motion for
`
`Reconsideration”) in which Scheeler sought reconsideration of the Order Denying the First
`
`Motionto Set Aside.
`
`5,
`
`On September16, 2024, the Court entered an Order Denying Scheeler’s Motion
`
`for Reconsideration (the “Order Denying Reconsideration”). The Court
`
`included specific
`
`findings and conclusions in the Order Denying Reconsideration. To the extent applicable, this
`
`order incorporates the findings and conclusions set forth in the Order Denying Reconsideration.
`
`6.
`
`be
`
`On September 9, 2024, Scheeler filed the current Motion.
`
`Scheeler contends that the Judgment should be set aside as void because it
`
`is
`
`based on contracts that are voidable under NRS 645B and NRS 645E.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs opposed the Motion and argued that the Judgment is not void because
`
`{1} Scheeler has not presented any argument orfacts that challenge this Court’s authority or
`
`2 of 4
`
`

`

`Jurisdiction to enter the judgment; and (2) the alleged “voidable” contracts were not void
`
`because the Court’s rulings in this case, even before Scheeler’s counsel withdrew, found that
`
`the contracts upon which judgment ts based were not voided and were enforceable.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Scheeler also moved for a stay pending the appeal.
`
`Nevada courts have held that “[f]or a judgment to be void, there must be a defect
`
`in the court’s authority to enter judgment
`
`through either lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction or
`
`Jurisdiction over subject matter in the suit.” Gossett v. Snappy Car Rental, 111 Nev. 1416,
`
`1419, 906 P.2d 258, 261 (1995), superseded on other grounds by rule, as stated in In Re Estate
`
`ofBlack, 132 Nev. 73, 367 P.3d 416 (2016).
`
`LI.
`
`Here, Scheeler has not identified any facts or issues that call
`
`into question the
`
`Court’s authority to enter judgment. Scheeler cannot claim that the Court lacked jurisdiction
`
`over this matter.
`
`Ld.
`
`Further, the record demonstrates that the Court issued a ruling granting summary
`
`judgment as to the contracts at
`
`issue prior to Scheeler’s counsel withdrawing. See Order
`
`Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgmentfiled February
`
`27, 2023 (Doc. ID # 146).
`
`In that Order, the Court expressly found, “The Scheeler Parties
`
`entered into valid and existing contracts with Plaintiffs... .” /d. at 20:4. Thus, the Court has
`
`already determined that the contracts are not void, are fully enforceab