Electronically Filed
`Apr 11 2025 11:55 AM
`Elizabeth A. Brown
`Clerk of Supreme Court
`
`Docket 90001 Document 2025-16399
`
`ATTACHMENTS TO
`DOCKETING STATEMENT
`
`PART 3
`
`

`

`NOTC
`TRAVIS E. SHETLER, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 4747
`travis@shetlerlawfirm.com
`LAW OFFICE OF TRAVIS E. SHETLER
`3202 W. Charleston Boulevard
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`(702) 931-9700 - Telephone
`(702) 931-9800 - Facsimile
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`CASE NO.: A-19-797292-C
`DEPT. NO.: 5
`
`TAMARA VASEY, individually and as
`Special Administrator of the Estate of
`DELAND SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM
`INC.; FEDEX CORPORATION; GHG
`CORPORATION; RAFAEL ACEVEDO-
`CASILLAS and DOE EMPLOYEES I through
`X; ROE CORPORATIONS I through X;
`inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`_____________________________________
`SYDNEY LONGFELLOW, individually and
`as heir to DELAND SIDNEY VASEY,
`Deceased;
` Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM
`INC.; FEDEX CORPORATION; GHG
`CORPORATION; RAFAEL ACEVEDO-
`CASILLAS and DOES 1 through 99, ROE
`CORPORATIONS 100 through 199, inclusive,
` Defendants.
`
`NOTICE OF APPEAL
`Notice is hereby given that TAMARA VASEY, individually and as Special Administrator
`of the Estate of DELAND SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased, Plaintiff above named, hereby appeals to
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3202 W. Charleston Boulevard
`TRAVIS E. SHETLER
`
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`
`Law Office Of
`
`Case Number: A-19-797292-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`5/26/2023 4:47 AM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`

`

`the Supreme Court of Nevada from the Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification
`(incorrectly titled by Defendant as Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (styled as
`a Motion for Clarification) entered in this action on April 26, 2023.
`
`DATED this 25th day of May, 2023.
`
` LAW OFFICE OF TRAVIS E. SHETLER
`/s/ Travis E. Shetler
`By:
` Travis E. Shetler, Esq.
` Nevada Bar No. 4747
` travis@shetlerlawfirm.com
` 3202 W. Charleston Boulevard
` Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
` Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b), the amendment to the Eighth Judicial
`District Court Rule 7.26, and N.E.F.C.R. 9, I hereby certify that service of the foregoing NOTICE
`OF APPEAL was made this date by electronic service via the Court’s electronic filing and service
`system, addressed to the following:
`
`Steven M. Burris, Esq.
`STEVEN M. BURRIS, LLC
`2810 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite F58
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`Telephone: (702) 258-6238
`Facsimile: (702) 258-8280
`Michael J. Nunez, Esq.
`Murchison & Cumming LLP
`350 South Rampart Boulevard, Suite 320
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
`Attorney for Defendants,
`FedEx Ground Systems
`
`M. Bradley Johnson, Esq.
`Kravitz, Schnitzer & Johnson, CHTD.
`8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 200
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89123
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Rafael Acevedo-Casillas
`
`Stacey Cutting, Esq.
`Bish & Cutting
`22505 Market Street, Suite 104
`Newhall, CA 91321
`Attorney for Plaintiffs Tamara Vasey
`and the Estate of Deland Sidney Vasey
`Appearing Pro Hac Vice
`DATED this 25th day of May, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael C. Mills, Esq.
`Bauman Lowew Witt & Maxwell
`3650 N. Rancho Dr., Suite114
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89130
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`GHG Corporation
`
`Mindy Susan Bish, Esq.
`Keenan Law Firm
`148 Nassau St. NW
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`Attorney for Plaintiffs Tamara Vasey
`and the Estate of Deland Sidney Vasey
`Appearing Pro Hac Vice
`
` /s/ Mary Chopski
`An Employee of Law Office of Travis E. Shetler
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`

`

`TRAVIS E. SHETLER, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 4747
`travisshetlerlaw@gmail.com
`LAW OFFICE OF TRAVIS E. SHETLER, PC
`3202 W. Charleston Boulevard
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`(702) 931-9700 Telephone
`(702) 931-9800 Facsimile
`Attorney for Appellant
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
`
`TAMARA VASEY, individually and as
`Special Administrator of the Estate of
`DELAND SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased,
`Appellant,
`
`vs.
`HASEEB TAHIR SIDDIQUE, an individual;
`and DOES I through X, inclusive,
`Respondent.
`
`Supreme Court No.: 86710
`District Court Case No.: A-19-797292-C
`
`CASE APPEAL STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Name of appellant filing this case appeal statement:
`TAMARA VASEY, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of
`DELAND SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased
`
`Identify the judge issuing the decision, judgment, or order appealed from:
`Honorable Veronica M. Barisich
`
`Identify each appellant and the name and address of counsel for each appellant:
`Appellants: Tamara Vasey
`Attorney: Travis E. Shetler, Esq. of Law Office of Travis E. Shetler, 3202 W.
`Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`
`4.
`
`Identify each respondent and the name and address of appellate counsel, if known,
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3202 W. Charleston Boulevard
`TRAVIS E. SHETLER
`
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`
`Law Office Of
`
`Case Number: A-19-797292-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`6/20/2023 1:39 PM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`

`

`for each respondent (if the name of a respondent's appellate counsel is unknown,
`indicate as much and provide the name and address of that respondent's trial
`counsel):
`Respondent: Steven M. Burris, Esq.
`Attorney: Steven M, Burris, Esq. of Burris & Thomas, LLC,
`2810 W. Charleston Blvd, Suite F58, Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`
`Indicate whether any attorney identified above in response to question 3 or 4 is not
`licensed to practice law in Nevada and, if so, whether the district court granted that
`attorney permission to appear under SCR 42 (attach a copy of any district court
`order granting such permission):
`n/a
`
`Indicate whether appellant was represented by appointed or retained counsel in the
`district court:
`Retained
`
`Indicate whether appellant is represented by appointed or retained counsel on
`appeal:
`Retained
`
`Indicate whether appellant was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the
`date of entry of the district court order granting such leave:
`No
`
`Indicate the date the proceedings commenced in the district court (e.g., date
`complaint, indictment, information, or petition was filed):
`Complaint file on 6/24/2019
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Provide a brief description of the nature of the action and result in the district court,
`including the type of judgment or order being appealed and the relief granted by the
`district court:
`Adjudication of prior attorney lien
`
`Indicate whether the case has previously been the subject of an appeal to or original
`writ proceeding in the Supreme Court and, if so, the caption and Supreme Court
`docket number of the prior proceeding:
`No
`
`Indicate whether this appeal involves child custody or visitation:
`No
`
`If this is a civil case, indicate whether this appeal involves the possibility of
`settlement:
`Yes
`
`DATED this 20th day of June, 2023.
`
` LAW OFFICE OF TRAVIS E. SHETLER
`/s/ Travis E. Shetler
`By:
` Travis E. Shetler, Esq.
` Nevada Bar No. 4747
` travis@shetlerlawfirm.com
` 3202 W. Charleston Boulevard
` Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
` Attorney for Appellant
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`

`

`
`
`ORDR
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`)
`
`
`Tamara Vasey,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
` Plaintiff(s)
`)
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Fedex Ground Package System Inc., )
`
` Defendant(s)
`
`)
`______________________________
`
`vs.
`
`Case No. A-19-797292-C
`Dept. 5
`
`
`
`ORDER SETTING STATUS CHECK
`
`TO: Counsel/Parties,
`
`
`
`A status check regarding the Court of Appeals Order of Reversal and Remand in the above-
`
`referenced matter has been scheduled in District Court, Department 5, Regional Justice
`
`Center, 200 Lewis Avenue, Courtroom 3C, for Thursday, July 18, 2024, at 11:00 a.m.
`
`Dated July 9, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`Veronica Barisich
`District Court Judge, Department 5
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Nevada Electronic Filing and Conversion Rules a
`copy of this Order was electronically served to all registered users on this case in the Eighth Judicial
`District Court Electronic Filing System.
`
` /s/ Tara Moser
` Tara Moser
` Judicial Executive Assistant
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Number: A-19-797292-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`7/9/2024 3:46 PM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`

`

`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`

`

`IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF NEVADA
`
`TAMARA VASEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
`SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOROF THE ESTATE
`OF DELAND SIDNEY VASEY,
`Appellants,
`Ps
`BURRIS & THOMAS,LLC,
`Respondent.
`_
`
`;
`
`Supreme Court No. 86710
`District Court Case No. A797292
`
`FILED
`JUL 16
`2024
`am
`ClicHoven
`
`CLERK’S CERTIFICATE
`
`STATE OF NEVADA, ss.
`
`|, Elizabeth A. Brown, the duly appointed and qualified Clerk of the Supreme Court of
`the State of Nevada, do herebycertify that the following is a full, true and correct copy
`of the Judgmentin this matter.
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`The court being fully advised in the premises and the law, it is now ordered, adjudged
`and decreed, as follows:
`
`“ORDER the judgmentof the district cour’. REVERSED AND REMANDED"
`
`Judgment, as quoted above, entered this 20" day of June,2024.
`
`IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have subscribed
`my name and affixed the seal of the Supreme
`Court at my Office in Carson City, Nevada this
`July 15, 2024.
`
`Elizabeth A. Brown, Supreme Court Clerk
`
`By: Elyse Hooper
`Administrative Assistant
`
`9
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
`
`;
`
`|
`
`No. 86710-COA
`es E | LL. IE Dp
`=
`=
`=
`~
`JUN sane.;
`
`OTS
`CLEA
`ieF DEPUTY CLERK
`
`Rr
`
`MBs ELIZpJETHA.8!
`
`
`
`TAMARA VASEY, INDIVIDUALLY
`AND AS SPECIAL
`ADMINISTRATOROF THE ESTATE OF
`DELAND SIDNEY VASEY,
`Appellants,
`
`BURRIS & THOMAS,LLC,
`Respondent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
`Tamara Vasey appeals from a district court order granting in
`} part a motion to adjudicate her prior counsel’s lien for attorney fees. Eighth
`Judicial District Court, Clark County; Veronica Barisich, Judge.
`
`In 2018, Vasey retained a law firm, respondent Burris &
`
`Thomas, LLC (hereinafter Burris or the Burris firm) for a personal injury
`
`| and wrongful death matter, initially on a contingent fee basis.! According to
`
`the retainer agreement Vasey signed, she agreed not
`
`to terminate or
`
`substitute the Burris firm, and “if substitution [of attorneys] is effected in
`
`violation hereof, my attorney shall be entitled to his full contingentfee share,
`
`or seven hundred fifty dollars an hour plus costs, whichever amount is more.”
`
`| Several attorneys at the Burris firm, including attorney Travis Shetler, were
`
`assigned to Vasey’s case.
`
`In 2020, Shetler left the Burris firm and opened his own practice,
`} and Vasey elected to retain him as her attorney. Vasey requested that Burris
`
`transfer hercase file to Shetler’s practice. The parties do not dispute that
`
`this transfer was a substitution of attorneys in violation of the retainer
`
`| agreement that entitled Burris to recovery.
`
`Count oF APPEALS
`OF
`NEVADA
`
`(2) 1470
`
`1We recount the facts only as necessary for our disposition.
`wy- 24 54
`
`

`

`In January 2022, Burris sent a letter to Vasey stating that he
`
`had placed a lien on her case in the amount of $907,199 for fees and costs
`
`incurred since 2018. In November 2022, Vasey moved to adjudicate Burris’s
`
`hen and requested that the district court “enter a Judgment determining the
`
`amount, if any, of [Burris’s] lien.”
`
`Burris’s opposition argued that the court should approve a lien
`
`in the amount of $1,164,942.21, which was more than the amountlisted in
`
`his letter to Vasey. Burris also addressed whether the district court was
`
`required to conduct an analysis under Brunzell v. Golden Gate National
`
`Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 455 P.2d 31 (1969), to determine whetherhis requested
`
`attorney fees were reasonable. Although Burris took the position that
`
`Brunzell did not apply to an attorney fee lien authorized under NRS 18.015,
`
`Burris also argued in the alternative that the amount of the lien requested
`
`was reasonable on the merits under Brunzell. Burris provided billing time
`
`logs to the district court documenting hoursbilled on Vasey’s case dating
`
`from December 2018 to September 2022. Many entries represented time
`
`billed by associate attorneys at the Burris firm at $750 per hour.
`
`In her reply, Vasey argued that the district court should reduce
`
`Burris’s lien to $86,250.48; she claimed that many of Burris’s billing entries
`
`were “padded” to support his claimed lien and did not reflect actual time
`
`spent on her case. She also argued that manyof the billing entries postdated
`
`her termination of the Burris firm and that Burris failed to adequately
`address the Brunzell factors.
`.
`
`After a hearing, the district court concluded that Burris’s lien
`
`was properbut excluded the entries that occurred after Vasey terminated the
`
`Burris firm as well as one particular billing entry for a workshop that the
`
`court found was unrelated to Vasey’s representation. The district court found
`
`that Burris was entitled to $786,757.48, inclusive of fees and costs. The court
`
`Count oF Appeats
`or
`Nevaba
`
`(0) 1670 ee
`
`

`

`calculated the amount “based on a $750.00 / hour rate for attorney work,
`pursuant to the signed retainer agreement.” However, the district court's
`
`order did not address whether the amount of the award was proper under
`
`Brunzell or otherwise reference the Brunzell factors.
`
`Vasey then filed a motion requesting that the district court
`
`“clarify” its award. The court denied Vasey’s motion, finding that the prior
`order “was clear” and that “clarification [was] not required.” This appeal
`
`followed. Vasey contends that the district court abused its discretion in
`
`adjudicating Burris’s
`
`lien because his billing logs contained several
`
`exaggerated and inaccurate billing entries. Vasey also argues that the
`
`district court abusedits discretion in failing to evaluate the reasonableness
`
`of Burris’s attorney fee amount under Brunzell.
`
`We decline to consider Vasey’s unsupported arguments regarding Burris’s
`billing entries
`
`Vasey first contends that many of Burris's billing entries were
`
`“fraudulent[ ]” and exaggerated the actual time spent on her case. However,
`
`it is the appellant’s “responsibility to cogently argue, and present relevant
`
`authority, in support of [their] appellate concerns.” Hdwards v. Emperor's
`
`GardenRest., 122 Nev. 318, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). This
`
`court “need not consider
`
`the contentions of an appellant where the
`
`appellant's opening brief fails to cite to the record on appeal.” Allzanz Ins.
`
`Co. v. Gagnon, 109 Nev. 990, 997, 860 P.2d 720, 725 (1993); see also NRAP
`28(a)(10)(A) (requiring the argument in an appellant’s brief to contain
`
`“appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the
`
`authorities and parts of the record on which the appellantrelies”).
`
`Vasey’s brief does not provide citations to the record to support
`
`her claims of fraudulent and exaggerated billing. Though Vasey included a
`
`lengthy table contrasting Burris’s “claimed hours”in his billing entries with
`
`the purported “actual hours” spent on Vasey’s case, she does not support
`
`3
`
`COURT OF APPEALS
`OF
`Nevapa
`
`(Oy ina eRe
`
`

`

`these allegations with any record citations. Accordingly, we decline to
`consider Vasey’s argument regarding the accuracy of Burris’s time logs or
`any alleged discrepancy between his claimed hours and the actual hours
`
`spent on Vasey’s case.2 See Edwards, 122 Nev. at 330 n.38, 130 P.3d at 1288
`
`n.38.
`
`The district court abused its discretion in failing to consider the Brunzell
`factors when adjudicating Burris’s attorney fee lien
`Vasey next contends that the district court abused its discretion
`
`in adjudicating Burris’s lien because the court did not determine whether the
`
`amount of the lien was reasonable under Brunzell. We agree.
`
`“The decision to award attorney fees is within the sound
`
`discretion of the district court and will not be overturned absent a manifest
`
`abuseof discretion.” Kahn v. Morse & Mowbray, 121 Nev. 464, 479, 117 P.3d
`227, 238 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). When “determinfing]
`the reasonable amount of attorney fees under a statute or rule... the
`
`[district] court must evaluate the factors set forth in Brunzell.” Miller v.
`
`Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 628, 119 P.3d 727, 730 (2005). Thosefactors are:
`
`the qualities of the advocate: his ability, his
`(1)
`training,
`education,
`experience,
`professional
`standing and skill; (2) the character of the work to be
`done: its difficulty, its intricacy, its importance, time
`and skill required, the responsibility imposed and
`the prominence and character of the parties where
`they affect the importance of the litigation; (8) the
`work actually performed by the lawyer: the skill,
`time and attention given to the work; (4) the result:
`whether
`the attorney was successful and what
`benefits were derived.
`
`“Because we decline to consider Vasey’s unsupported assertions, we do
`not find it necessary, as Burris requests, to strike portions of Vasey’s brief
`pursuant to NRAP 28(j).
`
`Count oF APPEALS
`OF
`Newapa
`
`(0) Ma aie
`
`

`

`Brunzell, 85 Nev. at 349, 455 P.2d at 33. However, “[i]Jn determining the
`amount of fees to award,
`the district court is not limited to one specific
`approach; its analysis may begin with any method rationally designed to
`calculate a reasonable amount, so long as the requested amountis reviewed
`
`in light of the Brunzell factors.” Loganv. Abe, 131 Nev. 260, 266, 350 P.3d
`
`1139, 1143 (2015) (quoting Haley v, Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. 171, 178,
`
`273 P.3d 855, 860 (2012)) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
`While it
`is preferable that
`the district court “expressly analyze each
`[Brunzell] factor relating to an award ofattorney fees,” the court “need only
`demonstrate that it considered the required factors, and the award must be
`
`supported by substantial evidence.” Jd.
`
`NRS 18.015(2) provides that an authorized attorney fee lien “is
`for the amount of any fee which has been agreed upon by the attorney and
`client. In the absence of an agreement, the lien is for a reasonable fee for the
`
`services which the attorney has rendered for the client.” However, even when
`
`the client agrees to the amountof an attorney fee in a retainer agreement,
`
`the district court must still ensure that
`
`the agreement
`
`itself is not
`
`unreasonable under Brunzell. See McDonald Carano Wilson v. Bourassa
`
`Law Grp,, 131 Nev. 904, 908, 362 P.3d 89, 91 (2015) (providing that the
`
`district court must determine the amountofa lien for attorney fees pursuant
`
`to a retainer agreement and must also ensure the reasonableness of the fee
`
`agreement under Brunzell).
`
`Here, the district court’s order adjudicating Burris’s lien found
`
`that the Burris firm was entitled to an hourly rate of $750 pursuant to the
`
`retainer agreement for time billed by both partners and associates alike
`
`without evaluating whether the rates for the associates were also “reasonable
`
`under the circumstances.” See LVMPD v. Yeghiazarian, 129 Nev. 760, 770,
`
`312 P. 3d 503, 510 (2013). Further, the court’s order did not reference the
`
`Count or APPEALS
`OF
`Nevapa
`
`(O})Ie
`
`

`

`Brunzell factors and did not find that this hourly rate or the total amountof
`
`the lien was reasonable. Though Burris addressed the Brunzell factorsin his
`
`district court brief, he also argued in the alternative that Brunzell did not
`
`apply. Because the district court did not make any oral or written findings
`
`on this issue, it is unclear whether the district court even considered Brunzell
`
`when adjudicating Burris’s
`
`lien.
`
`Thus,
`
`the district court did not
`
`“demonstrate that it considered the required factors” in its analysis. Logan,
`131 Nev, at 266, 350 P.3d at 1143. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
`
`court abused its discretion in failing to ensure that the retainer agreement
`and lien were “not unreasonable” wnder Brunzell.3 McDonald Carano
`
`Wilson, 131 Nev. at 908, 362 P.3d at 91,
`
`Accordingly, we
`
`ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED and
`
`REMANDED.
`
`‘
`
`i
`
`Gibbons
`
`f L.Aone , Cd.
`_A-—ts_Yabol— J.
`
`Bulla
`
`Westbrook
`
`SVasey also argues that reasonableness must be determined by the
`considerations
`listed in NRPC 1.5(a).
`However,
`reasonableness
`is
`determined pursuant to the factors in Brunzell: while the district court “is
`not limited to one specific approach,” its analysis must review the claimed
`attorney fee amountin light of the Brunzell factors. Logan, 131 Nev. at 266,
`350 P.3d at 1143. Therefore, while several of the NRPC 1.5(a) factors overlap
`with Brunzell, we are not persuaded by Vasey’s argument that the district
`court must consider all of the hsted NRPC 1.5(a) factors in evaluating the
`reasonableness of an attorney fee.
`
`Insofar as the parties raise other issues not specifically addressed in
`this decision, we conclude that they either do not present a basis for relief or
`need not be addressed given the disposition of this appeal.
`
`6
`
`Count of Appears
`OF
`NEVADA
`
`(0) 147m aie
`
`

`

`ec:
`
`Hon. Veronica Barisich, District Judge
`Law Office of Travis E. Shetler, PC
`Burris & Thomas, LLC
`Kighth District Court Clerk
`
`ZOURT OF APPEALS
`OF
`Nevaba
`
`() 197R <Re
`
`

`

`July 16, 2024
`
`Heather Ungermann/CB
`
`Deputy
`
`

`

`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`

`

`A-19-797292-C
`
`Negligence - Auto
`A-19-797292-C
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`COURT MINUTES
`Tamara Vasey, Plaintiff(s)
`vs.
`Fedex Ground Package System Inc.,
`Defendant(s)
`
`July 18, 2024
`
`Department 5
`
`July 18, 2024
`
`11:00 AM
`
`Barisich, Veronica M.
`Jackson, Carolyn
`Erickson, Christine
`
`HEARD BY:
`COURT CLERK:
`RECORDER:
`REPORTER:
`PARTIES PRESENT:
`Travis E Shetler
`
`Status Check Re Court of Appeals Order of Reversal and
`Remand
`COURTROOM:
`
`RJC Courtroom 03C
`
`Attorney for Administrator, Decedent,
`Other Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Special
`Administrator
`
`JOURNAL ENTRIES
`
`Nate Hafen, Esq., also present.
`
`Upon Court's inquiry regarding the need for additional briefing, Mr. Shetler and Mr. Hafen
`concurred with providing additional briefing. COURT ORDERED, briefing schedule: Opening
`Brief due 08-08-24; Opposition due 08-22-24,Reply due 9-5-24 and SET the matter for
`hearing.
`
`09-19-24 9:30 AM HEARING: BRUNZELL FACTORS RE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
`
`Printed Date: 7/24/2024
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Minutes Date:
`
`July 18, 2024
`
`Prepared by: Carolyn Jackson
`
`

`

`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`
`

`

`BRIEF
`STEVEN M. BURRIS, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 000603
`sb@steveburrislaw.com
`NATHANAEL S. HAFEN, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 016246
`nh@steveburrislaw.com
`BURRIS & THOMAS, LLC
`2810 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite F-58
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`(702) 258-6238 - Telephone
`(702) 258-8280 - Facsimile
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`CASE NO.: A-19-797292-C
`TAMARA VASEY, individually and as Special
`DEPT. NO.: V
`Administrator of the Estate of DELAND
`SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM
`INC.; FEDEX CORPORATION; GHG
`CORPORATION; RAFAEL ACEVEDO-
`CASILLAS and DOE EMPLOYEES I through
`X; ROE CORPORATIONS I through X;
`inclusive,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`MOTION IN SUPPORT OF COURT’S
`AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
`COSTS
`
`HEARING DATE: September 19, 2024
`HEARING TIME: 9:30 a.m.
`
`Plaintiffs, TAMARA VASEY, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of
`
`DELAND SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased, by and through their attorneys, Burris & Thomas, LLC,
`
`hereby submit their Motion in Support of this Court’s Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
`
`DATED this 8th day of August, 2024.
`
` BURRIS & THOMAS, LLC
`
`/s/ Steven M. Burris
`By:
` Steven M. Burris, Esq.
` SB@steveburrislaw.com
` 2810 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite F-58
` Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
` Attorney for Former Counsel
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`
`Suite F-58
`
`2810 W. Charleston Boulevard
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`BURRIS & THOMAS, LLC
`
`Case Number: A-19-797292-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`8/8/2024 11:38 AM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`

`

`FACTS
`The underlying facts of this case involve a heavily medicated FedEx driver causing a
`
`catastrophic and deadly crash while operating a FedEx 18-wheeler on the freeway outside of Tonopah,
`
`Nevada. Tamara Vasey is the surviving spouse of the decedent driver who died as a result of the
`
`FedEx driver’s negligence. The case involved a somewhat unique liability situation, as both the truck
`
`driver for Fed Ex, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, were both allegedly under the influence of
`
`controlled substances. Also, the rural location of the incident and the wreckage made investigation
`
`and expert analysis of the crash problematic.
`
`Thus the fact that the wreck occurred in rural cental Nevada; and the fact that both drivers were
`
`allegedly impaired; made the nature of the case more difficult than a ‘slam’ dunk trucking case. Also,
`
`it was alleged that several other motorists were able to avoid the hazard posed by the truck, and Mr.
`
`Vasey did not (allegedly due to his controlled substance use). As to the injuries alleged by Tammy
`
`Vasey, she had a very extensive history of pre existing conditions and alleged substance abuse, and
`
`this made her injury claims more difficult. While it is true that every plaintiff’s case will have some
`
`‘warts,’ this particular case had more than its share.
`
`Burris brought in the Keenan Law Firm to assist with the case, and they assigned to attorneys
`
`Bish and Cutting. Their role was to be advisors to Burris, but, after Shetler left the firm, they basically
`
`took over the case, no doubt at an increased rate. As part of this co-counsel arrangement with
`
`Keenan, he required all trucking case referral attorneys to attend some special meetings at this home
`
`in Florida. Burris paid all the salary and expenses for Shetler and Mike Koning (the other lawyer
`
`assigned to the case) to go back for these sessions (in which about six or so lawyers would ‘brain
`
`storm” the cases and learn techniques) on two occasions. The trips would end up taking about a week
`
`of total time.
`
`In addition to this, Burris assigned one of very best paralegals, Priscilla Zoccole, to work most
`
`of her time on the case. As Tammy Vasey was a frequent caller and complainer to the office, this took
`
`up many hours on what was seemingly a daily basis. Mr. Shetler was also paid to go on several trips
`
`out of state to ‘hold the hand’ of Tammy Vasey, who had many emotional issues, many of which were
`
`linked to the accident.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`

`During the time the case was at our office, the Keenan trucking group also had what seemed
`
`to be bi-weekly zoom meetings that lasted 8 hours a piece, and Shetler and Koning would attend these,
`
`as they were required to do.
`
`Koning, who worked on this case with Shetler, has over 100 jury trials worth of experience,
`
`as does Mr. Burris. Shetler claimed to have 35 trials worth of experience. Both have been lawyers
`
`for over 30 years’ time. Koning and Burris both went to first rate schools. (Stanford, BYU,
`
`University of Utah, and University of Southern California.)
`
`The Burris and Thomas law firm, and Steven Burris, have been AV rated in Martindale
`
`Hubbell since the mid 90's. Steven Burris was selected as a “Super lawyer.” He is the primary author
`
`of Nevada’s original rules on the “short trial” and “court annexed arbitration” systems, both of which
`
`he founded (along with Bill Turner.) He has published over 30 legal articles in various journals. Out
`
`of law school, he originally worked for his father’s best friend, Jim Rogers (later, chancellor of UNLV
`
`and for whom the University of Arizona law school is named), and then, after 5 years, founded his
`
`own firm that specializes in personal injury (since 1983.) He is a graduate of the famed Gerry Spence
`
`Trial Lawyer’s College. His partner, Andy Thomas, is also a graduate of the University of Southern
`
`California Law Center, and is also AV rated by Martindale. Mr. Thomas also served as a president
`
`of the Nevada Trial Lawyer’s association. Nate Hafen of the office graduated number 5 in his class
`
`from Boyd Law. We do not advertise and have been one of the top tier plaintiff’s firms in Las Vegas
`
`for decades.
`
`Although Shetler made much an issue with this court previously about not wishing to disclose
`
`the amount of the settlement, he recently advertised the settlement amount, $10,000,000. See Exhibit
`
`5.
`
`Attorney Shetler was an attorney at Burris and Thomas (f.k.a. Law Offices of Steven Burris)
`
`where he and other lawyers (including Mr. Burris) worked on the Vasey case when it came in. For
`
`reasons unrelated to this case, Mr. Shetler was later terminated from the firm, and he then persuaded
`
`various clients to fire the Burris firm, and come to his newly formed solo practice (Ms. Vasey among
`
`them.) As such, Burris & Thomas, pursuant to NRS 18.015, placed an attorney’s lien on the file. The
`
`Vasey case had been the firm’s best case, and considerable time and resources had been invested in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`

`the case at the time Shetler took it.
`
`The work Burris & Thomas performed on behalf of the estate, is in large part the same work
`
`that went into establishing Tamara Vasey’s individual claims in her case. As such, is it difficult, if not
`
`impossible, to “apportion” the attorneys’ fees between the case for the estate of her husband, and her
`
`individual claims as, for example, one email and one motion were almost always related to both cases.
`
`Instead of “double-dipping”, Burris & Thomas provided a legitimate spreadsheet detailing its time
`
`spent and rates charged without “double dipping” on the same email, interoffice communication, etc.
`
`twice for the two different matters. Burris & Thomas has provided a good faith accounting of its time
`
`and monies spent.
`
`This matter went up on appeal filed by Shetler, and the appellate court remanded back to this
`
`court, because allegedly this court did not adequately lay out the Brunzell factor findings. The purpose
`
`of this motion is to lay out those factors in more detail.
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`1. Burris & Thomas Retainer Agreement
`
`2. Itemized Bill of Attorney’s Fees
`
`3. Costs for Estate of Deland Vasey
`
`4. Costs for Tamara Vasey
`
`5. Keenan Trial Institute Magazine - “Notable Edge Verdicts & Settlements (2023)”
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The court has great discretion regarding its decision to award fees and regarding the amount
`
`of fees granted. The court’s discretion is “tempered only by reason and fairness.”1
`
`“In determining the amount of fees to award, the [district] court is not limited to one specific
`
`approach; its analysis may begin with any method rationally designed to calculate a reasonable
`
`amount, so long as the requested amount is reviewed in light of the” Brunzell factors.2
`
`The Nevada Supreme Court in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349–50,
`
`1 Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 122 Nev. 409, 427, 132 P.3d 1022, 1034 (2006) (quoting
`University of Nevada v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 591 (1994)).
`2 Logan v. Abe, 131 Nev. 260, 266, 350 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015).
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969) gave guidance on how a court is to determine the reasonable value of the work
`
`performed by a movant’s counsel.3 Brunzell directs courts to consider the following when determining
`
`a reasonable amount of attorney fees to award:4
`
`(1) the qualities of the advocate: his ability, his training, education, experience,
`professional standing and skill; (2) the character of the work to be done: its difficulty,
`its intricacy, its importance, time and skill requi