Electronically Filed
`Apr 11 2025 11:57 AM
`Elizabeth A. Brown
`Clerk of Supreme Court
`
`ATTACHMENTS TO
`DOCKETING STATEMENT
`
`PART 5
`
`Docket 90001 Document 2025-16401
`
`

`

`A-19-797292-C
`
`
`
`Negligence - Auto
`
`A-19-797292-C
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`COURT MINUTES
`
`September 19, 2024
`
`Tamara Vasey, Plaintiff(s)
`vs.
`Fedex Ground Package System Inc.,
`Defendant(s)
`
`
`
`9:30 AM
`
`
`
`
`September 19, 2024
`
`HEARD BY: Barisich, Veronica M.
`
`COURT CLERK: Carolyn Jackson
`
`RECORDER: Christine Erickson
`
`REPORTER:
`
`PARTIES
`PRESENT:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shetler, Travis E
`
`Hearing
`
`
`
`COURTROOM: RJC Courtroom 03C
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`JOURNAL ENTRIES
`
` -
`
` Steven M. Burris, Esq., Nathanael S. Hafen, Esq., and Adam T. Pond, Esq., present on behalf of
`Burris & Thomas, LLC
`
`Court stated this matter was remanded for the Court to consider the Brunzell factors when
`adjudicating the lien and to evaluate the reasonableness of the rates of the associates.
`
`Arguments by counsels regarding whether the amount of hours were not in questioned but that the
`Court's Order did not list the Brunzell factors when determining whether the Retainer Agreement
`("Agreement") was reasonable, particularly as to the $750 per hour rate. Further arguments by
`counsels regarding whether Plaintiff Vasey and Mr. Shetler were aware and agreed to the hourly rate
`for all attorney fees, including the associates, as it was contained in the Agreement. Additionally,
`counsels argued regarding whether or not the amount of the settlement should be disclosed in-
`camera with an of the full 40% contingency pursuant to the Agreement or an award of the $750,000 in
`attorney's fees, plus costs as previously granted by this court.
`
`Court requested the parties submit a detailed supplement regarding billings and SET a briefing
`PRINT DATE:
`09/23/2024
`Page 1 of 2
`Minutes Date:
`September 19, 2024
`
`
`
`

`

`A-19-797292-C
`
`schedule: Shetler Supplemental, including breakdown and the Settlement Agreement (in-camera)
`due 10/10/24 and Burris Supplemental, including breakdown due 10/24/24. Court stated it would
`review the counsels' Brunzell analysis, together with the Settlement Agreement which will be
`received in-camera due its confidentiality nature, and make a determination regarding whether the
`hourly fee amount or 40% contingency amount is appropriate.
`
`COURT ORDERED, matter taken UNDER ADVISEMENT; a Written Order WILL ISSUE by
`November 6, 2024.
`
`11-06-24 3:00 AM WRITTEN DECISION (CHAMBERS)
`
`
`
`PRINT DATE:
`
`09/23/2024
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Minutes Date:
`
`September 19, 2024
`
`
`
`

`

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

`

`TRAVIS E. SHETLER, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 4747
`travis@shetlerlawfirm.com
`LAW OFFICES OF TRAVIS E. SHETLER
`3202 W. Charleston Boulevard
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`(702) 931-9700 - Telephone
`(702) 931-9800 - Facsimile
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`EIGTH JUDICIAL 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,
`Plaintiff,
`
` vs.
`
`FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM
`INC.; F E D E X C O R P R O A T I O N ;
`G H G CORPORATION; RAFAEL
`ACEVEDO-CASILLAS and DOE
`EMPLOYEES 1 through X; ROE
`CORPORATIONS I through X; inclusive
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 HEARING
`
`Valid Burris Hours
`Valid Associate Hours
`Valid Paralegal Hours
`Valid Support Staff Hours
`
`39.9 @$750.00
`398.5 @ $350.00
`203.1 @ $125.00
`20.3 @ $50.00
`
`= $ 29,925.00
`= $139,685.00
`= $ 25,387.50
`= $ 1,015.00
`
`Total Amount Burris Entitled to Recover Pursuant to his Retainer
`$195,012.50
`
`These numbers are broken down and further explained below.
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`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
`
`3202 W. Charleston Boulevard
`TRAVIS E. SHETLER
`
`Law Office Of
`
`Case Number: A-19-797292-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`10/8/2024 2:04 PM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`

`

`$ 1,112,742.50
`-$ 16,533.00
`-$ 224,250.00
`
`-$ 464,925.00
`
`-$ 30,000.00
`-$ 21,375.00
`-$ 4,275.00
`-$ 159,400.00
`
`$ 191,984.50
`
`Original Lien Claimed by Burris
`LESS charges billed after termination on 9/25/2020
`LESS 299 hours fraudulent claimed Keenan Training hours @ $750
`UNRELATED to Vasey case.
`LESS 619.9 padded hours that never occurred for Keenan Training related to
`Vasey @ $750
`LESS 40 padded hours that never occurred for Focus Groups @$750
`LESS 28.5 padded hours that never occurred for Daily Tasks @ $750
`LESS 5.7 hours double billed @ $750
`LESS $400 per Associate Hour for 398.5 hours
`
`(Difference from $195,012.50 on page 1 is a result of Burris Lien
`computational errors)
`
`It is the undersigned’s contention that the $750 hourly rate billed for both partners and
`associates is NOT “reasonable under the circumstances.” As such, a rate of $350 per hour for
`associates IS “reasonable under the circumstances.”
`
`In the alternative, Burris claims he is entitled to 40% of the “settlement.” This is incorrect.
`The Order from The Court of Appeals of the State of Nevada issued on 6/20/2024 directed this
`Honorable Court to determine weather the $750 hourly rate claimed by Burris for himself and
`associates is “reasonable under the circumstances.” This argument by Burris was not contemplated
`on appeal and should not be entertained. However, the undersigned sets forth the following facts to
`clarify the issue.
`
`However, Burris is not entitled to 40% of the final Vasey settlement amount (Provided In
`Camera). He would only be entitled to claim 40% of any offer made while the Vasey case was still
`at the Burris firm.
`
`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 5
`
`

`

`During the time Burris had the Vasey case in his office, there was one settlement offer
`(Provided In Camera), delivered on 2/11/2020. The Complaint in this case was filed on 6/24/2019.
`The only litigation work done up to 2/11/2020 was the initial Complaint, review of Answers, ECC,
`JCCR and a review of the Scheduling Order just weeks before.
`DATED this 8th day of October, 2024.
`
`
`
`LAW OFFICES OF TRAVIS E. SHETLER
`/s/ Travis Shetler
`By:
` Travis E. Shetler, Esq.
` Nevada Bar No. 4747
` travis@shetlerlawfirm.com
` 3202 W. Charleston Boulevard
` Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`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
`
`

`

`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
`SUPPLEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 HEARING was made this date by electronic
`service via the Court’s electronic filing and service system, addressed to the following:
`
`Steven M. Burris, Esq.
`BURRIS & THOMAS
`2810 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite F58
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`
`DATED this 8th day of October, 2024.
`
`
`
`/s/Mary Chopski
`______________________________________
`An Employee of the Law Office of Travis E. Shetler
`
`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 4 of 5
`
`

`

`Page 5 of 5
`
`in Camera mosert@clarkcourntycourts.us
`
`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
`INTENTIONALLY
`LEFT BLANK
`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,
`
`BURRIS SUPPLEMENT TO
`SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 HEARING
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC.;
`F E D E X C O R P O R A T I O N ; G H G
`CORPORATION; RAFAEL ACEVEDO-
`CASILLAS and DOE EMPLOYEES I through
`X; ROE CORPORATIONS I through X;
`inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`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 Supplemental Brief.
`
`DATED this 24th day of October, 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 Client, Tamara Vasey
`
`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
`
`10/24/2024 5:57 PM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`On February 10, 2023, this Court issued its Order determining that the Burris and Thomas law
`
`firm’s lien on the Vasey settlement should be $750,000, plus costs. (Shetler has not contested the
`
`costs.). Shetler’s co-counsel on the case, Mindy Bish, of the Keenan Law Firm, paid the $750,000 to
`
`the Burris firm on or around April 6, 2023. AFTER his co counsel paid the amount, Shetler then
`
`appealed the court’s Order. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded and found that the district
`
`court had not explicitly described the Brunzell factors on the record (notably, the appellate court did
`
`not criticize the amount of the award, just the absence of description of the Brunzell factors. Also, the
`
`appellate court expressly declined to disturb the finding of the amount of hours expended by the Burris
`
`firm, and expressly stated these were no longer in issue.). The Appellate Court specifically declined
`
`to consider Shetler’s claims that hours submitted by the Burris firm were inaccurate or fraudulent.
`
`At this court’s follow up hearing on September 19, 2024, the court requested supplemental
`
`briefs, specifically on Shetler’s claims that the hours submitted by Burris were not sufficiently
`
`documented. Shetler has submitted a two page brief based solely on his self serving recollections.
`
`Herein, the Burris firm submits all the “raw data,’ consisting of several hundred pages, showing that
`
`all hours were calculated not from mere recollection; rather, from hard data used by the legal assistants
`
`to charge only such time as was documented in the records.
`
`Shetler’s primary arguments seem to be that: $750 an hour is acceptable for experienced
`
`lawyers, but not for newbie associates; and that all the time spent by he and attorney Koning in Florida
`
`to train with co counsel Keenan/Bish should not be charged at 24-hours per day. We have taken Mr.
`
`Shetler’s arguments into account, spelled out below, and, even if we use his system for the sake of
`
`argument (which we are not conceding is correct), the $750,000 figure is still amply justified by the
`
`preponderance of the evidence. We also point out that we still have no confirmation as to what the
`
`actual settlement amount was, nor how much the total fee that Mr. Shetler and his co counsel collected.
`
`(We admit that we have heard or seen third hand accounts of gross amount of the settlement, but we
`
`do not know the total amount of fee collected by Keenan-Bish-Shetler.) We believe that, were it
`
`disclosed, it would likely show that Mr. Shetler himself was paid significantly more than $750 an hour
`
`for his time, as was Ms. Bish, as the fee was probably over $4,000,0000, and Shetler probably got half
`
`of that, minus what Keenan-Paid ($750,000.) Frankly, without the exact numbers, which we have
`
`constantly asked this court to give to us (and have been refused), we are to some extent arguing in the
`
`dark on what is a major Brunzell factor.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Further, we believe that the payment by Shetler’s co counsel, Ms. Bish, of $750,000 was an
`
`accord and satisfaction of the lien dispute, as well as a legal admission by Shetler’s partner that our
`
`attorneys’ lien awarded by this court was appropriate. We assert that as the Appellate Court did not
`
`dispute this court’s prior factual rulings, those are res judicata. We assert that Shetler, who did not
`
`control the trust res, and who was not in charge of distributing fees, but who had agreed to let Bish
`
`handle that function, lacks standing to file the instant motion
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`1. The Actual Amount of Time Spent by The Attorneys and Legal Assistants In This
`Case Is Substantial. A $750/hour Attorney Fee and $125/hour Legal Assistant Fee Is
`Reasonable Under the Circumstances, and In Line With Nevada Case Law.
`
`5 out of the 6 Burris and Thomas attorneys who worked on the Vasey case were all very
`
`experienced, each with more than 25 years of practice, and each with scores of first chair jury trial
`
`experience, and thus, $750 is fair: Steve Burris, Andrew Thomas, Michael Koning, Travis Shetler,
`
`Kevin F. Boyle, all were 25+ year attorneys with extensive litigation experience. Their collective
`
`hours amounted to 1,436.1 hours. (Note: this figure takes into account some of Shetler’s argument that
`
`the Keenan training time should not be 24 hours each day. We have decreased it to 12 hours a day,
`
`which as the affidavit attached hereto from Steven Burris, who has attended similar “referring
`
`attorney” seminars in Florida, is the actual time spent typically. (See Exhibit 1 for Mr. Burris’
`
`Affidavit).
`
`The only newbie attorney was Anjan Gewali, and he was a 4th year associate with significant
`
`litigation experience relative to his time in practice. For sake of argument, we will say that his time
`
`is at$350 an hour. His hours totaled just 4.6 hours, or approximately 0.3% of the attorney work in this
`
`case. Additionally, our legal assistants are all highly trained, with decades of experience doing
`
`litigation (not handling “claims” at some automobile churn and burn firm. They are ‘real deal’
`
`paralegals.) They are, by current standards, valued at $125 an hour. Their hours totaled 302.4. (See
`
`supporting affidavit from paralegal Priscilla Zoccole, Exhibit 1).
`
`The Federal District Court for Nevada in McLachlan v. Ayres recently found that rates for
`
`paralegals and attorneys like the ones requested for by our firm ($125/hour and $750/hour respectively)
`
`are within the realm of reasonableness:1
`
`1 McLachlan v. Ayres, 2022 WL 18584667 at *3 (D. Nev.).
`
`Page 3 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
`
`

`

`The Court further FINDS and CONCLUDES that it is adopting the hourly fee for
`attorney's fees in the amount of $750 per hour as provided for in Plaintiff's executed
`Fee Agreement and accompanying representative orders attached to Plaintiff's
`motion… The Court further FINDS and CONCLUDES that an appropriate and
`reasonable paralegal rate is $175 per hour and that the Paralegal is entitled to 2.5 hours
`for her work in this matter for an award of $437.50.
`
`Mr. Shetler’s bare argument that the attorney’s fee included in the Vasey Retainer Agreement
`
`Contract is unreasonable without any sort of legal or factual basis should be unpersuasive to this court.
`
`He opened his two-page Opposition by claiming that “Nevada Courts have limited fees for senior
`
`associate attorneys to $350 per hour” without any citation to a state or federal district court opinion.
`
`Further, the case cited in the internet article attached to Mr. Shetler’s Opposition is nearly a
`
`decade old and hardly mandatory precedent.
`
`Finally, it should be noted that several courts, including this one, have previously found Prior
`
`Counsel’s $750/hour rate to be commensurate with Mr. Burris and his firm in prior cases involving
`
`Mr. Shetler. (See Exhibit 2). This same Court previously found in favor of our $750/hour rate:
`
`The Court finds and concludes that under NRS 18.015(2), the fee that Prior Counsel
`is entitled to is based on Prior Counsel’s agreement with Plaintiff, which states that
`Prior Counsel is entitled to payment of attorneys’ fees at the rate of $750 / hour for any
`work done. Plaintiff conceded at the hearing that $750 / hour was the agreed upon
`rate. Therefore, there is an insufficient basis to deviate from the agreed upon fee
`rate.
`
`Additionally, a transcript from the Rossman case shows Judge Joe Hardy touching on this exact topic.
`
`In it, he states that “the hourly rates of [Burris & Thomas] are in line with, you know, standards in the
`
`community.” (See pg. 6 of transcript, Exhibit 2).
`
`2. Keenan Trial Institute Workshops and Meeting Hours Were Not Padded. Our
`Firm Should Be Fully Compensated for Our Time Commitments.
`
`Shetler and Koning were both sent to Florida , to an out of the way location in the panhandle,
`
`for required training for Keenan “Referring Attorneys.” As the affidavit of Burris, attached, points
`
`out, this training was required for Referring Attorneys (even though some of it was not specifically on
`
`trucking cases, but the post -Reptile “Keenan “ method; and, when actually there, the days would
`
`typically run 12 hours a day (based on Burris’ own experience attending.)
`
`Even when one takes all of Mr. Shetler and Mr Koning’s Keenan Workshop hours and
`
`cuts them in half (e.g., 24-hour days into 12-hour days), the claimed attorneys’ fees between
`
`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 4 of 10
`
`

`

`those two associates alone still exceeds $750,000 before even considering the other attorneys’
`
`time and support staff (see Fee Breakdown on pg. 8).
`
`In Mr. Shetler’s Opposition, he takes issue with the fact that many, if not all, of the Keenan
`
`Institute-Related charges where itemized on a 24-hour basis. This is due to the fact that these
`
`workshops required travel and completely took up 2-3 attorneys’ time and attention on any given
`
`occasion. Every time these workshops took place, the firm was down - at the very least - one senior
`
`attorney and often times two or three attorneys. The opportunity cost created by the Keenan workshops
`
`began to limit our firm’s capacity to take on other work, as their attention was dedicated to the Vasey
`
`manner. Also, as stated by Burris in his affidavit, he would not have paid for the attorneys to all the
`
`way to Mr. Keenan’s home in the panhandle of Florida but for the Vasey case referring attorney
`
`connection on the Vasey case.
`
`3. Since Ms. Bish Already Paid the $750,000 to Our Firm, An Accord and
`Satisfaction of Debt Has Occurred. This Is Likewise a Legal Admission of Co-
`Counsel, and Mr. Shetler - As A Joint Venturer - Should Be Bound By It.
`
`On February 10, 2023, this Court issued an Order that granted in part and denied in part Mr.
`
`Shetler’s Motion to Adjudicate the Rights of Prior Counsel and for Judicial Determination of Former
`
`Counsel’s Attorney’s Lien
`
`....
`
`With the following established, the Court FINDS & CONCLUDES that Prior
`Counsels is entitled to attorneys’ fees in the amount of $750,000;The Court FINDS
`AND CONCLUDES that in total (fees + costs), Prior Counsel is legally entitled to recover
`$786,757.48.
`
` Thereafter, Mr. Shetler’s co-counsel, Mindy Bish, paid the amount ordered by this Court by
`
`sending a check dated 4/6/2023 to our office with no restrictions. By doing so, there was an accord and
`
`satisfaction of debt.
`
`Mr. Shetler, as co-counsel/joint venturer/partner of Ms. Bish, is precluded from arguing our
`
`office’s attorney’s lien after the fact. He is bound by the actions of his co-counsel through the
`
`fundamentals of agency law.
`
`4. Mr. Shetler Lacks Standing.
`
`The primary counsel on this case, after Shetler took it from the Burris firm, was the Keenan
`
`law firm, and specifically, Mindy Bish and her associate, Ms. Cutting. They did all the discovery and
`
`motion work, and, it is our information that they were the ones who handled the settlement mediation,
`
`Page 5 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
`
`

`

`and more to the point, it was agreed that the settlement funds would be paid to their trust account, and,
`
`distributed by them. Mr. Shetler agreed to this, as the settlement funds were not sent to him by the
`
`defendants. As Bish was the one in control of the funds, acting on behalf of the actual party, Ms.
`
`Vasey, she was the one with final authority to make decisions on distribution, and, whether or not to
`
`post appellate bond and appeal this court’s order. She decided not to do so. She was the one who cut
`
`the check from the settlement trust. SHE PAID US ON BEHALF OF HER CLIENT, TAMMIE
`
`VASEY, WHO IS IN ACTUALITY THE LEGAL PERSON WHO PAYS OUR FEE. IT
`
`CAME FROM BISH’S TRUST ACCOUNT. SHETLER NEVER HAD THE SETTLEMENT
`
`UNDER HIS CONTROL. Plaintiffs counsel only acts as an agent/employee of the plaintiff, and not
`
`as the employee herself. VASEY, THE PLAINTIFF, IS THE ONLY PARTY WITH STANDING
`
`TO SUE TO REDUCE OUR ATTORNEY’S FEE LIEN. Had Vasey wanted to contest our
`
`charges, then the proper way would have been for Bish to have put the money in an agreed upon fund
`
`(interpleader), and then, filed a complaint or declaratory relief action with the court to decide things.
`
`Here, she paid it; and then, another attorney, not even involved in the settlement discussions, and who
`
`did not even touch the trust funds, sues, after the fact, to collect money from prior counsel. Allowing
`
`this cart before the horse style of litigation would encourage fee disputes to be filed as ‘motions to
`
`adjudicate’ willy nilly after distributions take place by every goof looking for “bird dog” or “referral
`
`fees” on PI cases. That’s not how things work.
`
`The real party in interest in Vasey. Her lawyer, Bish, does not contest the court’s decision.
`
`In the case of High Noon at Arlington Ranch HOA v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 173 Nev
`
`500 (2017), there was a somewhat similar legal issue. The HOA of a condo complex sued on behalf
`
`of several owners for construction defect. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the HOA could sue
`
`on behalf of owners who still owned the condos at issue, but lacked standing to sue on behalf of
`
`owners who came in afterwards. Here, Mr. Shetler maybe has some theoretical right against his co
`
`counsel Bish/Keenan for paying our ‘his’ money; and theoretically, Vasey could have required Bish
`
`to file some kind of interpleader; but Shetler is had no standing, himself, to sue to adjudicate a lien that
`
`attached to a trust account settlement sum of money he never had control or access to.
`
`5. The Appellate Order only asks this court to spell out the Brunzell factors; it did not
`disturb the factual findings previously made.
`
`In the end, we think that the Appellate Court’s decision was not that they disagreed with the
`
`amount awarded, and factual findings, so much as that the Brunzell factors were not spelled out. We
`
`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 6 of 10
`
`

`

`have prepared for the court a draft order (see Exhibit 3) that we believe satisfies these requirements.
`
`6. Our Firm Is Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees Generated In Response to Mr. Shetler’s
`Motion to Adjudicate Lien.
`
`This matter has been dragged out for approximately two years. Mr. Shetler has provided
`
`little to no proof that support his claims and rarely cited to mandatory case law in his motions. His
`
`claim was not brought in good-faith in any sense of the word. Despite the fact that Mr. Shetler lost
`
`motion after motion in other cases involving our lien, he refused to withdraw his claim in this case.
`
`The Court of Appeals could not have been clearer in their Order. After the case was remanded,
`
`instructions were given to conduct a Brunzell analysis on the record, as it was unclear whether this
`
`Court explicitly considered the factors in their original February 10, 2023 Order. Prior Counsel
`
`provided said analyses of every single individual involved in the Vasey case. However, Mr. Shetler
`
`saw this as an opportunity to relitigate issues that had already been settled. As a result, he has
`
`successfully “kicked the can down the road” on a half dozen occasions and continues to waste our
`
`time and resources, as well as the Court’s.
`
`NRS. 18.010(2)(b) states that this Court may make an allowance of attorney’s fees to a
`
`prevailing party without regard to the recovery sought, when the court finds that the claim,
`
`counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint or defense of the opposing party was brought
`
`or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party. This Court must
`
`liberally construe the provisions of subsection (b) in favor of awarding attorney’s fees in all
`
`appropriate situations. It is the Legislature’s intent to impose this sanction in all appropriate
`
`situations to punish for and deter frivolous or vexatious claims and defenses because such claims
`
`and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of meritorious
`
`claims, and increase the costs of engaging in business and providing professional services to the
`
`public. In awarding attorney’s fees, this Court may pronounce its decision on the fees at the
`
`conclusion of the proceeding without written motion and with or without presentation of additional
`
`evidence. (See NRS 18.010(3)).
`
`REVISED HOURS (should this court decide to revisit)
`
`As set forth above, we believe that the Appellate Order only asks this court to specify the
`
`Brunzell factors, and expressly states that they are NOT questioning the hours findings. The
`
`Appellate court also does not question the $750 an hour figure. Therefore, by operation of law,
`
`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 7 of 10
`
`

`

`these findings are res judicate in this case.
`
`However, we are aware that this court seems open to re-visiting the hours issue, so, we
`
`have attached to this motion all the ‘raw data’ showing the basis of the hours charged. We did not
`
`just rely on self serving recollections (like Mr. Shetler); we used “hard data” to calculate the hours,
`
`and would submit our large package of factual data far outweighs self serving two page
`recollections (See Exhibit 4 - to be submitted "in camera").
`We also have taken into account Mr. Shetler’s argument that when he and Mr. Koning were
`
`in Florida on the “referring attorney” required meetings, charging 24 hours a day was
`
`inappropriate. So, we cut down those hours to 12 a day, which, based on Mr. Burris’ actual
`
`experience at referring attorney seminars, was how much time was spent. Going by the actual hard
`
`data, and, cutting the referring attorney meeting time in half, the hours, as shown below,
`
`substantiate (and then some) the $750,000.
`
`REVISED ATTORNEY FEES
`
`Steven Burris
`
`45.4 hours
`
`Travis Shetler
`
`Michael Koning
`
`Kevin Boyle
`
`1202.2 hours
`907.2 hours
`
`176.3 hours
`100.3 hours
`
`12.2 hours
`
`X $750.00
`
`$34,050.00
`
`$901,650.00
`$680,400.00
`
`$132,225.00
`$75,225.00
`
`$9,150.00
`
`Anjan Gewali
`
`4.6 hours
`
`X $350.00
`
`$1,610.00
`
`TOTAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`$800,435.00
`
`SUPPORT STAFF FEES
`
`Priscilla Zoccole
`
`300.1 hours
`
`$37,512.50
`
`Carla Dukowitz
`
`2.1 hours
`
`X $125.00
`
`Candice Salerno
`
`0.2 hours
`
`Mary Chopski
`
`17.6 hours
`
`Brandy Brown
`
`0.1 hours
`
`Fran Bemon
`
`2.1 hour
`
`Dionne Gonzalez
`
`0.1 hours
`
`X $50.00
`
`$262.50
`
`$25.00
`
`$880.00
`
`$5.00
`
`$105.00
`
`$5.00
`
`Page 8 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
`
`

`

`Chris Dalstrom
`
`0.4 hours
`
`$20.00
`
`TOTAL SUPPORT STAFF FEES
`
`$38,815.00
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, our office respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
`
`affirm its earlier Order. Mr. Shetler should be precluded from contesting our attorney’s lien any
`
`further, as he has no standing, and as there has been an accord and satisfaction of debt.
`
`Additionally, we have provided an adequate Brunzell analysis in our last two motions showing
`
`that our fee in this case is reasonable. As such, this Court’s Order awarding fees of $750,000 plus
`
`costs should be affirmed.
`
`DATED this 24th day of October, 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
`
`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 9 of 10
`
`

`

`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
`
`BURRIS SUPPLEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 HEARING was made this date by
`
`electronic service via the Court’s electronic filing and service system, addressed to the following:
`
`Travis E. Shetler, Esq.
`LAW OFFICE OF TRAVIS E. SHETLER, PC
`3202 W. Charleston Blvd.
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`TAMARA VASEY, individually and as
`Special Administrator of the Estate of
`DELAND SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased
`
`Stacey Cutting, Esq.
`Bish & Cutting
`22505 Market Street, Suite 104
`Newhall, CA 91321
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`TAMARA VASEY, individually and as
`Special Administrator of the Estate of
`DELAND SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased
`
`Mindy S. Bish, Esq.
`Keenan Law Firm
`148 Nassau St. NW
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`TAMARA VASEY, individually and as
`Special Administrator of the Estate of
`DELAND SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased
`
`Michael J. Nunez, Esq.
`Murchison & Cumming LLP
`350 South Rampart Boulevard, Suite 320
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
`Attorney for Defendants
`FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
`INC. and RAFAEL ACEVEDO-CASILLAS
`
`Therese M. Shanks, Esq.
`Fennemore Craig, PC
`7800 Rancharrah Pkwy
`Reno, NV 89511
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`TAMARA VASEY, individually and as
`Special Administrator of the Estate of
`DELAND SIDNEY VASEY, Deceased
`
`M. Bradley Johnson, Esq.
`Kravitz, Schnitzer & Johnson, CHTD.
`8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 200
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89123
`Attorney for Defendant
`Rafael Acevedo-Casillas
`
`DATED this 24th day of October, 2024.
`
`/s/ Priscilla Zoccole
`
`An Employee of Burris & Thomas, LLC
`
`Page 10 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
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PRIOR COUNSEL’S SUPPLEMENT TO THE
`SEPTEMBER 19, 2024, HEARING
`
`STATE OF NEVADA
`
`
`
`
`COUNTY OF CLARK
`
`
`
`)
`) §
`)
`
`I, Steven M. Burris, being duly sworn under oath, deposes and says:
`
`1.
`
`That I am the attorney in the above-entitled matter and am filing this Affidavit in
`
`Support of Prior Counsel’s Supplement to the September 19, 2024, Hearing.
`
`2.
`
`That I attended the September 19, 2024, hearing and was instructed by the Court to
`
`provide an updated supplement and briefing with regards to our claimed attorneys’
`
`lien.
`
`3.
`
`That I was the most senior supervising attorney on the Vasey case and was
`
`responsible for overall strategy and supervision of the case.
`
`4.
`
`That I have been a ‘referring attorney’ on two other cases involving the Keenan law
`
`firm, and I am quite familiar with their requirements, described below.
`
`5.
`
`That I have litigated other lien dispute cases involving Mr. Shetler in which the
`
`Court found our $750/hour rate to be reasonable and did not limit its application to
`
`only my time vs. other lawyers in the office.
`
`6.
`
`The Keenan Trial Institute has basically two main factions. One is to offer ‘vanilla’
`
`training, via zoom or at local events, to anyone who pays the fee and signs up; and
`
`the other faction is to co-counsel on cases sent in by what they call “RA’s”, or,
`
`“referring attorneys.” On the RA cases, they want the referring attorney to take
`
`some of the ‘regular’ or advanced courses—BUT, in special format at Mr.
`
`Keenan’s home in an isolated part of Florida-- as well as to participate in once
`
`weekly zoom sessions with their “RA” group, and to participate in semi annual in
`
`person meetings of their RA group. The difference, however, in the ‘regular’
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`2