important that this court understands the procedural posture of this case when this case started in late fourteen early fifteen missed different counsel that time the parties had all agreed after they were served to stipulate to stay the proceedings in the federal court matter while the criminal matter was proceeding through the nevada state court in las vegas so because of that stay which was granted by the court is through a stupid step an order no discovery has been conducted in this case there's been no scheduling order discovery plan filed in this case there's been no twenty six dollars f production in this case nothing zero and the reason that's important that that state remain in effect for about two years and then in may of two thousand and seventeen on the status check on the district court later and seventeen the respondents did file a motion for summary judgment a motion not predicated on any any discovery conduct it at all in this case it was all predicated on what happened in the related  commenced when no discovery had or had occurred in this case it's important to take a look at what what did judge jones rely on repeatedly throughout his order and i of course in the respondents briefing is the great case of how versus dillard and has collateral stoppel effect issue of effect well if that was the case of course california this court has interpreted other cases out of california the wabi case that i've indicated and others as well saying that when you  have issue precludes of or collateral stoppel effect unless there is evidence that the probable cause determination was infected by government is conduct some sort of wrongful lacks some sort of fabricated evidence bad faith a number of different circumstances cited in the case and the reason that's important because judge jones in his order and the respondents in their brief overlooked and did not see that our nevada supreme court had actually addressed the fourteen years ago in two thousand and five in the jordan case which i cited in reply in that case was a civil rights case in that case the gentleman was challenging what happened is a criminal case including the here and they all come back to the plenary hearing which w i only found it myself with barry and i found it when doing my reply and i don't think it was aware of it because the implication is that however says diller has never been ruled against or helped contra by the nevada supreme court but that's not the case because jordan was i believe motion i filed my response and then it just goes in from the court he did that the ruling was not immediate it was last several months before we actually got a decision i think in two thousand and eight jordan was relevant but the parties didn't find a judge jones was unaware of it that's  everyone was ignorant of myself included and so i dug it up i found it so the reason that's important is that the entire argument from the metro defendants is that hey you can't consider anything because we had a pre case close by that's not the case at all because jordan and in the battle now st for last fourteen years you can look beyond the pulmonary hearing findings as to whether there was probable cause or not so  that issue i think is important obviously it's something cited in my reply but looking further what was the issue of probable cause itself why was it wrongful in some way with the understanding that there's been no discovery conducted in this case all of room everything is fine they have sexual relations in the room and then she bolts into the bathroom after it's all done locks the door calls nine hundred and eleven tells the nine hundred and eleven operator that doc's defeated he has a gun he's going to kill me she threatened suicide notably absent from that nine hundred and eleven call which was part of the state court proceedings was any evidence this guy raped me this guy committed sexual assault on me nowhere to be found the police come there is no gun there is no attempt murder there is no suicide and there's no actual statement from the victim herself saying that she was raped she's interviewed by the detective from metro detective pool and even in the st interview she she says that she was joking around she was saying no in a joking manner while they were going further with the with the investigation because probable cause hinges on well what was there for the investigation ms carter was taken to you mc university medical center standard protocol they conducted the sex assault kids got a sane as a any exam on her the finding was that it was positive that she had sexual activity well yeah they are and they all say they a consensual sex there is no finding of sexual assault to support that and that's important because the metro detective who obtained the search warrant that was part of the arrest process put in the search warrant affidavit that to the same exam was positive for sex assault that's not what it said the nd search warrant affidavit which was the basis for the suppression motion also contained other misleading information in it did not include the information about the victim laughing and joking around about to having sex with my client did not include information about the fact that the victim had had essentially called nine hundred and eleven and said he's got a gun there was no gun he's trying to kill me no evidence of that all that's left out of the search warrant application that a magistrate heard hearing that said ok there's sufficient probable cause issue a search warrant and you go from there in that search warrant affidavit as well metro detective reference the fact that dr he actually has the nerve to invoke a constitutional right and that's a basis to get a search warrant ok so these are all facts that came out other are not to mention the fact that there was the ms carter indicated she was texting her friends throughout the entire incident got and that contained potentially exculpatory evidence which the nevada supreme court in reading the videos of including can see the videos because that was on her phone as well so all of that evidence which was in metro's hands for a moment looked at who knows what they looked at they gave it back they didn't keep it that it they retrieve nothing from that so all that relevant probative evidence about you know is there even sufficient probable cause here to even charge dr scafidi with a really heinous act you know the oh this is very interesting inclusive which i'm not sure that's a problem you know how by the way but all the story you're giving is a very interesting background and you've got to be able to tell the story it was not it was not precluded  that's correct i mean anything more on the legal question well the legal question the the idea is should this court give issue of effect collateral stop effect to what happened at the balloon or hearing knowing all these facts facts that had not been developed by any office moved to dismiss the case and the district court judge dismissed it so what is your final judgment this is not a conviction it's not a reversal on appeal it's a dismiss case dismissed judgment and this court has said in the  you take everything i just said and put it over there if you have a dismissed judgment then that means everything the probable cause determination all the motion hearings all this all that whatever happen didn't happen got well i i that you're citing mills i think you might be overstating it slightly but nevertheless i think the opinion helps you but i have a question about nevada state claims there's a requirement that you have to exhaust basically right that your client had to exhaust before filing a state nevada state claims against the officers i disagree with that ok well then i would like to understand that because as i read the statute it says each person has a claim against any political subdivision of the state arising out of a tort must file the claim within two years after the time the cause of action a cruise with the governing body of that political subdivision art agree that that was not filed before the complaint not  the nevada supreme court has never never overturned turner versus skaggs now we could say it's a law all law good law is still on the books the nevada supreme court holding which has never been overturned by that court and the law in the vet is you don't have to present  comply with the claims present statute not judge jones in his order he said well yeah i know about that but here in federal court in vegas i got a couple of the district court departments they looked at and they say you do well the nevada supreme court which is the final say in  law says you don't and they never they've had an opportunity to address that i think i cited one of the cases in my opening brief they never returned that they've never addressed that so maybe you have a conflict between what the legislature says and whether nevada supreme court says but what they said in  seventy three is still as good today as it was back then it was a good year or so i was looking at them so that the claims present a statute just does not it's a red herring it's a distraction and it's thrown out there because of what the statute says the statute doesn't j good morning your honor may please the court craig anderson on behalf of the las vegas metropolitan police in oh you're splitting time is that why you see a twelve up there yeah and yes your honor i'm going to do twelve minutes and then you the nurse will take the remaining three minutes ok and you're going to address  the other is going to i'm going to receive i'm addressing the police allegations i represent the police department and all the officers ok and your colleague is going to address the claims if there are any against the nurse ok necessarily litigated in this case the witness who testified at the probable cause hearing was the victim it was based upon her testimony that the court found that probable cause existed as this court is well aware  the supreme court recently stated in westby that the standard for probable cause is not a hi mark that the facts just have to give a reasonable inference that a crime was committed here the victim testified that she said no to the interviewed she made no mention and he sexual matter and then the cops went back really enter buner and basically said you know you don't have enough here for any kind of criminal conduct and then encourage her to make that allegation right correct to a point but the detective did as he was interviewing her and she was saying she did not remember she didn't recall and what he said was ok we're going to break this interview and i'm going to see if you really go take this it was basically a test like how serious are you are you going to go meet with the doctors and undergo this intrusive exam do you really believe what you're saying which she did and when she finished the scene exam she gave a  whether he felt that she was able to consent he was just supporting her testimony that a sexual assault occurred and that she was either unable to consent or that she said no and at the plenary hearing that's all the magistra looking at as to whether there was probable cause here to allow this to go forward the magistrate found that that it did and i heard judge fletcher's comments on wabi and the jones case in the vatican i don't think it's a political here  perjury fabricated evidence or other wrongful conduct in jordan the allegation was that perjury occurred to obtain the arrest in this case there's no such allegations it isn't there are arguments that the police dummied up evidence regarding drugs that they phony a photograph in order to support the positions that they were isn't that in essence part of the allegations that the plaintiff was making that is an allegation in the affidavit but it was not used at the probable cause hearing and similar to hop or hop the allegation is with that but i think that's part of your problem speaking more generally and then i'll go back to this case probable cause hearing are abbreviated and it's very often the case that an experience criminal defense lawyer will not present much of his case at the probable cause hearing prefer him for tactical reasons to save it for later which is why the general rule is putting to one side for the moment nevada the general rule is what happens at the probable cause hearing is no more than at most presumptive evidence or presumptively conclusive because it's not a full determining and you can determine separate of the issue precludes issue is whether based upon the undisputed facts there was probable cause to arrest mr skied but what happened here i gather is that judge jones just looked at judge cam undisputed and determine whether absent the issue preclusion issue there is still probable cause based upon the fact that sounds like a job for a district judge well this is a do over review with undisputed facts in front of the court which your house you suggested to me as well you might want to disputable you can't hear well ok that's one reason for us not to do fact finding well then i would say this is analogous to a judicial deception claim or you would take those facts out of the equation and look at the facts that are not  d the fact that there was a serious nine hundred and eleven call where the plaintiff reported an assault and she was feeling threatened they found the victim locked in a bathroom and i get to know we jordan is what it is apparently the parties of the time in front of judge jones were not aware of it nor was judge jones there seems to me a sensible way is to send it back to judge jones and say you know there's a case here that may change the way you look at this case jones sorry jordan sided toward me in a footnote is correct it was not an analysis of a one but i don't believe you even need to go there because in jordan the allegation was that it was perjury and there was no plenary hearing it was a justice of the peace who looked at the charging document and said there's probable cause the plaintiff then came in and said it was based on perjury here there's no allegation that there was perjury but there's an allegation that the fact finding at the preliminary hearing was impermissibly influenced victim saying that she was too drugged to under too intoxicated to understand what was going on and that she said no on that basis alone there's probable cause the detectives didn't come in and testified to to anything  be the issue was fabricated evidence intentionally knowingly there was no evidence put on at the plenary hearing that was intentionally unknowingly faults or fabricated it was strictly the testimony of the victim with detective pool supporting her representation is about her intoxication level so it's similar to where you're going with this as a judicial deception claim all of these allegations are out there i get but those are taken out and you're looking at the facts that were reasonable officer on the day of the incident who finds a woman locked in a bathroom having makeshift some weapons claiming that she's frightened of the mr skiffy the she says that she's been assaulted with a reasonable officer in those circumstances could conclude that there is a fair probability that a crime has been committed and i would cite to under devon peck versus all for it doesn't even have to be the sexual assault crime it can be any crime for which there is probable cause it could have been false imprisonment under these unique facts any officer would have believed there was a reasonable probability that a crime had occurred and arrested mr skiffy all of the other stuff is no and it was not relied upon because the video they excluded why do you exclude a video it's not helpful and so the detectives had watched that video which went into their probable cause determination i know now that it's been excluded but it was the plaintiff that moved to exclude that  and i will just say there is heat the well that would be a side issue so what they're complaining is that the officers did wrong was not preserved text messages that they made misrepresentations  affidavit to obtain digital evidence not to arrest him the arrest that already occurred so the warrant and the text messages are really irrelevant discourse determination as to whether it's probable cause and i will say if you think judge jones should have looked at jordan you can then push the issue preclusion to the side and the other ground that he found for the defendants was that there is probable cause based upon these factors of how the defendants found the victim what she told them and i get it it becomes a he said she said it becomes that that's how most of these cases are and the detectives made a fair determination based upon the unique posher of the victim in this case locked in a bathroom bleeding having created weapons naked saying that she was in fear for her safety any reasonable police officer under those circumstances would have found there was a fair probability that a crime occurred and allowed the arrest the p c hearing then just supports that because they did not put on any evidence of the p beyond the victim's testimony there's no allegation of perjury there's no allegation of fabricated evidence or intentional or knowing knowing wrongdoing at the time of the pulling in every hearing so i think we're getting a little bit farther than we need to be and really quick to address to judge nelson's about the notice claim statute to turn skaggs cases they involved one hundred and eighty day window where they had to file the claim so the nevada supreme court the district court judge below cited some on published decisions from the federal courts and the question is is it is turner still good and i guess what i was trying to figure out is maybe i just misread turner is turner based on the fact that there's any notice required or is it a difference in how they're treating private entities versus public entities the only difference in how they're treating private or ult nurse examination and she's not a state employee she's a private citizen and you know the evidence in this case has been that she reported there is evidence of sexual contact that's admitted by the plans but the allegation against her in this complaint and what we argued to the court below was that you know they've they've they've alleged here in paragraph thirty six dollars of the complaint that despite the fact terminally and found that there was no sexual act that there was only sexual activity judgment level indicating what that conspiracy was in the you in i confess i need a little help and what did the district judge do with respect to your client well that this kind of interesting thing is you know we joined the motion filed our own separate points in authority but the order doesn't really say anything other than the motions are granted so there's there were no real specific findings with respect to my client so what we're left with is that you made a motion for summary judgment we did we did which was granted which was granted and it's just unusual the order doesn't really it talks about the police departments motion and how everything is granted it looks like the district court looks at the case and said this is a you know issue preclusion case we're granting summary judgment on that on that basis and i'm not gets not clear to me whether or not he got to our our points in authorities or not but the motion was granted and what's interesting though is in opposition they want to rule fifty six dollars they've got to they've got to do some sort of missile evidence in opposition they don't point out any sort of evidence as to what the conspiracy was and under bucky versus county of los angeles you've got to clean that conspiracy claim with specific facts and the only thing in the complaint is just a bald assertion that she conspired and that just time they submitted dr skiffy he submitted a fifteen page single spaced affidavit but it still doesn't say anything anderson terminally and did to violate his constitutional rights so on behalf of a nurse term and namely in the the order below should be a firmed thank you counsel for metro said something i thought really interesting he said we need some fact finding here now i agree we do need some fact finding here some fact finding about the arrests in fact i mean about probable cause it's in fact fine about what led up to the a fact fine about the case counsel for devalue and says that talks about we may know to request for additional discovery about some discovery how about any discovery because there was zero in this case how about we send this case back and then the parties can actually meet and follow the rules and do a twenty six f conference and exchange some initial document production and get a scheduling order in place and actually do some work all of us let me ask you about the nurse defendant how serious  chain of events that the nurse who performed the examination would conspire with the cops conspire or was a simple negligence because of the report came back just saying the parties that sexual activity not sexual assault so the report the report the nurse gives a party line and say i like to keep the lawsuit of legal discovery done but under rule eleven if i don't don't feel that the claim is worth pursuing i have an ethical obligation to dismiss that she was if she was part of the conspiracy would she have said that it was sexual assault sexual activity ok what do you do say right now you're done with i would say go forty nine years well i wonder what the claim is against her i mean she did what she was supposed to do she didn't evalu she said there were sexual conduct but she can't say there was assault or there was some other thing out why are you making a lawsuit against her she's not a state actor is she well she works at u