Nick Diaz attorney Ross Goodman to Nevada: If you don’t give us our hearing on April 24th, your suspension is invalid
By Zach Arnold | April 14, 2012
- Nick Diaz’s attorney uses Jonathan Tweedale’s marijuana defense
- Nevada amends complaint against Nick Diaz, shift strategy
- Keith Kizer: Sensitive, sanctimonious speech
- Text of Team Diaz rebuttal to Nevada commission
Ross Goodman of the Goodman Law Group P.C. sent this letter to Nevada’s Attorney General on Friday. Here’s the text of the letter.
GOODMAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
Ross C. Goodman
Oscar B. Goodman
April 13, 2012
Via Hand Delivery
Deputy Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Business & Taxation Division
555 East Washington Avenue, Suite 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Re: Hearing of First Amended Complaint against Nick Diaz
Dear Mr. Eccles:
We have received no response to our correspondence dated April 12th, 2012, seeking confirmation that the NSAC’s complaint against Mr. Diaz will be heard on April 24th, 2012.
Our client’s license is presently suspended on a summary basis until a final determination of any disciplinary action to be taken against him, under an order made by the NSAC pursuant to NRS 467.117(2) and NRS 233B.127(3) on February 22nd, 2012 (the “Summary Suspension Order”).
The law does not permit the NSAC to suspend our client indefinitely pending a hearing and determination of the complaint, but imposes a reasonable and definite time limit when which the complaint must be heard and determined. By enactment effected May 22, 2009, Nevada’s legislator amended NRS 233B.127(3) to provide that “[p]roceedings relating to the order of summary suspension must be instituted and determined within 45 days after the date of the order unless the agency and the licensee mutually agree in writing to a longer period.” [emphasis added] (Prior to this amendment, the time limitation was that the proceedings be instituted and determined “promptly”.) Requests for documents, including documents which are not relevant to the matters in dispute and which are protected by statutory and common law privilege, do not operate to extend the time limit within which a hearing must be held pursuant to the statutory limitation.
The final day for the hearing and determination of the NSAC’s complaint against Mr. Diaz was therefore April 6th, 2012 — 45 days after the date of the Summary Suspension Order. In discussions with Mr. Kizer, following the Summary Suspension Order, Mr. Kizer informed me and others that this matter would be placed on the NSAC’s April agenda. Our client was and is confident that there is no basis for disciplinary action against him and therefore did not object to a delay beyond the required 45 day time limit as long as the matter was heard and determined in April.
However, our client objects to any further delay.
We presume that the NSAC will comply with its statutory obligation to have this matter heard on April 24th, 2012. If not, my client takes the position that the NSAC has by virtue of its delay irrevocably elected to discontinue or abandon its complaint against Mr. Diaz. The NSAC has no authority to hear or determine the complaint at a later date, and any such purported hearing or determination of the complaint would be ultra vires the NSAC’s statutory powers.
We expect your response no latter than 4 PM, Monday, April 16th, 2012.
Very truly yours,
Ross C. Goodman, Esq.
GOODMAN LAW GROUP, P.C.