Today, the City of Reno Council approved the settlement in a 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 civil rights lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. 3:22-cv-00238-MMD-CSD, Rebecca Gasca vs. City of Reno, et al. The McLetchie Law Group represents Ms. Gasca.

Police officers are required to respect the constitutional rights of people who attend protests – including protests that are critical of the police. Ms. Gasca and McLetchie Law filed suit because Reno police did not adhere to that fundamental principal. There was absolutely no reason for the officer to use nonlethal projectile rounds on Ms. Gasca, who was acting as a peaceful legal observer on May 30, 2022, during the protest related to the murder of George Floyd, when she was violently targeted by a Reno police officer.

To be clear, Ms. Gasca was not a threat. Ms. Gasca was not part of an uncontrolled crowd. She was not in a crowd at all. Instead, Ms. Gasca was wearing a clearly marked legal observer vest while standing in the middle of a parking lot by herself. She was peacefully trying to observe interactions between the police and protesters. Ms. Gasca even had her arms above her head when an officer first hit her in the left arm the nonlethal round commonly called 40mm Direct Impact OC. After Ms. Gasca began filming what the Reno police officer was doing to her, the officer hit her with an OC round for a second time, this time in the upper right thigh near her groin. Ms. Gasca was shocked and immobilized with fear. She sat down but the officer continued firing 40mm munitions in her direction. When Ms. Gasca attempted to get up and vocalize her plans to leave the scene, she was hit for a third time by the same type of projectile, this time near the groin on her left side.

Again, Ms. Gasca posed absolutely no threat to any officer or to public safety, and no officer provided any warning to Ms. Gasca prior to opening relentless fire on her, causing extensive bruising and requiring medical care. This incident was a failure of the City of Reno Police Department’s Use of Force standards. Not only was the force illegal and unnecessary, neither the officer nor his sergeant even created any report about the Use of Force against her (an apparent violation of Reno’s existing Use of Force Policy).

The violent encounter with law enforcement physically and emotionally harmed Ms. Gasca. “The trauma I experienced fails in comparison to the history of the suffering of so many others at the hands of institutionalized police brutality in our country,” Ms. Gasca said. “Through much therapy,

I learned to manage Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) caused by the incident and was able to stand up for my rights. But so many individuals unfairly assaulted by ‘peace officers’ don’t know their civil rights or have access to counsel. They also may not know how to navigate mental health care systems for themselves. We need peaceful change through police reform and we need it now.”

“We’re pleased we could resolve the case for our client and get her compensation for what happened without having to go through further litigation,” Maggie McLetchie, the lead attorney representing Ms. Gasca said. “More importantly, Ms. Gasca and I look forward to working with the City of Reno to make meaningful changes to ensure this does not happen again. We are at a crossroads when it comes to the relationship between law enforcement and the community. We should not live in a world where you need to live in fear of the police because of the color of your skin, or because you legally observe or attend a protest drawing attention to police violence.”

On December 29, 2022, the Nevada Supreme Court "conclude[d] that a private right of action for money damages exists to vindicate violations of search-and-seizure rights under the Nevada Constitution, but a qualified-immunity defense does not apply to such an action." This is a significant decision because it makes clear that people have private causes of action for violations of their state rights against illegal search-and-seizure, not just under the federal Constitution – and that such civil rights plaintiffs don’t have to overcome the infamous qualified immunity defense.

McLetchie Law was local counsel for one of the amici urging the court to take this position, the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center. Congratulations to the civil rights plaintiff in the case and his counsel!

Can a plaintiff voluntarily dismiss a case under NRCP 41(a)(1) during the pendency of an anti-SLAPP motion if no answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed?

In 2021, Plaintiffs Marshal S. Willick and his firm, the Willick Law Group, attempted to do just that in a defamation matter against McLetchie Law’s clients, Defendants Steve Sanson and Veterans in Politics International (VIPI), even though the merits of the litigation had been considered by the Eighth Judicial District Court and the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court on de novo review. Voluntary dismissal of this case would have meant that Mr. Sanson and VIPI would be denied the important protections of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, including a potential entitlement to attorney’s fees, costs, and a statutory award.

The district court denied Mr. Willick’s motion to voluntarily dismiss, and Mr. Willick petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for writ relief to overturn that decision.

On March 31, 2022, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Sanson and VIPI. While it refused to adopt a per-se rule automatically equating a special anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss with a motion for summary judgment under NRCP 41(a)(1), the Nevada Supreme Court held that, given the “unique and extreme circumstances” of the case, Mr. Willick “is estopped from dismissing his action with no consequences, as the litigation has reached an advanced stage after four years and a prior de novo appeal.”

In anti-SLAPP cases, the prevailing defendant is entitled to reasonable fees and costs incurred in defending their right to free speech. The Nevada Supreme Court previously found that Mr. Sanson and VIPI satisfied the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis – that their criticism of Mr. Willick’s legal practices were good faith communications, made in a place open to the public, in direct connection with a matter of public concern. The next step in the litigation is addressing the second prong on of the anti-SLAPP analysis: whether the Plaintiffs’ case has minimal merit. Mr. Sanson and VIPI contend that it does not – and was just designed to insulate a high profile lawyer from public criticism.

The Nevada Supreme Court’s published opinion can be accessed by clicking here.

McLetchie Law addresses remarks about our client, Chael Sonnen, against whom the District Attorney’s Office recently properly dropped unfounded felony charges. The firm’s full statement in response can be accessed by clicking here.

“As an attorney for the Las Vegas Review-Journal since 2012, she has fought to uncover the truth when government agencies sought to keep public records hidden, and she has aggressively defended the First Amendment rights of not just the press but all people in Nevada. On Saturday, she received the Nevada Press Association’s First Amendment Champion award for 2018.“ more »

On August 8, 2018, District Joe Hardy Jr.  found that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Report withheld records concerning sex trafficking in violation of the Nevada Public Records Act. Maggie McLetchie led the legal team in this successful fight. Learn more »

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that redacted autopsy reports of October 1 victims are public records and should be available for inspection by the public.  Learn more »

On September 28, 2017, District Judge Him Corckett ruled in favor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and its reporters who seek autopsy reports for suspicious deaths. Maggie McLetchie led the legal team in this successful fight. Learn more »

In a case litigated by McLetchie Law and the Clark County Public Defender’s office, a federal judge ruled that the State of Nevada is in violation of a 2014 settlement which required the state to provide treatment to mentally ill patients within seven days. United States District Court Judge Miranda Du ordered state officials to work with the Clark County Public Defender’s office to profer a remedy that may include using an independent monitor to oversee compliance.