Electronically Filed

8/31/2020 4:03 PM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT

APEN
1 JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7269
2 TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13513
3 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
4 Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: 702-678-5070
5 Facsimile: 702-878-9995
jbarr@[Link]
6 tkahler@[Link]
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola
8 RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
Nevada Bar No. 9036
9 BRADLEY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13064
10 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
11 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: 702.784.5200
12 Facsimile: 702.784.5252
rgordon@[Link]
13 baustin@[Link]
14 Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L. Morris
15
DISTRICT COURT
16
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
17

18 ALFONSO NOYOLA, an individual, and STEVEN Case No.: A-20-818973-C

L. MORRIS, an individual
19 Dept. No.: 24
Plaintiffs,
20
vs. APPENDIX TO MOTION FOR
21 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON
THE CITY OF BOULDER CITY, a political ORDER SHORTENING TIME
22 subdivision of the State of Nevada; KIERNAN
MCMANUS, an individual; and TRACY FOLDA, VOLUME 1 of 1
23 an individual.

24 Defendant.

25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

1
Case Number: A-20-818973-C
 1 INDEX – APPENDIX
Volume 1 of 1 – Pages 1-173
2 Exhibit Document Description Page No(s).
3 1 Declaration of Alfonso Noyola 1-15
4 2 Declaration of Claudia Bridges 16-22
5 3 Declaration of Nancy Sommer 23-28
6 4 Declaration of Steve Morris 29-66

7 5 July 28, 2020 Letters to Alfonso Noyola 67-69

8 6 July 28, 2020 Letters to Steve Morris 70-71

7 August 5-6, 2020 Email Chain 72-76
9
8 Declaration of Lorene Krumm 77-117
10
9 August 6, 2020 Demand Letter 118-119
11
10 August 27, 2020 Letter 120-169
12
11 August 27-31, 2020 Email exchange between J. Gilmore and T. 170-173
13 Kahler

14 Dated this 31st day of August, 2020. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP

15 By: /s/ Tiffany A. Kahler
16 JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 007269
17 TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13513
18 3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
19 Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola
20
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
21
By: /s/ Richard C. Gordon
22 RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
Nevada Bar No. 9036
23 BRADLEY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13064
24
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
25 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L. Morris
26

27
28

2
 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on the 31st day of August, 2020, the foregoing APPENDIX TO
3 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST
4 ON ORDER SHORTENING TIME was served to the parties below as follows:
5 via electronic service through Odyssey pursuant to NEFCR 9, NRCP 5(b) and EDCR 7.26
to:
6

7 Dennis Kennedy, Esq.

Joshua Gilmore, Esq.
8 Andrea Champion, Esq.
BAILEY KENNEDY
9
8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
10 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
DKennedy@[Link]
11 JGilmore@[Link]
AChampion@[Link]
12

13
by mailing a copy thereof, first class mail, postage prepaid, to:
14

15
via hand delivery to:
16

17

18

19 /s/ Jessica Myrold

An employee of Armstrong Teasdale LLP
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28

3
EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 4

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 5

67
 CITY OF BOULDER CITY
Mayor and City Council
401 California Avenue
Boulder City, NV 89005
[Link]

July 28, 2020

Alfonso Noyola
City Manager, City of Boulder City
401 California Avenue
Boulder City, NV 89005

RE: Notice of Special Meeting

Mr. Noyola,

This letter is to provide you notice of a special meeting of the City Council of Boulder
City to consider your character, misconduct, and/or professional competence, as
provided for in NRS 241.031 and 241.033. The meeting is scheduled for August 6,
2020 at 6:00 pm. The public meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers of City
Hall, 401 California Avenue. You may have a representative or your own counsel
present for the meeting.

The issues that may be discussed and actions that may occur include one or more of
the following:

1) The discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken in obtaining review by
outside counsel of employment contracts for you as City Manager and for the City
Attorney after a request for such action had failed to be approved by a majority of the
City Council.

2) The discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken under the emergency
powers that existed during a public health crisis for a matter at the Municipal airport
regarding fuel delivery, transport and storage.

3) The termination of your employment pursuant to the termination or severance

section of your employment contract (Agreement 18-1764) and the City Charter.

Page 1 of 2

68
Cordially,

Tracy Folda
City Councilmember
City of Boulder City

Page 2 of 2

69
EXHIBIT 6

EXHIBIT 6

70
71
EXHIBIT 7

EXHIBIT 7

72
73
74
75
76
EXHIBIT 8

EXHIBIT 8

77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
EXHIBIT 9

EXHIBIT 9

118
 Tiffany A. Kahler, Esq.

Direct T 702.473.7080 F 702.878.9995

tkahler@[Link]

August 6, 2020

Via email only at kmcmanus@b [Link] and bookerlawfirm54@[Link]

City of Boulder City
c/o Gary Booker, Deputy City Attorney and Mayor Kiernan McMa nus
401 California Avenue
Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Re: Potential Violation of Temporary Restraining Orde r Entered August 5, 2020

Dear Mayor McManus and Mr. Booker:

As you are aware, my office represents Mr. Noyola in the action titled Noyola, et al. v. The City of Boulder City,
Case No. A-20-818973-C, pending in the Eighth Judicial Dis trict Court, Clark County, Nevada. It is my
understanding that Mayor McManus directed the City Council to proceed witth tonight’s Special Meeting (the
“Special Meeting”), even though the Special Meeting was c ancelled by the City Clerk pursuant to the
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) ” entered by the Court on August 5, 2020. If the City moves forward
tonight with the Special Meeting, it is a violation of the TRO and we will seek a contempt order from the
Court.

In the TRO, the Court found both the Special Meeting and Sppecial Meeting Agenda violate Nevada’s Open
Meeting Law, NRS ch. 241. Additionally, the Courtr found the T RO was necesssary to prevent irreparable harm
to Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris. In light of those findings, th e Court “prohibited and enjoined [the City
Council] from hearing Items 1-4 of the August 6, 2020 Specia l Meeting Agenda until the conclusion of the
preliminary injunction hearing.” With the removal of Items 1-4, there is no business remaining on the
Agenda to deliberate or take action on. Thus, holding thhe Special Meeting on Item 5 is in direct
contradiction to the TRO’s finding that the entire Special Mee ting and Agenda violated Nevada’s Opening
Meeting Law.

Should the City Council proceed with the cancelled Special Mee ting, we will seek a contempt order from the
Court for the City’s violation of the TRO and we will seek all atto rneys’ fees and costs.

Sincerely,

Tiffany A. Kahler, Esq.

TAK:jlm

ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 3770 HOWARD HUGHES PARKWAY, SUITE 200, LAS VEGAS, NV 8916 9 T 702.678.5070 F 702.878.9995 [Link]

119
EXHIBIT 10

EXHIBIT 10

120
 Tiffany A. Kahler, Esq.

Direct T 702.473.7080 F 702.878.9995

tkahler@[Link]

August 27, 2020

Via email only: DKennedy@[Link]

JGilmore@[Link]
AChampion@[Link]
Dennis L. Kennedy, Esq.
Joshua P. Gilmore, Esq.
Andrea M. Champion, Esq.
BAILEY KENNEDY, LLP
8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148

Re: Noyola, et al. v. The City of Boulder City, Case No. A-20-818973-C; Acceptance of Service of
First Amended Complaint and Confirmation of Upholding Ethical Obligations

Dear Counsel:

We write to make two requests.

First, as you are aware, our office represents Mr. Noyola in the above-referenced action, and Snell & Wilmer
represents Mr. Morris in the above-referenced action. On August 25, 2020, Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris filed
their First Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) against your client, the City of Boulder City (“the
City.”)

In addition to claims against the City, the Amended Complaint contains independent causes of action
against Mayor Kiernan McManus (“Mayor McManus”) and Councilwoman Tracy Folda (“Councilwoman
Folda”). Please advise if your office will accept service of the attached Summonses for Mayor McManus and
Councilwoman Folda.

Second, please provide written confirmation that Mayor McManus and Councilwoman Folda will adhere to
the requirements found in NRS ch. 281A and uphold their ethical obligations by abstaining from voting in
any, or upon any, matter relating to the employment contracts of Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris with the City
based upon their conflict of interest.

ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 3770 HOWARD HUGHES PARKWAY, SUITE 200, LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 T 702.678.5070 F 702.878.9995 [Link]

121
August 27, 2020
Page 2

We formally request that you provide our office with a resp onse relating to acceptance of service and
confirmation relating to Mayor McManus and Councilwoman Folda’s abstention by no later than Friday,
August 28, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time. If we do not recei ve a response in that timeframe, we will seek
relief from the court.

Sincerely,

Tiffany A. Kahler, Esq.

TAK:jlm

Enclosures

cc: Richard Gordon, Esq. (rgordon@[Link])

Bradley Austin, Esq. (baustin@[Link])

ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP

122
 Electronically Filed
8/25/2020 7:34 PM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT

ACOM
1 JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ.
2 Nevada Bar No. 7269
TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ.
3 Nevada Bar No. 13513
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
4 3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89169
5
Telephone: 702-678-5070
6 Facsimile: 702-878-9995
jbarr@[Link]
7 tkahler@[Link]

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola

9 RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
Nevada Bar No. 9036
10 BRADLEY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13064
11 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
12 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: 702-784-5200
13 Facsimile: 702-784-5252
rgordon@[Link]
14 baustin@[Link]
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L. Morris
16 DISTRICT COURT
17 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
18
ALFONSO NOYOLA, an individual, and STEVEN Case No.: A-20-818973-C
19 L. MORRIS, an individual
Dept. No.: 24
20 Plaintiffs,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
21 vs.
Exemption from Arbitration Requested:
22 THE CITY OF BOULDER CITY, a political (1) Action involving Declaratory Relief
subdivision of the State of Nevada, KIERNAN (2) Action seeking Equitable Relief
23 McMANUS, an individual, TRACY FOLDA, an
individual
24
Defendants.
25

26 Plaintiffs ALFONSO NOYOLA, an individual (“Mr. Noyola”) and STEVEN L. MORRIS, an

27 individual (“Mr. Morris”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby complain and allege against Defendant

28 THE CITY OF BOULDER CITY (“Boulder City” or the “City”), a political subdivision of the State

1
Case Number: A-20-818973-C

123
 1 of Nevada, Defendant Kiernan McManus, an individual (“Mr. McManus” or the “Mayor”), and
2 Defendant Tracy Folda, and individual (“Ms. Folda”) (collectively, “Defendants”) as follows:
3 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
4 1. This action is necessary because Boulder City has violated Nevada’s Open Meeting
5 Law, NRS ch. 241 by not giving Plaintiffs proper, constitutional notice required by Nevada’s Open
6 Meeting Law and conducted serial meetings contrary to Nevada’s Open Meeting Law. This suit
7 seeks, in part, an injunction to require Boulder City, to comply with NRS ch. 241, before taking any
8 further action since Plaintiffs are being denied rights conferred by this chapter and Nevada law.
9 Moreover, the City’s actions breached Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris’ justifiable expectations as
10 outlined in their employment Contracts. Additionally, Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda have
11 intentionally acted in such a manner as to disrupt the contractual relationship between the City and
12 Plaintiffs and conspired to unlawfully retaliate against Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris by terminating
13 their employment contracts in violation of Nevada law.
14 THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
15 2. All previous paragraphs in this Complaint are specifically incorporated herein as
16 though fully set forth.
17 3. Alfonso Noyola is a Nevada resident residing in Clark County, Nevada.
18 4. Steven L. Morris is a Nevada resident residing in Clark County, Nevada.
19 5. The City of Boulder City is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada.
20 6. Kiernan McManus is a Nevada resident residing in Clark County, Nevada.
21 7. Tracy Folda is a Nevada resident residing in Clark County, Nevada.
22 8. The City Council of Boulder City is a “public body” within the meaning of NRS
23 241.015(4).
24 9. Actions of the City Council of Boulder City are subject to NRS ch. 241, Nevada’s
25 Open Meeting Law.
26 10. NRS 241.037(2) permits a person denied a right conferred by NRS ch. 241 to sue in
27 the district court of the district in which the public body ordinarily holds its meetings, or in which the
28 plaintiff resides.

124
 1 11. This Court is the court of the district in which the City Council of Boulder City holds
2 its meetings, the individual Defendants reside, and in which Plaintiffs reside.
3 12. Accordingly, jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court pursuant to NRS
4 241.037(2), NRS 13.020, NRS 13.040, NRS 14.065, and Article 6, Section 6 of the Nevada
5 Constitution.
6 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
7 13. All previous paragraphs in this Complaint are specifically incorporated herein as
8 though fully set forth.
9 14. On or about February 28, 2018, Mr. Morris entered into a valid and binding
10 employment contract with the City of Boulder City for the position of City Attorney.
11 15. On or about March 15, 2018, Mr. Noyola entered into a valid and binding employment
12 contract with the City of Boulder City for the position of City Manager.
13 16. In the two-and-a-half years that Mr. Morris and Mr. Noyola have served in their
14 respective positions, neither has been subject to any disciplinary action or reprimanded by the City
15 prior to the events outlined herein.
16 I. First Violation of Nevada’s Open Meeting Law
17 17. On or about July 28, 2020, Tracy Folda, a single City Councilmember of Boulder
18 City, sent unsigned letters (“Letters”) to Plaintiffs to inform them of an upcoming special meeting of
19 the City Council of Boulder City to consider their character, alleged misconduct, and/or professional
20 competence (the “Special Meeting”). [True and correct copies of these Letters are attached as
21 Exhibits 1 and 2.]
22 18. The Letters further informed Plaintiffs that the Special Meeting would be held on
23 August 6, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. – less than ten-days after service of notice to Plaintiffs.
24 19. On or about July 30, 2020, the City published an Agenda for the Special Meeting (the
25 “Agenda”). [A true and correct copy of the Agenda is attached as Exhibit 3.]
26 20. The Agenda Items (“Agenda Items”) for the August 6, 2020 Special Meeting state in
27 full as follows:
28

125
 1. For possible action: Matters pertaining to the performance of the
1 City Manager, Alfonso Noyola (as requested by Council member
Folda)
2
A. Discussion to consider the character, alleged misconduct, or
3 professional competence of Alfonso Noyola, City Manager of
Boulder City
4
B. Discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken in
5 obtaining review by outside counsel of employment contracts
for you as City Manager and for the City Attorney after a
6 request for such action had failed to be approved by a majority
of the City Council
7
C. Discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken under the
8 emergency powers that existed during a public health crisis for
a matter at the Municipal Airport regarding fuel delivery,
9 transport and storage
10 D. For possible action: Resolution No. 7143, a resolution of the
City Council of Boulder City, terminating Employment
11 Agreement No. 18-1764 between the City of Boulder City and
City Manager Alfonso Noyola pursuant to the termination or
12 severance section of the employment contract and the City
Charter
13
2. For possible action: Resolution No. 7144, a resolution of the City Council of
14 Boulder City appointing an Acting City Manager.
15
3. For possible action: Matters pertaining to the performance of City Attorney Steven
16 L. Morris (as requested by Council member Folda)

17 A. Discussion to consider the character, alleged misconduct, or professional

competence of Steven L. Morris, City Attorney of Boulder City
18

19 B. Discussion of actions alleged to have been taken by City Attorney Steven L.

Morris in providing misleading information to one or more members of the
20 City Council with respect to the right of a majority of the City Council to
retain a special counsel
21
C. Discussion of actions alleged to have been taken by City Attorney Steven L.
22
Morris in providing misleading information to one or more members of the
23 City Council concerning the application of provisions of NRS 281 to Mr.
Morris as a public official
24
D. For possible action: Resolution No. 7145, a resolution of the City Council
25 of Boulder City, terminating Employment Agreement No. 18-1765 between
the City of Boulder City and Steven L. Morris
26

27

28

126
 4. For possible action: Resolution No. 7146, a resolution of the City Council of
1 Boulder City, appointing an Acting City Attorney
2
5. Public Comments
3
21. As set forth below, notice of the foregoing Special Meeting and Agenda was
4
improper, deficient, and violated Nevada’s Open Meeting Law and Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
5
II. Unlawful Retaliatory Conduct
6
22. Equally as concerning as the deficient and violative notice is the retaliatory and
7
impermissible nature of the conduct that initially led to noticing of the Special Meeting, which
8
retaliation and related claims are currently the subject of separate administrative actions currently
9
pending before the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (“NERC”).
10
23. Specifically, Plaintiffs received an email on July 17, 2020, informing them that they
11
had been identified as third-party witnesses in a series of pending complaints brought against the
12
Mayor of Boulder City, Mayor Kiernan McManus, by various Boulder City employees (“Internal
13
Complaints”).
14
24. In response, Boulder City, in consultation with POOL/PACT, retained an outside firm
15
to conduct an HR investigation as to the veracity of the Internal Complaints.
16
25. In the same email, Plaintiffs were provided with the following Boulder City anti-
17
retaliation policy:
18 a. Boulder City has a strict policy prohibiting retaliation against any
employee from participating in an investigation. You are prohibited
19 from retaliating against anyone in connection with this investigation.
20 Also, if you believe you have been retaliated against from being
interviewed or otherwise participating in this investigation please
21 follow the directives of the policy referenced below, or you can contact
me.
22

23 26. On July 22, 2020, both Plaintiffs were interviewed as part of the foregoing

24 investigation and participated in the interviews in good faith, and in express reliance on the foregoing

25 policy, as well as all applicable anti-retaliation statutes – including NRS 613.340, which prohibits an

26 employer from retaliating against an employee who participates in an investigation of unlawful

27 employment practices.

28

127
 1 27. During the interviews, Mr. Morris and Mr. Noyola both substantiated a series of
2 allegations against Mr. McManus, who had been accused by various Boulder City employees of
3 religious discrimination, harassment, bullying, and creating a hostile work environment. Plaintiffs
4 were also victims of a hostile work environment through similar acts of discrimination, harassment
5 and/or bullying caused by the conduct of Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda.
6 28. On July 23, 2020 – and within 24 hours of Plaintiffs’ interviews – Mr. McManus sent
7 the City Clerk a memorandum requesting to schedule the Special Meeting.
8 29. Mr. McManus failed to provide any reason for the Special Meeting, and only stated
9 that the agenda materials would be submitted the following week.
10 30. On Tuesday, July 28, 2020, Plaintiffs were served with the (unsigned) July 28th
11 Letters, ostensibly from Ms. Folda, purporting to provide notice of the Special Meeting (as
12 previously requested by Mr. McManus).
13 31. As set forth above, and despite Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris’s clean employment
14 records, the sole purpose of the Special Meeting was to: (1) consider Plaintiffs’ character, their
15 alleged misconduct, and/or professional competence, and (2) to ultimately terminate Plaintiffs’
16 employment with the City and appoint an acting city manager and acting city attorney in violation of
17 the open meeting law.
18 32. In addition to the below Open Meeting Law violations, and in direct violation of
19 Boulder City’s anti-retaliation policy and various anti-retaliation statutes, Mr. McManus and the City
20 Council took steps within 24 hours of Plaintiffs’ protected HR interviews to schedule the Special
21 Meeting and ultimately seek to terminate Plaintiffs’ employment with the City.
22 33. Such conduct violated (among other statutes) NRS 613.340, which states (in part) that
23 “[i]t is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his or her
24 employees…because the employee…has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment
25 practice by NRS 613.310 to 613.4383, inclusive, or because he or she has made a charge, testified,
26 assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under NRS 613.310
27 to 613.4383, inclusive.”
28

128
1 III. Mayor McManus and Councilmember Folda Conspire to Terminate Plaintiffs.
2 34. The foregoing open meeting law violations and retaliatory conduct are part of Mr.
3 McManus and Ms. Folda’s unlawful and conspiratorial objective to wrongfully terminate Mr. Noyola
4 and Mr. Morris from their current public employment by impugning their character and reputation.
5 35. Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda held serial meetings, both in person and via email, with
6 a quorum of the City Council, to discuss Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris and their proposed termination
7 in violation of Nevada’s Open Meeting Law and as part of a conspiracy to unlawfully retaliate
8 against Plaintiffs.
9 36. Such unlawful and conspiratorial conduct was escalated when Mr. Noyola and Mr.
10 Morris gave protected testimony against Mr. McManus in the foregoing interviews – with Mr.
11 McManus and Ms. Folda taking steps within 24 hours of Plaintiffs’ interviews to seek Plaintiffs’
12 ultimate termination from their employment with the City.
13 37. The foregoing unlawful actions were not only designed to retaliate against Mr. Noyola
14 and Mr. Morris, but to thwart the ongoing investigation against Mr. McManus by attempting to
15 silence Plaintiffs and silence any additional witnesses.
16 IV. Plaintiffs File Suit and Successfully Enjoin the Special Meeting
17 38. On August 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in this matter.
18 39. On August 4, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted to this Court an Ex Parte Application for
19 Temporary Restraining Order (the “Application for TRO”) against The City.
20 40. The Application for TRO sought to enjoin the August 6th Special Meeting, and to
21 prevent the City from deliberating on any business items pertaining to Plaintiffs on the August 6,
22 2020 Special Meeting Agenda.
23 41. On August 5, 2020, the Court granted the Application for TRO in its entirety (“TRO
24 Order”), expressly finding as follows:
25 a. “Plaintiffs met their burden under NRCP 65(b) for issuance of an Ex Parte
26 Temporary Restraining Order against The City, pending a hearing on the
27 preliminary injunction, as the facts set forth in the Application for TRO
28 support a finding that:

129
 1 i. Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable harm, should The City
2 be permitted to proceed with hearing Items 1-4 on the August 6, 2020
3 Special Meeting Agenda – which Special Meeting and Special
4 Meeting Agenda violate Nevada’s Open Meeting Law, NRS ch. 241;
5 and
6 ii. The Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order is necessary to preserve the
7 status quo and prevent said irreparable harm; and
8 iii. There is insufficient time for The City to be heard regarding the
9 Temporary Restraining Order.” (emphasis added).
10 42. Plaintiffs properly and timely served the City with the TRO Order on August 5, 2020.
11 V. Subsequent Violations of Nevada’s Open Meeting Law
12 A. Mayor McManus’ Attempt to Conduct Special Meeting in Violation of the TRO.
13 43. On August 5, 2020, following service of the TRO Order and related legal papers, the
14 City Clerk notified the Mayor and City Council that she had received service of the TRO and advised
15 the Mayor and City Council that she would take steps to notify the public of the cancellation of the
16 Special Meeting in compliance with the Court’s TRO Order. [A true and correct copy of the August
17 5th and 6th email chain is attached as Exhibit 4.]
18 44. On August 6, 2020, and in disregard for the TRO Order – which expressly found that
19 the “Special Meeting and Special Meeting Agenda violate Nevada’s Open Meeting Law” – Mr.
20 McManus responded to the City Clerk, instructing her to have personnel available for the Special
21 Meeting, as the Special Meeting would proceed as scheduled even with no business items on the
22 agenda. Id.
23 45. Mr. McManus copied the City Council and the City Manager on the August 6th
24 Correspondence (a private communication), which established a public-body quorum and a serial
25 violation of Nevada’s Open Meeting Law. Id. See NRS 241.015(3)(a)(2).
26 46. In response to the August 6th Correspondence, the City Clerk stated that the Court’s
27 TRO Order found that the Special Meeting and Special Meeting Agenda were in violation of the
28

130
 1 Open Meeting Law, and further informed the Mayor that there could be no meeting without valid
2 agenda items for deliberation and action by the City.1
3 47. On August 6, 2020, upon receiving notice that the Mayor intended to proceed with the
4 Special Meeting in violation of the TRO, Plaintiff Noyola (through counsel) sent Mr. McManus a
5 demand letter, informing the Mayor, in part, that “the Special Meeting was enjoined by the Court via
6 Temporary Restraining Order on August 5, 2020, and subsequently cancelled by the City Clerk as a
7 result. Should the City move forward with the Special Meeting tonight, it will be in direct violation of
8 the TRO.” [A true and correct copy of the August 6th Demand Letter is attached as Exhibit 5.]
9 48. Upon information and belief, Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda intended to proceed with
10 the meeting in violation of the TRO in an effort to disparage the Plaintiffs’ reputation and character
11 and to provide a forum for their special interest group to do the same.
12 49. Upon information and belief, the Special Meeting did not go forward on August 6th
13 despite the Mayor’s directive to City staff.
14 B. Serial Communications with Prospective Legal Counsel Prior to Their Retention in
Violation of Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.
15

16 50. On or about August 6, 2020, the City published an Agenda for a City Council Meeting

17 (“August 11th Agenda”), scheduled to be held on August 11, 2020 (“August 11th Meeting”). [A true

18 and correct copy of the Agenda is attached as Exhibit 6.]

19

20

21 1 NRS 241.015(3)(a)(1) defines a “meeting” under Nevada’s Open Meeting Law as “[t]he gathering
of members of a public body at which a quorum is present, whether in person or by means of
22
electronic communication, to deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over
23 which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.” (emphasis added).
In short, there can be no “meeting” as a matter of Nevada law without business items for the City to
24 deliberate and act upon. Despite the fact that this Court issued a TRO enjoining all business items on
the August 6th Special Meeting agenda, and despite the sound advice of City representatives
25 counseling the Mayor against holding a meeting with no items for deliberation or action, the Mayor
– in furtherance of his retaliatory objective – never recanted his demand that City personnel be
26
present to facilitate a meeting in violation of both Court order and Nevada law. Although it does not
27 appear that the Special Meeting went forward on August 6th, the Mayor’s brazen conduct placed City
personnel in the awkward position of having to choose between following the Court’s TRO Order
28 (and the most basic understanding of what constitutes a “meeting” under Nevada law), or the
Mayor’s unlawful directive. This is improper.
9

131
 1 51. The August 11th Agenda listed “retention of law firm of Bailey Kennedy to render
2 legal serves to the city and city council” as Agenda Item No. 23, for purposes of retaining special
3 counsel in defense of the instant litigation.
4 52. Bailey Kennedy was not retained as counsel for the City prior to the City Council vote
5 at the August 11th Meeting.
6 53. During the August 11th Meeting, Mr. McManus stated on the record that, prior to the
7 retention of Bailey Kennedy as counsel for the City, the Mayor and a quorum of the City Council
8 members held non-public discussions and deliberations with Bailey Kennedy regarding the firm’s
9 retention (“Pre-Retention Communications”) – which discussions yet again violated Nevada’s Open
10 Meeting Law.
11 54. Specifically, prior to the vote to retain Bailey Kennedy as counsel, Mr. McManus
12 stated on the record at the August 11th Meeting that:
13 a. “I had an opportunity to speak with them [Bailey Kennedy] and explain what I
14 knew of the situation, and it was agreed that I would invite members of the city
15 council to also have an opportunity to speak with the lawyers there at Bailey
16 Kennedy. I then sent messages to the council members, advising them of
17 an urgent matter and asking them to contact me. I did receive contact
18 from the other members of the council, with the exception of
19 Councilmember Bridges and I had informed them of the lawsuit and that
20 we’re aware of the fact at that time and that there was an opportunity to
21 get counsel from an independent firm. There is an exception in Nevada’s
22 open meeting law that allows council to meet to receive legal advice. That is
23 not restricted to the legal advice from anyone who is employed or under
24 contract with the City. The open meeting law exception says we’re entitled to
25 receive legal advice. So that was done, a teleconference was arranged, a
26 situation was discussed, and that’s what brings us to where we’re at
27 today.” (emphasis added).
28

10

132
 1 55. Notably, the Open Meeting Law exception referenced by Mr. McManus does not
2 apply, as Bailey Kennedy was undisputedly not retained as counsel for the City when these private
3 conversations occurred. See NRS 241.015(3)(b)(2).
4 56. As such, and as set forth below under the Third Cause of Action, these non-public
5 communications with a public-body quorum were unlawful and again violated Nevada’s Open
6 Meeting Law.
7 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Nevada Open Meeting Law (Re: August 6th Special Meeting)
8 Against Boulder City
9 57. All previous paragraphs in this Complaint are specifically incorporated herein as
10 though fully set forth.
11 58. Boulder City Charter, Section 20(1) requires the “affirmative votes of at least three
12 members of the Council” before passing any ordinance or resolution.
13 59. NRS 241.033(1) prohibits a public body from holding “a meeting to consider the
14 character, alleged misconduct, professional competence” of any person unless the “public body” first
15 gives notice to the person.
16 60. The City Council is a “public body” within the meaning of NRS 241.015(4).
17 61. Section 19(1) of the Boulder City Charter vests all power in the City with the City
18 Council.
19 62. In order for a “public body,” like the Boulder City Council, to act as a corporate body,
20 NRS 241.020 requires that the public body publish an agenda and vote on the item in a public
21 meeting.
22 63. Thus, NRS 241.033(1) requires Boulder City to publish an agenda and hold a meeting
23 on whether to provide notice required by NRS 241.033.
24 64. In this case, the (unsigned) Letters are purportedly from one, rogue Councilmember,
25 and not the entire City Council.
26 65. The alleged “notice” provided by the Letters was never ratified by the Boulder City
27 Council, nor does the Boulder City Council allege otherwise.
28

11

133
 1 66. Agenda Items 1 and 3 undisputedly relate to the character, alleged misconduct, and/or
2 professional competence of Plaintiffs.
3 67. Specifically, Agenda Item 1(A)-(D) states:
4 1. For possible action: Matters pertaining to the performance of the
City Manager, Alfonso Noyola (as requested by Council member
5 Folda)
6 A. Discussion to consider the character, alleged misconduct, or
professional competence of Alfonso Noyola, City Manager of
7 Boulder City
8 B. Discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken in
obtaining review by outside counsel of employment contracts
9 for you as City Manager and for the City Attorney after a
request for such action had failed to be approved by a majority
10 of the City Council
11 C. Discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken under the
emergency powers that existed during a public health crisis for
12 a matter at the Municipal Airport regarding fuel delivery,
transport and storage
13
D. For possible action: Resolution No. 7143, a resolution of the
14 City Council of Boulder City, terminating Employment
Agreement No. 18-1764 between the City of Boulder City and
15 City Manager Alfonso Noyola pursuant to the termination or
severance section of the employment contract and the City
16 Charter
17 68. Agenda Item 3 (A)-(D) states:
18 3. For possible action: Matters pertaining to the performance of City Attorney Steven
19 L. Morris (as requested by Council member Folda)

20 A. Discussion to consider the character, alleged misconduct, or professional

competence of Steven L. Morris, City Attorney of Boulder City
21
B. Discussion of actions alleged to have been taken by City Attorney Steven L.
22
Morris in providing misleading information to one or more members of the
23 City Council with respect to the right of a majority of the City Council to
retain a special counsel
24
C. Discussion of actions alleged to have been taken by City Attorney Steven L.
25 Morris in providing misleading information to one or more members of the
City Council concerning the application of provisions of NRS 281 to Mr.
26
Morris as a public official
27
D. For possible action: Resolution No. 7145, a resolution of the City Council
28 of Boulder City, terminating Employment Agreement No. 18-1765 between
the City of Boulder City and Steven L. Morris
12

134
 1 69. Agenda Items 2 and 4 stem from Agenda Items 1 and 3 and relate to the appointment
2 of an acting city attorney and acting city manager, and thus, ultimately relate to the termination of
3 both Plaintiffs.
4 70. Agenda Items 1-4 violate NRS 241.033(1) because they relate to the character, alleged
5 misconduct and/or professional competence of both Plaintiffs.
6 71. The City Council of Boulder City violated Boulder City Charter, Section 20(1)
7 because it never took public action to authorize notice to Plaintiffs of the public meeting to consider
8 their character, alleged misconduct, and/or professional competence, and termination.
9 72. Agenda Items 1-4 violate NRS 241.033 because Plaintiffs did not receive proper,
10 constitutional notice as required by law and equity.
11 73. Therefore, Agenda Items 1-4 violate Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.
12 74. Pursuant to NRS 241.036, “the action of any public body taken in violation of any
13 provision of this chapter is void.” (emphasis added)
14 75. Pursuant to NRS 241.037(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Court issue an
15 injunction compelling the City of Boulder City Council to comply with NRS ch. 241.
16 76. Pursuant to NRS 241.037(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Court issue an
17 injunction preventing the City of Boulder City’s Council from violating NRS ch. 241 and enjoining
18 the City’s consideration of Agenda Items 1-4 at the August 6th Special Meeting.
19 77. Plaintiffs requested that the City remove the Agenda Items from the August 6th Special
20 Meeting Agenda because they violated the notice requirements of Nevada’s Open Meeting Law. As
21 of the filing of this Complaint, the City has yet to notify Plaintiffs that it has authorized such curative
22 action.
23 78. Pursuant to NRS 241.037(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees
24 and costs for having to bring this suit.
25 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Serial Violation of Nevada Open Meeting Law (re August 5th and 6th Correspondence)
26 Against Boulder City
27 79. All previous paragraphs in this Complaint are specifically incorporated herein as
28 though fully set forth.

13

135
 1 80. The City Council is a “public body” within the meaning of NRS 241.015(4).
2 81. NRS 241.010 states that “all public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s
3 business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberation be
4 conducted openly.”
5 82. NRS 241.020(1) requires that, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by specific statute, all
6 meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any
7 meeting of these public bodies.”
8 83. NRS 241.015(3)(a)(1) defines a meeting as a “gathering of members of a public body
9 at which a quorum is present, whether in person or by means of electronic communication, to
10 deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over which the public body has
11 supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.” (emphasis added).
12 84. NRS 241.015(3)(a)(2)(I-II) further defines a meeting as “[a]ny series of gatherings of
13 members of a public body at which less than a quorum is present, whether in person or by means of
14 electronic communication, at any individual gathering; the members of the public body attending
15 one or more of the gatherings collectively constitute a quorum; and the series of gatherings was held
16 with the specific intent to avoid the provisions of this chapter.” (emphasis added).
17 85. NRS 241.016(4) states, in part, that electronic communication “must not be used to
18 circumvent the spirit or letter of this chapter to deliberate or act, outside of an open and public
19 meeting, upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory
20 powers.”
21 86. Here, the City’s August 6th Correspondence violated Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.
22 87. Specifically, the August 6th Correspondence:
23 a. (1) was an electronic communication,
24 b. (2) was sent by the Mayor to the entire City Council, which City Council constitutes
25 a public body,
26 c. (3) was not open and public,
27 d. (4) sought to deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over which
28 the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, specifically,

14

136
 1 to continue forward with the enjoined Special Meeting, which would have violated
2 this Court’s TRO Order, and
3 e. (5) was sent in an effort to circumvent the spirit or letter of NRS ch. 241 to
4 deliberate or act, outside of an open and public meeting, upon a matter over which
5 the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory powers.
6 88. Accordingly, the foregoing conduct violates Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.
7 89. Pursuant to NRS 241.036, “the action of any public body taken in violation of any
8 provision of this chapter is void.” (emphasis added)
9 90. Pursuant to NRS 241.037(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Court issue an
10 injunction compelling the City of Boulder City Council to comply with NRS ch. 241.
11 91. Pursuant to NRS 241.037(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Court issue an
12 injunction preventing the City of Boulder City’s Council from violating NRS ch. 241 and enjoining
13 the City from further serial violations.
14 92. Pursuant to NRS 241.037(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees
15 and costs for having to bring this suit.
16 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Serial Violation of Nevada Open Meeting Law (Re Private Communications with Prospective
17 Counsel Prior to Retention)
18 Against Boulder City

19 93. All previous paragraphs in this Complaint are specifically incorporated herein as

20 though fully set forth.

21 94. The City Council is a “public body” within the meaning of NRS 241.015(4).

22 95. NRS 241.010 states that “all public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s

23 business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberation be

24 conducted openly.”

25 96. NRS 241.020(1) requires that, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by specific statute, all

26 meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any

27 meeting of these public bodies.”

28

15

137
 1 97. NRS 241.015(3)(a)(1) defines a meeting as a “gathering of members of a public body
2 at which a quorum is present, whether in person or by means of electronic communication, to
3 deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over which the public body has
4 supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.” (emphasis added).
5 98. NRS 241.015(3)(a)(2)(I-II) further defines a meeting as “[a]ny series of gatherings of
6 members of a public body at which less than a quorum is present, whether in person or by means of
7 electronic communication, at any individual gathering; the members of the public body attending
8 one or more of the gatherings collectively constitute a quorum; and the series of gatherings was held
9 with the specific intent to avoid the provisions of this chapter.” (emphasis added).
10 99. NRS 241.016(4) states, in part, that electronic communication “must not be used to
11 circumvent the spirit or letter of this chapter to deliberate or act, outside of an open and public
12 meeting, upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory
13 powers.”
14 100. Here, the City’s Pre-Retention Communications violated Nevada’s Open Meeting
15 Law.
16 101. The Pre-Retention Communications:
17 a. (1) were electronic and telephonic communications,
18 b. (2) were between the Mayor and a City Council quorum, which constitutes a
19 public body,
20 c. (3) were not open and public,
21 d. (4) sought to deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over
22 which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power,
23 specifically, to retain counsel in defense of the instant litigation, and
24 e. (5) were sent in an effort to circumvent the spirit or letter of NRS ch. 241 to
25 deliberate or act, outside of an open and public meeting, upon a matter over
26 which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory
27 powers.
28

16

138
 1 102. Further, no Open Meeting Law exception exists to shield the conduct of Boulder City,
2 as Bailey Kennedy was undisputedly not retained as counsel for the City when these private
3 conversations occurred. See NRS 241.015(3)(b)(2) (a meeting does not occur under NRS ch. 241
4 when the public body receives “information from the attorney employed or retained by the public
5 body regarding potential or existing litigation involving a matter over which the public body has
6 supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power and to deliberate toward a decision on the matter,
7 or both”) (emphasis added).
8 103. Accordingly, because Bailey Kennedy was not employed or retained by the City at the
9 time of the conduct in question, the foregoing conduct violates Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.
10 104. Pursuant to NRS 241.036, “the action of any public body taken in violation of any
11 provision of this chapter is void.” (emphasis added)
12 105. Pursuant to NRS 241.037(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Court issue an
13 injunction compelling the City of Boulder City Council to comply with NRS ch. 241.
14 106. Pursuant to NRS 241.037(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Court issue an
15 injunction preventing the City of Boulder City’s Council from violating NRS ch. 241 and enjoining
16 the City from further serial violations.
17 107. Pursuant to NRS 241.037(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees
18 and costs for having to bring this suit.
19 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
20 Against Boulder City
21 108. All previous paragraphs in this Complaint are specifically incorporated as though fully
22 set forth herein.
23 109. Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris entered into valid, binding, and enforceable contracts with
24 the City (“Contracts”).
25 110. All conditions precedent to the obligations of Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris to fulfill the
26 terms of their Contracts have occurred, been excused, or have otherwise been satisfied.
27 111. As a consequence of the foregoing Contracts, the City owes Mr. Noyola and Mr.
28 Morris a duty of good faith and fair dealing.

17

139
 1 112. In executing the Contracts, Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris had justifiable expectations
2 that they would be permitted to perform the duties outlined in the Contracts, that the City would
3 adhere to Open Meeting Law requirements when seeking to publicly discuss their character, alleged
4 misconduct, and/or professional competence, that the City would not unlawfully retaliate against
5 Plaintiffs in response to protected HR testimony.
6 113. Instead, the City violated the spirit of the agreement by serially violating Nevada’s
7 open meeting law in seeking to terminate Plaintiffs’ public employment in response to protected HR
8 testimony and by seeking to deny Plaintiffs the rights afforded under Plaintiffs’ employment
9 agreements.
10 114. Such actions breached, and continues to breach, the implied covenant of good faith
11 and fair dealing contained in Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris’ Contracts.
12 115. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s breach of the implied covenant of good
13 faith and fair dealing, Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris have been damaged in excess of $15,000.
14 116. It has been necessary for Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris to retain the services of attorneys
15 to prosecute this claim and Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris are therefore entitled to an award of
16 reasonable attorney fees and costs.
17 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
18 Against Defendants McManus and Folda
19 117. All previous paragraphs in this Complaint are specifically incorporated as though fully
20 set forth herein.
21 118. Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris entered into valid, binding, and enforceable Contracts
22 with the City.
23 119. By virtue of their public positions with the City, Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda knew
24 that Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris had valid, binding, and enforceable Contracts with the City.
25 120. Despite their knowledge of the foregoing, Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda intentionally
26 acted in such a manner as to disrupt the contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and the City.
27 121. Specifically, Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda assisted in violating Nevada’s Open
28 Meeting Law requirements when seeking to publicly discuss Plaintiffs’ character, alleged

18

140
 1 misconduct, and/or professional competence in response to protected HR testimony, and wrongfully
2 impugned the character and reputation of the Plaintiffs.
3 122. The foregoing constituted intentional acts designed to disrupt Mr. Noyola and Mr.
4 Morris’ contractual relationship with the City.
5 123. Such actions caused, and continue to cause, actual disruption to the Contracts, as set
6 forth in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Claim for Relief.
7 124. As a consequence of the foregoing, Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris have been damaged in
8 excess of $15,000.
9 125. It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to retain the services of attorneys to prosecute this
10 claim and they are therefore entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs.
11 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Civil Conspiracy
12 Against Defendants McManus and Folda
13 126. All previous paragraphs in this Complaint are specifically incorporated as though fully
14 set forth herein.
15 127. Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda, by acting in concert as set forth above, intended to
16 accomplish unlawful objectives for the purpose of harming Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris.
17 128. Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda acted in concert by an agreement, understanding, or
18 “meeting of the minds” regarding their unlawful objectives and the means of pursuing it.
19 129. Specifically, Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda acted in concert to violate Nevada’s Open
20 Meeting Law and unlawfully retaliate against Plaintiffs in response to protected HR testimony.
21 130. Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda commissioned unlawful acts in furtherance of this
22 agreement and civil conspiracy.
23 131. In so doing, Mr. McManus and Ms. Folda acted as individuals to advance their
24 unlawful objective
25 132. As a consequence of the foregoing, Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris have been damaged in
26 excess of $15,000.
27

28

19

141
 1 133. It has been necessary for Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris to retain the services of attorneys
2 to prosecute this claim and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees
3 and costs.
4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
6 A. For declarative relief as set forth herein pursuant to NRS 241.037, NRS 30, and
7 NRCP 57;
8 B. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief as set
9 forth herein pursuant to NRS 241.037 and NRCP 65;
10 C. For damages in excess of $15,000.00.
11 D. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to NRS 241.037; and
12 E. For such further relief as the Court may deem proper.
13 Dated this 25th day of August, 2020. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP

14

15 By: /s/ Tiffany A. Kahler

JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ.
16 Nevada Bar No. 007269
TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ.
17 Nevada Bar No. 13513
18 3770 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Ste. 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola
20

21 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

22

23 By: /s/ Richard C. Gordon

RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
24 Nevada Bar No. 9036
BRADLEY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
25 Nevada Bar No. 13064
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway,
26 Suite 1100
27 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

28 Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L.

Morris
20

142
 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury, that I am over the age of eighteen (18)
3 years, and I am not a party to, nor interested in, this action. On August 25, 2020, I caused to be
4 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT upon the
5 following by the method indicated:
6
BY E-MAIL: by transmitting via e-mail the document(s) listed above to the e-mail
7
 addresses set forth below and/or included on the Court’s Service List for the above-
8 referenced case.
BY U.S. MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with
9  postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Las Vegas, Nevada addressed
10 as set forth below.
BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: by causing document(s) to be picked up by an overnight
11  delivery service company for delivery to the addressee(s) on the next business day.
12 BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing personal delivery via messenger service of
13
 the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: submitted to the above-entitled Court for
14  electronic filing and service upon the Court's Service List for the above-referenced case.

15

16 Dennis L. Kennedy, Esq.

Joshua P. Gilmore, Esq.
17 Andrea M. Champion, Esq.
BAILEY KENNEDY
18 8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
19
Telephone: (702) 562-8820
20 Facsimile: (702) 562-8821
DKennedy@[Link]
21 JGilmore@[Link]
AChampion@[Link]
22
Attorneys for Defendant
23
The City of Boulder City
24
/s/ Lyndsey Luxford
25 An Employee of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

26
4816-7235-7319

27

28

21

143
EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1

144
 CITY OF BOULDER CITY
Mayor and City Council
401 California Avenue
Boulder City, NV 89005
[Link]

July 28, 2020

Alfonso Noyola
City Manager, City of Boulder City
401 California Avenue
Boulder City, NV 89005

RE: Notice of Special Meeting

Mr. Noyola,

This letter is to provide you notice of a special meeting of the City Council of Boulder
City to consider your character, misconduct, and/or professional competence, as
provided for in NRS 241.031 and 241.033. The meeting is scheduled for August 6,
2020 at 6:00 pm. The public meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers of City
Hall, 401 California Avenue. You may have a representative or your own counsel
present for the meeting.

The issues that may be discussed and actions that may occur include one or more of
the following:

1) The discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken in obtaining review by
outside counsel of employment contracts for you as City Manager and for the City
Attorney after a request for such action had failed to be approved by a majority of the
City Council.

2) The discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken under the emergency
powers that existed during a public health crisis for a matter at the Municipal airport
regarding fuel delivery, transport and storage.

3) The termination of your employment pursuant to the termination or severance

section of your employment contract (Agreement 18-1764) and the City Charter.

Page 1 of 2

145
Cordially,

Tracy Folda
City Councilmember
City of Boulder City

Page 2 of 2

146
EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2

147
148
EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

149
 CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 401 CALIFORNIA AVENUE,
BOULDER CITY, NV 89005

August 6, 2020 – 6:00 PM

NOTICE

Pursuant to Section 7 and Section 10 of the Declaration of Emergency Directive 021,

there will be limited in-person attendance at this meeting. Preference will be given to
applicants who have an item on the agenda. Others may reserve a spot by contacting
the City Clerk’s office at (702) 293-9208. Attendees are required to wear face coverings.
The public may view the meeting live at the following link:

[Link]

For information regarding Directive 006, see the following:

[Link]
19_Declaration_of_Emergency_Directive_006/

Extensions of Directive 006 have been included in in Section 6 of Directive 16, Section
23 of Directive 18, Section 37 of Directive 21, and Section 3 of Directive 26 found at the
following link:

[Link]
19_Declaration_of_Emergency_Directive_026/

ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER; TWO OR

MORE AGENDA ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION MAY BE COMBINED; AND ANY
ITEM ON THE AGENDA MAY BE REMOVED OR RELATED DISCUSSION MAY BE
DELAYED AT ANY TIME.

PUBLIC COMMENT

150
PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA MUST BE LIMITED TO
MATTERS ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION. EACH PERSON HAS UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO
SPEAK ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM.

Public comment, whether on an agenda item or general public comment, is limited to up

to five minutes per person. Members of the public may participate in the meeting without
being physically present by one of the following methods.

• Written comments may be submitted via the Public Comment Form

([Link]
Form-111)

• Written comments may be submitted by emailing cityclerk@[Link]. Written

comments will be added to the record.

• Public commenters may leave a voicemail at (702) 293-9210. Messages received

will be broadcast into the Council Chamber.

• To comment during the meeting, members of the public may call (702) 589–9629
when the public comment period is opened.

SPECIAL AGENDA

1. For possible action: Matters pertaining to the performance of the City Manager,
Alfonso Noyola (as requested by Council member Folda)

A. Discussion to consider the character, alleged misconduct, or professional

competence of Alfonso Noyola, City Manager of Boulder City

B. Discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken in obtaining review by

outside counsel of employment contracts for you as City Manager and for the
City Attorney after a request for such action had failed to be approved by a
majority of the City Council

C. Discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken under the emergency
powers that existed during a public health crisis for a matter at the Municipal
Airport regarding fuel delivery, transport and storage

D. For possible action: Resolution No. 7143, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, terminating Employment Agreement No. 18-1764 between the
City of Boulder City and City Manager Alfonso Noyola pursuant to the

151
 termination or severance section of the employment contract and the City
Charter

2. For possible action: Resolution No. 7144, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City appointing an Acting City Manager

3. For possible action: Matters pertaining to the performance of City Attorney Steven
L. Morris (as requested by Council member Folda)

A. Discussion to consider the character, alleged misconduct, or professional

competence of Steven L. Morris, City Attorney of Boulder City

B. Discussion of actions alleged to have been taken by City Attorney Steven L.

Morris in providing misleading information to one or more members of the City
Council with respect to the right of a majority of the City Council to retain a
special counsel

C. Discussion of actions alleged to have been taken by City Attorney Steven L.

Morris in providing misleading information to one or more members of the City
Council concerning the application of provisions of NRS 281 to Mr. Morris as a
public official

D. For possible action: Resolution No. 7145, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, terminating Employment Agreement No. 18-1765 between the
City of Boulder City and Steven L. Morris

4. For possible action: Resolution No. 7146, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, appointing an Acting City Attorney

5. Public Comments

Each person has up to five minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor/Chair. Comments made
during the Public Comment period of the agenda may be on any subject. All remarks shall be
addressed to the City Council/Board as a whole, not to any individual member of the Council/Board,
of the audience, or of the City staff. There shall be no personal attacks against the Mayor, members
of the City Council, the City staff or any other individual. No person, other than members of the City
Council and the person who has the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either
directly or through a member of the Council without the permission of the Mayor or Presiding Officer.
No action may be taken on a matter raised under this item upon which action will be taken.

152
Supporting Material: Pursuant to Section 5 of Directive 006, the requirement contained
in NRS 241.020(3)(c) that physical locations be available for the public to receive
supporting material for public meetings has been suspended. Staff reports and
supporting material for the meeting are available on the City’s website at
[Link] Pursuant to NRS 241.020(6), supporting material is
made available to the public at the same time it is provided to the City Council.

Notice to persons with disabilities: Members of the public who are disabled and require
special assistance or accommodations for the meeting are requested to notify the City
Clerk by telephoning (702) 293-9208 at least seventy-two hours in advance of the
meeting.

This notice and agenda has been posted electronically in compliance with NRS
241.020(3) at [Link] and NRS 232.2175 at
[Link] For further information, please contact Lorene Krumm, City
Clerk, 401 California Avenue, Boulder City, NV 89005, (702) 293-9208;
lkrumm@[Link].

153
EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 4
154
155
156
EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 5
157
 Tiffany A. Kahler, Esq.

Direct T 702.473.7080 F 702.878.9995

tkahler@[Link]

August 6, 2020

Via email only at kmcmanus@b [Link] and bookerlawfirm54@[Link]

City of Boulder City
c/o Gary Booker, Deputy City Attorney and Mayor Kiernan McMa nus
401 California Avenue
Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Re: Potential Violation of Temporary Restraining Orde r Entered August 5, 2020

Dear Mayor McManus and Mr. Booker:

As you are aware, my office represents Mr. Noyola in the action titled Noyola, et al. v. The City of Boulder City,
Case No. A-20-818973-C, pending in the Eighth Judicial Dis trict Court, Clark County, Nevada. It is my
understanding that Mayor McManus directed the City Council to proceed witth tonight’s Special Meeting (the
“Special Meeting”), even though the Special Meeting was c ancelled by the City Clerk pursuant to the
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) ” entered by the Court on August 5, 2020. If the City moves forward
tonight with the Special Meeting, it is a violation of the TRO and we will seek a contempt order from the
Court.

In the TRO, the Court found both the Special Meeting and Sppecial Meeting Agenda violate Nevada’s Open
Meeting Law, NRS ch. 241. Additionally, the Courtr found the TRO was necesssary to prevent irreparable harm
to Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris. In light of those findings, th e Court “prohibited and enjoined [the City
Council] from hearing Items 1-4 of the August 6, 2020 Specia l Meeting Agenda until the conclusion of the
preliminary injunction hearing.” With the removal of Items 1-4, there is no business remaining on the
Agenda to deliberate or take action on. Thus, holding thhe Special Meeting on Item 5 is in direct
contradiction to the TRO’s finding that the entire Special Mee ting and Agenda violated Nevada’s Opening
Meeting Law.

Should the City Council proceed with the cancelled Special Mee ting, we will seek a contempt order from the
Court for the City’s violation of the TRO and we will seek all atto rneys’ fees and costs.

Sincerely,

Tiffany A. Kahler, Esq.

TAK:jlm

ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 3770 HOWARD HUGHES PARKWAY, SUITE 200, LAS VEGAS, NV 8916 9 T 702.678.5070 F 702.878.9995 [Link]

158
EXHIBIT 6

EXHIBIT 6
159
 AMENDED
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 401 CALIFORNIA AVENUE,
BOULDER CITY, NV 89005

August 11, 2020 – 7:00 PM

NOTICE

Pursuant to Section 7 and Section 10 of the Declaration of Emergency Directive 021,

there will be limited in-person attendance at this meeting. Preference will be given to
applicants who have an item on the agenda. Others may reserve a spot by contacting
the City Clerk’s office at (702) 293-9208. Attendees are required to wear face coverings.
The public may view the meeting live at the following link:

[Link]

For information regarding Directive 006, see the following:

[Link]
19_Declaration_of_Emergency_Directive_006/

Extensions of Directive 006 have been included in in Section 6 of Directive 16, Section
23 of Directive 18, Section 37 of Directive 21, and Section 3 of Directive 26 and Section
4 of Directive 29 found at the following link:

[Link]
[Link]

ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER; TWO OR

MORE AGENDA ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION MAY BE COMBINED; AND ANY
ITEM ON THE AGENDA MAY BE REMOVED OR RELATED DISCUSSION MAY BE
DELAYED AT ANY TIME.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF GREG CHESSER

160
PUBLIC COMMENT

PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA MUST BE LIMITED TO

MATTERS ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION. EACH PERSON HAS UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO
SPEAK ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM.

Public comment, whether on an agenda item or general public comment, is limited to up

to five minutes per person. Members of the public may participate in the meeting without
being physically present by one of the following methods.

• Written comments may be submitted via the Public Comment Form

([Link]
Form-111)

• Written comments may be submitted by emailing cityclerk@[Link]. Written

comments will be added to the record.

• Public commenters may leave a voicemail at (702) 293-9210. Messages received

will be broadcast into the Council Chamber.

• To comment during the meeting, members of the public may call (702) 589–9629
when the public comment period is opened.

FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA

FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
1. For possible action: Approval of the minutes of the July 14, 2020 regular City
Council meeting

2. For possible action: Resolution No. 7127, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, approving Agreement No. 20-1893 between the City of Boulder City
and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada to provide
project funding for the annual Arterial Reconstruction Program 2020-21, B.C.
Project No. 20-1114-STR, and amending both the revenues and expenditures of
the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 capital budget

3. For possible action: Resolution No. 7128, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, approving Agreement No. 20-1894 between the City of Boulder City
and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada to provide
project funding for the second annual ADA Upgrades Program 2020-21, B.C.
Project No. 20-1115-STR, and amending both the revenues and expenditures of
the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 capital budget

161
 4. For possible action: Resolution No. 7129, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, approving Agreement No. 20-1895 between the City of Boulder City
and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada to provide
project funding for the second annual Bikepath Rehabilitation Program 2020-21,
B.C. Project No. 20-1111-STR, and amending both the revenues and expenditures
of the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 capital budget

5. For possible action: Resolution No. 7130, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, approving Agreement No. 20-1896 between the City of Boulder City
and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada to provide
project funding for the annual Neighborhood Rehabilitation Program 2020-21, B.C.
Project No. 20-1112-STR, and amending both the revenues and expenditures of
the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 capital budget

6. For possible action: Resolution No. 7131, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, approving Agreement No. 20-1897 between the City of Boulder City
and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada to provide
project funding for the second annual Pedestrian Safety Upgrades Program 2020-
21, B.C. Project No. 20-1113-STR, and amending both the revenues and
expenditures of the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 capital budget

7. For possible action: Resolution No. 7132, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City to accept a Grant Award of $47,000.00 for the Joining
Forces campaign and to amend FY 2021 budget for revenues and expenses

8. For possible action: Resolution No. 7133 a resolution of the City Council of Boulder
City, accepting and approving a Grant of Public Utility Easement Dedication for
utility purposes located at 1101 Fifth Street, along the southern boundary next to
Adams Boulevard

9. For possible action: Resolution No. 7134 a resolution of the City Council of Boulder
City, accepting and approving a Grant of Public Utility Easement Dedication for
utility purposes located at 1570 Foothill Drive

10. For possible action: Resolution No. 7135, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, approving final acceptance and bond release for the installation of
public improvements for Unit 1 of Boulder Hills Estates, B.C. Subdivision No. 113

REGULAR AGENDA

11. Introduction of Bill No. 1883, an Ordinance of the City of Boulder City, Nevada to
amend Title 11, Chapter 16 of the City Code to clarify permitted uses in the G,
Government Zones (AM-20-352)

162
12. Introduction of Bill No. 1884, an ordinance of the City Council of Boulder City,
Nevada to amend Title 2, Chapter 5, Section 3 of the City Code, by adding a new
duty (F.) creating a mounted police unit and renumbering F. Other Duties to G. (as
requested by Mayor McManus)

13. For possible action: Matters pertaining to the annual Historic Preservation Award

14. For possible action: Matters pertaining to amending the Master Plan:

A. Public hearing on proposed Master Plan Amendment

B. Consideration of Resolution No. 7137, a resolution of the City Council of

Boulder City, Nevada to amend the Boulder City Master Plan, Chapter 4 to add
references to the Open Lands-Conservation and Manufacturing-Energy
categories, along with minor updates to the chapter for consistency (MPA-19-037)

15. For possible action: Matters pertaining to modifying the Master Plan and Zoning
Maps to increase area for solar development (Black Hills South/Boulder Flats site):

A. Public hearing on a proposed Master Plan Amendment and a proposed

rezoning

B. Consideration of Resolution No. 7138, a resolution of the City Council of

Boulder City, Nevada to amend the Master Plan Future Land Use Map to change
the land use designation for approximately 1,345 acres west of U.S. 95 within the
Eldorado Valley Transfer Area from Open Lands to Manufacturing-Energy (MPA-
20-040)

C. Consideration of Bill No. 1882, an Ordinance of the City of Boulder City,

Nevada to amend the Zoning Map to rezone approximately 1,345 acres west of
U.S. 95 within the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area from GO, Government Open
Space to ER, Energy Resource (AM-20-349)

16. For possible action: Resolution No. 7139, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City approving Agreement Amendment No. 11-1401F, an option
agreement between the City of Boulder City and Boulder Solar III, LLC to extend
the time for performance to December 31, 2022 to lease land from Boulder City for
purposes of developing a utility-scale solar energy facility within the Eldorado
Valley

17. For possible action: Resolution No. 7140, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, review and adopt the Boulder City Municipal Airport Aviation Fuel
Dispensing, Handling, and Storage Standards

163
 18. For possible action: Resolution No. 7141, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City accepting grant award from Clark County in the Amount of $1,508,373
for Coronavirus Relief Funds

19. For possible action: Resolution No. 7142, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City to authorize the appraisal of land located immediately adjacent to 936
Villa Grande Way, containing approximately 450 square feet of land for purposes
of a land purchase and lot line adjustment for the adjoining residential property

20. For possible action: Staff directive regarding possible all day child supervision
program in response to Clark County School District (CCSD) distance learning
schedule for 2020-2021 school year

21. For possible action: City Council appointments

A. Allotment Committee
B. Audit Review Committee

22. City Manager’s Report:

A. Claims Paid List, June 2020

B. Financial Report, June 2020

23. For possible action: The retention of the law firm of Bailey Kennedy to render legal
services to the City (and City Council) in connection with the litigation entitled
Noyola, et al. v. City of Boulder City, Case No. A-20-818973-C, pending in the
District Court, Clark County, Nevada (as requested by Mayor McManus)

24. Public Comments

Each person has up to five minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor/Chair. Comments made
during the Public Comment period of the agenda may be on any subject. All remarks shall be
addressed to the City Council/Board as a whole, not to any individual member of the Council/Board,
of the audience, or of the City staff. There shall be no personal attacks against the Mayor, members
of the City Council, the City staff or any other individual. No person, other than members of the City
Council and the person who has the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either
directly or through a member of the Council without the permission of the Mayor or Presiding Officer.
No action may be taken on a matter raised under this item upon which action will be taken.

25. City Council’s Report

Supporting Material: Pursuant to Section 5 of Directive 006, the requirement contained
in NRS 241.020(3)(c) that physical locations be available for the public to receive
supporting material for public meetings has been suspended. Staff reports and
supporting material for the meeting are available on the City’s website at
[Link] Pursuant to NRS 241.020(6), supporting material is
made available to the public at the same time it is provided to the City Council.

164
Notice to persons with disabilities: Members of the public who are disabled and require
special assistance or accommodations for the meeting are requested to notify the City
Clerk by telephoning (702) 293-9208 at least seventy-two hours in advance of the
meeting.

This notice and agenda has been posted electronically in compliance with NRS
241.020(3) at [Link] and NRS 232.2175 at
[Link] For further information, please contact Lorene Krumm, City
Clerk, 401 California Avenue, Boulder City, NV 89005, (702) 293-9208;
lkrumm@[Link].

165
 Electronically Issued
8/25/2020 7:31 PM

1 SUMM
JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ.
2 Nevada Bar No. 7269
TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ.
3 Nevada Bar No. 13513
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
4 3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89169
5 Telephone: 702-678-5070
Facsimile: 702-878-9995
6 jbarr@[Link]
tkahler@[Link]
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola
8
RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
9 Nevada Bar No. 9036
BRADLEY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
10 Nevada Bar No. 13064
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
11 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
12 Telephone: 702.784.5200
Facsimile: 702.784.5252
13 rgordon@[Link]
baustin@[Link]
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L. Morris
15

16 DISTRICT COURT

17 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

18
ALFONSO NOYOLA, an individual, and STEVEN Case No.: A-20-818973-C
19 L. MORRIS, an individual
Dept. No.: 24
20 Plaintiffs,
SUMMONS
21 vs.
(Kiernan McManus)
22 THE CITY OF BOULDER CITY, a political
subdivision of the State of Nevada; KIERNAN
23 MCMANUS, an individual; and TRACY FOLDA,
an individual.
24
Defendant.
25
NOTICE! YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU
26 WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND WITHIN 21 DAYS. READ
THE INFORMATION BELOW.
27
TO DEFENDANT – Kiernan McManus: An Amended Complaint has been filed by Alfonso
28 Noyola and Steven L. Morris against you for the relief set forth in the Amended Complaint.

1
Case Number: A-20-818973-C

166
 1. If you intend to defend this lawsuit, within 21 days after this Summons is served on you
1 exclusive of the day of service, you must do the following:
2 a. File with the Clerk of this Court, whose address is shown below, a formal
written response to the Amended Complaint in accordance with the rules of the Court.
3
b. Serve a copy of your response upon the attorney whose name and address is
4 shown below.
5 2. Unless you respond, your default will be entered upon application of Alfonso Noyola
and Steven L. Morris and this Court may enter a judgment against you for the relief demanded in the
6 Amended Complaint, which could result in the taking of money or property or other relief requested
in the Amended Complaint.
7
3. If you intend to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so
8 promptly so that your response may be filed on time.
9 4. The State of Nevada, its political subdivisions, agencies, officers, employees, board
members, commission members and legislators each have 45 days after service of this Summons
10 within which to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint.
STEVEN D. GRIERSON
11 Issued at the direction of: CLERK OF THE COURT
12 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
13 By: /s/ Tiffany A. Kahler 8/27/2020
_______________________________________
JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ. Deputy Clerk
14 Regional Justice Center
Nevada Bar No. 007269
TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ. 200 Lewis Avenue
15 Las Vegas, NV 89155
Nevada Bar No. 13513
16 3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite Robyn Rodriguez
200
17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
18
Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola
19
20 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

21
By: /s/ Richard C. Gordon
22
RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
23 Nevada Bar No. 9036
BRADLEY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
24 Nevada Bar No. 13064
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite
25 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
26
27 Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L. Morris

28 NOTE: When service is by publication, add a brief statement of the object of the action. See
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 4(b).
2

167
 Electronically Issued
8/25/2020 7:30 PM

1 SUMM
JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ.
2 Nevada Bar No. 7269
TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ.
3 Nevada Bar No. 13513
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
4 3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89169
5 Telephone: 702-678-5070
Facsimile: 702-878-9995
6 jbarr@[Link]
tkahler@[Link]
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola
8
RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
9 Nevada Bar No. 9036
BRADLEY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
10 Nevada Bar No. 13064
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
11 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
12 Telephone: 702.784.5200
Facsimile: 702.784.5252
13 rgordon@[Link]
baustin@[Link]
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L. Morris
15

16 DISTRICT COURT

17 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

18
ALFONSO NOYOLA, an individual, and STEVEN Case No.: A-20-818973-C
19 L. MORRIS, an individual
Dept. No.: 24
20 Plaintiffs,
SUMMONS
21 vs.
(Tracy Folda)
22 THE CITY OF BOULDER CITY, a political
subdivision of the State of Nevada; KIERNAN
23 MCMANUS, an individual; and TRACY FOLDA,
an individual.
24
Defendant.
25
NOTICE! YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU
26 WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND WITHIN 21 DAYS. READ
THE INFORMATION BELOW.
27
TO DEFENDANT – Tracy Folda: An Amended Complaint has been filed by Alfonso Noyola and
28 Steven L. Morris against you for the relief set forth in the Amended Complaint.

1
Case Number: A-20-818973-C

168
 1. If you intend to defend this lawsuit, within 21 days after this Summons is served on you
1 exclusive of the day of service, you must do the following:
2 a. File with the Clerk of this Court, whose address is shown below, a formal
written response to the Amended Complaint in accordance with the rules of the Court.
3
b. Serve a copy of your response upon the attorney whose name and address is
4 shown below.
5 2. Unless you respond, your default will be entered upon application of Alfonso Noyola
and Steven L. Morris and this Court may enter a judgment against you for the relief demanded in the
6 Amended Complaint, which could result in the taking of money or property or other relief requested
in the Amended Complaint.
7
3. If you intend to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so
8 promptly so that your response may be filed on time.
9 4. The State of Nevada, its political subdivisions, agencies, officers, employees, board
members, commission members and legislators each have 45 days after service of this Summons
10 within which to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint.
STEVEN D. GRIERSON
11 Issued at the direction of: CLERK OF THE COURT
12 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
13 8/27/2020
By: /s/ Tiffany A. Kahler _______________________________________
JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ. Deputy Clerk
14 Regional Justice Center
Nevada Bar No. 007269
TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ. 200 Lewis Avenue
15 Las Vegas, NV 89155
Nevada Bar No. 13513
Robyn Rodriguez
16 3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite
200
17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
18
Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola
19
20 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

21
By: /s/ Richard C. Gordon
22
RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
23 Nevada Bar No. 9036
BRADLEY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
24 Nevada Bar No. 13064
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite
25 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
26
27 Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L. Morris

28 NOTE: When service is by publication, add a brief statement of the object of the action. See
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 4(b).
2

169
EXHIBIT 11

EXHIBIT 11

170
From: Tiffany A. Kahler
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 10:30 AM
To: 'Joshua Gilmore'; 'Dennis Kennedy'; 'Andrea Champion'
Cc: 'Gordon, Richard'; 'Austin, Bradley'; Jeffrey F. Barr; 'Susan Russo'
Subject: RE: Noyola/Morris v. Boulder City, Case No. A-20-818973-C [IWOV-IDOCS.FID3951329]

Josh –

Thank you for your email. Up front, I’d like to let you know your assumption was correct that the letter was sent on
behalf of my client, Mr. Noyola, and with approval to send on behalf of my co-counsel’s client, Mr. Morris. This email is
sent with the same authority.

As it relates to your acceptance of service, we will prepare the draft acceptance of service documents and provide
accordingly.

Now, to your remaining request for additional information - we do not represent your clients and are under no
obligation to advise them of their ethical obligations under the law. Because your clients did not provide confirmation of
compliance with their ethical obligations to recuse themselves, we are forced to proceed with court intervention to
protect Mr. Noyola and Mr. Morris - especially in light of your clients’ assertion that there is no conflict of interest.

Tiffany

Armstrong Teasdale LLP

Tiffany A. Kahler | Associate
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV 89169
MAIN PHONE: 702.678.5070 | MAIN FAX: 702.878.9995
DIRECT: 702.473.7080 | Extension: 2960 | FAX: 702.878.9995
tkahler@[Link]
[Link]

From: Joshua Gilmore [[Link]

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 4:30 PM
To: Tiffany A. Kahler; Dennis Kennedy; Andrea Champion
Cc: Gordon, Richard; 'Austin, Bradley'; Jeffrey F. Barr; Susan Russo
Subject: RE: Noyola/Morris v. Boulder City, Case No. A-20-818973-C [IWOV-IDOCS.FID3951329]

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL

Tiffany,

Good afternoon. Thank you for your letter, which I assume that you sent on behalf of your client, the City Manager, and
with approval to send on behalf of your co-counsel’s client, the City Attorney. If I am mistaken and the City Attorney did
not authorize you to send this letter on his behalf, please so advise.

In response to your first request, this firm is authorized to accept service of process of the First Amended Complaint on
behalf of Mayor McManus and Councilwoman Folda. Please send us draft Acceptance of Services forms for review.

171
In response to your second request, more information is needed before we can respond. For example, are you and your
co-counsel offering to dissolve the TRO and withdraw your motion for preliminary injunction such that the agenda items at
issue may be re-noticed for consideration by the City Council at a special meeting? Alternatively, are you asking us to tell
you what Mayor McManus and Councilwoman Folda may or will do in the future if the Court dissolves the TRO and denies
your motion for preliminary injunction? Further, which subsection of NRS 281A.420(1) do you contend applies to the facts
presented here? Please advise so that we may properly evaluate your request. In the interim, we reserve all rights and
deny any alleged conflict of interest.

As a final note, I will add that your insinuation that Mayor McManus and Councilwoman Folda will allegedly violate their
ethical obligations absent acceding to your abstention request was not well received.

Thanks.

Josh

Joshua P. Gilmore, Esq. | Bailey Kennedy, LLP

8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89148-1302
(702) 562-8820 (main) | (702) 562-8821 (fax) | (702) 789-4547 (direct) | JGilmore@[Link]

[Link]

------------------------------

This e-mail message is a confidential communication from Bailey Kennedy, LLP and is intended only for the named
recipient(s) above and may contain information that is a trade secret, proprietary, privileged or attorney work product. If
you have received this message in error, or are not the named or intended recipient(s), please immediately notify the
sender at 702-562-8820 and delete this e-mail message and any attachments from your workstation or network mail
system.

From: Tiffany A. Kahler <TKahler@[Link]>

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 4:38 PM
To: Dennis Kennedy <DKennedy@[Link]>; Joshua Gilmore <JGilmore@[Link]>; Andrea
Champion <AChampion@[Link]>
Cc: Gordon, Richard <rgordon@[Link]>; 'Austin, Bradley' <baustin@[Link]>; Jeffrey F. Barr <JBarr@[Link]>
Subject: Noyola/Morris v. Boulder City, Case No. A-20-818973-C [IWOV-IDOCS.FID3951329]

Counsel,

Please see the attached correspondence.

Kind regards,

Tiffany Kahler

Armstrong Teasdale LLP

Tiffany A. Kahler | Associate
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV 89169
MAIN PHONE: 702.678.5070 | MAIN FAX: 702.878.9995
DIRECT: 702.473.7080 | Extension: 2960 | FAX: 702.878.9995
tkahler@[Link]
[Link]

172
***********************PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL***********************
This transmission and any attached files are privileged, confidential or otherwise the exclusive property
of the intended recipient or Armstrong Teasdale LLP. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this
transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us
immediately by e-mail (admin@[Link]) or telephone (314-621-5070) and promptly destroy
the original transmission and its attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
message that do not relate to the official business of Armstrong Teasdale LLP shall be understood as
neither given nor endorsed by it.

173