Inclusive, ) .; ~ 16 ) - ~~ OJ Defendants
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMP Corey Eschweiler, State Bar No. 6635 2 Adam Smith, State Bar No. 9690 GLASER, WElL, FINK, JACOBS, HOWARD & SHAPIRO, LLP 3 3763 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 4 Telephone: (702) 650-7900 Facsimile: (702) 650-7950 5 Attorneys for Nevada Cancer Institute 6 7 8 Q. DISTRICT COURT .J .J 9 0 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA ~ - 10 ~ ~ 0 NEV ADA CANCER INSTITUTE, a Nevada ) x 0 In ~ 11 Case No.: ~ . non-profit corporation, ) 0 , ~ ) ~ ~ ~ 12 Dept. No.: ~ . ~ 0 Plaintiff, ) ~ .. G II ~ o : c g ~ ) "' i: I: a ~ 0 v 13 COMPLAINT .. ~ : : (, : .. v. ) 0 : : ~ : ;; ) o :i . - 0 ~ u G. N "" 14 JAMES RHODES, an individual; GL YNDA ) ARBITRATION EXEMPT ~. 0( ~: ~ - i.. Ii.. _.. Ioc RHODES, an individual; DOES I through X, ) (Amount in controversy exceeds $50,000) ~ ..: 15 z l ~ inclusive; ROE Corporations XI through XX, ) - 0 .. X ~ inclusive, ) .; ~ 16 ) - ~~ OJ Defendants. ) ~ 17 ) ~ OJ ~ ~ Plaintiff ~ 18 Nevada Cancer Institute alleges as follows: ci 19 PARTIES 20 1. Nevada Cancer Institute is, and at all relevant times was, a Nevada non-profit 21 corporation whose mission is to reduce the burden of cancer for Nevada, the nation, and the world 22 through innovative and collaborative research, education, and patient care. 23 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant James ("Jim") Rhodes is a Nevada resident 24 who has developed and continues to develop substantial land holdings in the Southwestern United 25 States, including Nevada and Arizona. 26 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Glynda Rhodes is a Nevada resident and is 27 married to Jim Rhodes. 28 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 2 of defendants herein designated as DOES I through X and ROE CORPORATIONS X through XX 3 are unknown to Nevada Cancer Institute at this time, which therefore sues said defendants by such 4 fictitious names. Nevada Cancer Institute is informed and believes and thereon alleges the DOE and 5 ROE defendants are responsible for the wrongful or related acts complained of and described more 6 fully herein. Nevada Cancer Institute wil seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the true 7 names and capacities of DOE and ROE defendants as they become known. 8 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Q. .J .J 9 5. This action arises from Jim and Glynda Rhodes' (collectively, the "Rhodes") failure o -~ ~ 10 to honor two binding commitments to Nevada Cancer Institute in the amounts of $ 1 ,000,000 and ~ X g In " 11 $10,000,000 (collectively, the "Binding Commitments," or individually, the "$IM Commitment" ~ ~ o , ~ ~ ~ ~ 0( ;; 0 1 2 and the "$ 1 OM Commitment"). ~ ; II 0: ~ 0 If.c ~ t: u- 1:0( I:.. 0,., iø 0 13 6. The Binding Commitments were made in an effort to improve the Rhodes' public iiIi !I~ .A. Ii ~II 0 G o m II Z G;; J:~~i:Ë: ~ ;..;; ~ 14 image after Jim Rhodes was accused of having improper dealings with various Clark County .... .. c ~ ; 3 1 5 Commissioners and other public offcials in Nevada and Arizona. ..- .x ~ .. ~ 16 7. In exchange for the Binding Commitments, among other consideration, Nevada ¡; ~ ~ 1 7 Cancer Institute provided the Rhodcs with positive publicity, including press releases, numerous ~ OJ ~ ~ ~ 18 news articles, prominent name displays at Nevada Cancer Institute, and recognition at Nevada ci 19 Cancer Institute's annual gala, Rock for the Cure. 20 8. The Rhodes' refusal to honor the Binding Commitments has a direct, negative effect 21 on Nevada Cancer Institute's ability to perform research and treat patients diagnosed with cancer. 22 This effect is felt not only by Nevada Cancer Institute and its present and future patients, but by the 23 community, country, and world as a whole. 24 NEGATIVE PUBLICITY 25 9. The harmful media exposure regarding the Rhodes was extremely detailed and 26 damaging to their reputations, requiring the Rhodes to seek creative solutions to repair their 27 tarnished reputations. Those solutions included making charitable commitments in an effort to 28 obtain favorable publicity to combat the abundance of disparaging media coverage. 2 10. The following public assertions, regardless of their veracity, were made by numerous 2 media outlets and had a significant, detrimental effect on the Rhodes' public image. 3 A. Rhodes employs Erin Kenny 4 11. Since at least 2003, Jim Rhodes has received negative publicity regarding dealings 5 with the Clark County Commission and a proposed development that would build a dense 6 community of homes near Red Rock National Conservation Area. 7 12. As an example of the negative publicity, Jim Rhodes was accused of bribing Clark 8 County Commissioner Erin Kenny. Specifically, Jim Rhodes allegedly paid Erin Kenny large sums Q. .J .J 9 in exchange for favorable treatment for Rhodes' projects while Erin Kenny was on the Clark County o -~ 10 Commission. ~ ~ X g In ~ 11 13. On July 24,2003 Erin Kenny pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and ~ ~ o , ~ ~ ~ ~ 0( ;; 0 12 wire fraud for the purpose of depriving the citizens of Nevada of her honest services as a Clark ~ ~ ;Clg: ~i::~~~ 13 County Commissioner. li¡; UI ~::O: . Ii II o lZ Ii Z lØ;; ~.i:~-J: ~ ;..;; ~ 14 14. As part of her plea, Erin Kenny admitted to receiving bribes to abuse her position as i.. Ii.... .. CM ~ ; 3 15 a Clark County Commissioner, and agreed to testify against other Clark County Commissioners in ..- .x ~ .. ~ 16 exchange for a lesser sentence. ¡; ~ ~ 17 15. On July 18,2007, Erin Kenny was sentenced to serve 30 months in federal prison ~ OJ Ul ~ ~ 18 and to pay more than $ 1 00,000 in fines for taking bribes. ci 19 16. After Erin Kenny left the Clark County Commission, and before she pleaded guilty, 20 Jim Rhodes hired Erin Kenny as a lobbyist. Erin Kenny's purported "job" was to influence elected 21 officials at Jim Rhodes' direction. In return, Jim Rhodes paid Erin Kenny approximately $ 1 6,000 22 per month. 23 17. On Jim Rhodes behalf, Erin Kenny lobbied her successor, Clark County 24 Commissioner Mark James, to allow Jim Rhodes to build a dense residential development near Red 25 Rock National Conservation Area on land Jim Rhodes, or one or more entities he controls, 26 purchased for approximately $54,000,000. 27 28 3 18. Erin Kenny fought proposed state and county ordinances that would limit the 2 development of the land near Red Rock National Conservation Area to approximately 1,200 homes 3 instead of Rhodes' planned 5,500 homes. 4 19. Both the state and county ordinances eventually passed and limited the ability to 5 develop the area, although Jim Rhodes is still trying to obtain zoning changes, entitlements, and 6 other land use rights to create the development. 7 B. Ilegal Campaign Contributions to Nevada Elected Offcials 8 20. As another example of negative publicity, Jim Rhodes was accused of funneling Q. .J .J 9 ilegal campaign contributions to United States Senator Harry Reid and Clark County Commissioner o ~ - 10 ~ Dario Herrera in 2002. Jim Rhodes is alleged to have verified this misconduct in signed admissions ~ X g In " 11 to the Federal Election Commission in order to strike a plea deaL. ~ = o , ~ ~ ~ ~ 0( ;; 0 12 21. On May 5, 2006, Dario Herrera was convicted "of conspiracy and multiple counts of ~ ; II 0: ~:i.:~OII 0 ll 0,. _ 0( .. II 13 wire fraud and extortion under color of offcial right for depriving the Clark County Commission lL ~Ul lL . )0 Ii 0Il 10 o CD Ii Z lØ;; J: ~ ;..;; ~ ~~i:Ë: 14 and the citizens of Clark County of their right to the honest services of public offcials." August 2 1, .... .. c :i oi: 15 z l ~ 2006 Department of Justice News Release. ..- .X ~ ,. ~ 16 22. Dario Herrera was sentenced to serve 50 months in prison, pay a $ 1 5,000 fine, and ¡; ~ ~ 17 forfeit $60,000 in assets. ¡d. ~ OJ Ul ~ ~ 18 C. Jim Rhodes Begins Developing in Arizona ci 19 23. When elected offcials in Nevada began to shun Jim Rhodes because of his alleged 20 indiscretions, he began acquiring land to develop in Arizona, where state authorities were unaware 21 of his past. 22 24. In or about December 2006, Jim Rhodes purchased more than 1,000 acres in the East 23 Valley of Phoenix, with the right to develop 6,700 more acres, for approximately $58,600,000. In 24 addition, Jim Rhodes assembled 25,000 acres between Kingman and the Nevada state line to 25 develop 130,000 homes (collectively, the "Arizona Land"). 26 25. In order to develop the Arizona Land, Jim Rhodes, individually or through entities he 27 controlled, attempted to obtain various zoning changes, entitlements, water rights, and other land 28 use rights in early 2007. 4 26. At the same time, Jim Rhodes attempted to obtain government authorization to 2 operate utilities in Arizona to serve neighborhoods Jim Rhodes intended to build on the Arizona 3 Land. The authorization process included an investigation by government offcials into Jim Rhodes' 4 character to determine if he was "fit and proper" to operate an Arizona utility. 5 27. Jim Rhodes' ability to obtain city, county, and state approval for various entitlement 6 and zoning requests was becoming increasingly difficult due to the disparaging media coverage. 7 28. By April 2007, numerous newspaper articles, columns, and editorials had been 8 published in Nevada, Arizona, and elsewhere detailing the allegations of Jim Rhodes' improper Q. .J .J 9 dealings with Clark County Commissioners, his proposed development near Red Rock National 0 ~ - 10 ~ Conservation Area, and various lawsuits with business partners. ~ 0 x 0 In " 11 29.