1 KARL S.

HALL
Reno City Attorney
2 MATTHEW L. JENSEN
Deputy City Attorney
I
J Nevada State Bar #6357
Post Office Box 1900
4 Reno, NV 89505
(77s) 334-20s0
5 Email : jensenm@reno. gov
Attorneys.for City of Reno
6

'S RESPONSE TO UAIL CREEK B

7
ENF18-C00573
8 The City of Reno (the "City") hereby responds to the Appeal Memorandum of Quail

9 Creek Business Park Maintenance Association LLC ("Quail Creek") in Case No. ENF18-

10 c00s73.
11 I. INTRODUCTION
l2 Quail Creek was not issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV") for "recycling." It was instead
13 issued a NOV for its failure to "subscribe to the collection, hauling and disposal of solid waste

t4 pursuant to the provisions of RMC chapter 5.90 and the applicable agreements." RMC

15 10.08.045; seeHearing Exhibit ("HE") 5. The applicable agreement is the "Exclusive Area

t6 Franchise Agreement-Commercial Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials" (the "Franchise

t7 Agreement") entered into between the City and Reno Disposal Company, Inc.l in November
18 2012. HE 6.

t9 In this case, the Hearing Officer's review of the appeal of this NOV is limited to the
20 decision whether the conditions listed in the NOV violate the RMC. RMC 1.05.535(c)(1) 2, and

2t Quail Creek failed to provide any evidence to overcome the City's proof that Quail Creek
22 violated the RMC. In its effort to avoid its obligations, Quail Creek improperly asserts incorrect
¿)
^a def,rnitions in place of those that we clearly set forth by the RMC, the Franchise Agreement and

24

25 t
Reno Disposal Company, Inc. ("Reno Disposal"), signatory to the Franchise Agreement, is a corporate affiliate of
Waste Management of Nevada, Inc. ("Waste Management"). Reno Disposal does business as Waste Management,
26 so references in this brief are to Waste Management.
2
It was made clear at the hearing that there is no issue with notification procedures, RMC 1.05.535(c)(2), and there
27 is no abatement issue. RMC 1.05.535(c)(3).

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
 1 Nevada statute, and Quail Creek asks the Hearing Officer to effectively invalidate the RMC and

2 the Franchise Agreement - which is beyond the scope of the Hearing Officer's purview - based
a
J on improper applications of law.

4 As described in the NOV, Quail Creek was issued the NOV for its use of a service

5 provider other than Waste Managementto haul recyclable materials. HE 5. Recyclable møterìøl

6 is delrned by statute as a type of solíd waste. NRS 4444.013. The City is allowed by statute to

l grant an exclusive franchise to provide "collection and disposal of garbage and other waste,"

8 NRS 268.081(3) and 268.083(2), which encompassesoosolid waste." The City has entered into

9 the Franchise Agreement to provide such exclusive solid waste (including recyclable material)

l0 collection and disposal service through Waste Management. HE 6. The Franchise Agreement

1l was entered into through RMC Chapter 5.90, and it mandates that no entity other than Waste
t2 Management may provide the service of collection and transportation (also referred to as

13 "hauling") of solid waste (including recyclable material). HE 6, p.14, $ 3.2(A).

t4 Nevertheless, Quail Creek's arguments beyond the matter of whether the conditions listed

15 in the NOV violated the RMC, see RMC 1.05.535(c)(1), are actually arguments by Green

t6 Solutions Recycling ("GSR") that are thinly veiled by Quail Creek's position as GSR's

t7 customer. The issues presented by Quail Creek on behalf of GSR are irrglevant to the matter

18 before the Hearing Officer, neither Quail Creek nor GSR has any standing to assert GSR's

t9 arguments here, and GSR has already asserted its attack on the Franchise Agreement in the

20 Federal and State courts.

2I Quail Creek's use of Green Solutions Recycling for collection and transportation of
22 material, whether solid waste or recyclable material (as a subset of solid waste), violates the

23 RMC as identified in the NOV. Quail Creek's arguments and citation of law on apparent behalf

24 of Green Solutions Recycling have no application to the matter before the Hearing Officer, and

25 the NOV must be upheld.

26

27

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505 -2-
 I II. THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE ISSUED NOTICE OF VIOLATION
2 VIOLATE THE RENO MUNICIPAL CODE
I
J The Hearing Officer must only decide whether Quail Creek failed to subscribe to the

4 collection, hauling and disposal of solid waste pursuant to RMC Chapter 5.90 and the Franchise

5 Agreement adopted thereby, as commercial customers are required to do. However, Quail Creek

6 generally argues that its "recycling activities" through GSR are not subject to regulation by the

7 City because recyclable materials are separate from solid waste, the Franchise Agreement

8 exempts GSR (and thereby Quail Creek) from regulation by virtue of the materials at issue, and

9 GSR does not need a business license to conduct its hauling activities (thereby excusing Quail

10 Creek). These atguments, of course, fail, and they are less of an argument put forth by Quail

11 Creek than they are an argument put forth by GSR in defense of its own illegal business conduct.

t2 Quail Creek has no standing to assert arguments on behalf of GSR, and where Quail
13 Creek's arguments spill outside of its own standing and the Hearing Officer's purview, the

t4 arguments must be stricken from the Hearing Offrcer's consideration. Quail Creek must restrict

15 its case to its own conduct under the RMC and the Franchise Agreement,but Quøil Creek

I6 submítted no evìdence in support of its position (aside from irrelevant lobbyist statements, HE

l7 l1), and its arguments fail to excuse its own conduct. The Hearing Officer must find that the City

18 established that Quail Creek violated the RMC and the Franchise Agreement, and the NOV must

l9 be upheld.

20 A. "Recyclable Material" is
o'Solid Waste," properly included in the Franchise

2I Agreement.

22 Quail Creek improperly attempts to define "recyclable material" through reliance on

23 California case law interpreting California statutes that are different from Nevada statutes. Quail

24 Creek furthers this misapplication of law by misstating that "recycling" is not one of the

25 "services" allowed by statute to be exclusively franchised. To the contrary, Nevada statutorily

26 defines "recyclable material" as a subset of "solid waste," and Nevada law clearly identifies that

27 solid waste (including recyclable material) may be included in franchise agreements.

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-3-
 I NRS 444.490 provides the dehnition of "solid waste." "Solid waste" includes oorecyclable

2 material." NRS 4444.013 clearly declares: ""Recyclable materiø|" meons solíd wøste that can
a
J be processed and returned to the economic mainstream . . ." (emphasis added). The language of
4 the statutes is clear and unambiguous. Longstanding rules of statutory construction guide this

5 hearing officer to a clear finding. See Worldcorp v. State, Dep't Tex., 1 13 Nev. 1032, 1036,944

6 P.2d824,826 (1997) (statutory language clear on its face); Williams v. Clark County DA,Il8
7 Nev. 473, 485, 50 P.3d 536, 544 (2002) (express definition controls construction of a term; avoid

I absurd results) Board of County Comm'rs v. CMC of Nevada,99 Nev. 739,744,610 P.2d 102,

9 105 (1983) (all words in statute given meaning; meaningless construction to be avoided).

10 "Recyclable materialtt is ttsolid waste," and the Franchise Agreement's definition of

11 "Recyclable Materials" comports with the statutory definition. HE 6, p.9.

12 Quail Creek incorrectly relies on Waste Management of the Desert, Inc. v. Palm Springs
13 Recycling Center, Inc.,1 CaL 4th 478; 869 P.2d 440 (1994) to apply the concepts of oodiscarded"

t4 and "receiving value" to define recyclable material as separate from solid waste, and then Quail

15 Creek relies on this position throughout its brief. However, Ilaste Mønagement of the Desert is

T6 inapplicable to the instant matter, as that Califomia case interpreted the California Integrated

l7 Waste Management Act of 1989. The Waste Management of the Desert court noted that its

18 interpretation was made necessary by the wording of the California statutes, and California

t9 statutes do not specif,rcally define "recyclable material." Id. at 489 , 670 P .2d at 466. In Nevada,

20 however, our statutes plainly declare that "recyclable material" is "solid waste."

2l Neither does the testimony of a lobbyist change the law in Nevada. Quail Creek offers a

22 transcript of some statements made by Dan Reaser to the City Council to assert that Nevada is an

23 "intent of the generator" state. HE 1 1. The hearing in which these statements were made is not

24 identified, and there is no report or other evidence that shows that the City Council adopted his

25 assertions. The undersigned counsel's objections remain as to this transcript being irrelevant,

26 lacking foundation and not adopted by the City Council. "The authorities state that "testimony

27 before a committee is of little value in ascertaining legislative intent . . ."" Reinkemeyer v. Safeco

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-4-
 1 Ins. Co. of America, 117 Nev. 44,49-50,16 P.3d 1069,1072 (2001). Quail Creek offers no

2 Nevada authority for its assertion here, the undersigned finds none, and the Hearing Officer
a
J should exclude this as immaterial and irrelevant. See RMC1.05.535(b). Nevada statutes are clear:

4 "recyclable material" is "solid waste."

5 Contrary to Quail Creek's assertion, Douglas Disposal v. Wee Haul, LLC,I23 Nev. 552,

6 170 P.3d 508 (2007), does not support its "intent of the generator" argument. II/ee Haul has no

7 such reference. However, Wee Haul does negate another of Quail Creek's assertions and makes

8 clear that the City properly included regulation of the handling of "recyclable material" in the

9 Franchise Agreement. Quail Creek wrongly asserts that NRS 268.081 excludes regulation of the

10 handling of recyclable materials through an exclusive franchise agreement because it allows

l1 franchising only of "garbage and other waste." Instead, the Wee Haul court, analyzingthe county

I2 counterpart statute, NRS 244.187(3), "conclude[d] that the term "other waste" is broad and

l3 properly encompasses solid waste . . ." Id. at 560, 170 P.3d at 5l4. "Solid waste," of course,

l4 includes oorecyclable material. "

15 As in Wee Haul, the City has developed a comprehensive plan for its solid waste

t6 management by granting an exclusive franchise agreement to collect, haul and dispose of all

l7 solid waste and recyclable material. See id. The Hearing Officer must deny Quail Creek's request

18 that the Hearing Officer overturn State statute, City ordinance and the Franchise Agreement

l9 adopted thereto. Regulation of the handling of recyclable material by the Franchise Agreement is

20 valid, and it is outside the Hearing Officer's purview to decide anything other than whether Quail

2t Creek's failure to subscribe to Waste Management for the collection, hauling and disposal of
22 solid waste - as is directed by the RMC and the Franchise Agreement - is a violation of the

23 RMC. It is.

24 B. The materials that Quail Creek pays GSR to collect, haul and transport are not

25 Excluded Recyclable Materials.

26 Quail Creek asserts and thereby admits that commercial customers are indeed required to
27 use Waste Management for the collection of "Collection Materials" and "Approved Recyclable

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-5-
 1 Materials" (as a subset of "Collection Materials"), both of which are subject to Waste

2 Management's exclusive right to haul the materials. ,See Appeal Memorandu m, p. 4: 14-23.3

I
J This means that only Waste Management may be contracted to collect, haul and transport solid

4 waste and recyclable materials unless they are excluded from the definition of "Approved

5 Recyclable Materials" and "Collection Materials." See HE 6, p. 14, $ 3.2(A).

6 This grant of exclusivity is intended to be construed as broadly as possible to eliminate

7 third parties from interfering with, undercutting or impinging on the franchise. HE 6, p. 14, $

8 3.2(1t); HE 9, p. "3 of 6." The franchise, though, is not intended to cover "Excluded Recyclable

9 Materials." ld. Nevertheless, the service provided to Quail Creek by GSR does not involve

l0 "Excluded Recyclable Materials," and Quail Creek cannot shield itself from liability here.

11 The Franchise Agreement identifies "Approved Recyclable Materials" as commonly

T2 recognized recyclable materials, listed in Exhibit A to the Franchise Agreement (e.g. newspaper,

13 cardboard, glass, etc.). HE 6, p. 2."Collection Materials" is all "Solid Waste and Approved

t4 Recyclable Materials." Id. at p. 3. The dehnitions of both "Approved Recyclable Materials" and

15 "Collection Materials" exclude materials that are defined as "Excluded Recyclable Materials."

t6 "Excluded Recyclable Materials" are "Approved Recyclable Materials" that are "a) sepørated by

t7 the generøtor thereof [the business creating the waste] from all other materials . . . and b) sold by

18 the generøtor thereof to a buyer of recyclable materials, title to which materials transfers to the

t9 buyer upon collection and pickup of such materials, but excludíng such møteríals collected ønd

20 trønsported øs ø servìce." HE 6, p. 5. This means that materials that are collected and transported

2I as a service to a customer are not excluded from those materials that Waste Management has an

22 exclusive right to collect and transport, and no customer may contract with any other entity to

23 collect and transport these materials.

24

25

26

27 3
Again, Quail Creek's desired def,rnition of recyclable materials is unsupported and invalid in Nevada.

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
-6-
Reno, NV 89505
 1 1. Quail Creek's materials are not limited to Approved Recyclable Materials.
2 Quail Creek contracts with GSR to collect and transport solid waste and recyclable
a
J materials as a service, thus in violation of the RMC and the Franchise Agreement. Aside from

4 their collection and transportation, the type of materials that Quail Creek has contracted with

5 GSR to handle are outside the definition of Approved Recyclable Materials and outside the

6 definition of Excluded Recyclable Materials. Quail Creek's service agreement with GSR calls

7 the materials to be collected o'recyclable material," but the contract defines those materials as "all
8 non-hazardous solid materials." HE 10, p.1. This is a contract for collecting and transporting

9 all solid waste as well as recyclable materials; it fails to even purport to limit the subject to actual
10 recyclable materials. This is well beyond Quail Creek's argument that GSR hauls only

il Recyclable Materials (still a violation for the paid hauling) and in clear violation of the RMC and

I2 the Franchise Agreement.

13 Until the introduction at the hearing of Quail Creek's contract with GSR, HE 10, Quail

I4 Creek believed it had an oral contract with GSR and stated that its contract with GSR was

15 substantively the same as the Cube Services contract with GSR. HE 4. Although the Cube

t6 Services contract was later determined urìnecessary by the discovery of a written Quail Creek

t7 contract, it remains in evidence and gives greater detail to the service provided by GSR. It

18 provides clear demonstrative evidence that the services provided to Quail Creek violate the RMC

t9 and the Franchise Agreement. The Cube Services contract defines o'recyclable materials" like the

20 Quail Creek contract, but it expands even further to allow "any type of material that can be
2I recycled or recovered, whether separated or not separated from other waste materials, prior

22 to collection." Id. at p.2. This too is a contract for collecting and transporting all solid waste,

23 and this one additionally identifies that the generator is not required to separate its purported

24 recyclable material, further removing Quail Creek from the protection of "Excluded Recyclable

25 Materials."

26 Quail Creek's earlier definition of "recyclable material" and its argument that recycling is
27 not an activity that can be exclusively franchised are wholly negated by these contracts revealing

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-7-
 1 that G,SR ß contractìng to collect, høul ønd transport øll solid wuste, itself in violation of the

2 RMC and the Franchise Agreement. The service provided by GSR to Quail Creek is not limited
a
J to "Approved Recyclable Materials," let alone "Excluded Recyclable Materials." As Quail Creek

4 admits, all of these materials are subject to Waste Management's exclusive right to haul the

5 materials, and Quail Creek has improperly contracted with GSR to collect, haul and transport

6 solid waste, including recyclable materials. It does not matter that Quail Creek also contracts

7 with Waste Management for a token and much smaller service - Quail Creek may not at all
8 contract with any other entity to collect, haul and transport its solid waste, including recyclable

9 materials.

10 2. Quail Creek's materials are collected and transported as a service.

11 Quail Creek may sell its recyclables, however it may not also contract with another entity
I2 (whether the purchaser of the materials or another entity) to collect and transport the material it
13 sells as recyclables. A business may be engaged in the business of purchasing and processing

l4 recyclables, but it must bear its own cost of transportation of the recyclables it purchases. Any

15 entity to which Quail Creek sells its recyclables may not also charge Quail Creek for the

t6 collection and transportation of those materials. Such an arrangement would encourage sham

l7 contracts for token "purchases" of recyclables that are in actuality contracts for the hauling of
18 those materials. The Franchise Agreement anticipates and precludes such arrangements. HE 6,

t9 p.14, $ 3.2(A); see also HE I and 9.

20 Again, "Excluded Recyclable Materials" (that might be purchased by a legitimate buyer

2I of recyclable materials) does not include materials o'collected and transported as a service." HE

22 6,p.5. However, as previously stated, the Quail Creek contract (and the demonstrative Cube

23 Services contract) clearly identifies that materials are being collected and transported as a

24 service.

25 Quail Creek's contract with GSR is entitled a "service agreement" HEl0, p.1, and such
26 service is to be provided multiple times per week. Id. atp.2,4. Quail Creek's contract with GSR
27 declares that the subject materials are "to be collected" by GSR. 1d. at p. 1. Like the Quail Creek

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-8-
 1 service agreement, the Cube Services contract is a ooservice agreement," HE 4,p.I, and such

2 service is to be provided multiple times per month. Id. atp.1, 3. This contract, too, declares that
a
J it is a contract for collection of the subject materials. Id. The demonstrative Cube Services

4 service agreement furthermore identifies charges for "Services on High Demand Days," HE 4,p.

5 2, ç 3 , frequency and scheduling of collection services, id. at $ 4. The respective invoices for

6 services also reflect that the services provided to Quail Creek (and Cube Services) are collection

7 services that occur several times per week. HE 10, p. 6-11; HE 4.

8 Even if the materials collected by GSR were only those dehned as "Approved Recyclable

9 Materials," GSR's collection and transportation of the materials as a service removes them from

10 the definition of "Excluded Recyclable Materials." See HE 6, p. S.However, the GSR service

11 agreements identify that Quail Creek has contracted with GSR for the collection, hauling and
t2 transportation of all non-excluded "Collection Materials," in clear violation of the RMC and the

13 Franchise Agreement.

t4 Apparently arguing on behalf of GSR, Quail Creek's counsel insisted that GSR only

15 "rents and places containers" and charges only a o'bin rental fee." Quail Creek's counsel also

t6 stated that GSR also can purchase recyclable materials, and he stated that the contracts are "a

T7 contract for materials" which Quail Creek owns, sells to GSR and places in the bins - whereupon

18 title to the materials transfers to GSR. Counsel's aim appears to be that Quail Creek has only

t9 contracted with GSR for GSR to "rent a bin" and purchase recyclable materials. However, a

20 plain reading of the service agreements and invoices belies counsel's assertion that they are

2l merely for bin rental or "contracts for materials." See HE 3 , 4, l0.

22 It is important to note that, aside from the transcript of lobbyist statements before the City

23 Council (which are not supported by Nevada law), Quøil Creek did not submit øny evídence at

24 the ødminßtrative hearing. There is no evidence of a "bin rental fee." None of the contracts or

25 invoices that were submitted mentions "bin rental" or a "bin rental fee," and they instead

26 demonstrate that GSR contracts with its customers for solid waste collection, hauling and

27 transportation. Id.

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
-9-
Reno, NV 89505
 I This also raises a logical question: if GSR has taken title of the materials at pickup, why

2 is Quail Creek then paying GSR to collect and transport GSR's own materials? The answer is
a
J because the service agreement is not substantively a materials purchase contract, but it is a
4 contract for the collection, hauling and transportation of the materials. Quail Creek may only

5 subscribe to Waste Management for this service.

6 Furthermore, regardless of the "consideration for the materials," Quail Creek confirms

7 that GSR and its contracts classify the consideration as a "rebate." A "rebate" is "[a] deduction

8 or drawback from a stipulated payment, charge, or rate (as, a rate for the transportation of freight

9 by a railroad), not taken out in advance of payment, but handed back to the payer after he has

10 paid the full stipulated amount." Black's Law Dictionary 1266 (6th ed. 1990). It is money that is

11 returned after payment for goods or services. See Cambridge English Dictionary,

t2 htþs://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rebate. GSR's "Íebate" is provided to

13 Quail Creek after GSR has hauled away the materials; they are not purchased at the time Quail
l4 Creek supposedly puts them in the bins.

15 It is further commonly understood that ao'tebate" is something incidental to a primary

I6 service objective. Although exchange of consideration for the materials may be part of the

l7 service agreement, the primary service is GSR's collection, hauling and transportation of solid

18 waste. The collection and transportation of the materials also removes the materials from the

I9 exemption for "Excluded Recyclable Materials" and shows that GSR operates in violation of the

20 Franchise Agreement. Quail Creek cannot legally take part in this arrangement.

2l C. GSR has no business license to provide materials collection, hauling and

22 transportation services to Quail Creek

23 GSR operates illegally. As evidenced by the Quail Creek contract with GSR and the

24 Cube Services contract with GSR, GSR is providing solid waste collection, hauling and

25 transportation services within the City of Reno, but it does not have a City of Reno business

26 license to conduct such business. Søe also HE 8, p.2 ("GSR is not licensed to collect, transport,

27 process, recycle or dispose of Solid Vy'aste (including Garbage) or Recyclable Materials,

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
- 10-
 I Exempted Drop Box Materials, Excluded Materials, Excluded Recyclable Materials within [] the

2 City of Reno."). It is unlawful for any person to do business within the City without first having
a
J paid all fees and obtained all required licenses prior to the conduct of that business. RMC

4 4.04.020(a).

5 The City demonstrated that GSR is only licensed to "rent[]/plac[e] containers for

6 recyclable materials." HE 7, p. 3. It is telling that GSR changed its license from "rental and

7 servicing for commercial rubbish boxes, recycling - hauling co. only." Id. This demonstrates that

8 GSR once declared that it provided hauling services and is now knowingly providing those

9 services without proper business licensing. The Cube Services and Quail Creek contracts, HE 4

10 and 10, confirm GSR's unlicensed business conduct. GSR cannot legally provide solid waste

11 (including recyclable materials) collection, hauling and transportation to anyone within the City

t2 of Reno, let alone Quail Creek.

13 Quail Creek's declaration that "simply stating that a business is not licensed to do
l4 something, doesn't mean that they can't do it," Appeal Memorandurn, p. ll:24-25, is a blatant
15 misrepresentation of the law. See RMC 4.04.020(a). Quail Creek's example of requiring a

I6 license for incidental functions within a licensed business is nonsense, offered as a distraction for

I7 GSR's (not Quail Creek's) argument that GSR does not need a license to haul "Excluded

18 Recyclable Materials." Appeal Memorandurn, p. Il:25 - p. 12:4. Whether GSR cøn obtain such
t9 a license is outside of the subject of this hearing and would properly be left to GSR's submission

20 of a license application for the activities it describes.

2l Quail Creek's counsel sought to examine the undersigned counsel at the hearing and
22 asked whether GSR needed a business license to collect, transport, haul and purchase "Excluded

23 Recyclable Materials." As in previous such questioning from Quail Creek's counsel (but asserted

24 on direct behalf of GSR), Exhibits I and 2 to this Response Brief, the undersigned counsel

25 would not respond to Quail Creek's (actually GSR's) incomplete hypothetical and directed Quail

26 Creek's/GSR's counsel to have GSR apply for a business license for the business it wishes to

27

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-l l-
 1 conduct, and allow administrative offrcials to review and process GSR's license application.

2 Such questioning was improper and irrelevant to the instant matter.

a
J It is unfortunate that GSR is using its customers to illegally undercut and interfere with

4 the franchise. GSR's conduct in this fashion exposes its customers to liability, as Quail Creek has

5 received a NOV and citation for its failure to o'subscribe to the collection, hauling and disposal of

6 solid waste pursuant to the provisions of RMC chapter 5.90 and the applicable agreements."

7 RMC 10.08.045; seeHearing Exhibit ("HE") 5. Quail Creek has no standing to assert arguments

8 on behalf of GSR or any of its other customers.,See RMC 1.05.525(a) (a "responsible person"

9 may file a request for administrative hearing); see ølso RMC 1.05.020, Responsible person.

10 But to be clear, the NOV issued to Quail Creek was not for Quail Creek's contracting

11 with GSR. GSR is simply an entity that Quail Creek contracted with for the collection, hauling

12 and transportation of solid waste, and GSR's illegal conduct is just additional evidence that Quail

13 Creek's own actions are in violation of the RMC and the Franchise Agreement. The issue here is

I4 only whether the conditions listed in the NOV issued to Quail Creek violate the RMC. RMC

15 1.0s.s3s(c)(l). They do.

l6 D. Quail Creek failed to subscribe to solid waste collection pursuant to the RMC and
t7 the Franchise Agreement.

18 Quail Creek failed to "subscribe to the collection, hauling and disposal of solid waste
t9 pursuant to the provisions of RMC chapter 5.90 and the applicable agreements." RMC

20 10.08.045; seeHearing Exhibit ("HE") 5. Article II of RMC Chapter 5.90 governs the

2I "Collection and Transportation of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials." The "applicable

22 agreements" include the Franchise Agreement that additionally governs the case at bar.

ZJ
^1 RMC 5.90.060(b) mandates that Quail Creek, as a commercial entity "shall subscribe to

24 the collection services of solid waste as required in the commercial agreement andlor the Reno

25 Municipal Code . . ." RMC 5.90.110 reiterates that "fp]ersons generating . . . collection materials

26 in the city shall comply with the applicable terms, conditions and requirements of this article and

27 the agreements." RMC 5.90.060(b) also states that, although commercial customers of Waste

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
t2-
 1 Management are not obligated to recycle their waste, a commercial customer may not retainarry

2 entity other than W'aste Management "to collect, pickup, transport or deliver approved recyclable
a
J materials in violation of fV/aste Management's] exclusive right under the commercial

4 agreement." As previously addressed, the Franchise Agreement grants Waste Management the

5 exclusive right to collect, haul and transport "Collection Materials," including "Approved

6 Recyclable Materials." HE 6,p.14, $ 3.2(A).

7 As also previously established, Quail Creek is not engaging in the separation and sale of

8 "Approved Recyclable Materials," which materials cannot be "collected and transported as a

.9 service." HE 6, p. 5, "Excluded Recyclable Materials." GSR's service to Quail Creek does not

t0 entail the purchase of "Excluded Recyclable Materials," and its business conduct is in violation

11 of the RMC and the Franchise Agreement.

t2 As a corollary to GSR's conduct with its customers, Quail Creek's transactions with GSR

13 do not entail the sale of "Excluded Recyclable Materials," and Quail Creek is otherwise

I4 beholden to subscribe to Waste Management for all of its solid waste and recyclable materials

15 collection, hauling and transportation. It may not only subscribe to Waste Management for some

t6 of these services; it must subscribe to Waste Management for all of these services. Quail Creek

t7 failed to do so, in violation of the RMC and the Franchise Agreement.

18 The City provided evidence and established the existence of a violation of the RMC,

19 RMC 1.05.540, but apart from one irrelevant transcript, Quøil Creek díd not submit any

20 evidence at the ødministrative heøríng. The City has borne its burden of proof, Quail Creek

2I provided none, and the Hearing Officer must uphold the Notice of Violation and Administrative

22 Citation.

23 E. The Hearing Officer is limited to finding whether the conditions listed in the NOV

24 issued to Quail Creek violate the RMC.

25 Quail Creek attempts to draw the Hearing Officer into invalidating the RMC and the
26 Franchise Agreement by its allegations and arguments regarding price-fixing, unauthorized

27 interpretations of law, Uniform Commercial Code violations, public policy issues and antitrust

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-l 3-
 I concerns. GSR has made some of these allegations and arguments in federal and state courts,

2 some of which are cases that are ongoing. See Exhibit 3 to this Response Brief. These are thinly-
a
J veiled arguments by GSR regarding GSR's own conduct. Again, Quail Creek has no standing to

4 bring these arguments forth on behalf of GSR, and GSR is not the appellant here. The Hearing

5 Officer should not take Quail Creek's (and GSR's) bait and should avoid wading into issues

6 currently being litigated in court.

7 The statutes and the ordinances adopted thereto carry with them a presumption of
8 validity. See Kawaokav. City of Anoyo Grande, 17 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 1994). The

9 presumption of validity applies equally to ordinances and to statutes. See Starlets International v.

10 Christensen, 106 Nev.732,735-36, 801 P.2d 1343,1344-45 (1990). Where regulations promote

l1 the health, safety, welfare and morals of a community, they are constitutionally valid. See Kuban

l2 v. McGimsey,96Nev. 105, Il2,605P.2d623,627 (1980). Citieshave"alegitimateif not

l3 compelling interest" in regulating solid waste through an exclusive franchise. See \4/ee Haul,l23
t4 Nev. at 562-563,170 P.3d at 515-516. "Authority over refuse has been treated as part of the

15 police power that covers the plenum of authority to legislate for the general welfare of society."

t6 Pleasant Hitt Bayshore Disposal, Inc. v. Chip-It Recycling, Inc.,9I Cal.App.4th 678,689-690
t7 (2001) (citations omitted). Apart from GSR's efforts in multiple courts to undermine the

18 Franchise Agreement, there is no question about the validity of the statutes, ordinances and the

t9 City's regulation of the handling of solid waste and recyclable matter.

20 Quail Creek's arguments here have no bearing on the Hearing Officer's role in this
2t matter. The Hearing Officer is limited to decision whether the conditions listed in the NOV

22 violate the RMC. RMC 1.05.535(c)(1). As previously argued, Quail Creek has indeed violated

z)
^a the RMC, and the NOV must be upheld.

24 ilI. CONCLUSION
oosubscribe
25 Quail Creek was issued the NOV for its failure to to the collection, hauling

26 and disposal of solid waste pursuant to the provisions of RMC chapter 5.90 and the applicable

27 agreements." RMC 10.08.045; seeHeañng Exhibit ("HE") 5. Quail Creek is required to use

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-14-
 1 Waste Management for all collection, hauling and transportation of Solid Waste and Recyclable

2 Materials, but it is using a service provider other than'Waste Management to obtain some, if not
a
J most of its collection, hauling and transportation services. Neither Quail Creek nor GSR is

4 engaging in business conduct that would exempt either of them from regulation by the Franchise

5 Agreement, and Quail Creek is in violation of the RMC and the Franchise Agreement. The

6 Hearing Officer must Notice of Violation and Administrative Citation.

7 DATED this day of March,2017

8
KARL S. HALL
9 Reno City Attorney

10

11

t2
MA L. JENSEN
13 Deputy City Attorney
Nevada State #6357
t4 Post Office Box 1900
Reno, Nevada 89505
15 (77s) 334-20s0
Attorneys for City of Reno
l6
t7
18

I9
20

2t
22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-15-
 1 List of Exhibits
2 Email regarding WM-Franchise Issue I
a
J Email regarding Business License Question 2

4 First Amended Complaint in Green Solutions vs. Reno Disposal Case No: 3:16-cv-334.. J

10

11

T2

13

l4
15

t6
I7
l8
t9
20

2l
22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
-16-
Reno, NV 89505
 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the RENO CITY
a
J ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, and that on this date, I am serving the foregoing document(s) on

4 the party(s) set forth below by:

5
Placing an original or tnre copy thereof in a sealed envelope placed for collection
6
and mailing in the United States Mail, at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid,
following ordinary business practices.
7

I Personal delivery.

9 CM/ECF electronic service

10
Facsimile (FAX).
1l
Federal Express or other overnight delivery
t2
Reno/Carson Messenger Service.
l3
X Email.
I4

l5 addressed as follows:

t6 J. Chase Whittemore, Esq. Jill Greiner, Esq.

Whitney Derrah, Esq. DOTSON LAW
t7 ARGENTUM LAW City Hall Tower,
6121 Lakeside Dr. Suite 208 One East First Street, 16th Floor
18
Reno, NV 89511 Reno, NV 89501
t9 chase@argentumnv.com j greiner@dotsonlaw. le gal
whitney@,ar gentumnv. com
20

2I DATED this 2}fh day of March, 2018

22
/s/ Katie Wellman
23 Katie Wellman
Legal Assistant
24

25

26

27

28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
-17-
EXITIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1
 3t15t2018 City of Reno Mail - Fwd: WM-Franchise lssue

cttYot

Matthew Jensen <jensenm@reno.gov>

Fwd: WM-Franch¡se lssue

1 message

Jonathan Shipman <shipmanj@reno.gov> Wed, Nov 29,2017 at 4:13 PM

To: Matthew Jensen <jensenm@reno.gov>

FYI

Jonathan D. Shipman
Assistant City Attorney
Reno City Attorney's Office
P.0. Box 1900
1 E. 1st St.
Reno, NV 89505
Tel. No. {775) 334-2057
CellNo, (775) 560-3398
Fax No. (775) 334-2420

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED

This e mail message transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, are confidential and are
protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work product doctrine, lf you are not the intended recipient or a person
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination,
distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or attached to this e mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. lf
you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by fonrvarding this e mail to the sender or by
telephone al (775) 334 205A and then delete the message and its attachments.

Fonryarded message
From: Jonathan Shipman <shipmanj@reno.gov>
Date: ïhu, May 4,2017 at 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: WM-Franchise lssue
To: Chase Whittemore <chase@sandelawgroup.com>, Karl Hall <hallk@reno.gov>

Yes the names make difference because the City needs to verify that the arrangement complies with the
Franchise Agreement and the facts comport with your representations.

Like you, I am trying to find a solution and expedite a decision, but that can't happen unless NRS and the
generator fully cooperate. Anything less than full disclosure is not an option.

lf your next email doesn't contain the name of the generator, don't expect any further response on my
end. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

On May 4,2017 5:14 PM, "Chase Whittemore" <chase@sandelawgroup.com> wrote:

Do the names of the generator make a difference in the City's determination? lf they do, please explain
, why and I will go back to my client and see whether they want to reveal that info.

Thank you Jonathan! I am not trying to be difficult or confrontational. I realize this has been a long and
difficult road for the City, I am just trying to find solutions that could work.

https://mail.google.com/maili?ui=2&ik=86b3cc7d94&jsver=7NKBhY4B7p8."n.gy¡s\M=pt&as_query=from%34(shipmanj%40reno.gov)%2gto%3Afiensen... 1lB
 3t15t2018 City of Reno Mail - Fwd: WM-Franchise lssue

-Chase

Sent from my iPhone

On May 4, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Jonathan Shipman <sh¡pmanj@reno.gov> wrote:

Who is the generator?

Jonathan D. Shipman
Assistant City Attorney
Reno City Attorney's Office
Tel. No. {775) 334-2A57
Fax No. (775) 334-242A
P.0. Box 1900
1 E. lst St., Reno, NV 89505

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED

This e mail message transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, are
confidential and are protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work product doctrine. lf you are not the
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified
that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information contained in,
or attached to this e mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. lf you have received this transmission in
error, please immediately notify us by fonvarding this e mail to the sender or by telephone at (775) 334
2050 and then delete the message and ¡ts attachments.

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Chase Whittemore <chase@sandelawgroup.com>

wrote:
Jonathan,

This is not a hypothetical. Again, think of me as the generator, since I am acting as

their agent. So you are "talking" to the generator through me. The transaction is very
' real and we would like to know if the City believes the Franchise Agreement allows for
the transaction I outlined below. The buyer and seller have a entered into a written and
signed purchase agreement for the recyclables.

I understand that under normal circumstances, we would not need the City's approval
but since much of the pending litigation between GSR and the City has confused the
issue beyond normalcy, the parties felt it was best to get the City's opinion on the
proposed transaction before following through with the transaction.

They are awaiting the City's approval so that they can complete the transaction
without fear of reprisal. lf you cannot give approval, who at the City can? Do I need to
get the City Council's approval each time NRS decides to purchase recyclables? That
seems time consuming and not very business friendly.

The proposed transaction should be an easy call for the City to make. There's no
motive to use your opinion other than to complete the transaction without having to
fear WM threatening the seller with a lawsuit--which is also not a hypothetical. WM
has now threatened more than 5 companies in Reno for violating the franchise
agreement. Those threats are real and have resulted in companies cancelling their
business relationship with GSR.

Karl, can you weigh in here? I find it fascinating the City can't give a simple no or yes
to what is a very simple question.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=86b3cc7d94&jsver=7NKBhY4B7p8.en.gy¡srrv=pt&as_query=from9/ 3A(shipmanj%40reno.gov)%2gto%3A(ensen... 2/B

 3t15t2018 City of Reno Mail - Fwd: WM-Franchise lssue

Best,
Chase

Sent from my iPhone

On May 4,2017, at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Shipman <shipmanj@reno.gov> wrote:

Per my earlier email, we need to contact the generator to verify that the
arrangement being proposed meets the terms and conditions of the
Franchise Agreement.

What I cannot do is give you a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical

question that will potentially be misquoted and taken out of context to
justify an illegal transaction. This has happened before, ê.g., business
licensing letter.

lf we discuss the transaction with the generator, and determine the

transaction complies with the Franchise Agreement, neither NRS nor the
generator will have to worry about WM.

Jonathan D. Shipman
Assistant City Attorney
Reno City Attorney's Office
Tel. No, (775) 334-2A57
Fax No, (775) 334-2420
P.0. Box 1900
1 E. 1st St., Reno, NV 89505

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED

This e mail message transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail
messages attached to it, are confidential and are protected by the attorney client
privilege and/or work product doctrine. lf you are not the intended recipient or a person
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information
contained in, or attached to this e mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. lf you
have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by forwarding this
e mail to the sender or by telephone at (775) 334 2050 and then delete the message
and its attachments.

On ïhu, May 4,2017 at4:15 PM, Chase Whittemore

<chase@sandelawgrou p.com> wrote:
At this point I cannot reveal the party's name wishing to sell the
recyclables. I believe the owners are worried about being targeted
with threats by WM like other businesses in the community have
been.

ls there a particular reason why you need to know the party's name to
determine whether the transaction being contemplated is allowed
under the franchise agreement? Maybe if you gave an explanation,
r they would be more inclined to share that information.

-Chase

Sent from my iPhone

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=86b3cc7d94&jsver=7NKBhY4B7p8.en.&view=pt&as_query=from% 3A(shipmanj%40reno.gov)%2gto%34(jensen... 3iB

 3t15t2018 City of Reno Mail - Fwd: WM-Franchise lssue

On May 4,2017, at 4:08 PM, Jonathan Shipman

<shipmanj@reno. gov> wrote:

Who is the client?

Jonathan D. Shipman
Assistant City Attorney
Reno City Attorney's Office
Tel. No, (775) 334-2A57
Fax No. (775) 334-2420
P.O. Box 1900
1 E. 1st St., Reno, NV 89505

ATTORNEY CLI ENT PRIVILEGED

This e mail message transmission and any documents, files or
previous e-mail messages attached to it, are confìdential and are
protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work product
doctrine. lf you are not the intended recipient or a person
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby
notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination,
distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or attached
to this e mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. lf you have
received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
fonruarding this e mail to the sender or by telephone at (775) 334
2050 and then delete the message and its attachments,

On Thu, May 4,2017 at4:07 PM, Chase Whittemore

<chase@sandelawgroup. com> wrote:
Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for the response. I have been given

authority to speak to the City by both parties.

Please let me know the City's answer. lt would be

nice to get the answer sooner rather than later, so the
parties can proceed with their important business
transaction.

Thank you,
Chase

On May 4,2017, at 4:01 PM, Jonathan Shipman

<sh ipma nj@reno.gov> wrote:

Chase,

ln general, we need to contact the client

to verify whether the arrangement being
proposed meets the terms and
conditions of the Franchise Agreement.
Give Lynne Barker a call at 334-2288

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=86b3cc7d94&jsver=7NKBhY4B7p8.en.gy¡¿r¡y=pt&as_query-from%3A(shipmanj%40reno.gov)%20to%3A(jensen 4t8
 3t1 5t2018 City of Reno Mail - Fwd: WM-Franchise lssue

Jon

Jonathan D. Shipman
Assistant City Attorney
Reno City Attorney's Office
Tel. No, (775) 334-2057
Fax No. (775) 334-242A
P.O. Box 1900
1 E. lst St., Reno, NV 89505

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED

This e mail message transmission and any
documents, files or previous e-mail messages
attached to it, are confidential and are protected
by the attorney client privilege and/or work
product doctrine. lf you are not the intended
recipient or a person responsible for delivering it
to the intended recipient you are hereby notified
that any review, disclosure, copying,
dissemination, distribution or use of any of the
information contained in, or attached to this e
mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED, lf
you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify us by fonruarding this e
mail to the sender or by telephone at (775)
334 2050 and then delete the message and its
attachments.

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:48 PM,

Chase Whittemore
<chase@sandelawg roup.com> wrote
HiJonathan,

We'd like an opinion from the City on

a question about the franchise
agreement. We'd appreciate your
response.

NRS would like to purchase source

separated recyclables from a
commercial business. The parties
have agreed to the transaction but I
have told them to hold off on
executing the transaction until they
get approval from the City. Under the
transaction contemplated, NRS would
pay out of pocket $1 0 for the
recyclable materials and would not
charge any fee for pickup, collection,
bin rental, etc. The business (who
would like to remain confidentialfor
obvious reasons) is receiving $10 and
would not have to pay any amount.

1) Does the franchise agreement

https:i/mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=86b3cc7d94&jsver=7NKBhY4B7p8.en.6y¡s!v=pt&as_Query-from%34(shipmanj%40reno.gov)%20to%3Afiensen... S/8
 3t15t2018 City of Reno Mail - Fwd: WM-Franchise lssue

allow NRS to purchase those

recyclable materials as outlined
above?

And

2) Does the franchise agreement

allow NRS to pickup/collect the
materials from the business that are
purchased by NRS? Or is there some
other way NRS can get the materials,
assum¡ng they are allowed to
purchase the recyclables under
question 1 above?

Th an k you

Chase Whittemore, Esq.

Sande Law Group

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail

transmission, and any documents, files or

previous e-mail messages attached to it

may contain confidential information that is

also legally privileged. lf you are not the

intended recipient, or a person responsible

for delivering it to the intended recipient,

you are hereby notified that any disclosure,

copying, distribution or use of any of the

information contained in or attached to this

transmission is prohibited. lf you have

received this transmission in error, please

immediately notify the sender and

immediately destroy the original

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=86b3cc7d94&jsver=7NKBhY4B7p8.en.gu¡svv=pt&as_9uery=from9' 3A(shipmanj%40reno.gov)%2gto%34(jensen... 6/8

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2
 3t15t2018 City of Reno Mail - Re: Business License Question

r¿ Itro.

Matthew Jensen <jensenm@reno.gov>

Re: Business License Question

1 message

Matthew Jensen <jensenm@reno.gov> Thu, Nov 30,2017 at 8:46 AM

To : Chase Whittemore <chase@sandelawg roup. com>
Cc: Karl Hall <hallk@reno.gov>
Bcc: Jonathan Shipman <shipmanj@reno.gov>

Mr. Whittemore:

Thank you for ensuring that you will have no communication with our client outside of our (City Attorney's
Office) presence, including the receipt of any responses. ln this regard, if you seek an in-person meeting,
please also make such arrangements in writing and include us in those communications as well.

However, I did not deny your request for "clarification that GSR is required to obtain a business license to
collect and transport "Excluded Recyclable Materials."" To the contrary, I stated to you that the
appropriate method to receive an answer is for your client to submit a business license application with a
complete description of the business activity it wishes to conduct, and in such detail that it allows City
staff to adequately review the application.

Othenruise, you request an administrative interpretation of an incomplete hypothetical question that may
potentially be misquoted and taken out of context to justify illegal transactions. As has been discussed
with you before when you posed this very question to another attorney in our office, the City needs
complete non-hypothetical and factual information to be able to verify that your client's business
arrangement would comply with the Franchise Agreement. Even then, this office cannot provide legal
advice to your client; that is your job.

We also disagreed regarding the effect of information from Tuesday's hearing on your inquiry. As I stated,
I will review the hearing transcript and let you know if my view of the matter is changed. Until then, your
client would be best served to submit a license application and allow appropriate review of whatever the
business is that your client wishes to conduct.

Regards.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Chase Whittemore <c hase@sandelawgroup.com> wrote
Good afternoon Mr. Jensen,

This email is to confirm our telephone conversation from this afternoon.

(1) Your office has given me permission to communicate with your client, i.e. City Council members as
long as you are present. Therefore, I will include you and Mr. Hall on future emails I have with City
Council members.
' (2) I have requested from the City Attorney's office or the Business Licensing division for a clarification
, to a May 14,2015 letter written by Michael Chaump that states the following: "GSR is not licensed to
collect, transport, process, recycle or dispose of Solid Waste (including Garbage) or Recyclable
Materials, Exempted Drop Box Materials, Excluded Materials, Excluded Recyclable Materials within in
the City of Reno."

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=86b3cc7d94&jsver=7NKBhY4B7p8."n.¿u¡s\^/=pt&as_to=chase%4gsandelawgroup.com&as_sizeoperator=s_sl&... j t2
 3t15t2014 City of Reno Mail - Re: Business License euestion

t $iirnply stating a business "is not licensed" for a business activity does not necessarily mean that a
Þ usiness is required to obtain a license to conduct that businesé. For example, ry .órprny n""
þ usiness license. lt is not licensed to issue invoices, but there "
is no doubt that we-may issue invoices
p ursuânt to my business license.

Tflus, I requested a clarification that GSR is required to obtain a business license to collect and
f¡ansport "Excluded Recyclable Materials" as that term is defined pursuant to the Exclusive Service
¡¡anchise Agreement.

This is to confirm our phone call that the city has denied my request.

please respond when you are able.

pegards,

Clrase Whittemore I Associate I Sande Law Group

612l Lakeside Dr. Ste 208 | Reno, NV g9S19
Dírect: 775-240-6851 | E-mail: chase@sandelawgroup.com
I tzt
It-)
CONFIDENTIALITY: This message is intended to be confidential and directed only to the personlentity as
¿¿dressed above. Furthermore, the contents of this message and any attachments hereto may be suúject to
the attorney-client privilege andlor work product doctrine and should not be disclosed to other parties oi
6¡stributed/copied in any way. lf you have received this message in error, please reply by e-mail to inform us
3¡¡d delete any copies from your hard drive. Thank you.

Mafthew L. Jensen
Deput/ CitY Attorney
Reno City Attorney's Office
Tel. No. (775) 326-6636
Fax No. (775) 334-2420
p.9. gox 1900
1 E. 1st St., Reno, NV 89505

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED

This e mail message transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, are confidential and are
protected,by the.attorney client privilege and/or work product doctrine. lf you are not the intended recipient 0r a person
responsjble for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemina¡on,
distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or attached to this e mail tiansmission is STRICT|Í p-ROHlg¡ff O, ff
you have *99y:9 jryt^transmission in error, please immediately notify us by fonrvarding this e mail to the sender or by
telephone at{775) 334 2050 and then delete the message and its attachments.

https://mail.google.comimail/?ui=2&ik=86b3cc7d94&jsver=7NKBhY4B7p8.en.&view=pt&as-to=chaseTo40sandelawgroup.com&as_sizeoperator=s_sl&
2t2
EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3
 COMPLAINT I ECEIVE
JOI-IN p. SANDB, ËSQ. MAY 0 t 2û17
Nevada Bar No. 9175
j ohn@sandelawgnrup, com
J. CHASË V'/HITTËMORË, ESQ. 2:7ø ptv
Nevada Bar No. 14031
SÅ,NÞË LASii GROUP
6077 S. Fort Apache Rd. #13û
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
Telephone: (702) 997 -A066
Fax: (702) 997-0CI38
Attorneys.for üreen Solurions Recycîing, LLC

UN,TTAD STATIS DTSTRICT COURT

NISTRTCT OF NTVA.ÐA

tl':
,¿l.t
GRËEN SOLUTIONS RECYCLTNG, LLC.,
ú:_ No.:
(li' Plaintitt
Case 3:16-CV-334
È;f
{r:, vs. F1RST AMNNDED COMPLAINT
'!1.-
-¿.
H;i RENO DISPOSAL COMPANY, 1NC.; \¡/ASTE
H'
21, MÂNAGEMENT ÛF NEVADA, INC.; CITY
{ir
glr OF RFNCI, and DOES 1.10; er al.

Ðefendânts.

F'IRST Á.MENDNN COMPLÄINT

COMIIS NOW Pl¿intiff, Green SolutionsRecyeling, LLC, ('?laintiff)¡ by and th'ough

its attorney of record, Jr:hn S¿nde IV, of Sande Law Grorç, a Prolesslonal Law Corpor*tian,

complains and alleges as follows:

Introduction
1. Greea Solutions Reeycling, LLC ("GSR"); brings this action against Reno Disposal

company, Inc., (*oRJ)c"), waste Managome-nt of Nevada Inc., (t'lyaste Managemenf') and

the Cìt,v of Reno (the "City") for erxering into agreements seeking to restrain trads in vic¡lation

of (1) section I of the Sherman Antitrust Acr; (2) the Commerce clause in the l4ül
1
 1 Code:1137
JOHN P. SANDE, ESQ.
2 Nevada BarNo. 9175
J. CHASE WHITTEMORE, ESQ.
J^
Nevada BarNo. 14031
4 SANDE LAW GROUP
6151 Lakeside Dr. #208
5 Reno, Nevada 89519
Telephone:
6 Fax: (702) 997-0038
Attorneys þr Green Solutions Recycling, LLC.
7
SECOND JIIDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF \ryASHOE
9
RENO DISPOSAL COMPANY, Inc., a Nevada
l0 Corporation
11
Plaintiff
t2 v.
CASE NO.: CVIT-01143

t3 GREEN SOLUTIONS RECYCLING, LLC, A

DEPT. NO.: I
Nevada limited liability company; et. al
t4
Defendants.
l5
t6 GREEN SOLUTIONS RECYCLING, LLC, A
Nevada limited liability company,
T7

Counterclaimant,
18
v
t9
RENO DISPOSAL COMPANY, Inc., a Nevada
20
Corporation, WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
2l NEVADA, Inc., a Nevada corporation; WASTE
MANAGEMENT NATIONAL SERVICES, Inc., a
Connecticut corporation and the City of Reno, a
22
political subdivision
23
Counterdefendants.
24

25
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM

26
COME NOW, Defendant Green Solutions Recycling, LLC ("Answering Defendant") by

27
and through their undersigned counsel of record, and hereby ans\ryer Plaintiffls Verified
Complaint ("Complaint") as follows:
28

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM

PAGE I