Department XXXI

Joanna S. Kishner

Office - (702) 671-3634

Fax - (702) 366-1412

Law Clerk - (702) 671-0899

Email - No ex parte or unsolicited emails accepted

Location - RJC Courtroom 16B



Regional Justice Center
200 Lewis Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89155

Joanna S. Kishner

Department XXXI

Eighth Judicial District Court

Term of Office 2010 - present

 

THE HONORABLE JOANNA S. KISHNER

            Judge Joanna S. Kishner is a native of Southern Nevada.  She was elected to Dept. XXXI of the Eighth Judicial District Court in 2010.  She is licensed in both Nevada and California.  Judge Kishner is very active in the community.  She currently serves as a Trustee for the Law Library Board, is a member of the Legal Aid of Southern Nevada’s Pro Bono Advisory Council, a member of the Boyd Law School Public Interest Law Foundation and its Executive Board, as well as a member of the state-wide Access to Justice Commission.  She was also Chairperson of the Eighth Judicial District’s Rules Committee for several years.  Judge Kishner continues to be a guest speaker and/or a volunteer judge at many civic and community events including the Judicial Open World Program, “We The People” student moot court programs, student mock trial programs, and student speech and debate programs.  Judge Kishner is also one of the founding judges of the Legal Studies Internship program for area high schools. 

            Prior to taking the bench, Judge Kishner had the honor of working as a Justice of the Peace Pro Tem, Pro Tem Small Claims Referee, a Pro Tem Traffic Court Referee, and as an Arbitrator all while maintaining an active legal practice for over 21 years, including overseeing the Las Vegas office of DLA Piper, a multi-national law firm.  Judge Kishner represented various client entities in a broad spectrum of litigation and administrative matters before federal and state district courts and appellate courts, as well as various state and federal agencies and alternative dispute resolution mediums.

            Previous to working at DLA Piper and its predecessor firms, Judge Kishner was Senior Counsel for Warner Bros., a division of Time-Warner Entertainment Company, where she advised the international multimedia company on a variety of litigation and employment-related matters, as well as other legal issues.  Judge Kishner was also an associate with the multi-national firm Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, where she had a broad-based multi-jurisdictional legal practice.

            As a result of her efforts, Judge Kishner has been recognized by several publications for her legal work including Chambers USA, America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Super Lawyers, and The Best Lawyers in America publications.  She has also been honored and recognized for her pro bono work including working with disadvantaged children through the Children’s Attorney Project (CAP) and national pro bono programs, as well as serving on the State and County Bar’s Pro Bono Recruitment Committee.  Judge Kishner was also one of the featured attorneys and judges in the Nevada Lawyer magazine. In 2016, Judge Kishner was awarded the Justice Nancy Becker Pro Bono Award of Judicial Excellence.

            Judge Kishner has edited and/or written on numerous topics, including editing a chapter in Employment Discrimination Law, Barbara Lindemann & Paul Grossman (3rd Edition, 1996).  Also, she has often been a speaker at various seminars and has donated her time to various groups such as the Constitutional Rights Foundation Lawyers in the Classroom Program; the Council on Education in Management; Time Magazine’s Time to Read Program; and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce SmartGrad Program.  

            Prior to commencing her legal career, Judge Kishner graduated magna cum laude in 1986 with a double major in Political Science and Psychology from Claremont McKenna College.  While at CMC, she worked with the Claremont Graduate School’s Autism Clinic.

            Thereafter, Judge Kishner received her Juris Doctorate in 1989 from UCLA School of Law.  While at UCLA, she was a Judicial Extern for the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson of the United States District Court, Central District of California.  She was also the Managing Editor of the Federal Communications Law Journal, the Third Year Editor of the UCLA School of Law Yearbook, a Volunteer for the Homeless Legal Project, and participated in Moot Court as well as many other activities.

            Judge Kishner has been married for over 24 years and has two children.

Courtroom Protocol

No weapons are allowed. There is no eating, drinking, smoking or chewing gum in any courtroom.

Proper courtroom attire is required. No shorts or tank tops are allowed in the courtroom, shoes are required. T-shirts, which show offensive slogans or pictures, are not allowed. Hats should be removed before entering the courtroom.

While in the courtroom, sit quietly when court is in session. Do not talk or whisper. The court proceedings are being recorded by a court recorder and noise can interfere with the preparation of this important record.

All beepers, cellular telephones, and electronic devices must be turned off before entering the courtroom. Avoid reading newspapers, or books in the courtrooms, particularly if your use of such material may be a distraction to others.

Attorneys are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards at all times, and to strictly adhere to the opportunities, requirements, limitations, and deadlines set by the judge. All counsel are to be punctual for all conferences, hearings and trials. They are to be civil to one another as well as to all parties, witnesses, and court personnel - whether in front of a jury or the court.


DISTRICT COURT - DEPARTMENT XXXI
HON. JOANNA S. KISHNER

Judicial Executive Assistant: TRACY L. CORDOBA â–Ş 671-3634 â–Ş cordt@clarkcountycourts.us

Court Recorder: LARA CORCORAN â–Ş 671-0897 â–Ş corcoranL@clarkcountycourts.us

Courtroom Clerk: STEPHANIE RAPEL â–Ş 671-0638 â–Ş rapels@clarkcountycourts.us

Law Clerk â–Ş 671-0899 â–Ş dept31lc@clarkcountycourts.us

Current Assignment

  • Department 31 is currently assigned a general Civil docket and two specialty dockets: Construction Defect and Business Court - in addition to hearing criminal overflow cases.

Discovery Commissioner assigned

  • Commissioner Adam Ganz

Court Reporter or a Court Recorder:

  • Department 31 uses a Court Recorder – Lara Corcoran - for the official record. There are recording fees and transcription fees for trials/transcripts in addition to fees for other requests.  The appropriate forms can be obtained by contacting the Court Recorder (via email) and forms must be completed and submitted directly to the Court Recorder.

Motion Calendars

  • In general, unless there is a special setting or a specific request (in writing or in open Court) for a particular amount of time to argue a matter (with Court approval), and/or there is a specific time allocation provided by the Court, then the parties generally have 5 to 10 minutes, per side, (if there are no Joinders) to engage in oral argument. The Court may find it appropriate to give the parties additional or less time in its gatekeeper function.
  • Department 31 hears Business Court matters (regardless of type of Motion) on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8:30 a.m. - unless the Court sets a special setting.
  • General Civil matters (Motions to Extend, Status Checks, etc.) are heard on Tuesdays and Thursday at 9:00 a.m.
  • Dispositive/longer motions are set at 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. However, if oral argument will be more than 15 min. total, Counsel should request that the matter be set at 10:00 a.m. or request a special setting in a joint letter emailed to the JEA.  Said request must be received by the time the Reply is due.  The Court will evaluate the request and determine the amount of time to allocate for oral argument.
  • Default Judgment/Prove-Up hearings, Motions for Reconsideration, Petition for Judicial Reviews, etc. are generally scheduled at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays as appropriate.
  • Construction Defect matters (regardless of type of hearing) are heard on Wednesdays at 9:00 a.m. unless the Court sets a special setting.

NRCP Rule 16 Conferences

  • Unless there is a Case Management Order (CMO) or the Court has ordered otherwise, once the first party answers, the parties are to conduct an Early Case Conference (ECC) consistent with the rules and file their Joint/Individual Case Conference Report (JCCR/ICCR) within 30 days thereof, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Court then schedules an NRCP Rule 16 Conference wherein trial counsel/self-represented litigants must appear.  The Order scheduling the NRCP 16 Conference contains a listing of numerous potential topics to discuss at the NRCP Rule 16 Conference and the parties can also discuss other applicable topics.  Please review NRCP 16 and NRCP 16.1 for guidance.

Chamber’s Calendar

  • Department 31 does have a regular Chamber’s calendar on Fridays. Matters scheduled on the Court’s Chambers calendar generally include unopposed matters such as: Motions to Withdraw, Motions to Consolidate, and Decisions/matters set by the Court for compliance.  Based on the facts of a particular case, the Court may set a matter on the Chamber’s calendar for a hearing on one of its Motion calendars.

Remote appearances

  • Unless otherwise ordered by the Court (e.g. OSC), or specified in a Trial Order (e.g. Calendar Call), the Court hears matters either in person or via remote audiovisual appearances through Zoom provided there is compliance with the applicable rules.
  • If not appearing in person, parties must appear audiovisually, rather than telephonically. The Court will only grant telephonic appearances in appropriate cases.  However, any matter that has multiple attorneys/parties appearing such as in a Construction Defect (CD) case, Business Court (BC) case, or any multi-party case, all parties must appear in person – or – audiovisually in accordance with the rules. 
  • If any party/witness is appearing audiovisually for a trial, the request must be made in writing or at a hearing prior to the Calendar Call unless the Court provides a different time-frame. If the audiovisual appearance is objected to, the parties must notify the Court and schedule time to have the objection heard.  In addition, if any witness is appearing audiovisually, that witness must also comply with the rules regarding appearances including those relating to out-of-state witnesses which can be found on the Eighth Judicial District Court website under “Forms”. If any party has a remote witness, that party is also responsible for ensuring that all exhibits, electronic connections etc are provided to the witness so that the witness can be fully examined and cross-examined. 

Unopposed Motions

  • Department 31 may grant unopposed motions in advance of the hearing, depending on the nature of the motion, in accordance with the EDCR. Counsel/pro-se litigants are required to appear for unopposed motions in accordance with the EDCR unless Counsel/pro-se litigant has received a written notice from the Court that they need not appear.

Default Judgment/Prove-up hearings

  • For Default Judgments requesting a total award of $50,000 or less, and which does not include injunctive relief, real property, or other matters that need an appearance, the matter may be decided on in Chambers at the Court’s discretion. Any Default Judgments requesting an award totaling $50,000 or more, real property, or injunctive relief, must be set on the Department XXXI’s regular motion calendar for a prove-up hearing.  In addition, if there is an issue in an application and/or proposed Order for amounts requesting a total award $50,000 or less that the Court feels requires a hearing, the Court will then set the matter for a hearing.
  • Generally, live testimony is needed at prove-up hearings; however, remote audiovisual appearances are permitted. If a witness is required to appear at the prove-up hearing and is appearing remotely, counsel/parties must comply with current applicable rules and must complete the appropriate out-of-state appearance form to allow the Court jurisdiction so the Clerk is able to swear in the witness.

Courtesy Copies

  • Department 31 requires physical Courtesy Copies to be delivered to the Department 31 inbox a minimum of five (5) judicial days prior to the hearing pursuant to EDCR 2.20.  E-mail and faxed courtesy copies are not accepted unless otherwise directed by the Court. If the pleadings are over 50 pages, including exhibits, the party may request to provide a USB jump drive/flash drive in lieu of a physical copy.  If a USB jump drive with courtesy copies is provided in lieu of a hard copy, each document must be clearly and accurately labeled with the name of the document.

Submission of Orders

  • Unless otherwise instructed by the Court, counsel for the prevailing party is required to draft the Order and must circulate it to all opposing counsel/parties for approval/signature, allowing for a reasonable opportunity to review and/or comment. Proposed Orders must meet the requirements of Administrative Order 22-07 and must be submitted to the Department 31 inbox, dc31inbox@clarkcountycourts.us, in PDF format, within 14 days of the ruling, in accordance with EDCR 7.21. (If the prevailing counsel has not provided a Proposed Order timely, then the other counsel/party(ies) must submit the Proposed Order so as to ensure the matter can proceed timely.)  ONLY one (1) PDF attachment per email. 
  • Any Order/joint document must have the original signature of each opposing counsel/party or the submitting party is required to obtain the e-mail authorization of each party’s electronic signature. The e-mail authorization must be embedded in the body of the document or attached as the last page of the submitted document.  Upon submission, the subject line must have the full case number – document filing code – and case caption.  (Ex: A-20-123456-C - ORDR - Smith v. Doe).  No additional argument should be included in the body of the email as the email is not  
  • If an Order is circulated and signature from all opposing Counsel(s) and/or Party(ies) is not obtained, submitting Counsel is to indicate that the Order was “circulated-not signed” on that parties’ signature line and attach the email circulation as the last page of the Order.

Contested Orders

  • Competing Orders are strongly There may, however, be a rare instance where there is a significant substantive dispute as to whether the drafting party has correctly set forth the Court’s ruling rather than a linguistic dispute.  In these rare cases, in addition to complying with EDCR 7.21 and the Administrative Order(s), the party who was directed to prepare the proposed Order is to provide the Order to the Court, in PDF and Word format, to the Department 31 inbox.  On the signature line of opposing counsel, there should be language to indicate that the Order was circulated to all parties, but not signed, and that a competing Order is to be submitted and attach the proof of circulation as the last page of the Order.  For example: the signature line could read, “Counsel did not consent and will be submitting competing Order.”  The other party must submit its competing Order to the Department inbox, prior to the expiration of EDCR 7.21, and within two (2) days of notifying opposing counsel that he/she contends that a competing Order is merited.  That party must also set forth on the competing Order that it is a competing Order on the signature line of opposing counsel, and must attach the email proof of circulation as the last page of the Order.  Note:  The party submitting the competing order MUST submit its proposed Order to the Court, in PDF format, along with a red-line version of the Order in WORD format which shows the differences in the competing Orders.  Counsel may not provide separate correspondence attempting to argue their position or supplement the record.
  • All parties must comply with the current Administrative Order in effect regarding electronic signatures and the requirement to attach the email authorization(s) as the last page of the Order as well as all other rules.

Jury selection

  • Department 31 uses a modified version of the "Arizona Method" for jury selection. The Court’s Procedures for Jury Trials provides a general outline of the Voir Dire process, but the Voir Dire process is discussed at greater length at the Calendar Call and any requests relating to the in-person Voir Dire process are made at or prior to the Calendar Call and consistent with EDCR 2.67-2.69.  The presiding Judge initially conducts voir dire of the entire venire.  In appropriate cases, after questioning, the Judge meets with counsel at the bench to discuss whether any prospective jurors should be excused for cause or hardship. Bench conferences are not made part of the official record and if any party wishes challenges to be made part of the record, he/she/they must request that prior to the commencement of any bench conference and then oral argument must take place at counsel table or the podium.
Attorneys/Pro-Se litigants are then permitted to conduct voir dire examination of the jury panel consistent with their timely submitted voir dire questions pursuant to EDCR 2.67-2.69 and the Trial Order.  After each party has completed his/her/their initial questioning, attorneys meet with the Judge at the bench to discuss whether any of these prospective jurors should be excused for cause.  Once the prospective jurors are passed for cause, the parties exercise their peremptory challenges.  Excusals for cause are discussed only at the bench (unless a request to have the excusals recorded is made prior to the commencement of the bench conference as set forth above) and excused jurors are not informed as to the reason for their discharge.
Due to the current guidelines, the ability to have a Pre-Trial jury questionnaire is very limited and any request for a pre-trial questionnaire will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.  It is the party’s/parties’ responsibility to determine if the case will merit a questionnaire and then to file the appropriate Motion to have a jury questionnaire within a sufficient time period so that not only can the Motion be heard in ordinary course, prior to the close of discovery (or earlier if it is a large case); but also, so that there is sufficient time to have the questionnaire completed if the Motion is granted.  OST’s on jury questionnaires are highly discouraged per the rules.  If the case has a CMO in place, or one is to be requested, then the request for and timing of the proposed questionnaire must be set forth in the proposed CMO for the Court’s review and determination.