Misconduct of Judge Gloria Sturman - the Judge of Eighth Judicial District for Clark County of Nevada

Judge Gloria J. Sturman, sitting on the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, has repeatedly acted in ways that go beyond mere error or unfavorable rulings. Her conduct — including intentional delays, denial of fundamental procedural rights, and apparent deference to private party influence — reflects a pattern of judicial misconduct that implicates both state ethics rules and federal criminal law.

After I filed a valid Statement of Disqualification against Judge Sturman, rather than follow the proper procedures to have the challenge reviewed and adjudicated, she allowed the case to sit idle for days, then resumed action unilaterally and scheduled a hearing to dismiss my case — without proper notice — while I was out of town seeking medical treatment. She subsequently attempted to force a hearing with only hours' notice, at a time I could not appear remotely, effectively denying me a fair opportunity to respond.

This conduct occurred in the context of a larger pattern of collusion with opposing counsel — including attorneys who submitted unauthorized or perjured filings (notably Morgan Pietz, before his pro hac vice approval). Rather than enforce the law equally, Judge Sturman used her authority to block me from presenting my claims, punish me for seeking redress, and assist defense counsel in securing a procedural victory by deception.

Even after being notified of this misconduct, and after I submitted that I intended to lodge complaints to judicial oversight agencies, Judge Sturman failed to recuse herself and instead advanced a timeline designed to suppress my ability to be heard. Her actions violate not just judicial ethics but potentially state criminal laws and federal civil rights protections, especially where retaliation, discrimination, and denial of fair access are concerned.

Judge Sturman has failed to rule on a single motion filed by me–three of which were made ex parte due to their time sensitive nature listed as follows:

• Temporary Restraining Order against Shein filed on March 28, 2025;

• Temporary Restraining Order against Shein filed on March 28, 2025;

• Motion to Continue May 20 Hearing filed on May 13; and

• Motion For Immediate Ruling on Plaintiff's Pending Motions filed on May 16.

No rulings have been made as to any of these motions as of this filing. Moreover, I have also filed several noticed motions which have all been similarly ignored:

• Motion for Sanctions against Shein and counsel filed on May 12, 2025;

• Motion to Strike ant-SLAPP Motion filed on May 12; and

• Motion to Strike Attorney Morgan E. Pietz’s filings filed on May 12.

No rulings have been made as to any of these motions as of this filing.

On the contrary, Judge Sturman has set hearings for Defendants’ motion in rapid fire speeds in contraventions of the Nevada statutes.

On May 13, Judge Sturman set a hearing in just seven days on May 20 to have a hearing on a motion filed by Shein to have Pietz admitted to the case to circumvent my motion to sanction him for practicing law in Nevada without a license.

This motion had just been submitted to Judge Sturman and as of this date Shein has not provided a copy of this motion to me as mandated by law. It is very obvious that the judge and the attorney are in a criminal collusion to abuse my rights and to help Pietz evade accountability.

Judge Sturman, similarly set a completely fabricated and meritless anti-SLAPP motion for the same day giving me only seven days to oppose the frivolous motions.

Judge Sturman then completely ignored my ex parte application to continue the hearing so that I could hire an attorney and prepare for the hearing.

Judge Sturman then ignored another ex parte application in which I requested that the opposition motions—filed under severe time constraints—be consolidated with the defendants’ motion scheduled for July 15.

Additionally, Judge Sturman has unlawfully interfered with my ability to copy recipients when e-filing motions. After Attorney Walther blocked my emails to BHFS employees, preventing me from sharing links to websites exposing misconduct in the case, I began copying my filings—detailing the role of Walther and his then-associate Madyson B. Bathke—in efiled court documents addressed to BHFS personnel. This avenue, too, was improperly obstructed.

It is very obvious that Judge Sturman did this at the behest of Shein’s attorneys to deprive me of my constitutional rights.

In light of this flagrant abuse of power and collusion between a corrupt judge and powerful corporations then attempted to file a Statement of Disqualification of Judge Sturman with the clerk of Eighth Judicial District who refused to file the statement on two grounds that a $500 fee was required and that the statement had to be filed on the judge personally.

The issue was that first, I was being asked to pay $500 in lieu of the $450 fee set by the court. Second, the fee related to peremptory challenges and not disqualification for cause. And third, I have a fee waiver in the case which entitles me to unlimited free filings.

On May 20, I appeared at the sham hearing and attempted to serve the statement of disqualification on Judge Sturman but she refused to accept the statement on the grounds that it had to be filed electronically.

I explained to Judge Sturman what the clerk had previously told me, but she responded that I needed to file the disqualification in the administrative department. She further stated that until the disqualification matter was adjudicated, she could not preside over the hearing, and therefore she adjourned it.

Following her instruction, I attempted to file the disqualification with the administrative department, but was subsequently referred back to the court clerk, creating a procedural loop with no clear resolution.

Nevada Revised Statute section 1.235.5. provides: At the time the affidavit is filed, a copy must be served upon the judge sought to be disqualified. Service must be made by delivering the copy to the judge personally or by leaving it at the judge’s chambers with some person of suitable age and discretion employed therein.

While because of this flagrant abuse of power I have been unable to execute the challenge to the judge, I became aware upon checking the court docket that Judge Sturman has set the date of June 16, 2025, at 3:00 a.m. to have the case dismissed.

I have not received notification of this hearing as of this date.

Upon service of the disqualification, and in accordance with NRS 1.235.5 and applicable case law, the judge was required to cease any further action in the matter—aside from responding to the disqualification—until the issue was resolved.

Despite the mandatory stay that should have taken effect upon service of the disqualification, attorney Morgan E. Pietz, who has yet to obtain proper authorization to practice in Nevada under SCR 42, filed a request to reset the hearing date on or about May 27, 2025.

Shortly thereafter, Judge Sturman—despite being disqualified and under obligation not to act in the case—set a hearing to consider dismissal of my case. This hearing is currently calendared for June 16, 2025 at 3:00 a.m. for a hearing to dismiss the case in her chamber without giving me a chance to argue the fabricated anti-SLAPP case. No notice of this hearing has been served on me as of this date.

This change on the docket occurred while a print-out of the court's docket on May 20, 2025, the date of the last hearing in the case occured does not reflect that the matter was heard.

Judge Sturman has frivolously altered the records and facts of the case in order to just dismiss the case on June 16 in her chambers while falsely claiming that the matter was heard.

These actions, avoiding acceptance of a valid and lawful challenge and then settting a hearing to have the case dismissed at 3:00 a.m. constitutes a violation of both procedural and constitutional protections. It reflects ongoing improper coordination between the court and Shein's legal team, and further reinforces my concern that I am being denied a fair and impartial forum.

The scheduling of a dismissal hearing after a disqualification has been filed and before it has been adjudicated directly undermined judicial neutrality and due process and is a criminal act.

After her conduct was exposed, Judge Sturman scheduled a dismissal hearing just four days after notifying me—acting on Pietz’s request—while I was away in Los Angeles and unable to appear remotely due to technical restrictions on the court’s website.

After I filed an opposition to this maneuver, Judge Sturman recused herself on the eve of the hearing, likely anticipating that I was preparing to serve a second disqualification challenge at the hearing.