Opinion
2:22-cv-02145-JAD-DJA
02-14-2023
JAMES TODD, an Individual; and RAPHAELA TODD, an Individual, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska Company; BRECKENRIDGE INSURANCE SERVICES LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; DORN, INC. dba DORN INSURANCE SERVICES, a Nevada Corporation; DENNIS DEAN DORN aka D. DEAN DORN aka DEAN DORN, an Individual; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATION I through X, inclusive, Defendants.
Sean K. Claggett, Esq. CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM Brian Blankenship, Esq. Scott E. Lundy, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP Marc S. Cwik, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Dorn, Inc., et al. WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC Howard J. Russell, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants United States Liability Insurance Company WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP Christopher D. Phipps, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Breckenridge Insurance Services LLC
Sean K. Claggett, Esq.
CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM
Brian Blankenship, Esq.
Scott E. Lundy, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
Marc S. Cwik, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants Dorn, Inc., et al.
WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC
Howard J. Russell, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants United States Liability Insurance Company
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
Christopher D. Phipps, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant Breckenridge Insurance Services LLC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES AND STAY DISCOVERY
(FIRST REQUEST)
ECF NOS. 16, 19, 20, 22
Plaintiffs, JAMES TODD and RAPHAELA TODD, by and through their attorneys of record, CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM; Defendant, UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its attorneys of record, WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC; Defendant, BRECKENRIDGE INSURANCE SERVICES LLC, by and through its attorneys of record, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP; and Defendants, DORN, INC. DBA DORN INSURANCE SERVICES AND DENNIS DEAN DORN AKA D. DEAN DORN AKA DEAN DORN, by and through their attorneys of record, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, hereby stipulate and agree that the deadline for Plaintiffs to submit their oppositions to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19 & ECF No. 20) and Defendant Breckenridge's Joinder (ECF No. 21), which were all filed on January 31, 2023, shall be extended from February 14, 2023, to February 28, 2023, with all replies to said motions due March 21, 2023.
Additionally, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that the deadline for Defendants to submit their oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16), which was filed on January 26, 2023, shall be extended from February 9, 2023, to February 28, 2023, with all replies to said motion due March 21, 2023.
The parties request these brief extensions to accommodate counsels' schedules and to allow the parties time to prepare and submit all outstanding briefing.
Finally, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to stay discovery pending resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16), Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19 & ECF No. 20), and Defendant Breckenridge's Joinder (ECF No. 21). Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y FSB v. El, 2019 WL 6310718, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 25, 2019) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Id. Preliminary issues such as jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are common situations that may justify a stay. Id. (citing Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989); see also Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Col., 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2013) (granting stay based on alleged lack of personal jurisdiction); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (granting stay based in part on alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction). This Court applies a three-part test to determine whether a stay is appropriate pending resolution of a dispositive motion: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y FSB, 2019 WL 6310718, at *1 (citing Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013)).
Here, the parties stipulate and agree that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, and Defendant Breckenridge's Joinder are potentially dispositive and may be decided without additional discovery. As such, the parties stipulate and agree that discovery shall be stayed pending resolution of these motions, that the Rule 26(f) conference shall be held within ten (10) days of this Court's ruling on these motions, and that the parties shall submit their Rule 26(f)(3) discovery plan within ten (10) days of the Rule 26(f) conference.
This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.