Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Krogstad v. Loan Payment Administration, LLC.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 2, 2017

DEAN KROGSTAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
LOAN PAYMENT ADMINISTRATION, LLC. and NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. Defendants, NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A. Third-Party Defendant.

          W.B. Markovits, MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC.

          J. RANDALL JONES, ESQ., MADISON P. ZORNES-VELA, KEMP JONES & COULTHARD, LLP., Attorneys for Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc., and Loan Payment Administration, LLC.

         ORDER UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A.'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT IN EXCESS OF TIME LIMITS

         Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule IA 6-2, and for the reasons set forth in its accompanying Memorandum, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. (“NBA”) hereby seeks leave of Court to file its Memorandum in Opposition to Third Party Defendant BMO Harris Bank, N.A.'s (“BMO's”) Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Third-Party Complaint, submitted concurrently herewith as Exhibit B, in excess of the Local Rule time limits.

         Counsel for NBA has conferred with counsel for BMO, and BMO does not oppose the relief requested herein.

         Respectfully submitted, J. RANDALL JONES, ESQ., Nevada Bar No.: 001927, MADISON P. ZORNES-VELA, Nevada Bar No.: 013626, KEMP JONES & COULTHARD, LLP. Wells Fargo Tower, 17th Floor 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Tel: (702) 385-6000 Fax: (702) 385-6001 Email: r.jones@kempjones.com Email: m.zornes-vela@kempjones.com and W.B. Markovits Ohio Bar No.: 0018514 Christopher D. Stock Ohio Bar No.: 0075443 Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 bmarkovits@msdlegal.com cstock@msdlegal.com

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         In finalizing the Memorandum in Opposition to BMO Harris Bank's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Third-Party Complaint, counsel for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. (“NBA”) realized that the Memorandum in Opposition was due January 26, 2017 and not, as they had calendared it, on February 2, 2017.[1]Counsel immediately contacted local counsel, who had inadvertently left the deadline off local counsel's scheduling calendar.[2] Once counsel for NBA realized that they had mistakenly calendared the Memorandum in Opposition deadline a week late, they contacted counsel for BMO and explained the situation.[3] Counsel for BMO (collegially and graciously) indicated that he understood the situation and that his client would not oppose a motion for leave along the lines requested herein.[4] Counsel for NBA is willing to stipulate to an additional seven days for BMO to respond to the Memorandum in Opposition. Plaintiffs' counsel has also indicted that Plaintiffs do not oppose this Motion.[5]

         Counsel for NBA recognizes and respects the District's local rules; it would not intentionally flout them. As set forth below, NBA hereby requests this Court to grant it leave to file its Memorandum in Opposition, submitted as Exhibit B to the accompanying Motion, to exceed the Local Rule time limits.

         II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

         A. Legal Standard

         Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to extend deadlines, even after the time to act has expired, if there is good cause and the party “failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B). Excusable neglect is an equitable concept that considers “all relevant circumstances” surrounding the failure to act. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., Ltd. P'ship,507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). Generally, “excusable neglect” does not require counsel to have been faultless, and “inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness” can fall within the rule. Id. at 388; 4B CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ยง1165 (4th ed. 2015). And rules governing the enlargement of time, like all the Federal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.