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.

ABC Industrial Laundry, LLC v. Federal Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 9, 2018

ABC INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY. LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, dba UNIVERSAL LAUNDRY and SUPPLY, Plaintiff,
v.
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Defendants.

          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. PARSONS STEVEN J. PARSONS STEVEN J. PARSONS, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 363 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF,

          ABC INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY, LLC PYATT SILVESTRI BRIAN W. GOLDMAN NEVADA BAR. NO. 6317 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

          HINES HAMPTON, LLP, CHRISTINE M. EMANUELSON NEVADA BAR NO. 10143 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

          REMPFER MOTT LUNDY, PLLC JOSEPH MOTT JOSEPH N. MOTT NEVADA BAR NO. 12455 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, ABC INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY, LLC

          THE PARTIES' STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINES TO DISCLOSE EXPERTS

         Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, the Parties, by their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that this Court amend the current Scheduling Order of January 19, 2018 [Doc. 62] to extend the deadline to disclose expert witnesses until August 31, 2018 for the reasons outlined herein.[1]

         In support of this Stipulation and Request, the Parties state as follows:

         Plaintiff ABC INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY, LLC (“ABC”) is a commercial laundry that specializes in laundering linens from high end resorts in Las Vegas, NV. This case is an action by ABC against FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“Federal”) and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“Nationwide”) stemming from a loss suffered by one of ABC's customers related to the alleged negligence of ABC's chemical supplier. ABC alleges that there is coverage for the loss within Policies from both insurers. Both insurers deny that coverage exists. The case involves multiple complex insurance coverage issues and requires significant discovery of numerous party witnesses as well as numerous third-party witnesses.

         Further complicating matters, ABC also has litigation pending against the Belgium based chemical manufacturer, Christeyns Laundry Technology, in Clark County District Court (the “state court action”). There is extensive overlap in the need for testimony between the two cases, and the Parties to this case and the state court action have been communicating several times per week to coordinate discovery efforts for the sake of efficiency and economy.

         The summary of the activity in this case to date is as follows:

         1. On June 29, 2015, the Court granted the Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order of ABC and Defendant Federal setting expert disclosures deadlines of November 6, 2015 and December 7, 2015, and a discovery cut-off date of February 5, 2016 [Doc. 9]. At that time, Defendant Nationwide was not a party to the case.

         2. On December 11, 2015, ABC and Federal filed a Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery (First Request) requesting an extension of the discovery cut-off dates to allow ABC to amend its Complaint to add Nationwide as an additional defendant to the case [Doc. 10].

         3. On December 14, 2015, the Court granted ABC's and Federal's Stipulation an Order to Extend Discovery (First Request), setting a new close of discovery deadline of June 5, 2016 [Doc. 12].

         4. On December 15, 2015, the Court granted ABC's and Federal's Stipulation to Permit Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint [Doc. 13] and ABC filed its First Amended Complaint adding Nationwide as a defendant on the same date [Doc. 14].

         5. Nationwide first appeared in this case on January 22, 2016, when it filed its Answer to ABC's First Amended Complaint [Doc. 19].

         6. On February 18, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order to Amend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Second Request) because of Nationwide's recent appearance in the case to allow time for the Parties to engage in discovery. On February 19, 2016, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation and entered an Order extending the deadlines and dates, setting a new discovery cut-off date of January 6, 2017 [Doc. 22].

         7. On September 13, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order to Amend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Third Request) because the Parties needed additional time to coordinate and complete depositions of necessary fact witnesses and were awaiting responses to numerous document subpoenas served on various Non-Parties believed to have relevant and discovery information relating to the claims in this case. On September 22, 2016, the Court granted the Parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order to Amend Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Third Request), setting a May 5, 2017 close of discovery deadline, and deadlines of February 7, 2017 to disclose experts and March 7, 2017 to disclose rebuttal experts [Doc. 31]. The Court also granted the Parties' proposed Stipulated Protective Order [Doc. 30].

         8. On January 17, 2017, the Parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order to Amend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Fourth Request) because the Parties needed additional time to coordinate and complete depositions of necessary fact witnesses, the Parties believed, among other things, were necessary for their respective experts to formulate opinions in this case. On January 18, 2017, the Court granted the Parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order to Amend Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Fourth Request), setting an October 6, 2017 close of discovery deadline, and deadlines of June 6, 2017 to disclose experts and July 7, 2017 to disclose rebuttal experts [Doc. 37].

         9. On May 16, 2017, the Parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order to Amend the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Fifth Request) because the Parties needed additional time to coordinate and complete depositions of necessary fact witnesses the Parties believed, among other things, were necessary for their respective experts to formulate opinions in this case. On May 17, 2017, the Court granted the Parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order to Amend Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Fifth Request), setting a January 1, 2018 close of discovery deadline, and deadlines of September 6, 2017 to disclose experts and October 6, 2017 to disclose rebuttal experts [Doc. 50].

         10. On October 25, 2017, the Parties participated in hearing regarding Stipulation for Extension of Time [Doc. 56] before Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach [Doc. 58].

         11. On January 30, 2018, the Court approved the Parties' Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order setting an October 15, 2018 close of discovery deadline, and deadlines of July 17, 2018 to disclose experts and August 16, 2018 to disclose rebuttal experts [Doc. 63].

         12. The discovery that has been completed to date includes:

a. Exchange of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures, including documents, and ...

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.