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.

Western National Insurance Group v. Hanlon

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 18, 2018

WESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, Plaintiff,
v.
CARRIE M. HANLON, ESQ., and MORRIS SULLIVAN, LEMKUL & PITEGOFF, and DOES 1 through 10 and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, Defendants.

          MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP, DYLAN P. TODD NEVADA BAR NO. 10456, ATTORNEYS FOR CARRIE M. HANLON, ESQ. AND MORRIS, SULLIVAN, LEMKUL & PITEGOFF

          OLSON, CANNON, GORMLEY, ANGULO & STOBERSKI, PETER M. ANGULO, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 3672, ATTORNEYS FOR WESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ENLARGE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS' TO FILE AN ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)

         The parties respectfully submit the following stipulation to allow Defendants time to file an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint filed on March 21, 2017.

         Reason for this Request

         Plaintiff served its Complaint on Defendant on March 21, 2017. On April 14, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint or in the Alternative Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Outcome of State Court Appeal (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9). The U.S. Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Stay on May 30, 2017. (Dkt No. 15). Defendants filed their Objection to that decision on June 12, 2017. (Dkt. No. 17). On December 27, 2017, this Court issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and their Objection to the U.S. Magistrate Judge's decision to deny the stay (Dkt. No. 35). At this point, the parties had already been actively litigating this case, including participating in discovery and attempting to enter mediation to find a resolution.

         Since the Court's Order, the parties have continued their active participation in this case. Defendants filed a Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Jerry Casheros and Designation of Local Counsel Dylan Todd on February 20, 2018. (Dkt. No. 37). The Court granted that Petition on February 23, 2018. (Dkt. No. 38).

         Additionally, the parties filed their third Stipulation for Extension of Time re: Discovery Deadlines on April 16, 2018. (Dkt. No. 39). In that Stipulation, the parties set forth their status in seeking mediation as well. Id. at 4:19-24. The U.S. Magistrate Judge issued an Order granting the Stipulation on April 19, 2018. (Dkt. No. 40). The parties have also stipulated to amend the caption in this matter. See (Dkt. Nos. 41, 42).

         Despite all of the good-faith participation in this case, On July 11, 2018, Defendants realized that they have not filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint in this matter. That same day, Defendants filed a Motion to Extend Time pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(b). (Dkt. No. 43). Prior to filing that Motion, Defendants' Counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff's Counsel to inquire as to whether a stipulation would be possible. Defendants' Counsel was unsuccessful in reaching Plaintiff's Counsel, thus he immediately filed the Motion in an abundance of Caution and due to the fact that defense counsel would be out of the town for the proceeding four (4) days.

         On July 16, 2018, counsel for the parties were able to meet and confer telephonically. Plaintiff's Counsel agreed to stipulate to Defendants filing their Answer which was attached as Exhibit A to Defendants' Motion to Extend Time. (Dkt. No. 43-2).

         As all parties have been actively litigating this matter as if an Answer were already on file, the parties agree that there has been no prejudice suffered due to the Answer's absence. The parties have therefore stipulated that the new deadline to respond to the complaint is July 18, 2018.

         Good Cause and Excusable Negligent

         Good cause exists for the granting of the extension, as both parties have been participating in this matter as if an Answer was already on file. The parties have exchanged discovery and have conducted depositions since the Court's December 27, 2017 Order.

         Additionally, while the litigation was ongoing in this case, it also continued in the related case in the Nevada Supreme Court. (Docket No. 72723). The Nevada Supreme Court case is now fully briefed and is awaiting disposition or an Order to appear for Oral Argument.

         The parties intend to mediate this case. Although the parties had anticipated mediation going forward in June 2018, the mediator that the parties agreed upon became unavailable until December 2018. The parties are working diligently to ...


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.