United States District Court, D. Nevada
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP, DYLAN
P. TODD NEVADA BAR NO. 10456, ATTORNEYS FOR CARRIE M. HANLON,
ESQ. AND MORRIS, SULLIVAN, LEMKUL & PITEGOFF
CANNON, GORMLEY, ANGULO & STOBERSKI, PETER M. ANGULO,
ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO. 3672, ATTORNEYS FOR WESTERN NATIONAL
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ENLARGE TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS' TO FILE AN ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)
parties respectfully submit the following stipulation to
allow Defendants time to file an answer to Plaintiff's
Complaint filed on March 21, 2017.
for this Request
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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.
Cause and Excusable Negligent
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.
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.
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