Bamforth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Opinion

1 KARIE N. WILSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7957 2 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS 6605 Grand Montecito Pkwy, Ste. 200 3 Las Vegas, NV 89149 702-384-7000 Phone 4 efile@alversontaylor.com kwilson@alversontaylor.com 5 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 6 ANNA S. McLEAN, Cal. Bar No. 142233 (Pro Hac Vice pending) Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4109 7 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 8 Email: amclean@sheppardmullin.com

9 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP FRANK FALZETTA, Cal. Bar No. 125146 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JENNIFER M. HOFFMAN, Cal. Bar No. 240600 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 10 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, California 90067-6055 11 Telephone: 310.228.3700 Facsimile: 310.228.3701 12 E mail ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 15

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17

18 JOHN BAMFORTH, ALISE BAMFORTH, CASE NO.: 2:21-cv-00712-JAD-NJK JESSICA ENAMORADO, CYNTHIA LIERA, 19 individually and on behalf of all those similarly REVISED STIPULATION AND situated, PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING 20 Plaintiffs, STAY OF DISCOVERY

21 v.

22 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, DOES 1 through 10, 23 Defendant. 24 __________________________________________ 1 Plaintiffs JOHN BAMFORTH, ALISE BAMFORTH, JESSICA ENAMORADO and 2 CYNTHIA LIERA, by and through their counsel of record Danielle C. Miller, Esq. of the law 3 firm Eglet Adams, and Defendant STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 4 COMPANY (“State Farm”), by and through its counsel of record Karie N. Wilson of the law

5 firm Alverson Taylor & Sanders and Anna S. McLean of the law firm Sheppard, Mullin, Richter 6 & Hampton LLP, agree as follows: 7 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, 8 Nevada, Case No. A-21-829883-C. Defendant State Farm removed this action to this 9 Court on April 30, 2021. 10 2. State Farm filed its Motion to Dismiss on May 7, 2021. Pursuant to a Stipulation and 11 Order approved by the Court on May 11, 2021, Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to 12 Dismiss is due on June 7, 2021 and State Farm’s Reply is due on June 24, 2021. 13 3. In this District, requests to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending 14 motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided

15 without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the 16 merits of the potentially dispositive motion. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 17 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011). In doing so, the court must consider whether the pending 18 motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and whether that motion can be 19 decided without additional discovery. See Federal Housing Finance Agency v. GR 20 Investments LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-03005-JAD-EJY, 2020 WL 2798011 at *3 (D. 21 Nev. May 29, 2020) (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 22 potentially dispositive motion for summary judgment); see also Mintun v. Experian 23 Information Solutions, Inc., 2:19-cv-00033-JAD-NJK, 2019 WL 2130134 at **1-2

24 (D. Nev. May 15, 2019) (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 1 potentially dispositive motion to dismiss). 2 4. The Parties agree that State Farm’s motion to dismiss raises potentially dispositive 3 legal and jurisdictional defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims concerning State Farm’s auto 4 insurance rates during the COVID pandemic. The Parties agree that no discovery is

5 required to resolve the pending Motion to Dismiss. The Parties further agree that 6 discovery in this case will be complicated and expensive. A ruling upon the Motion to 7 Dismiss could lead to dismissal or it could lead to a more specific framing of the 8 discovery. The parties agree that a stay of discovery is consistent with FRCP 1 as the 9 Parties may expend resources that are unnecessary. In addition, State Farm has 10 specifically alleged that the Nevada Division of Insurance has exclusive jurisdiction 11 over the issues alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Plaintiffs have not requested 12 discovery on the question of whether this case is subject to the Nevada Division of 13 Insurance’s exclusive jurisdiction or this is subject to this Court’s original jurisdiction. 14 5. This action is one of nine actions involving a dispute related to premium refunds from

15 automobile insurers due to the effects of COVID-19. Pursuant to Local Rule 42-1(a), 16 eight of those cases have been transferred to District Judge Boulware and Magistrate 17 Judge Brenda Weksler. See Exhibit 1 – Transfer Order. One of those cases was before 18 this court. See Cannuscio v. GEICO Advantage Insurance Company, 2-21-cv-00613- 19 JAD-BNW. On June 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Request to Amend Transfer Order to 20 incorporate this case. ECF No. 31. Plaintiffs’ request has not been ruled upon by the 21 court. 22 6. Pending resolution of State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss, the Parties agree and stipulate 23 to a stay of discovery including, but not limited to, any discovery obligations set forth

24 in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and LR 26-1. 1 7. If the Court denies State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss, in whole or in part, the Parties 2 agree to submit a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within thirty (30) days after 3 entry of the Court’s Order on the motion. 4 8. The parties respectfully suggest that good cause exists to enter the stipulated stay of 5 discovery to preserve judicial and party resources and based on application of the 6 factors set forth in paragraph 3, above. 7 9. The Parties represent that this stipulation is sought in good faith, is not interposed for 8 delay, and is not filed for an improper purpose. 9|) Dated this 25th day of June 2021. Dated this 25th day of June 2021. ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS EGLET ADAMS

Wy). ge: “ ettee PEO Ep Se /s/ Matthew L. Sharp 2 Karie N. Wilson, Esq. Matthew L. Sharp, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7957 Nevada Bar No. 4746 6605 Grand Montecito Pkwy Danielle C. Miller, Esq. “3 Suite 200 Nevada Bar No. 9127 Las Vegas, NV 89149 400 S. 7" Street 2 Telephone: (702) 384-7000 Suite 400 15|| Facsimile: (702) 385-7000 Las Vegas, NV 89101 kwilson @ alversontaylor.com Telephone: (702) 450-5400 g 16 Facsimile: (702) 450-5451 dmiller@egletlaw.com 17 18 Order IT IS ORDERED that the parties' stipulation is GRANTED. Discovery is STAYED pendir the district judge's decision on State Farm's motion to dismiss. The parties' proposed 20)| DPSO is due 30 days after the district judge's decision. IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: 2:51 pm, July 09, 2021

23 Gra Les WO Fat, 2A BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG 4 KNW 27102