Cannuscio v. GEICO Advantage Insurance Company

Opinion

1 ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3402 2 TRACY A. EGLET, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6419 3 || DANIELLE C. MILLER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9127 4 || EGLET ADAMS 400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400 5 || Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 450-5400; Fax: (702) 450-5451 6 || eservice @egletlaw.com -and- 7 || MATTHEW L. SHARP, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4746 8 || MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. 432 Ridge Street ? || Reno, NV 89501 10 (775) 324-1500; Fax: (775) 284-0675 W) Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT B DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 || CARLO CANNUSCIO, KEVIN O’DONNELL, individually and on behalf of Case No.: 2:21-cv-00613- RFB-BNW 15 || all those similarly situated, 16 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 17 || vs. ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AMENDED $‘!8)| GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPLAINT 19 COMPANY, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO CHOICE 20 || INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 21 || GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO SECURE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES | through 10, 23 Defendants. 24 25 || /// 26 || /// 27 JI /// 28 || ///

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR | PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT □□□□□□□□□□ 2 Plaintiffs CARLO CANNUSCIO and KEVIN O’DONNELL, by and through thei 3 || counsel of record, Robert T. Eglet, Esq., Tracy A. Eglet, Esq., and Danielle C. Miller, Esq. of th 4 || law firm EGLET ADAMS and Matthew L. Sharp, Esq. of the law firm MATTHEW L. SHARF 5 |]LTD., and Defendants GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, □□□□□ 6 || CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO GENERAI 7 || INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GEICO SECURI 8 || INSURANCE COMPANY (collectively, “GEICO”), by and through their counsel of record 9 || Damon N. Vocke, Esq. and Daniel B. Heidtke, Esq. of the law firm DUANE MORRIS LLP, fo 10 || good cause shown, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 11 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court for □□□□□ 12 || County, Nevada, Case No. A-21-829886-B. GEICO removed this action to this Court on Apri 13 |} 29, 2021. 14 2. GEICO filed their Motion to Dismiss on May 14, 2021 [ECF No. 13]. 15 3. Plaintiffs filed their Response to GEICO’s Motion to Dismiss on June 14, 202 16 || [ECF No. 18]. 17 4. GEICO filed a Reply in support of GEICO’s Motion to Dismiss on July 9, 202 18 || [ECF No. 19]. 19 5, That on February 9, 2021, the Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II heard GEICO’ 20 || Motion to Dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims except the breach of implied covenan 21 || of good faith and fair dealing claim, tortious bad faith claim, and the Deceptive Trade Practice 22 || Act claim, which were dismissed without prejudice. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file ai 23 || Amended Complaint with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims that were dismissed without prejudice 24 || or before Friday, March 11, 2022 [ECF No. 24]. 25 6. Because the claims that were dismissed without prejudice must be pled witl 26 || particularity, Plaintiffs need additional time to review Plaintiffs’ e-mail correspondence, records 27 || and bank statements going back at least two (2) years, to the beginning of the COVID-1' 28 || pandemic. Given how much time has passed and given the burden of pleading Plaintiffs’ claim

1 || with particularity, Plaintiffs need additional time to thoroughly review their records to obtain thi 2 || information. Plaintiffs will also have to request some of this information from third parties, whic 3 || may take additional time. 4 7. Thus, the Parties hereby stipulate that Plaintiffs shall have an additional sixty (60 5 || days to file an Amended Complaint. 6 8. That Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint shall be due on or before May 11, 2022. 7 9. That GEICO shall have an extension of thirty (30) days to file a Motion to Dismis 8 || Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 9 10. The Parties agree that discovery remains stayed pending Plaintiffs filing ai WD 10 |} Amended Complaint and resolution of Defendant’s anticipated Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs 11 || Amended Complaint. 12 11. In this District, requests to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the pendin; 13 || motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided withou 14 || additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of th 15 || potentially dispositive motion. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011) 16 || In doing so, the court must consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of th 17 || entire case, and whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery. See Federa 18 || Housing Finance Agency v. GR Investments LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-03005-JAD-EJY, 2020 WI 19 || 2798011 at *3 (D. Nev. May 29, 2020) (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution o 20 || potentially dispositive motion for summary judgment); see also Mintun vy. Experian □□□□□□□□□□ 21 || Solutions, Inc., 2:19-cv-00033-JAD-NJK, 2019 WL 2130134 at **1-2 (D. Nev. May 15, 2019 22 ||(granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive motion t 23 || dismiss). 24 12.‘ The Parties agree that GEICO’s Motion to Dismiss raises potentially dispositiv 25 || legal and jurisdictional defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims concerning GEICO’s auto insurance rate 26 || during the COVID pandemic. 27 13. Pending resolution of GEICO’s Motion to Dismiss, the Parties agree and stipulat 28 || to a stay of discovery including, but not limited to, any discovery obligations set forth in Fed. R

1 |} Civ. P. 26 and LR 26-1. 2 14. If the Court denies GEICO’s Motion to Dismiss, in whole or in part, the Partie 3 || agree to submit a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within thirty (30) days after entry of th 4 || Court’s Order on the Motion. 5 15. The Parties respectfully suggest that good cause exists to enter the stipulated sta 6 || of discovery to preserve judicial and party resources and based on application of the factors se 7 || forth in paragraph 11, above. 8 || /// 9 Ih /// WD 10 |} /// 11 |} /// 2 12 |} /// 13 |} /// 14 |I/// 15 |} /// 16 |} /// 7 I 18 |} /// 19 |} /// 20 |} /// 21 |} /// 22 |} /// 23 | /// 24 {I /// 25 |} /// 26 |} /// 27 | /// 28 |} ///

1 16. The Parties represent that this stipulation is sought in good faith, is not interpose 2 || for delay, and is not filed for an improper purpose. 3 DATED this 9th day of March, 2022. DATED this 9th day of March, 2022. EGLET ADAMS DUANE MORRIS LLP g ||Ai Robert Esler, Esq. /s/ Daniel B. Heidtke, Esq. ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. DANIEL B. HEIDTKE, ESQ. 7 || Nevada Bar No. 3402 Nevada Bar No. 12975 DANIELLE C. MILLER, ESQ. 100 North City Parkway, Ste. 1560 8 || Nevada Bar No. 9127 Las Vegas, NV 89106 TRACY A. EGLET, ESQ. ~and- 9 || Nevada Bar No. 6419 DAMON N. VOCKE, ESQ. 1 || 400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400 □□□ tas pre hac vice) Y) Las Vegas, NV 89101 roadway as eens New York, NY 10036-4086 11 -and- Attorneys for Defendants MATTHEW L. SHARP, ESQ. 12 || Nevada Bar No. 4746 13 MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. < 432 Ridge Street 14 || Reno, NV 89501 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 ORDER el 17 UO IT IS SO ORDERED =} DATED: 11:17 am, March 10, 2022 19 20 Gua Les Are Fe, . 21 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28