Raya v. Managed Business Services, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJuly 29, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00254
StatusUnknown

This text of Raya v. Managed Business Services, Inc. (Raya v. Managed Business Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Raya v. Managed Business Services, Inc., (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

1 JEFFREY WINCHESTER (Nevada Bar No. 10279) E: JWinchester@ohaganmeyer.com 2 O’HAGAN MEYER PLLC 300 S. 4th Street, Ste 1250 3 Las Vegas, NV 89101 4 T: 725.286.2801

5 Attorneys for Defendant

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 LOURDES RAYA, an individual; Case No.: 2:25-cv-00254-CDS-EJY 9 Plaintiff, 10 UNOPPOSED AMENDED REQUEST vs. AND ORDER FOR INSURANCE 11 ADJUSTER TO APPEAR REMOTELY MANAGED BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a FOR ENE 12 Nevada Corporation,

13 Defendants.

16 Defendant, Managed Business Services, Inc., by and through its counsel of record, and 17 pursuant to Judge United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III’s Minute Order 18 19 in Chambers (Doc. No. 17) hereby respectfully submits this Unopposed request and Order for 20 Insurance Adjuster to Appear Remotely for the ENE (the “Joint Stipulation”), scheduled in this 21 matter for July 30, 2025. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On Thursday, July 3, 2025, this Court entered an Order Setting Mediation (ECF No. 15), 24 setting an Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) in this matter for July 30, 2025. The Order 25 addresses participation of individuals that are required to attend the ENE as follows: 26 27 All principal counsel of record who will be participating in the trial and who have full authority to settle this case, all parties appearing pro se, if any, and all individual parties amount of the claim or most recent demand to be present for the duration of the 1 mediation. If any party is subject to coverage by an insurance carrier, then a 2 representative of the insurance carrier with authority to settle this matter up to the full amount of the claim or most recent demand must also be present for the duration of the 3 mediation. This representative must be the adjuster primarily responsible for the claim or an officer with supervisory authority over that adjustor. Third party administrators do not 4 qualify. Counsel of record, individual parties, and a fully authorized representative must attend the mediation unless the Court enters an order granting a request for exception. 5 Any party that needs to appear remotely may file and serve a motion or stipulation 6 requesting remote appearance no later than three (3) weeks prior to the mediation and must show good cause for remote appearance. Any oppositions to a motion requesting 7 remote appearance shall be filed within one (1) week after the motion is filed and served. Untimely motions or stipulations will not be considered absent extraordinary 8 circumstances and a showing of excusable neglect.

9 (ECF No. 15 at 1:19-2:9.) The Fourth of July holiday commenced the next day, Friday, July 4th, 10 through Sunday, Jul 6th. 11 In order to comply with the provision in the ENE order setting forth that “[a]ny party that 12 needs to appear remotely may file and serve a motion or stipulation requesting remote 13 14 appearance no later than three (3) weeks prior to the mediation,” the Parties had until July 9th , 15 2025, less than one week after the ENE Order (ECF No. 15) issued, to timely file such motion or 16 stipulation. Counsel for Defendant noted the dates set forth in the Mediation Order for the ENE 17 Statement dues date and the ENE itself, and instructed his Legal Assistant to calendar those 18 dates. (Declaration of Jeffrey D. Winchester (“Winchester Dec.”) (attached hereto at Exhibit A) 19 (at ¶ 4.) This is counsel for Defendant’s first experience with an ENE with Magistrate Judge 20 Couvillier. (Winchester Dec. ¶ 3.) Counsel for Defendant did not calendar the due date for 21 22 Motions or Stipulations seeking permission for key attendees to attend the ENE remotely. 23 (Winchester Dec. ¶ 4.) 24 The following two weeks, due to the press of other business, counsel for the Defendant 25 was unable to turn his attention to the Order Setting Mediation until Friday, July 18th.1 26

27 1 Other business during that time period included, but was not limited to, (i) preparing for and conducting the (Winchester Dec. ¶ 5.) On that date, lead counsel for Defendant contacted the insurance 1 2 adjuster, Cynthia Hobson, to discuss the ENE statement that he was preparing, the upcoming 3 July 30th ENE and to discuss plans for her travel to Las Vegas to attend the ENE. (Winchester 4 Dec. ¶ 6.) During their conversation, Ms. Hobson indicated that travel to Las Vegas to attend 5 the ENE in person would be extremely burdensome, given that she lives and works in New 6 Jersey, has custodial care of her 16-year-old daughter, who is on summer break, and that no other 7 adjusters would be available to appear in person due to a long-scheduled all-company meeting in 8 New Jersey the week of July 28th. (Winchester Dec. ¶ 7.) Moreover, Ms. Hobson is the adjuster 9 10 with the most detailed knowledge of the facts and claims of this case, making her the best person 11 to attend the ENE. (Winchester Dec. at ¶ 8.) This is the first time counsel for Defendant 12 became aware of the significant burden travelling to Las Vegas from New Jersey would be on 13 Ms. Hobson.2 (Winchester Dec. ¶ 11.) 14 Upon learning this, Counsel for Defendant pulled up the order Setting Mediation to 15 determine the requirements for seeking permission for a key individual to appear at the ENE 16 remotely. . (Winchester Dec. ¶ 12) Now aware that the deadline to file a Motion or Stipulation 17 18 seeking to excuse Ms. Hobson had passed and would be untimely, counsel for Defendant 19 immediately called Judge Couvillier’s chambers to seek procedural guidance, and left a 20 voicemail. (Winchester Dec. at ¶ 13.) On Monday, July 21st, counsel for Defendant connected 21 with Judge Couvillier’s Courtroom Administrator, and let her know that he was aware that any 22 motion would be untimely, but inquired about possibly filing a stipulation. (Winchester Dec. at 23 24

25 public building; and others. This does not include counsel’s daily advice and counsel matters.

26 2 There is a possibility that Ms. Hobson’s flight out of Newark might be cancelled. Yesterday, a total of 167 flights at Newark’s Liberty International Airport were cancelled. See 27 https://www.flightaware.com/live/cancelled/yesterday/KEWR ¶ 14.) The Judge’s Administrator simply advised counsel to go ahead file the Stipulation.3 1 2 (Winchester Dec. at ¶ 14.) 3 Counsel for Defendant then reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel, and by July 23rd had 4 obtained Plaintiff’s counsel’s agreement to stipulate to Ms. Hobson’s appearance at the ENE 5 remotely. On July 23rd, counsel for Defendant emailed Defendant’s ENE statement to the 6 Judge’s Chambers, as directed in the Order Setting Mediation. (Doc. No. 15.) On July 24th, 7 counsel for Defendant filed the Joint Stipulation and Order for Insurance Adjuster to Appear 8 Remotely for the ENE. (Doc. No. 16.) Judge Couvillier denied the Stipulation, without 9 10 prejudice, on Monday, July 28th, 2025. (Doc. No. 17.) In his Minute order in Chambers, the 11 Judge gave leave to the Parties to “file an amended stipulation by 9 am, July 29, 2025, showing 12 excusable neglect for failing to timely comply with the Court's 7/3/25 Order.” Counsel for 13 Defendant has obtained Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that Plaintiff does not oppose this 14 request. (Winchester Dec. at ¶ 19.) 15 Defense Counsel’s Excusable Neglect 16 Defense counsel’s neglect in not filing a timely motion or stipulation for the insurance 17 18 adjuster to appear remotely by July 9th was excusable. To establish excusable neglect in Nevada, 19 the moving party must establish “the absence of intent to delay the proceedings; a lack of 20 knowledge of procedural requirements; and good faith.” See Yocum v. Davis, 98 Nev. 484, 486, 21 (Nev. 1982) (cited with approval by Mosley v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 124 Nev, 654, 22 665 (Nev. 2008)). 23 A. There was no intent to delay the proceedings. 24 25 The Order Scheduling Mediation (Doc. No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Yochum v. Davis
653 P.2d 1215 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Raya v. Managed Business Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raya-v-managed-business-services-inc-nvd-2025.