Smith v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 11, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00487
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3402 9 || 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. 9 432 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 || ERIKA SMITH, individually and on behalf Is of all those similarly situated, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00487- RFB-BNW 6 Plaintiff, Vs. AMENDED STIPULATION AND — 17 PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE 18 |/INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE 20 || NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY 21 || AND CASUALTY — INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 23 || DOES 1 through 10, 24 Defendants. 25 26 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 27 Plaintiff ERIKA SMITH, by and through their counsel of record, Robert T. Eglet, Esq. 28

1 || Tracy A. Eglet, Esq., and Danielle C. Miller, Esq. of the law firm EGLET ADAMS and Matthev 2 || L. Sharp, Esq. of the law firm MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD., and Defendants ALLSTATE FIRI 3 |} AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY 4 |] ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK □□□□□□□□ 5 || COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an 6 || ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY (collectively, “Allstate’” 7 || by and through their counsel of record, Elijah L. Milne, Esq. and Timothy O. Hemming, Esq. o 8 || the law firm DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C., for good cause shown, hereb 9 || stipulate and agree as follows: DY 10 1. Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County 11 || Nevada, Case No. A-21-829912-B. Allstate removed this action to this Court on April 8, 2021. 12 2. Allstate filed their Motion to Dismiss on May 14, 2021 [ECF No. 36]. 13 3. Plaintiff filed her Response to Allstate’s Motion on June 14, 2021 [ECF No. 39] 14 4. Allstate filed a Reply in support of the Motion on July 9, 2021 [ECF No. 40]. 15 5. That on February 9, 2021, the Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II heard Allstate’ 16 || Motion to Dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims except the breach of implied covenan — 17 || of good faith and fair dealing claim, tortious bad faith claim, and the Deceptive Trade Practice 18 || Act claim, which were dismissed without prejudice. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file ai 19 |} Amended Complaint with respect to Plaintiff's claims that were dismissed without prejudice o 20 || or before Friday, March 11, 2022 [ECF No. 45]. 21 6. Because the claims that were dismissed without prejudice must be pled □□□ 22 || particularity, Plaintiff needs additional time to review Plaintiffs e-mail correspondence, records 23 ||and bank statements going back at least two (2) years, to the beginning of the COVID-1' 24 || pandemic. Given how much time has passed and given the burden of pleading Plaintiff's claim 25 || with particularity, Plaintiff needs additional time to thoroughly review her records to obtain thi 26 || information. Plaintiff will also have to request some of this information from third parties, whic! 27 || may take additional time. 28 7. Thus, the parties hereby stipulate that Plaintiff shall have an additional sixty (60

1 || days to file an Amended Complaint. 2 8. That Plaintiff's Amended Complaint shall be due on or before May 11, 2022. 3 9. That Allstate shall have an extension of thirty (30) days to file a Motion to Dismis 4 || Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 5 10. The parties agree that discovery remains stayed pending Plaintiff filing a1 6 || Amended Complaint and resolution of Defendant’s anticipated Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff? 7 || Amended Complaint. 8 11. In this District, requests to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the pendin; 9 || motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided withou DY 10 || additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of th 11 || potentially dispositive motion. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011) 12 || In doing so, the court must consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of th 13 || entire case, and whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery. See Federa 14 || Housing Finance Agency v. GR Investments LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-03005-JAD-EJY, 2020 WI 15 || 2798011 at *3 (D. Nev. May 29, 2020) (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution o 16 || potentially dispositive motion for summary judgment); see also Mintun v. Experian Informatio et 17 Solutions, Inc., 2:19-cv-00033-JAD-NJK, 2019 WL 2130134 at **1-2 (D. Nev. May 15, 2019 18 || (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive motion t 19 |} dismiss). 20 12. The Parties agree that Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss raises potentially dispositiv 21 || legal and jurisdictional defenses to Plaintiffs claims concerning Allstate’s auto insurance rate 22 || during the COVID pandemic. 23 13. Pending resolution of Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss, the Parties agree and stipulat 24 || to a stay of discovery including, but not limited to, any discovery obligations set forth in Fed. R 25 || Civ. P. 26 and LR 26-1. The Parties are in agreement that a stay of discovery is warranted at thi 26 || time. Moreover, discovery is not required to resolve Allstate’s anticipated Motion. 27 14. If the Court denies Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss, in whole or in part, the Partie 28 || agree to submit a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within thirty (30) days after entry of th

1 || Court’s Order on the Motion. 2 15. The parties respectfully suggest that good cause exists to enter the stipulated sta: 3 || of discovery to preserve judicial and party resources and based on application of the factors se 4 || forth in paragraph 11, above. 5 16. The Parties represent that this stipulation is sought in good faith, is not interpose 6 || for delay, and is not filed for an improper purpose. 7 DATED this 10th day of March, 2022. DATED this 10th day of March, 2022. EGLET ADAMS DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR 9 P.C, WY 10 11 ||S/Robert Eglet, Esq. /s/ Jacqueline A. Giannini, Esq. D ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. ELIJAH L. MILNE, ESQ. ee Bar AO ETE 5 Nevada Bar No. 13196 13 TIMOTHY O. HEMMING, ESQ. < Nees Ba oo ER. ES Nevada Bar No. 14375 14 d sy No. 15 ay » ESQ. 192 East 200 North, Third Floor Nevada Bar No. St. George, UT 84770 15 || 400S. Seventh St., Suite 400 -and- Las Vegas, NV 89101 MARK HANOVER, ESQ. 16 -and- (admitted pro hac vice) _ MATTHEW L. SHARP, ESQ. JACQUELINE A. GIANNINI, ESQ. 17 || Nevada Bar No. 4746 (admitted pro hac vice) O MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD DENTONS US LLP 18 > Rj ‘ , 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 432 Ridge Street Chicago, IL 60606-6361 19 |} Reno, NV 89501 Attorneys for Defendants 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff 21 ORDER 22 33 Based upon the parties’ stipulation and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, I

34 IS SO ORDERED: IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Kx m Lea WEE RN 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 DATED: March 11, 2022 28