Sussman v. Crestbrook Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01228
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 ERNEST SUSSMAN, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01228-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 16] 9 CRESTBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY, Order to Show Cause 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend case management deadlines by six 12 months. Docket No. 16. The stipulation identifies no discovery conducted to date. Cf. Local Rule 13 26-3(a). That shortcoming is particularly problematic given the prior admonition that “the parties 14 must take all reasonable steps to meet the deadlines set [in the scheduling order] and any extension 15 request will be closely scrutinized under the governing standards.” Docket No. 14 at 1. Based on 16 the information provided in the stipulation, the Court cannot find that good cause exists. See, e.g., 17 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that good 18 cause to modify the scheduling order exists when the pretrial schedule “cannot reasonably be met 19 despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension” and that “the inquiry should end” when 20 diligence is lacking). Accordingly, the stipulation to extend is DENIED without prejudice. 21 The stipulation is even more problematic for a different reason: it appears there may be no 22 live case or controversy, as is required by Article III. See, e.g., Bova v. City of Medford, 564 F.3d 23 1093, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009) (addressing related concepts of standing and ripeness).1 This is an 24 insurance dispute. The parties agree that Defendant has already paid insurance benefits in excess 25 of $1,700,000 and that Defendant continues to adjust the claim as more reconstruction work is 26 27 1 Case and controversy concerns may be raised by the Court sua sponte. E.g., National 28 Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dept. of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003). 1} done. See Docket No. 16 at 2.” In light of those adjustment efforts, the stipulation indicates that 2|| the parties may “‘conclude Plaintiffs’ insurance claim without need for any Court intervention.” 3] Id. at 3. The Court certainly encourages resolution of claims without the need for judicial 4|| involvement. At the same time, a case cannot be initiated and then left to sit idle in federal court when there is no live dispute to be adjudicated. See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (“A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may 7| not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all”). Accordingly, by January 28, 2025, the 8|| parties must either file a stipulation of dismissal or show cause in writing why the case should not be dismissed. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 10, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe\, 13 United StatesMazpistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ——__________ ? The stipulation indicates that the case was filed to avoid statutory and policy timing 26] limitations. Docket No. 16 at 2. The stipulation fails to explain why those timing concerns cannot be resolved with a tolling agreement between the parties, as opposed to filing a lawsuit that the 27| parties do not intend to litigate. The stipulation similarly fails to explain why a tolling agreement cannot be entered now, with the case being dismissed without prejudice to later refiling in the 28] event a live dispute arises.