Todd v. United States Liability Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02145
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Sean K. Claggett, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8407 2|| Brian Blankenship, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11522 Scott E. Lundy, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14235 4|| 4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 (702) 655-2346 — Telephone (702) 655-3763 — Facsimile 6|| sclaggett@claggettlaw.com brian@claggettlaw.com 7\| scott@claggettlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA > 10 < JAMES TODD, an Individual; and Case No.: 2:22-cv-02145-JAD-DJA RAPHAELA TODD, an Individual, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 12 Plaintiffs, EXTEND DEADLINES AND STAY DISCOVERY 13 v. (FIRST REQUEST) UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska 15|| Company: BRECKENRIDGE INSURANCE | ECF Nos. 16, 19, 20, 22 SERVICES LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; DORN, INC. dba DORN INSURANCE SERVICES, a Nevada 17 || Corporation; DENNIS DEAN DORN aka D. DEAN DORN aka DEAN DORN, an Individual; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATION I through X, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 99 Plaintiffs, JAMES TODD and RAPHAELA TODD, by and through their 93|| attorneys of record, CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM; Defendant, UNITED 24

STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its attorneys of 2|| record, WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC; Defendant, 3|| BRECKENRIDGE INSURANCE SERVICES LLC, by and through its attorneys of record, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP; and Defendants, DORN, INC. DBA DORN INSURANCE SERVICES AND DENNIS DEAN DORN AKA D. DEAN DORN AKA DEAN DORN, by and through their 7\| attorneys of record, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, hereby 8|| stipulate and agree that the deadline for Plaintiffs to submit their oppositions to 3 9|| Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19 & ECF No. 20) and Defendant Breckenridge’s Joinder (ECF No. 21), which were all filed on January 31, 2023, shall be extended from February 14, 2023, to

12|| February 28, 2023, with all replies to said motions due March 21, 2023. 13 Additionally, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that the deadline for Defendants to submit their oppositions to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16), which was filed on January 26, 2023, shall be extended from February 16}| 9, 2023, to February 28, 2023, with all replies to said motion due March 21, 2023. 18 The parties request these brief extensions to accommodate counsels’ 19}| schedules and to allow the parties time to prepare and submit all outstanding briefing. 21 Finally, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to stay discovery pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16), Defendants’ Motions to 23]|| Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19 & ECF No. 20), and 24 9.

1|| Defendant Breckenridge's Joinder (ECF No. 21). Courts have broad 2|| discretionary power to control discovery. See Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y FSB v. El, 2019 WL 6310718, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 25, 2019) (citing Little v. City of 4|| Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “In deciding whether to grant a stay 5|| of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, 6|| speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Id. Preliminary issues 7|| such as jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are common situations that may justify 8|| □ stay. Id. (citing Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 3 9|| 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989); see also Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Col., 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2013) (granting stay based on alleged lack of personal jurisdiction); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (granting stay based in part on alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction). This Court applies a three-part test to determine whether a stay is appropriate pending resolution of a dispositive motion: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB, 2019 19}| WL 6310718, at *1 (citing Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013)). 21 Here, the parties stipulate and agree that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, and Defendant Breckenridge's Joinder are potentially dispositive and may be decided without 24 3.

additional discovery. As such, the parties stipulate and agree that discovery 2|| shall be stayed pending resolution of these motions, that the Rule 26(f) conference shall be held within ten (10) days of this Court’s ruling on these motions, and that the parties shall submit their Rule 26(f)(3) discovery plan within ten (10) days of the Rule 26(f) conference. 6 This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. 7||DATED this 7 day of February 2023. DATED this 75 day of February 2023. 8 ||CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP

> /s/ Brian Blankenship /s/ Marc S. Cwik 11]||Brian Blankenship, Esq. Marc S. Cwik, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11555 Nevada Bar No. 6946 12 ||Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants Dorn, Inc., et al 13||DATED this 7‘ day of February 2023. DATED this 75 day of February 2023. 14||WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, GUNN & DIAL, LLC EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP 15 /s/Howard J. Russell Christopher D. Phipps 17 ||Howard J. Russell, Esq. Christopher D. Phipps, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8879 Nevada Bar No. 3788 18 ||Attorneys for Defendants United States Attorneys for Defendant Breckenridg Inability Insurance Company Insurance Services LLC 19 20 ORDER 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. amar eS camnme 23 UNITED STATES DISTRIOT COURT JUDGE

DATED: February 14, 2023 _4-