Opinion
Case No.: 2:08-cv-00078-RCJ-RJJ
01-30-2013
ANDREA SOMMERS and HARRY SUEISHI, as Guardians of EDITH SELF, an Adult Ward, Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL C. CUDDY, JR., individually and as President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of Personnel Benefits Group, Inc.; PERSONNEL BENEFITS GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation d/b/a Personnel Benefits Group and Retirement Benefits Group; NATIONAL WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation; DOE DEFENDANTS I-XXX; ROE CORPORATIONS I-XXX, inclusive. Defendants.
THE BACH LAW FIRM, LLC JASON J. BACH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7984 ANNE M. LORADITCH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8164 MICHAEL MASCARELLO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10673 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BARRASO, USDIN, KUPPERMAN, FREEMAN & SARVER, LLC THOMAS A. ROBERTS, ESQ. Louisiana Bar No.: 23914-Pro Hac Vice LARRY E. MOBLEY, ESQ. Louisiana Bar No.: 29990-Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Cuddy Defendants MORRIS LAW GROUP REX D. GARNER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9401 Attorneys for National Western Defendants
JASON J. BACH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7984
ANNE M. LORADITCH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8164
MICHAEL MASCARELLO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10673
THE BACH LAW FIRM, LLC
6053 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 130
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
Telephone: (702) 925-8787
Facsimile: (702) 925-8788
Email: jbach@bachlawfirm.com
aloraditch@bachlawfirm.com
mmascarello@bachlawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOINT MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS PENDING
MEDIATION
Plaintiffs in above-captioned case, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, and Defendants, by and through their attorneys, LARRY E. MOBLEY, ESQ., of BARRASO, USDIN, KUPPERMAN, FREEMAN & SARVER, LLC, and REX D. GARNER, ESQ. of MORRIS LAW GROUP, hereby move the Court to stay all proceedings in this action pending the conclusion of mediation among the parties.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2012, Defendants Daniel C. Cuddy, Jr. and Personnel Benefits Group, Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 148] and Defendant National Western Life Insurance filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 149] (collectively, the "Motions for Summary Judgment"). Following consultation with Defendants and their subsequent consent, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Order for an Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (First Request) [Docket No. 157], which remains pending before the Court, to extend such deadline up to and including Tuesday, January 22, 2013, to permit the filing of the instant Motion for the Court's consideration.
The parties have agreed to pursue mediation, which is currently set for March 15, 2013, with Bongiovi Dispute Resolutions, in the hope of fully and finally resolving the instant litigation. The parties have further agreed to bring the instant Motion seeking to stay the proceedings, including the tolling of Plaintiffs' deadline to file and serve oppositions to the Motions for Summary Judgment and any hearing on such Motions for Summary Judgment together with all other scheduled dates and deadlines until after the scheduled mediation is concluded. The tolling of the remaining dates and deadlines in these proceedings will allow the parties an opportunity to attempt to settle this litigation without incurring any more fees and costs than absolutely necessary; thereby conserving resources for all concerned, including the Court, as much as possible.
II.
ARGUMENT
The Court has the inherent authority to stay proceedings before it. Mangani v. Merck & Co., No. 2:06-cv-00914, 2006 WL 2707459, at *1 (D. Nev.) (citing Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003)). Factors relevant to the Court's consideration of a motion to stay proceedings include "any potential prejudice to the non-moving party, hardship or inequity to the moving party if the proceedings are not stayed, and the interests of judicial economy and efficiency." Id.
Plaintiffs and Defendants in this action request a stay of the proceedings by this joint Motion; therefore, no prejudice would result to any party if the stay is granted. Denying the stay, however, will cause hardship to the parties because absent a stay they face imminent deadlines for pretrial and other case management activities. Additionally, the parties need to participate in the briefing, argument and other proceedings before the Court with respect to the pending Motions for Summary Judgment.
A stay of these proceedings pending the conclusion of the mediation among the parties set for March 15, 2013, promotes the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. If the stay requested by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is denied, this Court risks "needlessly expending its energies" to further manage the case and familiarize itself with the Motions for Summary Judgment and related pleadings when the case may well settle as a result of the parties' own accord at the upcoming mediation. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Further, a stay of the proceedings at this juncture in the case preserves the status quo and minimizes the expense of the parties' resources and those of the Court until such mediation can be concluded. Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (temporary stay of proceedings applicable to preserve judicial efficiency and fairness).
III.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the parties in the above-captioned case respectfully request that the Court enter an order directing that (1) this action is stayed pending the conclusion of the mediation among the parties currently set for March 15, 2013, and (2) the parties shall notify the Court of the outcome of the mediation within 10 days of the conclusion of the mediation. Respectfully submitted by:
THE BACH LAW FIRM, LLC
By ___________________
JASON J. BACH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7984
ANNE M. LORADITCH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8164
MICHAEL MASCARELLO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10673
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Approved as to form and content: BARRASO, USDIN, KUPPERMAN,
FREEMAN & SARVER, LLC
By ___________________
THOMAS A. ROBERTS, ESQ.
Louisiana Bar No.: 23914-Pro Hac Vice
LARRY E. MOBLEY, ESQ.
Louisiana Bar No.: 29990-Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Cuddy Defendants
MORRIS LAW GROUP
By ___________________
REX D. GARNER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9401
Attorneys for National Western Defendants
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED. The above-captioned matter is stayed. The parties are ordered to file a status report on or before March 25, 2013.
________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE