Opinion
2:22-cv-02125-JAD-VCF
02-06-2023
THOMAS CHRISTENSEN, E. BREEN ARNTZ, and GARY LEWIS, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE; DANIEL POLSENBERG; J. CHRISTOPHER JORGENSEN; ABRAHAM SMITH; MATTHEW TSAI; WINNER & SHERROD f/k/a ATKIN WINNER & SHERROD; THOMAS E. WINNER; ROGERS MASTRANGELO CARVALHO & MITCHELL, LTD.; STEPHEN ROGERS; and DOES I through V, Defendants.
DANIEL F. POLSENBERG (SBN 2376) J CHRISTOPHER JORGENSEN (SBN 5382) ABRAHAM G. SMITH (SBN 13,2 50) LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP Attorneys for United Automobile Insurance Company J CHRISTOPHER JORGENSEN (SBN 5382) ABRAHAM G. SMITH (SBN 13,250) LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP Attorneys for Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Daniel F. Polsenberg, J Christopher Jorgensen, Abraham Smith, and Matthew Tsai DONALD J. CAMPBELL (SBN 1216) PHILIP R. ERWIN (SBN 11,563) CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS Attorneys for Winner & Sherrod and Thomas E. Winner THOMAS F. CHRISTENSEN (SBN 2326) DAWN A. HOOKER (SBN 7,019) CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICES, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Gary Lewis, Christensen & Arntz
DANIEL F. POLSENBERG (SBN 2376) J CHRISTOPHER JORGENSEN (SBN 5382) ABRAHAM G. SMITH (SBN 13,2 50) LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP Attorneys for United Automobile Insurance Company
J CHRISTOPHER JORGENSEN (SBN 5382) ABRAHAM G. SMITH (SBN 13,250) LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP Attorneys for Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Daniel F. Polsenberg, J Christopher Jorgensen, Abraham Smith, and Matthew Tsai
DONALD J. CAMPBELL (SBN 1216) PHILIP R. ERWIN (SBN 11,563) CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS Attorneys for Winner & Sherrod and Thomas E. Winner
THOMAS F. CHRISTENSEN (SBN 2326) DAWN A. HOOKER (SBN 7,019) CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICES, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Gary Lewis, Christensen & Arntz
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE: (1) TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR REMAND (ECF NO. 10) (FIRST REQUEST) (2) TO RESPOND TO MOTIONS TO STRIKE, FOR EXCESS PAGES, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND TO DISMISS (ECF NOS. 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25 & 29) (FIRST REQUEST) [ECF NOS. 31, 32]
The parties jointly move for and stipulate to an extension of deadlines on certain pending oppositions pursuant to FRCP 6(c) and LR IA 6-1. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand (ECF No. 10) (the “motion to remand”) on January 20, 2023, serving the motion on defendants that same day. Defendants then filed motions to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) (ECF Nos. 15 & 16) and NRS 41.660 (ECF No. 21), a motion for leave to file excess pages (ECF No. 17 & 24), a motion to dismiss (or alternatively, to quash) under 12(b)(4) (ECF No. 25), a motion to strike the amended complaint (ECF No. 13), and a motion for a retroactive extension of time (ECF No. 29) on January 25 and January 26, 2023, serving the motions on plaintiffs those same days. Plaintiffs filed a motion for stay (ECF No. 30) on February 1, 2023, serving the motion on defendants that same day.
Stipulation
Plaintiffs and defendants have mutually agreed to two-week extensions on all the oppositions due to each of these now-pending motions, as follows:
1. A 14-day extension, through Friday, February 17, 2023, for defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion to remand (ECF No. 10).
2. A 14-day extension, through Thursday, February 23, 2023 for plaintiffs' oppositions to defendants' motions to strike (ECF No. 13), for leave to file excess pages (ECF Nos. 17 & 24), for a retroactive extension of time (ECF No. 29) and to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(4) (ECF No. 21), Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF Nos. 15 & 16), and NRS 41.660 (ECF No. 25).
Points and Authorities
Under LR 7-2(a), “For all . . . motions [other than those related to summary judgment], the deadline to file and serve any points and authorities in response to the motion is 14 days after service of the motion.” Accordingly, defendants' responses to the motions for remand is currently due February 3, 2023, respectively. Meanwhile plaintiffs' oppositions to the motions to dismiss are currently due February 8 and February 9, 2023.
Under FRCP 6(c) and LR IA 6-1, the parties mutually request an extension of each of these deadlines by two additional weeks. Given such extensions: (a) defendants' opposition to the motion for remand will become due February 17, 2023, and (b) plaintiffs' oppositions to the motions to dismiss will become due February 23, 2023. This is the parties' first stipulation to extension of the deadlines for these oppositions. Defendants have previously moved for and successfully obtained an extension of time to file responsive pleadings and motions. (ECF Nos. 3 & 7.) Defendants have also filed a retroactive motion to extend time for filing the motions to dismiss by a few hours. (ECF No. 29.)
Defendants agree to extend to the latter of the two possible deadlines for the motions to dismiss.
There is good cause for these extensions. Counsel most familiar with this matter at Lewis Roca is out-of-town and unavailable. Counsel for the Winner defendants has likewise been extraordinarily busy on multiple matters, including the joint responsive motions noted above. (ECF Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25 & 29.) Counsel for plaintiffs also agreed to this mutual extension because of the complexity of the motions to which they are responding. The additional time will enable all parties to provide this court with adequate briefing on the pending motions.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2023.
Order Granting Extension
Based on the parties' stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the joint request for a two-week extension on deadlines for oppositions to pending motions as listed in the stipulation [ECF Nos. 31, 32] is GRANTED.
Defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for remand (ECF No. 10) is now due February 17, 2023.
Plaintiffs' oppositions to defendants' motions to strike and to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(4), Rule 12(b)(6), and NRS 41.660 (ECF Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25 & 29) are now due February 23, 2023.