Opinion
2:22-cv-01118-CDS-BNW
10-17-2022
FREMONT EMERGENCY SERVICES (SCHERR), LTD.; Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendants.
MESSNER REEVES LLP Renee Finch (Nevada Bar No. 13118) Justin C. Fineberg* Jonathan E. Siegelaub* Annette U. Tucker* Benjamin R. Shiekman* Attorneys for Plaintiff, Fremont Emergency Services (Scherr), Ltd. LASH & GOLDBERG LLP *Admitted pro hac vice James J. Pisanelli, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 4027 Debra L. Spinelli, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9695 PISANELLI BICE, PLLC Attorneys for Defendants United HealthCare Insurance Company & United HealthCare Services Jeffrey S. Gleason, Esq.* Jamie R. Kurtz, Esq.* Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.* ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP Jessica M. Pettit* ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP *Admitted pro hac vice
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
(SECOND REQUEST)
MESSNER REEVES LLP
Renee Finch (Nevada Bar No. 13118)
Justin C. Fineberg*
Jonathan E. Siegelaub*
Annette U. Tucker*
Benjamin R. Shiekman*
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Fremont Emergency Services (Scherr), Ltd.
LASH & GOLDBERG LLP
*Admitted pro hac vice
James J. Pisanelli, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 4027
Debra L. Spinelli, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 9695
PISANELLI BICE, PLLC
Attorneys for Defendants United HealthCare Insurance Company & United HealthCare Services
Jeffrey S. Gleason, Esq.*
Jamie R. Kurtz, Esq.*
Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.*
ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP
Jessica M. Pettit*
ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP
*Admitted pro hac vice
Plaintiff, Fremont Emergency Services (Scherr), Ltd. (hereafter, “Plaintiff'), by and through its attorneys of record, and Defendants, UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company and United Healthcare Services, Inc. (hereafter, “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree to the following:
1. Plaintiff stipulated to allow Defendants to respond to the Complaint [DOC 1] on or before September 8, 2022.
2. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss [DOC 29] on September 8, 2022.
3. The parties stipulated and the Court allowed the Response to the Motion to Dismiss [DOC 37] to be due on October 17, 2022.
4. Thereafter, the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Proceedings [DOC 40].
5. The parties stipulated and the Court allowed the Response to the Motion to Stay to be due on October 21, 2022 [DOC 44].
6. Given the overlap between the two pending Motions, the parties hereby request that the Response to the Motion to Dismiss be due also on October 21, 2022 and Replies thereto to be due on November 9, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.