Opinion
2:15-CV-00321-JAD-BNW
11-29-2022
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC, ROBERT “SONNY” WOOD, II, Defendants.
CASEY J. QUINN NEVADA BAR NO. 11248 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP LINDA WENDELL HSU (PRO HAC VICE) CALIFORNIA BAR NO. 162971 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY
CASEY J. QUINN
NEVADA BAR NO. 11248
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
LINDA WENDELL HSU (PRO HAC VICE)
CALIFORNIA BAR NO. 162971
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY
STIPULATION AND ORDER ON EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE NEW MOTION REGARDING THE REASONABLENESS OF NAUTILUS'S REIMBURSEABLE DEFENSE EXPENDITURES
[FIRST REQUEST] ECF NO. 196
JENNIFER A. DORSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, Nautilus Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel, Selman Breitman, LLP, and Defendants, Access Medical, LLC, and Robert “Sonny” Wood, II (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, the Schnitzer Law Firm, hereby stipulate to extend Plaintiff's deadline from November 24, 2022, to December 23, 2022, to file a new motion as contemplated in the Court's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nautilus's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 194) (“Order”).
In the Order, the Court held that it was unable to make a determination whether Nautilus' pre-complaint expenditures on the insureds' behalf were reasonable. As a result, it denied that part of Nautilus' motion for summary judgment requesting a ruling that such expenditures were reasonable, without prejudice. However, the Court allowed Nautilus 14 days from the date of the entry of the Order to file a new motion on the narrow issue of whether the amount of attorney fees expended by Nautilus in the underlying Switzer action was reasonable under local practices and reasonable under the factors set forth in Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969). Given that the Order was entered on November 10, 2022, the deadline for filing such a new motion is November 24, 2022. By this stipulation, the parties agree to continue this deadline to December 23, 2022. This is the first request to extend this deadline.
Good cause exists to extend Nautilus' deadline to file a new motion. First, the attorney fee analysis requested requires Nautilus to analyze the following factors set forth in Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969):
(1) the qualities of the advocate: his ability, his training, education, experience, professional standing and skill; (2) the character of the work to be done: its difficulty, its intricacy, its importance, time and skill required, the responsibility imposed and the prominence and character of the parties where they affect the importance of the litigation; (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer: the skill, time and attention given to the work; [and] (4) the result: whether the attorney was successful and what benefits were derived.
See Order at 13. Nautilus has determined that it needs more than 14 days to perform the analysis required to assess the factors listed above. This request is made in good faith and is not intended to unreasonably delay this matter.
Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend Nautilus' deadline to file a new motion on the reasonableness of its attorney fee request from November 24, 2022, to December 23, 2022.
ORDER
Based on the parties' stipulation [ECF No. 196] and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the deadline for the filing of Nautilus's new motion regarding the reasonableness of its attorney fee request is extended from November 24, 2022, to December 23, 2022.
November 29, 2022, nunc pro tunc to November 24, 2022.