Opinion
CASE NO: 2:12-cv-02071-MMD-VCF
02-04-2013
DR. BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, M.D., P.C., Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; KENNETH R. HARSTEIN; ECONOMIC CONCEPTS, INC., and CRAIG BILLINGS, Defendants.
MORRIS LAW GROUP Robert McCoy, Bar No. 9121 JP Hendricks, Bar No. 10079 WELLS MARBLE & HURST, PLLC. Walter D. Wilson ( pro hac vice ) Kenna Mansfield, Jr. ( pro hac vice ) Joshua P. Henry ( pro hac vice ) Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Life Insurance Company
MORRIS LAW GROUP
Robert McCoy, Bar No. 9121
Email: rrm@morrislawgroup.com
Jean Paul Hendricks, Bar No. 10079
Email: jph@morrislaweroup.com
900 Bank of America Plaza
300 South Fourth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: (702) 474-9400
Facsimile: (702) 474-9422
WELLS MARBLE & HURST, PLLC.
Walter D. Willson, (pro hac vice)
Kenna L. Mansfield, Jr. (pro hac vice)
Joshua P. Henry, (pro hac vice)
300 Concourse Boulevard, Suite 200
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157
Telephone: (601) 605-6900
Facsimile: (601) 605-6901
Attorneys for Defendant Pacific
Life Insurance Company
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT PACIFIC LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY'S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO REMAND
(SECOND REQUEST)
Pacific Life Insurance Company ("Pacific Life") moves for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (#26) up to and including March 5, 2013 pursuant to LR 6-1. This is the second such extension requested by Pacific Life. Plaintiffs' counsel have stated that they do not object to extension of this deadline for all defendants.
On November 14, 2012, plaintiffs filed this action in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. On December 4, 2012, Pacific Life removed this action to federal court and all other defendants consented to the removal. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand (#26) on January 2, 2013. The Defendants' respective responses in opposition to that motion were due on or before January 22, 2013. Thereafter, Pacific Life sought an extension of time of two (2) weeks, up to and including February 5, 2013, for all Defendants herein to prepare responses to the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. On January 16, 2013, the Court entered an Order (#35) granting Pacific Life's motion.
Since the entry of the Court's January 16, Order (#35) the parties have begun exploring the possibility of an early resolution of this dispute. Pacific Life seeks the instant extension because the parties are working diligently and in good faith to achieve an early resolution, but need additional time in which to fully evaluate this possibility. This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of undue delay. Therefore, Pacific Life requests that the Court grant the instant motion, extending the time in which all defendants are to respond to plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (#26) up to and including March 5, 2013.
MORRIS LAW GROUP
By ____________________
Robert McCoy, Bar No. 9121
JP Hendricks, Bar No. 10079
WELLS MARBLE & HURST, PLLC.
Walter D. Wilson (pro hac vice)
Kenna Mansfield, Jr. (pro hac vice)
Joshua P. Henry (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Life
Insurance Company
ORDER
It is so ordered. The Defendants shall have up to and including March 5, 2013 to serve their response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [26].
__________________________
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE