Opinion
2:22-CV-00523-GMN-DJA
12-29-2022
EMILY SCHULTZ and DANIEL SCHULTZ, Parents and Natural Guardians of E. S., a minor, Plaintiff, v. LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY aka LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation; and DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants.
JEREZ LAW, PLLC, Isaiah A. Jerez, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs CLYDE & CO U.S. LLP, Amy M. Samberg, Dylan P. Todd Attorneys for LM General Insurance Company, erroneously named as LM General Insurance Company aka Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
JEREZ LAW, PLLC, Isaiah A. Jerez, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CLYDE & CO U.S. LLP, Amy M. Samberg, Dylan P. Todd Attorneys for LM General Insurance Company, erroneously named as LM General Insurance Company aka Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND TO STATE COURT
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge.
Plaintiffs EMILY SCHULTZ and DANIEL SCHULTZ, as parents and natural guardians of E.S., a minor (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY aka LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel of record hereby agree and stipulate to remand this action to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. Good cause exists for this stipulation as follows:
1. On December 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, Case Number A-21-845605-C (the “State Court Action”).
2. On March 24, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal with this Court and the Eighth Judicial District Court to remove the State Court Action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
3. Following removal, Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed to attempt to resolve the claims at issue here via mediation and accordingly filed a Joint Motion to Stay (ECF No. 10), which was granted.
4. As a result of mediation and settlement negotiations that followed mediation, Plaintiffs and Defendant have reached a proposed settlement that includes a structured settlement for a minor child.
5. As is the case with structured settlements, there are specific timing deadlines for depositing of funds that must be met in order to assess interest issues for payouts.
6. Since this settlement necessarily requires a Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor, and due to the expedited deadlines for structured settlement compliance, the parties have agreed to submit remand this case back to state court for the purposes of completing the settlement processes.
7. Specifically, once the stipulation and order is entered and the case is formally remanded, the parties will file a Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor on an Order Shortening Time in order to ensure that matter can be heard and decided within the deadlines for depositing of funds under the current structured settlement timeline.
8. The parties represent that they have investigated the issues surrounding the final settlement requirements and agree that the remand to state court is the appropriate course of action.
Plaintiffs and Defendant respectfully request that the Court so Order.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is REMANDED to state court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is instructed to close the case.