Opinion
2:23-cv-00270-ART-BNW
04-10-2023
KYLE VIRAY, an individual, Plaintiff, v. DARRIUS LARNARD MATHIS, an individual; DOES I - X, inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I - X, inclusive, Defendants. LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor. KYLE VIRAY, an individual, Cross-Claimant, v. LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-Defendant.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SAMPSON, LLC CLYDE & CO U.S. LLP DAVID F. SAMPSON, ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiff of Counsel PRESTON P. REZAEE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10729 THE FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff Amy M. Samberg (NV Bar No. 10212) Dylan P. Todd (NV Bar No. 10456) 7251 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 430 Attorneys for Intervenor and Cross-Defendant LM General Insurance Company
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SAMPSON, LLC CLYDE & CO U.S. LLP
DAVID F. SAMPSON, ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiff of Counsel
PRESTON P. REZAEE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10729 THE FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff
Amy M. Samberg (NV Bar No. 10212) Dylan P. Todd (NV Bar No. 10456) 7251 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 430 Attorneys for Intervenor and Cross-Defendant LM General Insurance Company
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR AND CROSSDEFENDANT LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-CLAIM [ECF 18] AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO REMAND [ECF 12] AND SECOND MOTION TO REMAND [ECF 13]
(SECOND REQUEST ON MOTION TO DISMISS, THIRD REQUEST ON MOTIONS TO REMAND)
Anne R. Traum United States District Court Judge
Intervenor and Cross-Defendant LM General Insurance Company (“LMGIC”) and Plaintiff Kyle Viray (“Viray”) by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate and request that the Court extend the time for Viray to file a response regarding LMGIC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Cross-Claim (ECF 18) and request that the Court extend the time for LMGIC to file responses to Plaintiff's First Motion to Remand (ECF 12) and Second Motion to Remand (ECF 13). The parties have stipulated to extend the response deadlines to May 21, 2023.
The parties have been in settlement discussions and are hopeful that the claim will resolve. The parties are also discussing potential options to resolve portions of the claim, in the event the case does not settle. The parties are requesting an extension of the deadlines in the event that the claim does not resolve. Good cause exists to grant this extension as the parties wish to conserve costs towards a settlement and/or claim resolution so that these pending responses may no longer be necessary.
This is the parties' second request to extend the briefing schedule relating to the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Cross-Claim (ECF No. 18) and the parties' third request to extend the briefing schedules relating to Plaintiff's First Motion to Remand (ECF 12) and Second Motion to Remand (ECF 13).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Stipulation for Extension of Time to extend the time for Plaintiff Viray to file a response regarding LMGIC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Cross-Claim (ECF 18) and extend the time for LMGIC to file responses to Plaintiff's First Motion to Remand (ECF 12) and Second Motion to Remand (ECF 13). The parties have stipulated to extend the response deadlines to May 21, 2023.