Opinion
2:20-cv-2182-GMN-EJY
08-02-2022
CRAIG ZUCHELKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation; LEIGH AUBUCHON, an individual; DOES I through XX, inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through XX, inclusive, Defendants.
JONATHAN W. CARLSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10536 FRANK A. TODDRE, II Nevada Bar No. 11474 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP Attorneys for Defendant GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC PAUL S. PADDA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10417 SRILATA R. SHAH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6820 Attorneys for Plaintiff McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP JONATHAN W. CARLSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10536 FRANK A. TODDRE, II Nevada Bar No. 11474 Attorneys for Defendant GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
JONATHAN W. CARLSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10536 FRANK A. TODDRE, II Nevada Bar No. 11474 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP Attorneys for Defendant GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC PAUL S. PADDA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10417 SRILATA R. SHAH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6820 Attorneys for Plaintiff
McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP JONATHAN W. CARLSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10536 FRANK A. TODDRE, II Nevada Bar No. 11474 Attorneys for Defendant GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
PROPOSED STIPULATION AND ORDE] TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE PROPOSED JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER [SECOND REQUEST TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER, FIRST TO SPECIFICALLY EXTEND JOINT PRE TRIAL ORDER DEADLINE]
Defendant GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its attorneys of record of the law firm McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP, and Plaintiff CRAIG ZUCHELKOWSKI, by and through his attorneys of record of the law firm PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC, hereby stipulate to extend the deadline to file a Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order in this matter from July 28, 2022, to August 1, 2022. / / / / / / / / / / / /
The reason for the brief extension is so that the parties may exchange final revisions of the Joint Pre Trial Order. While the parties had in good faith been working in finishing prior to the deadline, there was also a mutual question of whether the deadline would be stayed pursuant to LR 26-1(b)(5) which provides that if “dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order.”
Given that GEICO's outstanding motion to dismiss the extra contractual claims of relief is still pending-but only partially dispositive of the matter-the parties were unsure whether the pleading was ensconced within the category of dispositive motions contemplated by this Rule. Out of an abundance of caution, the parties agreed to submit the joint pretrial order and with the acknowledgment they would amend if necessary following disposition of said Motion to Dismiss.
ECF No. 22.
With this, the parties in good faith request a brief continuance to finalize their revisions and shall not request a second continuance for this date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.