Allstate Life Insurance Company v. Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., et al.

Filing 119

ORDER that Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Amend their Complaints is GRANTED 109 . Defendants' Motion requesting a new briefing schedule and permission to both consolidate their motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limits is GR ANTED 115 . Defendants SHALL have forty-five (45) days, or until April 16, 2010, to file new motions to dismiss. No further extensions to these deadlines will be granted. Defendants SHALL strictly adhere to the following page limitations when filing their motions to dismiss: Underwriters40 pages, The Town of Prescott Valley17 pages, The Law Firms30 pages, The Fain Entities17, pages; TL Hocking & Associates17 pages, The Authority17 pages, Global Entertainment17 pages, and Prescott Valley Event Center17 pages. The following Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as moot: Dkt. ## 75 , 76 , 80 , 81 ,& 85 ; The following requests for judicial notice are DENIED as moot: Dkt. ## 73 & 106 . Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/2/10.(DMT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Allstate Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, vs. Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., et. al., Defendants. Ronald Covin, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Lead Case No. CV-09-8162-PCT-GMS Consolidated with: Case No. CV-09-1874-PCT-GMS ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Amend their respective complaints (Dkt. # 109), and Defendants' Motion requesting a new briefing schedule as well as permission to both consolidate their motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limits (Dkt. # 115). The Court grants both Motions. To begin, Plaintiffs move to amend their respective complaints pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Here, it appears that the proposed amendment, which is unopposed, has been made in good faith and will facilitate a determination of the issues on the merits. See United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court therefore, grants the Motion to Amend. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court also grants Defendants' Motion for a new briefing schedule and their request to consolidate the motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limitations. While Plaintiffs desire to proceed with the currently pending motions to dismiss, the Court finds that such an approach would ultimately prove to be confusing and inefficient. The issues in this case appear to be complex, multifarious, and may be time consuming. Thus, permitting the parties to proceed based on Defendants' new briefing schedule will simplify and consolidate the various issues presented by the amended complaints. Moreover, because the amended complaints may obviate the need to address some of the issues presented in the original motions to dismiss, Defendants' proposed briefing schedule allows the parties to ensure that only those issues that are pertinent to the amended complaints are raised in the motions to dismiss. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: (1) Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Amend their Complaints is GRANTED (Dkt. # 109); (2) Defendants' Motion requesting a new briefing schedule and permission to both consolidate their motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limits is GRANTED (Dkt. # 115); (3) Defendants SHALL have forty-five (45) days, or until April 16, 2010, to file new motions to dismiss; Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (days), or until June 1, 2010 to respond; and Defendants will have twenty-one days (21), or until June 22, 2010 to file their replies. No further extensions to these deadlines will be granted; (4) Defendants SHALL strictly adhere to the following page limitations when filing their motions to dismiss: Underwriters­40 pages, The Town of Prescott Valley­17 pages, The Law Firms­30 pages, The Fain Entities­17, pages; TL Hocking & Associates­17 pages, The Authority­17 pages, Global Entertainment­17 pages, and Prescott Valley Event Center­17 pages; (5) The following Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as moot: Dkt. ## 75, 76, 80, 81, & 85; (6) The following requests for judicial notice are DENIED as moot: Dkt. ## 73 & 106. DATED this 2nd day of March, 2010. -2-