Vignola et al v. Gilman et al

Filing 81

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 67 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Discovery due by 5/9/2012. Motions due by 6/9/2012. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 3/14/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

***
)
LOUIS VIGNOLA, individually;
)
TAMARA HARLESS, as Special
)
Administrator for the Estate of NANCY )
MARIE OUELLET; LOUIS VIGNOLA, )
as Guardian ad Litem for CAROLYN
)
VIGNOLA, a minor; and LOUIS
)
VIGNOLA, as Guardian ad Litem for
)
GABRIEL VIGNOLA, a minor,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
CHARLES ALFRED GILMAN, JR.,
)
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW )
INSURANCE COMPANY, DOES I-X
)
AND ROE CORPORATIONS XI–XX,
)
inclusive
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

2:10-CV-02099-PMP-GWF
ORDER

18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #67),
19

filed February 8, 2012. On February 27, 2012, Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance
20

Company (“Defendant Auto-Owners”) filed an Opposition (Doc. #72), and Defendant
21

Charles Alfred Gilman (“Defendant Gilman”) filed an Opposition (Doc. #73). On March 7,
22

2012, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to both Oppositions (Docs. #78, 79), and Defendant Auto23

Owners filed a Supplemental Response (Doc. #80).
24

Having read and considered the filings before the Court, the Court finds
25

excusable neglect justifying relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
26

Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration as it relates to the

1

Court’s Order on Defendants’ Motion to Determine Applicable Law (Doc. #64). Plaintiffs

2

shall file an Opposition to Defendants Motion to Determine Applicable Law by March 28,

3

2012, and Defendants shall have seven (7) days after service of the Opposition to file a

4

Reply. The Court will deny Plaintiffs’ request to enforce a settlement agreement between

5

Plaintiffs and Defendant Gilman. The Court will grant a thirty (30) day extension for the

6

deadlines for close of discovery and dispositive motions. The new discovery deadlines will

7

be as follows:

8

Close of discovery:

May 9, 2012

9

Dispositive Motions:

June 9, 2012

10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration

11

(Doc. #67) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED

12

as to Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s Order on Defendants Motion to

13

Determine Applicable Law (Doc. #64) and Plaintiffs’ request for a thirty (30) day extension

14

for the deadlines for close of discovery and dispositive motions. The Motion is DENIED in

15

all other respects.

16

DATED: March 14, 2012

17
18

_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2