Sherwin v. Infinity Auto Insurance

Filing 115

ORDER Denying 91 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiffs Fifth Cause of Action that alleges violations of Nevadas Unfair Trade Practices Act NRS 686A.310. Denying 92 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiffs Secon d, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action and Claims for Punitive Damages. Denying 94 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiffs Claims for Punitive Damages. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/30/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

TARA ANN SHERWIN,

10
11
12
13
14

Case No. 2:11-cv-00043-MMD-CVF
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY,
DOES I-X, and ROE CORPORATIONS !X, inclusive,

(Def.’s Partial Motions for Summary
Judgment – dkt. nos. 91, 92, 94).

Defendants.

15
16

Before the Court is Defendant Infinity Auto Insurance Company’s Motion for

17

Partial Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action regarding

18

violations of Nevada’s Unfair Trade Practices Act NRS 686A.310 (dkt. no. 91),

19

Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s Second, Third,

20

Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action and Claims for Punitive Damages (dkt. no. 92), and

21

Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s Claims for

22

Punitive Damages (dkt. no. 94). For the following reasons, the Motions are denied.

23

Defendant has filed three separate motions for partial summary judgment when

24

Defendant should have filed a single motion for summary judgment to address all the

25

raised arguments. Defendant filed two motions (dkt. nos. 91, 92) on March 26, 2012,

26

totaling 34 pages. Defendant then filed another partial motion for summary judgment

27

(dkt. no 94) on April 11, 2012, on the same topic raised in one of the March 26 motions

28

(dkt. no. 92). The Court considers these three motions together despite the delay in

1

filing the third motion for two reasons: (1) because the subject matter overlaps as to

2

claims and relief sought, and (2) the arguments are repeated and crossover among the

3

three motions.

4

Defendant’s attempt to circumvent Local Rule 7-4’s page limit is transparent

5

because the three partial motions total 40 pages evidencing Defendant’s disregard for

6

Rule 7-4’s page limit. Thus, the Court denies the Motions without prejudice for failure to

7

comply with Local Rule 7-4. The Court strongly cautions the parties that the Court will

8

not consider motions that exceed Local Rule 7-4’s page limit.

9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary

10

Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action that alleges violations of Nevada’s

11

Unfair Trade Practices Act NRS 686A.310 (dkt. no. 91) is DENIED.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary

13

Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action and

14

Claims for Punitive Damages (dkt. no. 92) is DENIED.

15
16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s Claims for Punitive Damages (dkt. no. 94) is DENIED.
DATED THIS 30th day of October 2012.

18
19
20

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2