Rodriguez et al v. Pacific Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 40

ORDER Granting 39 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Response to 26 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Benjamin Rodriguez, M.D., P.C., Benjamin Rodriguez. Response due by 3/5/2013. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/4/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

6

MORRIS LAW GROUP
Robert McCoy, Bar No. 9121
Email: [e-mail]
Jean Paul Hendricks, Bar No. 10079
Email: [e-mail]
900 Bank of America Plaza
300 South Fourth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8

11
12
LLJ
IL)

WELLS MARBLE & HURST, PLLC.
Walter D. Wilison, (pro hac vice)
Kenna L. Mansfield, Jr. (pro hac vice)
Joshua P. Henry, (pro hac vice)
300 Concourse Boulevard, Suite 200
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Pacific
Life Insurance Comnan
r
d

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
LL

I.
c-

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

16

18

DR. BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ,
BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, M.D.,
P.C.,

19
20

Plaintiffs,
v.

21

24

PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; KENNETH R.
HARSTEIN; ECONOMIC
CONCEPTS, INC., and CRAIG
BILLINGS,

25

Defendants.

22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO: 2:12-cv-02071-MMD-VCF
ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT PACIFIC LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND
(SECOND REQUEST)

26

27

Pacific Life Insurance Company (“Pacific Life”) moves for an

28

extension of time to respond to plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (#26) up to

1

and including March 5, 2013 pursuant to LR 6-1. This is the second such

2

extension requested by Pacific Life. Plaintiffs’ counsel have stated that they

3

do not object to extension of this deadline for all defendants.
On November 14, 2012, plaintiffs filed this action in the Eighth

4
5

Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. On December 4, 2012,

6

Pacific Life removed this action to federal court and all other defendants

7

consented to the removal. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand (#26) on

8

January 2, 2013. The Defendants’ respective responses in opposition to that

9

motion were due on or before January 22, 2013. Thereafter, Pacific Life

10

sought an extension of time of two (2) weeks, up to and including February

11

5, 2013, for all Defendants herein to prepare responses to the Plaintiff’s

12

Motion to Remand. On January 16, 2013, the Court entered an Order (#35)

13

granting Pacific Life’s motion.
Since the entry of the Court’s January 16, Order (#35) the

14

is

parties have begun exploring the possibility of an early resolution of this

16

dispute. Pacific Life seeks the instant extension because the parties are

17

working diligently and in good faith to achieve an early resolution, but

18

need additional time in which to fully evaluate this possibility. This

19

request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of undue delay.

20

Therefore, Pacific Life requests that the Court grant the instant

H-c

0<0

-‘

..

.

.

.

.

Page 2 of 5

...

1

motion, extending the time in which all defendants are to respond to

2

plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (#26) up to and including March 5, 2013.

3

MORRIS LAW GROUP

6

8
9
Z

10
11

ow

II

12

:

By:__________
Robert McCoy Bar No. 9121
JP Hendricks, ar No. 10079
900 Bank of America Plaza
300 South Fourth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
WELLS MARBLE & HURST, PLLC.
Walter D. Wilson (pro hac vice)
Kenna Mansfield, Jr. (pro hac vice)
Joshua P. Henry (pro hac vice)
300 Concourse l3oulevard, Suite 200
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Life
Insurance Company

15
16
17
18

I
Page 3 of 5

ORDER

1
2

It is so ordered. The Defendants shall have up to and including

3

March 5, 2013 to serve their response in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion

4

to Remand [26].

5

, 2013.
DATED THIS 4th day of February 2013
DATED: January

6

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

12
13
c_I

I

ox
15
-c

16

I:
V9

17
18
19
20
21

z
0
0

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 5