Nautilus Insurance Company v. Access Medical, LLC et al

Filing 201

ORDER Granting 200 Stipulation for Extension of Time. Motions due by 1/6/2023. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/29/2022 nunc pro tunc to 12/23/22. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:15-cv-00321-JAD-BNW Document 201 Filed 12/29/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

TRACY A. DIFILLIPPO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7676
MICHELLE D. ALARIE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11894
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
One Summerlin
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 750
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.878.9995
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

11

LINDA WENDELL HSU, ESQ. (LR IA 11-2 admitted)
California Bar No. 162971
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.979.2099
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Company

8
9
10

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY,

16

Plaintiff,

17

vs.

18

ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC, ROBERT CLARK
WOOD, II; FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT,
LLC; does 1-10, inclusive,

19
20

Case No.: 2:15-cv-00321-JAD-BNW
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE
NEW MOTION REGARDING THE
REASONABLENESS OF NAUTILUS’S
REIMBURSABLE DEFENSE
EXPENDITURES
ECF No. 200
[SECOND REQUEST]

Defendants.

21
22

Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Company (“Nautilus”), by and through its counsel, Selman

23

Breitman, LLP and Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Defendants Access Medical, LLC, and Robert

24

“Sonny” Wood, II (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, the Schnitzer Law Firm,

25

hereby stipulate to extend Nautilus’s deadline from December 23, 2022, to January 6, 2023, to file a

26

new motion as contemplated in the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nautilus’s

27

Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 194) (“Order”). This is the second request to extend this

28

deadline.
1

Case 2:15-cv-00321-JAD-BNW Document 201 Filed 12/29/22 Page 2 of 3

1

In the Order, the Court held that it was unable to make a determination whether Nautilus’ pre-

2

complaint expenditures on the insureds’ behalf were reasonable. As a result, it denied that part of

3

Nautilus’ motion for summary judgment requesting a ruling that such expenditures were reasonable,

4

without prejudice. However, the Court allowed Nautilus 14 days from the date of the entry of the Order

5

to file a new motion on the narrow issue of whether the amount of attorney fees expended by Nautilus

6

in the underlying Switzer action was reasonable under local practices and reasonable under the factors

7

set forth in Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969). Given that the Order was

8

entered on November 10, 2022, the deadline for filing the new motion was November 24, 2022. The

9

parties thereafter agreed to continue the deadline to December 23, 2022, which this Court approved.

10

(ECF No. 197.) The parties have now agreed for Nautilus to have an additional two weeks, or until

11

January 6, 2023, to file the new motion.

12

Good cause exists to extend Nautilus’ deadline to file a new motion. As set forth in the first

13

stipulation, the attorney fee analysis requested requires Nautilus to analyze the following factors set

14

forth in Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969):

15

(1) the qualities of the advocate: his ability, his training, education, experience,
professional standing and skill; (2) the character of the work to be done: its difficulty,
its intricacy, its importance, time and skill required, the responsibility imposed and the
prominence and character of the parties where they affect the importance of the
litigation; (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer: the skill, time and attention
given to the work; [and] (4) the result: whether the attorney was successful and what
benefits were derived.

16
17
18
19
20

Although Nautilus has been diligent to date in preparing the renewed motion seeking reimbursement,

21

which has included requesting and obtaining declarations from all counsel billing the defense fees paid

22

by Nautilus to meet the analysis under Brunzell and Local Rules, Nautilus requires additional time to

23

complete this process as it continues to work with former defense counsel on these issues. Nautilus

24

believes that an additional two weeks will be sufficient to complete this process. Defendants do not

25

object to this two week extension. This request is made in good faith and is not intended to

26

unreasonably delay this matter.

27

///

28

///
2

Case 2:15-cv-00321-JAD-BNW Document 201 Filed 12/29/22 Page 3 of 3

1

Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend Nautilus’

2

deadline to file a new motion on the reasonableness of its attorney fee request from December 23,

3

2022, to January 6, 2023.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP

THE SCHNITZER LAW FIRM

By: /s/ Michelle D. Alarie
TRACY A. DIFILLIPPO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7676
MICHELLE D. ALARIE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11894
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
One Summerlin
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 750
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135

By: /s/ Jordan P. Schnitzer
JORDAN P. SCHNITZER, NV Bar #10744
9205 W. Russell Road, Suite 240
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Attorneys for Defendants Access Medical LLC
& Robert “Sonny” Wood, II

LINDA WENDELL HSU, ESQ. (LR IA
11-2 admitted)
California Bar No. 162971
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Attorneys for Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Co.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

_________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12/29/22 nunc pro tunc to 12/23/22

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3