Uvence, et al vs. Geico Casualty Company, et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying as moot ECF No. 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

RAUL UVENCE, et al.,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:15-CV-1415 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendant Geico Casualty Company’s (“Geico”) motion for

14

summary judgment. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff Juan Uvence filed a response. (ECF No. 22). No reply

15

has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.

16

This case involves insurance claims arising from an automobile collision that occurred on

17

May 17, 2012. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada

18

on June 25, 2015, alleging breach of contract, tortious bad faith breach of contract, and a violation

19

of Nev. Rev. Stat. 686A.310, Unfair Claims and Practices Act. (See ECF No. 1-1). Defendant

20

Geico then removed the case to this court.

21

After Geico filed the motion for summary judgment, the parties filed stipulations and

22

proposed orders for private binding arbitration, to stay court proceedings, and to dismiss with

23

prejudice plaintiff’s second and third causes of action and plaintiff’s claims for punitive and

24

exemplary damages (ECF Nos. 25, 26). The parties agreed that plaintiff’s only remaining claim,

25

breach of contract, would be resolved through binding arbitration. (See ECF No. 25). The parties

26

also agreed that the matter would be stayed pending the completion of the arbitration and expressly

27

waived any right to trial by a judge or jury and any right to appeal the arbitrator’s award or any

28

other order made by the arbitrator. (See id.). Further, upon the binding decision of the arbitrator

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

regarding plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, the parties stipulate to dismissal of this action, with

2

prejudice. (See id.).
The court granted both stipulations. (ECF Nos. 29, 30). Defendant’s motion is therefore

3
4

moot.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant Geico

7

Casualty Company’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) be, and the same hereby is,

8

DENIED as moot.

9
10
11

DATED June 22, 2016.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-