Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Shah, MD et al

Filing 239

ORDER Granting 236 Stipulation to Extend Time to Reply re: 198 Motion to Disqualify. Replies due by 2/16/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DENNIS L. KENNEDY Nevada Bar No. 1462 JOSEPH A. LIEBMAN Nevada Bar No. 10125 JOSHUA P. GILMORE Nevada Bar No. 11576 BAILEYKENNEDY 8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89148-1302 Telephone: 702.562.8820 Facsimile: 702.562.8821 DKennedy@BaileyKennedy.com JLiebman@BaileyKennedy.com JGilmore@BaileyKennedy.com 8 9 10 11 Attorneys for Defendants & Counterclaimant RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D.; DIPTI R. SHAH, M.D.; RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, LTD.; DIPTI R. SHAH, MD, LTD.; and RADAR MEDICAL GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY URGENT CARE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 13 14 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-CWH 15 INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, and ALLSTATE 16 FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR THE 17 Plaintiffs, FILING OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO 18 vs. DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL 19 RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D.; DIPTI R. SHAH, (Second Request) 20 M.D.; RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, LTD.; DIPTI R. SHAH, MD, LTD.; and RADAR MEDICAL 21 GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY URGENT CARE, Does 1-100, and ROES 101-200, 22 Defendants. 23 ___________________________________________ 24 AND RELATED CLAIMS. 25 26 27 28 Page 1 of 3 1 Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE 2 PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, 3 and ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (the “Allstate Parties”), and 4 Defendants and Counterclaimant RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D., DIPTI R. SHAH, M.D., RADAR 5 MEDICAL GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY URGENT CARE, RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, LTD., 6 and DIPTI R. SHAH, MD, LTD. (the “Radar Parties”), by and through their respective attorneys of 7 record, stipulate and agree as follows: 8 9 10 1. On December 5, 2017, the Radar Parties filed their Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs’ Counsel (Hearing Requested) [ECF No. 198] (the “Motion”); 2. On December 13, 2017, the parties stipulated to extend the deadline for the Allstate 11 Parties to file their Opposition to the Motion, from December 19, 2017 to January 15, 2018 [ECF 12 No. 206], which was granted by the Court pursuant to its December 15, 2017 Order [ECF No. 208]; 13 3. On January 11, 2018, the parties stipulated to extend the deadline for the Allstate 14 Parties to file their Opposition to the Motion, from January 15, 2018 to January 22, 2018 [ECF No. 15 218], which was granted by the Court pursuant to its January 12, 2018 Order [ECF No. 219]; 16 4. 17 No. 221]; 18 5. On January 22, 2018, the Allstate Parties filed their Opposition to the Motion [ECF On January 26, 2018, the parties stipulated to extend the deadline for the Radar 19 Parties to file their Reply in Support of the Motion, from January 19, 2018 to February 9, 2018 [ECF 20 No. 225]; 21 6. On February 7, 2017, the parties appeared before the Court for a hearing in this 22 matter and in the matter entitled Allstate Insurance Co., et al. v. Marjorie Belsky, M.D., et al., United 23 States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:15-cv-02265-MMD-CWH; 24 25 26 7. On February 7, 2018, the Court entered a minute Order [ECF No. 232] setting the Motion for hearing on March 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.; 8. Counsel for the Radar Parties who is primarily responsible for preparing the Reply 27 (Joshua P. Gilmore) is involved in a matter pending in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 28 County, Nevada in which the parties had anticipated continuing the upcoming trial (currently set for Page 2 of 3 1 March 12, 2018) pending a ruling on appeal by the Nevada Supreme Court; however, the district 2 court did not continue the trial. In light of those circumstances, the Radar Parties shall now have up 3 to and including February 16, 2018 to file their Reply in Support of the Motion; and 4 5 9. This is the second stipulation for an extension of time to file the Reply in Support of the Motion. This stipulation is made in good faith and not to delay the proceedings. 6 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 7 DATED this 9th day of February, 2018. DATED this 9th day of February, 2018. 8 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP BAILEYKENNEDY 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 By: By: /s/ Todd W. Baxter DYLAN P. TODD TODD W. BAXTER 8337 West Sunset Road, Suite 350 Las Vegas, NV 89113 /s/ Joshua P. Gilmore DENNIS L. KENNEDY JOSEPH A. LIEBMAN JOSHUA P. GILMORE 8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89148 Attorneys for Defendants & Counterclaimant ERON Z. CANNON FAIN ANDERSON VANDERHOEF ROSENDAHL O'HALLORAN SPILLANE PLLC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750 Seattle, WA 98104 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 DATED: February 12, 2018 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?