Bennett v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 38

ORDER granting 37 stipulation to extend deadline to respond to 35 Motion to Bifurcate Trial. Responses due by 5/5/2017. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

Case 2:16-cv-00021-JAD-VCF Document 37 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

BRIAN P. CLARK
Nevada Bar No. 4236
LUKAS B. McCOURT
Nevada Bar No. 11839
CLARK MCCOURT
7371 Prairie Falcon Road, Ste. 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89128
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

JEFFREY BENNETT, individually,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00021-JAD-VCF
Plaintiff,

11

ECF No. 37

12

v.

13

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, individually; and DOES I through X;
and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL (First Request)

18

Pursuant to LR-6-1, Plaintiff Jeffrey Bennett and Defendant Allstate Fire and Casualty

19

Insurance Company, by and through their respective counsel of record, respectfully submit the

20

following stipulation requesting a two week extension for Plaintiff to file his Response To

21

Defendant’s Motion To Bifurcate Trial, to and including May 5, 2017. Defendant’s motion was

22

filed April 6, 2017. In support of this Stipulation, the parties state as follows:

23

I.

Introduction

24

Plaintiff is a first party claimant for underinsured motorist benefits under a policy of

25

insurance with Defendant Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company. The discovery cut off in

26

the case was March 9, 2017. The dispositive motion deadline was April 10, 2017, and both parties

27

have motions pending before the court.

28

///
Page 1 of 2

Case 2:16-cv-00021-JAD-VCF Document 37 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 2

1

II.

Reason for Extension

2

The primary basis for Defendant’s motion was the potential prejudicial effect the

3

presentation of bad faith evidence would have on the jury if the case was not bifurcated. At the

4

present time, neither party has requested a jury, thereby mooting the potential prejudice and

5

reducing the issues of Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b) convenience and economy. The parties are considering

6

entering into a stipulation to have the case tried before a jury, and if not, whether Defendant wants

7

to proceed with the motion.

8

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

9

DATED this 20th day of April, 2017.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2017.

____________/s/___________________
Brian P. Clark
Lukas B. McCourt
Clark McCourt
7371 Prairie Falcon Road, Suite 120
Las Vegas, NV 89128
Attorneys for Plaintiff

____________/s/__________________
John T. Keating
Nevada Bar No. 6373
Keating Law Group
9130 W. Russell Road, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Attorney for Defendant

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

_______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
4-21-17
Dated: _____________________________

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2