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)

Download PDF
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: (702) 474-0065 Facsimile: (702) 474-0068 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

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?