Lee et al v. Marten Transport, Ltd. et al

Filing 66

ORDER Granting 63 Stipulation to Re-File Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/14/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:16-cv-00282-GMN-CWH Document 63 Filed 04/04/17 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

BRIAN H. MYERS, ESQ.
(Pro Hac Vice)
BRIAN J. HUNT, ESQ.
(Pro Hac Vice)
THE HUNT LAW GROUP, LLC
20 North Wacker, Suite 1711
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
JONATHAN B. OWENS, ESQ.
Bar No. 007118
ALVERSON TAYLOR MORTENSEN & SANDERS
7401 West Charleston Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendants,
Marten Transport, LTD and Louis M. Plascencia

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

STEVEN C. LEE, Individually, and as
Special Administrator for the Estate of
TRINH M. DUONG, ARDI LY,
Individually, as Special Administrator for
the Estate of DUONG CHI LY, also
known as KEN LY, AUSTEN ANDREW
LEE,
BENJAMIN
ALLEN
LEE,
NATHAN LY, a minor, and ERIN LY, a
minor by and through their parent, ARDI
LY
Plaintiffs,

25
26
27
28

v.
MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD., a foreign

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00282-GMN-CWH

STIPULATION TO RE-FILE
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND EXTEND
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
(Second Request)

Case 2:16-cv-00282-GMN-CWH Document 63 Filed 04/04/17 Page 2 of 6

1
2
3
4
5

corporation, LOUIS M. PLASCENCIA,
and DOES I through XXX, inclusive
Defendants.

)
)
)
)

STIPULATION TO RE-FILE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
REGARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE
(Second Request)

6
7

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by Plaintiffs and Defendants, through

8

their undersigned counsel, that the Defendants be granted an extension until April 11, 2017 to

9

re-file their Motions for Summary Judgment regarding Punitive Damages (Docket Numbers 55

10

and 57) to comply with this Honorable Court’s Local Rules pertaining to page limits, and to

11

extend the briefing schedule with respect to those motions. In support of their stipulations, the
12
13
14
15
16

parties state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
On August 23, 2016, this Honorable Court entered an order granting the parties’
Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. (Doc. No. 27.) Pursuant to the August 23, 2016

17

Stipulation and Order, the deadline for filing dispositive motions was extended for the first
18
19

time from December 14, 2016, to March 14, 2017.

20

On March 14, 2017, both plaintiffs and defendants filed dispositive motions.

21

Specifically, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of willful

22

and wanton conduct and the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaim for

23
24

contribution. (Doc. No. 53.) The defendants filed three motions for summary judgment with

25

respect to the following: (1) the plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claims

26

(Doc. No. 56); (2) the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages against Louis Plascencia (Doc.

27

No. 57); and (3) the plaintiffs’ claims for negligent hiring and supervision and punitive

28

2

Case 2:16-cv-00282-GMN-CWH Document 63 Filed 04/04/17 Page 3 of 6

1
2

damages against Marten Transport, Ltd. (Doc. No. 55.) Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, the Notice
of Electronic Filing for all of the above-referenced motions provided that response briefs were

3
4

due on April 4, 2017.

5

On April 4, 2017, the parties reached a stipulation – as detailed below – to resolve the

6

plaintiffs’ negligence and punitive damages claims against Marten Transport, Ltd., arising out

7

of its hiring and supervision of Louis Plascencia, based on Marten Transport, Ltd.’s admission

8

that Louis Plascencia was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of

9
10

the subject occurrence. As such, the plaintiffs stipulate to dismiss one count of their complaint

11

– as detailed below – thereby rendering moot the corresponding aspects of the defendants’

12

motions for summary judgment. At the same time, the plaintiffs raised an issue with respect to

13

the defendants’ compliance with this Honorable Court’s local rules regarding page limits,

14

Local Rule 7-3, which the parties seek to remedy with the following stipulation.
15

STIPULATION

16
17
18
19

The parties stipulate as follows:
1. The Defendants, Louis Plascencia and Marten Transport, Ltd., admit that Louis
Plascencia was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Marten
Transport, Ltd., at the time of the subject occurrence on February 21, 2015.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2. The parties stipulate that the foregoing admission of the Defendants does not bear in
any fashion on whether Marten Transport, Ltd., ratified any conduct of Louis
Plascencia with respect to the subject occurrence.
3. Based on the foregoing stipulation of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs stipulate to dismiss
with prejudice their claims for negligent hiring and supervision against Marten
Transport, Ltd., (Count 15, paragraphs LXX-LXXI, of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint) and
their claims for punitive damages against Marten Transport, Ltd., solely to the extent
that they arise out of any claims for hiring and supervision (Count 16, paragraphs
LXXII-LXXVIII).

27
28

3

Case 2:16-cv-00282-GMN-CWH Document 63 Filed 04/04/17 Page 4 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

4. The above-stated stipulation does not affect in any way the remaining Counts of the
Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Counts 1-14, paragraphs I-LXIX), the Plaintiffs’ claims for
punitive damages against Louis Plascencia (Count 16, paragraphs LXXII-LXXVIII),
and the Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages against Marten Transport, Ltd., to the
extent that those punitive damages claims against Marten Transport, Ltd., do not arise
out of any claims for hiring and supervision (Count 16, paragraphs LXXII-LXXVIII).
5. Based on the foregoing admission and stipulation to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ hiring and
supervision claims against Marten Transport, Ltd., the Plaintiffs have no objection to
the Defendants’ having an extension until April 11, 2017, to re-file their motions for
summary judgment regarding punitive damages (Docket Numbers 55 and 57) to
comply with the Court’s page limits.
6. In the event that the Court grants the Defendants leave until April 11, 2017 to re-file
their motions for summary judgment regarding punitive damages to comply with the
Court’s page limits (Docket Numbers 55 and 57), the parties agree that the Plaintiffs
shall have until May 2, 2017 to respond to the Defendants’ re-filed motions for
summary judgment regarding punitive damages and the Defendants’ already filed
motion for summary judgment regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress
(Docket Number 56), and the Defendants shall have until May 16, 2017 to file replies
in support of their motions for summary judgment.
7. In the event that the Court denies the Defendants leave to re-file their motions for
summary judgment regarding punitive damages to comply with the Court’s page limits,
the parties agree that the Plaintiffs shall have an extension of twenty one (21) days from
the date of such denial to respond to the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment
regarding punitive damages (Docket Numbers 55 and 57) and the Defendants’ already
filed motion for summary judgment regarding intentional infliction of emotional
distress (Docket Number 56), and the Defendants shall have fourteen (14) days
thereafter to file replies in support of their motions for summary judgment.

19
20
21
22
23

8. The Plaintiffs will not assert any objection or argument with respect to the length of the
two previously-filed motions for summary judgment regarding punitive damages on
behalf of the defendants, specifically Docket Numbers 55 (54 pages) and 57 (34 pages).
9. This stipulation does not affect in any way the briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs’
motion for sanctions (Docket Number 54), and the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial
summary judgment (Docket Number 53), the briefing schedules for which shall stand.

24

This is the second request to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions, but the first
25
26

request for an extension of time on the briefing schedule with respect to dispositive motions.

27
28

4

Case 2:16-cv-00282-GMN-CWH Document 63 Filed 04/04/17 Page 5 of 6

1

DATED this 4th day of April 2017

DATED this 4th day of April 2017

2
3

THE HUNT LAW GROUP, LLC

LAW OFFICES OF BRADLEY ELLEY

4

/s/ Brian H. Myers
BRIAN H. MYERS, ESQ.
(Pro Hac Vice)
BRIAN J. HUNT, ESQ.
(Pro Hac Vice)
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1450
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Attorneys for Defendants, Marten
Transport, Ltd., and Louis Plascencia

/s/ Bradley P. Elley
BRADLEY PAUL ELLEY, ESQ.
120 Country Club Drive, Suite 5
Incline Village, Nevada 89451
Phone: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiffs

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. WEISS
DATED this 4th day of April 2017
ALVERSON TAYLOR MORTENSEN
& SANDERS

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

DATED this 4th day of April 2017

/s/ Jonathan B. Owens
JONATHAN B. OWENS, ESQ.
Bar No. 007118
7401 West Charleston Boulevard
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

/s/ William E. Weiss
WILLIAM E. WEISS, ESQ.
140 Geary Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94108
Attorney for Plaintiffs

ORDER
Upon Stipulation by counsel for the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation to Re-File Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding
Punitive Damages and Extend Briefing Schedule [63] hereinabove is hereby Granted.
14
April
DATED this ______ day of __________________, 2017.

25
26

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

5