Tamares Las Vegas Properties, LLC et al v. Travelers Indemnity Company

Filing 267

ORDER granting 266 Stipulation Re: 265 Motion for Attorney Fees. Responses due by 1/20/2023. Replies due by 2/17/2023. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/8/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

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

Dennis T. D’Antonio (admitted pro hac vice)
Joshua L. Mallin (admitted pro hac vice)
WEG & MYERS, P.C.
800 Westchester Avenue, Suite N-513
Rye Brook, New York 10573
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
and local counsel
Shan Davis (SBN 9323)
DAVIS|STIBOR
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Tamares Las Vegas Properties, LLC
and Plaza Hotel & Casino, LLC
Frank M. Flansburg III
Patrick J. Reilly
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

18
19
20

TAMARES LAS VEGAS PROPERTIES,
LLC; PLAZA HOTEL & CASINO, LLC; and
T-UPR, LLC,
Plaintiffs,

21
22

vs.

23

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY,

24
25
26

Case No. 2:16-cv-02933-JAD-NJK
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
PAGE LIMITS AND BRIEFING
SCHEDULE CONCERNING
TRAVELERS’ INDEMNITY
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES
(ECF No. 265)
ECF No. 266

Defendant.
STIPULATION

27

Joshua Mallin, Dennis D’Antonio and Shan Davis, Counsel for Plaintiffs Tamares Las

28

Vegas Properties, LLC, Plaza Hotel & Casino, LLC, and T-UPR, LLC, (collectively “Plaintiffs’

1

Counsel”) and Defendant The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”), by and through the law

2

firms Clyde & Co LLP and Robinson & Cole LLP, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

3

1.

By Order dated November 22, 2022 this Court “SO ORDERED” a Stipulation

4

governing the briefing schedule and page limits for Travelers’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees

5

and Expenses (ECF No. 265) (“Motion”), the Plaza Plaintiffs’ Opposition thereto, and

6

Travelers’ reply.

7

2.

8
9

The Motion separately seeks relief against Plaintiffs’ Counsel, pursuant to

NRS 7.085, FRCP 37(c), 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court’s inherent power.
3.

Each of these legal grounds presents differing standards for seeking an award

10

of fees and expenses. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Opposition will necessarily include a significant

11

discussion of the underlying facts and procedural history of this matter, including certain

12

pre-suit activity, pretrial discovery practice, motion practice, the trial, and information

13

gathered during recent post-trial discovery as relevant to the relief sought.

14

4.

Additionally, and pursuant to Local Rule 54-14, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s

15

Opposition will address Travelers’ request for attorneys’ fees with thirteen categories of

16

information, which includes a discussion of the fees and costs that Travelers has incurred

17

throughout the lifetime of this matter and Plaintiffs Counsels’ liability for same.

18

5.

Travelers and Plaintiffs’ Counsel agree that there is good cause for increasing

19

the page limits of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s opposition and Travelers’ reply thereto in that the

20

aforementioned subjects cannot be adequately addressed within the page limits prescribed

21

by the Local Rules.

22
23
24

6.

In light of the foregoing, Travelers and Plaintiffs’ Counsel agree and stipulate

as follows:
a.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall file and serve a single, joint opposition to the

25

Motion of no more than 48 pages (excluding exhibits). Said opposition shall be filed on or

26

before January 20, 2023.

27
28
-2-