Sanchez v. Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 13

ORDER Granting 11 Stipulation to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/16/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Certified Copy of Order and Docket Sheet sent to State Court - MR)

Download PDF
JOHN T.KEATING Nevada Bar No. 6373 COLIN P. CAVANAUGH Nevada Bar No. 13842 KEATING law group 9130 W. Russell Road, Suite 200 4 5 6 7 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 ikeating@keatinglg.com ccavanaugh@keatinglg.com (702) 228-6800 phone (702) 228-0443 facsimile Attorneys for Defendant Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Q_ 11 D o BENJIE SANCHEZ, CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-01945-RFB-PAL 12 Plaintiff, OS CO UJ ^ S 13 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND TO STATE COURT vs. X.QQ —I a < _ 14 -i Gj 15 Zi/l < D O _** 16 ^ E2 GROUP PROPERTY AND through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS XI through XX, 17 LU METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES I 18 Defendants. 19 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff BENJIE SANCHEZ and Defendant 20 METROPOLITAN GROUP PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY by and through 21 their respective counsel, that this matter shall be remanded back to State Court, on the following 22 terms: 23 1. This action was originally filed in state court, namely the Eighth Judicial District 24 Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-17-757557-C, and Defendant removed it to Federal 25 Court on or about July 17, 2017, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 26 27 28 2. On or about July 28,2017, Defendant filed a Motionto Dismiss Plaintiff's Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action, respectively for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith/Insurance Bad Faith, Violation of Unfair Claims Practices Act, and Negligent and/or Intentional Misrepresentation. 3. On or about August 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint alleges only a single cause of action for Breach of Contract and no longer contains the three above-referenced causes of action at issue in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The First Amended Complaint also alleges that the amount in controversy is not greater than $50,000, exclusive of attorney's fees, interest and court costs. WHEREFOR, the parties hereby stipulate that this matter shall be remanded back to state court in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-17-757557-C, to 10 proceed through Nevada's arbitration program under NRS 38.250, et seq. Q_ 11 D DATED this 15th day of August, 2017. o • DATED this 15th day of August, 2017. 12 ^ Q Q —I a < _ HENNESS&HAIGHT Bv: /S/COLIN P. CAVANAUGH Bv:/S/SHAUN M.ROSE Shaun M. Rose, Esq. 14 -i Gj 15 - ^ l/) < D O _*> H*3 LU KEATING law group COLIN P. CAVANAUGH 13 16 17 18 19 Nevada Bar No.: 13842 Nevada Bar No. 13945 9130 W. Russell Road, Ste. 200 8972 Spanish Ridge Avenue Las Vegas NV 89148 Attorney for Defendant Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty insurance Company Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (Order on following page.) 28 Benjie Sanchez ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, that this matter shall 3 be remanded back to state court in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada, 4 Case No. A-17-757557-C, to proceed through Nevada's arbitration program under NRS 38.250, etseq. All matters and deadlines currently set in this federal action are taken off calendar. DATED this 16th day of August U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge 10 Q_ 11 D o 12 Respectfully Submitted by: 13 KEATING law group osffl UJ ^ > §5 > 3« 14 _ -i Gj t/> (/> 15 Z(/) < _*> I—o^ LU 16 /S/COLIN P. CAVANAUGH COLIN P. CAVANAUGH Nevada Bar No.: 13842 9130 W. Russell Road, Ste. 200 17 Las Vegas NV 89148 Attorneys for Defendant 18 Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty insurance Company 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 , 2017.

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?