WFTLV01, LLC et al v. Amtrust North America, Inc. et al
Filing
40
ORDER Granting 37 Stipulation for Extension of Time re 21 Motion to Dismiss (Second Request). Replies due by 1/19/2021. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/8/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
Case 2:20-cv-01845-JCM-BNW Document 40 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 3
1 Jeffrey D. Olster
Nevada Bar No. 8864
2 Jeff.Olster@lewisbrisbois.com
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
3 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89118
4 Tel: (702) 893-3383
Fax: (702) 893-3789
5
Attorneys for Defendant
6 SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10 WFTLV01, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE
14 COMPANY, a Delaware corporation
Case No. 2:20-cv-01845-JCM-BNW
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO
FILE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
AND TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION
[Second Request]
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
IT IS STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, through their respective
19 counsel, and pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR 7-1 to LR 7-3, that the time for Defendant to file its
20 reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) may be extended one additional
21 week, to January 19, 2021, and that Defendant may exceed the page limitation for the reply by up
22 to ten (10) pages. The parties agree and respectfully submit that good cause exists for this
23 stipulation based on the following:
24
1.
Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss Complaint on November 6, 2020. (ECF No.
2.
The parties thereafter stipulated to provide Plaintiff with a four-week extension to
25 21).
26
27 respond to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 28).
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28
4815-4051-6566.1
Case 2:20-cv-01845-JCM-BNW Document 37 Filed 01/05/21 Page 2 of 3
40
01/08/21
1
3.
The parties thereafter stipulated to (1) permit Plaintiff to exceed the 24-page
2 limitation in its Opposition by up to 20 pages; and (2) accordingly extend the time for Defendant
3 to file its reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition by two weeks (or until January 11, 2021). (ECF No. 33).
4
4.
The Court has issued orders permitting (1) Defendant to exceed the general page-
5 limitation for its Motion by three (3) pages (ECF No. 35); and (2) Plaintiff to exceed the page
6 limitation for its Opposition by twenty (20) pages (ECF No. 32). In granting these motions, the
7 Court has agreed with the parties that the breadth of the issues involved in this action warrant an
8 exception to the general 24-page limit. (ECF No. 32 at 1:24-25; ECF No. 35).
9
5.
Plaintiff’s filed Opposition is 43 pages. (ECF No. 34). As with the Motion and the
10 Opposition, good cause exists for Defendant’s request to exceed the general page limit for replies
11 (12 pages) because the issues raised in Defendant’s Motion and Plaintiff’s Opposition implicate
12 important issues of law arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and related insurance coverage
13 issues, most of which have not been addressed or decided by the Ninth Circuit, this Court or the
14 Nevada appellate courts.
15
6.
Good cause also exists to permit a one-week extension for the filing of Defendants’
16 reply to the Opposition. Defendant agreed to provide Plaintiff with a four-week extension, to
17 December 21, 2020, to file its Opposition. (ECF No. 28). Defendant also stipulated to allow
18 Plaintiff to exceed the general page limitation in the Opposition by twenty pages. Plaintiff
19 accordingly agreed to an initial two-week extension, to January 11, 2021, for Defendant to file its
20 reply. (ECF No. 33). Defendant seeks an additional one-week extension to file its reply, or until
21 January 19, 2021, due to the length of Plaintiff’s Opposition, the breadth and complexity of the
22 issues raised in the Opposition and the timing of the reply deadline, which has overlapped with the
23 holidays and the year-end of 2020.
24
7.
This stipulation is made in good faith and for good cause, and not for any purpose
25 to delay.
26
27
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28
4815-4051-6566.1
2
Case 2:20-cv-01845-JCM-BNW Document 40 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 3
1
8.
The parties further agree that this stipulated extension of time does not operate as
2 any admission or waiver of any claim or defense by Plaintiff or Defendant.
3
4
DATED this 5th day of January, 2021.
DATED this 5th day of January, 2021.
5 KENNEDY & COUVILLIER, PLLC
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP
6
7 /s/ Maximiliano D. Couvillier
Todd E. Kennedy
8
Nevada Bar No. 6014
9 Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
Nevada Bar No. 7661
10 3271 E. Warm Springs Road
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
/s/ Jeffrey D. Olster
Jeffrey D. Olster
Nevada Bar No. 8864
6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89118
Attorneys for Defendants
12
13
14
15
16
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
January 8, 2021
Dated: __________________________
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
28
4815-4051-6566.1
3
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?