Arminas Wagner Enterprises v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Filing
25
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file any renewed motions. The standard response and reply briefing schedules set forth in LR IA 7-2 will apply. For clarity, the discovery stay entered by the court on June 14, 2021 (ECF No. 21 ) remains in effect until further order of the court. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/9/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - YAW)
Case 2:21-cv-00897-JCM-DJA Document 25 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
ARMINAS WAGNER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
8
Plaintiff(s),
9
10
Case No. 2:21-CV-897 JCM (DJA)
v.
ORDER
OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
14
Presently before the court is the matter of Arminas Wagner Enterprises v. Ohio Security
Insurance Company, case no. 2:21-cv-00897-JCM-DJA.
15
On March 31, 2022, the court stayed this case pending the issuance of the Ninth
16
Circuit’s ruling in the relevant Circus Circus v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., No. 21-15367, appeal,
17
after which the stay would automatically lift. On April 15, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued its
18
ruling, affirming Judge Dorsey’s dismissal of the case. See Circus Circus LV, LP v. AIG
19
Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10298 (9th Cir. April 15, 2022) (unpub.).
20
With the stay being lifted, the parties shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this
21
order to file any renewed motions. The standard response and reply briefing schedules set
22
forth in LR IA 7-2 will apply. For clarity, the discovery stay entered by the court on June 14,
23
2021 (ECF No. 21) remains in effect until further order of the court.
24
The court notes that in the parties’ post-Circus Circus appeal joint status report,
25
plaintiff Arminas Wagner suggests that a further stay is warranted because the insured in
26
Circus Circus “may likely seek petition for en banc rehearing in the Ninth Circuit.”1 (ECF
27
28
1
24 at 3).
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Defendant Ohio Security opposes Arminas Wagner’s request for a further stay. (ECF No.
Case 2:21-cv-00897-JCM-DJA Document 25 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 2
1
No. 24 at 3). Indeed, the day following the submission of the parties’ status report, the insured
2
in Circus Circus filed an en banc petition. Regardless, the court does not agree that a further
3
stay is warranted at this time.
4
Courts have broad discretion in managing their dockets. See, e.g., Landis v. N.
5
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (courts have the inherent power to “control the
6
disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel
7
and for litigants”). In exercising that discretion, courts are guided by the goals of securing the
8
just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
9
While a petition for en banc rehearing has been filed, the court of appeals may still
10
deny the petition. This case has already languished on the docket for nearly a year in order to
11
await guidance from the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit decides to reconsider its ruling and
12
grant an en banc rehearing, Arminas Wagner may move this court to stay this case and the
13
court will issue a ruling after full briefing. Meanwhile, the stay remains lifted on the case.
14
Accordingly,
15
It is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty (30) days from the date of
16
this order to file any renewed motions. The standard response and reply briefing schedules set
17
forth in LR IA 7-2 will apply. For clarity, the discovery stay entered by the court on June 14,
18
2021 (ECF No. 21) remains in effect until further order of the court.
19
20
21
DATED May 9, 2022.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-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?