Bancroft Life & Casualty ICC, Ltd v. FFD Resources IV, LLC

Filing 84

ORDERED that Bancroft's # 64 Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaims is DENIED without prejudice. FURTHER ORD that Bancroft's # 80 Consented Motion for Extension of Time for Response to Supplemental Brief and FFD's # 83 Motion fo r Leave to file Supplemental Brief in Further Opposition are DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORD that Bancroft shall have 30 days in which to file a renewed motion to dismiss, FFD shall have 21 days thereafter in which to file a response, and Bancroft shall have 14 days thereafter in which to file a reply. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/5/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

BANCROFT LIFE & CASUALTY ICC,
LTD.,

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
FFD RESOURCES IV, LLC,
13
Defendant.
14
15

FFD RESOURCES IV, LLC, and FFD
VENTURES, LP,

16
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
19

BANCROFT LIFE & CASUALTY ICC,
LTD.,

20

Counterclaim Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:11-cv-00214-LRH-WGC
ORDER

21
22

Before the court are three pending motions: first, Plaintiff/Counter-defendant Bancroft Life

23

& Casualty ICC, Ltd.’s (“Bancroft”) Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaims (#641 ), filed on

24

January 24, 2012; second, Bancroft’s Consented Motion for Extension of Time to File

25
26

1

Refers to court’s docket entry number.

1

Supplemental Reply Brief (#80), filed on August 29, 2012; and third, Defendant/Counterclaimants

2

FFD Resources IV, LLC and FFD Ventures, LP’s (collectively, “FFD”) Motion for Leave to File

3

Supplemental Brief in Further Opposition to Bancroft’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended

4

Counterclaims (#83), filed on August 31, 2012.

5

Bancroft’s motion to dismiss FFD’s amended counterclaims (#64) was fully briefed with

6

the filing of FFD’s opposition (#68) and Bancroft’s reply (#69). While the motion was pending,

7

however, orders issued in two different parallel actions in the Southern District of Texas prompted

8

Bancroft to file notices of these new authorities (##70, 75) and move for leave to file a

9

supplemental brief on the collateral estoppel effect of these related cases (#71). In response, FFD

10

moved for leave to file a responsive supplemental brief (#76). On August 13, 2012, The court

11

granted the parties’ mutual request for supplemental briefing, including allowing Bancroft to file a

12

reply to FFD’s response (#77). Accordingly, Bancroft promptly filed its supplemental brief on

13

collateral estoppel (#78), FFD filed its supplemental response (#79) on August 24, and Bancroft’s

14

supplemental reply was due on August 31, 2012. On August 29, however, Bancroft filed its now-

15

pending unopposed motion to extend the deadline until September 7 (#80).

16

Also on August 29, 2012, FFD filed a notice (#82) that a motion for reconsideration had

17

been filed in one of the Texas cases. And on August 31, 2012, FFD filed its now-pending motion

18

for leave to file a supplemental brief in further opposition to Bancroft’s pending motion to dismiss

19

the amended counterclaims (#83). The motion seeks further supplemental briefing on the issues of

20

estoppel and ratification in regard to the enforceability of the forum selection clause at issue here

21

based on new evidence revealed through discovery in yet another parallel action pending in the

22

Western District of Washington. (Id. at 2.)

23

It is well apparent that the arguments the parties wish to present in support or opposition to

24

Bancroft’s original motion to dismiss FFD’s amended counterclaims have expanded beyond the

25

scope of the parties’ original briefing. It is also well apparent that continued supplemental briefing

26

2

1

will expand the record on this singular motion to dismiss well beyond reasonable lengths. See LR

2

7-4 (limiting motions and responses to 30 pages and replies to 20). At the same time, however, it is

3

in the interests of justice for the court to consider and resolve the parties’ dispute based on all

4

pertinent arguments, evidence and authorities. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, judicial

5

economy and the orderly resolution of this action, the court shall deny all pending motions without

6

prejudice as to the refiling of a renewed motion to dismiss.

7
8
9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Bancroft’s Motion to Dismiss Amended
Counterclaims (#64) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bancroft’s Consented Motion for Extension of Time for

10

Response to Supplemental Brief (#80) and FFD’s Motion for Leave to file Supplemental Brief in

11

Further Opposition (#83) are DENIED as moot.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bancroft shall have thirty (30) days in which to file a

13

renewed motion to dismiss, FFD shall have twenty-one (21) days thereafter in which to file a

14

response, and Bancroft shall have fourteen (14) days thereafter in which to file a reply. All motions

15

shall conform to the page limits of Local Rule 7-4. No supplemental briefing shall be permitted

16

without leave of court.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED this 5th day of September, 2012.

19
20

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

3