Smith v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

1 ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3402 9 || TRACY A. EGLET, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6419 3 || DANIELLE C. MILLER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9127 4 || EGLET ADAMS 400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400 5 || Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 450-5400; Fax: (702) 450-5451 6 || eservice @egletlaw.com -and7 || MATTHEW L. SHARP, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4746 8 || MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. 9 432 Ridge Street Reno, NV 89501 10 (775) 324-1500; Fax: (775) 284-0675 W) Attorneys for Plaintiffs [11] D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT B DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 || ERIKA SMITH, individually and on behalf Is of all those similarly situated, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00487- RFB-BNW 6 Plaintiff, Vs. AMENDED STIPULATION AND — 17 PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE 18 |/INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE 20 || NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY 21 || AND CASUALTY — INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 23 || DOES 1 through 10, 24 Defendants. [25] 26 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 27 Plaintiff ERIKA SMITH, by and through their counsel of record, Robert T. Eglet, Esq. [28] 1 || Tracy A. Eglet, Esq., and Danielle C. Miller, Esq. of the law firm EGLET ADAMS and Matthev 2 || L. Sharp, Esq. of the law firm MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD., and Defendants ALLSTATE FIRI 3 |} AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY 4 |] ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK □□□□□□□□ 5 || COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an 6 || ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY (collectively, “Allstate’” 7 || by and through their counsel of record, Elijah L. Milne, Esq. and Timothy O. Hemming, Esq. o 8 || the law firm DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C., for good cause shown, hereb 9 || stipulate and agree as follows: DY 10 1. Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County 11 || Nevada, Case No. A-21-829912-B. Allstate removed this action to this Court on April 8, 2021. 12 2. Allstate filed their Motion to Dismiss on May 14, 2021 [ECF No. 36]. 13 3. Plaintiff filed her Response to Allstate’s Motion on June 14, 2021 [ECF No. 39] 14 4. Allstate filed a Reply in support of the Motion on July 9, 2021 [ECF No. 40]. 15 5. That on February 9, 2021, the Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II heard Allstate’ 16 || Motion to Dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims except the breach of implied covenan — 17 || of good faith and fair dealing claim, tortious bad faith claim, and the Deceptive Trade Practice 18 || Act claim, which were dismissed without prejudice. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file ai 19 |} Amended Complaint with respect to Plaintiff's claims that were dismissed without prejudice o 20 || or before Friday, March 11, 2022 [ECF No. 45]. 21 6. Because the claims that were dismissed without prejudice must be pled □□□ 22 || particularity, Plaintiff needs additional time to review Plaintiffs e-mail correspondence, records 23 ||and bank statements going back at least two (2) years, to the beginning of the COVID-1' 24 || pandemic. Given how much time has passed and given the burden of pleading Plaintiff's claim 25 || with particularity, Plaintiff needs additional time to thoroughly review her records to obtain thi 26 || information. Plaintiff will also have to request some of this information from third parties, whic! 27 || may take additional time. 28 7. Thus, the parties hereby stipulate that Plaintiff shall have an additional sixty (60 1 || days to file an Amended Complaint. 2 8. That Plaintiff's Amended Complaint shall be due on or before May 11, 2022. 3 9. That Allstate shall have an extension of thirty (30) days to file a Motion to Dismis 4 || Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 5 10. The parties agree that discovery remains stayed pending Plaintiff filing a1 6 || Amended Complaint and resolution of Defendant’s anticipated Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff? 7 || Amended Complaint. 8 11. In this District, requests to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the pendin; 9 || motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided withou DY 10 || additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of th 11 || potentially dispositive motion. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011) 12 || In doing so, the court must consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of th 13 || entire case, and whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery. See Federa 14 || Housing Finance Agency v. GR Investments LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-03005-JAD-EJY, 2020 WI 15 || 2798011 at *3 (D. Nev. May 29, 2020) (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution o 16 || potentially dispositive motion for summary judgment); see also Mintun v. Experian Informatio et 17 Solutions, Inc., 2:19-cv-00033-JAD-NJK, 2019 WL 2130134 at **1-2 (D. Nev. May 15, 2019 18 || (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive motion t 19 |} dismiss). 20 12. The Parties agree that Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss raises potentially dispositiv 21 || legal and jurisdictional defenses to Plaintiffs claims concerning Allstate’s auto insurance rate 22 || during the COVID pandemic. 23 13. Pending resolution of Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss, the Parties agree and stipulat 24 || to a stay of discovery including, but not limited to, any discovery obligations set forth in Fed. R 25 || Civ. P. 26 and LR 26-1. The Parties are in agreement that a stay of discovery is warranted at thi 26 || time. Moreover, discovery is not required to resolve Allstate’s anticipated Motion. 27 14. If the Court denies Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss, in whole or in part, the Partie 28 || agree to submit a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within thirty (30) days after entry of th 1 || Court’s Order on the Motion. 2 15. The parties respectfully suggest that good cause exists to enter the stipulated sta: 3 || of discovery to preserve judicial and party resources and based on application of the factors se 4 || forth in paragraph 11, above. 5 16. The Parties represent that this stipulation is sought in good faith, is not interpose 6 || for delay, and is not filed for an improper purpose. 7 DATED this 10th day of March, 2022. DATED this 10th day of March, 2022. EGLET ADAMS DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR 9 P.C, WY 10 11 ||S/Robert Eglet, Esq. /s/ Jacqueline A. Giannini, Esq. D ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. ELIJAH L. MILNE, ESQ. ee Bar AO ETE 5 Nevada Bar No. 13196 13 TIMOTHY O. HEMMING, ESQ. < Nees Ba oo ER. ES Nevada Bar No. 14375 14 d sy No. 15 ay » ESQ. 192 East 200 North, Third Floor Nevada Bar No. St. George, UT 84770 15 || 400S. Seventh St., Suite 400 -andLas Vegas, NV 89101 MARK HANOVER, ESQ. 16 -and- (admitted pro hac vice) _ MATTHEW L. SHARP, ESQ. JACQUELINE A. GIANNINI, ESQ. 17 || Nevada Bar No. 4746 (admitted pro hac vice) O MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD DENTONS US LLP 18 > Rj ‘ , 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 432 Ridge Street Chicago, IL 60606-6361 19 |} Reno, NV 89501 Attorneys for Defendants 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff [21] ORDER [22] 33 Based upon the parties’ stipulation and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, I 34 IS SO ORDERED: IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Kx m Lea WEE RN 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 DATED: March 11, 2022