Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS CORP., 2:09-CV-626 JCM (PAL). (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20120613b76 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge. Presently before the court is defendant Beazer Homes Holdings Corporation's ("Beazer") motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion in limine. (Doc. #122). This case arises from a fire which occurred on March 5, 2007. Plaintiff Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company ("Allied") alleges that the fire was caused by a defective garage door opener and that the garage door opener was improperly attached to the home. Beazer filed a motion i
More

ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is defendant Beazer Homes Holdings Corporation's ("Beazer") motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion in limine. (Doc. #122).

This case arises from a fire which occurred on March 5, 2007. Plaintiff Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company ("Allied") alleges that the fire was caused by a defective garage door opener and that the garage door opener was improperly attached to the home.

Beazer filed a motion in limine on May 19, 2012. (Doc. #115). This motion asks the court to prevent Allied from presenting its second theory of causation — that the garage door opener was improperly attached to the home. Allied filed an opposition on June 5, 2012. (Doc. #118).

Beazer now moves for leave to file a reply to the opposition to the motion in limine. (Doc. #122). Beazer asserts that Allied's opposition contains misstatements or mischaracterizations regarding (1) the degree of agreement between experts, (2) the existence and configuration of bracing of the garage door opener, (3) the occurrence of any failure, chaffing, or degradation of the power cord, (4) the occurrence of thermal cycling, and (5) the occurrence of any vibrations of the garage door opener or the power cord. (Doc. #112). Thus, Beazer asks leave of the court to reply to these alleged misstatements.

Pursuant to Local Rule 16-3, "[M]otions in limine are due thirty (30) days prior to trial. Oppositions shall be filed and served and the motion submitted for decision fourteen (14) days thereafter. Replies will be allowed only with leave of the court."

Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant Beazer Homes Holdings Corporation's motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion in limine (doc. #122) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Beazer shall file its reply with the court before the calendar call scheduled for June 13, 2012.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer