Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Silos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2:19-cv-00154-JAD-CWH. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190307706 Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . COMES NOW Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel of record, RALPH A. SCHWARTZ, ESQ., and Defendant, by and through its counsel of record, BENJAMIN J. CARMAN, ESQ., hereby submit this Stipulation and Order to Extend Time pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 7-2. Plaintiffs are seeking a one week extension of time to respond to D
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

COMES NOW Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel of record, RALPH A. SCHWARTZ, ESQ., and Defendant, by and through its counsel of record, BENJAMIN J. CARMAN, ESQ., hereby submit this Stipulation and Order to Extend Time pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 7-2. Plaintiffs are seeking a one week extension of time to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. As such, Plaintiffs' response shall be due on or before March 5, 2019. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' response shall be filed eleven (11) days after the service of Plaintiffs' response pursuant to Local Rule 7-2©.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This lawsuit involves a UIM breach of contract and bad faith action. More specifically, on June 4, 2016, Plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle collision. As a result of the accident, Plaintiffs claimed personal injuries. Plaintiffs' settled with the third-party tortfeasor for his minimum policy limits of $15,000.00/$30,000.00. Plaintiffs subsequently submitted a UIM claim, however, the parties were not able to reach an agreement regarding the value of Plaintiffs' claims and as a result a Complaint was filed in Nevada State Court on August 8, 2017. Defendant removed this matter to Federal Court on January 25, 2019. The parties have not engaged in discovery in this matter as of the filing of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

On February 26, 2019 the undersigned's paralegal, Christy Cook, requested an extension from Defendant's counsel to file Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and the same was granted.

A. REASON FOR EXTENSION

Plaintiffs' counsel is a solo practitioner and has been in depositions and mediations during the last two weeks. Additionally, Plaintiffs' counsel's children are participating in a Taekwondo tournament the week of February 26, 2019 and will be fighting for the United States of America. Plaintiffs' counsel is the coach for his children and the team, and therefore Plaintiffs' counsel is required to be present at the tournament venue from February 26, 2019 through March 3, 2019. Plaintiffs' counsel requests until March 5, 2019 to file a responsive pleading to Defendant's Motion.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that this Court order the following:

1. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be filed on or before March 5, 2019; and

2. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition shall be filed and served on Plaintiffs eleven (11) days after service of Plaintiff's response.

ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation of the parties;

IT IS HEREBY ORDEREED that Plaintiffs shall have a one week extension, to and including March 5, 2019, to file their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), filed February 12, 2019.

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