Yu v. Travelers Casualty ( 2019 )

1 MICHAEL R. HALL Nevada Bar No. 005978 2 mhall@lawhjc.com STEPHEN D. STEELE 3 Nevada Bar No. 013965 ssteele@lawhjc.com 4 HALL JAFFE & CLAYTON, LLP 5 7425 Peak Drive LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89128 6 (702) 316-4111 FAX (702) 316-4114 7 Attorneys for Defendant, Travelers Casualty 8 and Surety Company of America 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 SUEMIN YU, individually, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01392-JCM-BNW 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER COMPANY OF AMERICA; DOES I through TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING 15 X; and ROE CORPORATIONS XI through MEDIATION XX, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff SUEMIN YU (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY 19 COMPANY OF AMERICA (“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby 20 stipulate as follows: 21 1. This case involves a UM/UIM breach of contract action deriving from an automobile 22 accident that occurred on May 27, 2015, wherein Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by another vehicle that was 23 uninsured. The complaint alleges that as a result of the accident Plaintiff has sustained physical injuries, 24 and will require future medical care. According to Plaintiff’s October 26, 2016, demand letter, Plaintiff has 25 incurred over $61,503.36 in past medical specials, and has been recommended to undergo future 26 chiropractic care, which will cost, at a minimum, approximately another $1,000.00 in future medical 27 treatment; thus, the claimed medical specials alone is over $62,000.00 As a result of the collision, Plaintiff 28 1 lawsuit, Plaintiff is seeking payment of the entire $250,000 UIM policy limit from Travelers. 2 2. This matter has been extensively litigated. Discovery completed to date includes completed 3 written discovery requests, along with supplemental responses provided by Plaintiff, the deposition of 4 Plaintiff, as well as multiple supplemental disclosures by Defendant. 5 3. To date, the parties have not engaged in any form of alternative dispute resolution or 6 otherwise shared meaningful settlement discussions. However, both parties agree that the case has reached 7 a juncture in which substantive settlement discussion may result in the complete resolution of the case. To 8 that end, the parties have agreed and scheduled private mediation with Jennifer Togliatti on January 9 16, 2020. Although neither party can commit that a settlement will be reached, both parties attest that they 10 will enter into and participate in the mediation in good faith and with sincere efforts to reach an agreement 11 to resolve the case. 12 4. To save the parties from the need to invest resources in form of experts and other additional 13 necessary discovery if the case does not settle, the parties stipulate to stay all proceedings in this case 14 pending the completion of mediation in this case. 15 5. The applicable discovery deadlines are as follows: 16 Amend pleadings/Add Parties: Closed 17 Initial Experts: December 16, 2019 18 Interim Status Report: December 16, 2019 19 Rebuttal Expert Designations: January 15, 2020 20 Discovery Cutoff: February 14, 2020 21 Dispositive Motions: March 13, 2020 22 Joint Pre-Trial Order: April 10, 2020 23 (or 30 days after resolution of dispositive motions) 24 6. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control 25 the disposition of the causes of action on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, 26 and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “A trial court may, with propriety, find 27 it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, 28 pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of 1 Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). In deciding whether to grant a stay, a court may weigh the 2 following: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity 3 which a party may suffer in being required to go forward; (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms 4 of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result 5 from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). A district court's decision to grant or 6 deny a Landis stay is a matter of discretion. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 7 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). 8 7. The parties submit that an evaluation of the Landis factors weigh in favor of a stay. The most 9 compelling factor weighing in favor of a stay is the good possibility that a settlement could be reached at 10 mediation. Should such a settlement be reached, the case would be completely disposed of and dismissed. 11 Additionally, issuing an order staying the case pending the outcome of mediation would save the parties 12 from having to incur additional, potentially unnecessary litigation costs. 13 8. The parties stipulate that once the mediation occurs on January 16, 2020, they will file a 14 joint status report within 14 days after the conclusion of the mediation to update the Court regarding the 15 outcome of the settlement discussions. If the case resolves, the parties will promptly complete the necessary 16 closing documents and file a Stipulation and Order for Dismissal. If the case does not settle, the parties will 17 file a proposed Stipulation and Order with amended discovery deadlines. 18 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED: 19 DATED this 4th day of December, 2019. DATED this 4th day of December, 2019. 20 HALL JAFFE & CLAYTON, LLP HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC 21 22 /s/ Stephen D. Steele, Esq.__________ /s/ Steven M. Rogers, Esq. MICHAEL R. HALL STEVEN M. ROGERS 23 Nevada Bar No. 005978 Nevada Bar No. 010975 STEPHEN D. STEELE 2630 South Jones Blvd. 24 Nevada Bar No. 013965 Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 7425 Peak Drive Attorneys for Plaintiff 25 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Attorneys for Defendant 26 27 28 1 Suemin Yu vs. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America 2:19-cv-01392-JCM-BNW 2 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay Discovery Pending Mediation 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the Court orders as follows: ° 1. The current discovery deadlines will be stayed pending mediation between the parties on ° January 16, 2020; ' 2. Following mediation on January 16, 2020, the parties will file a joint status report ° within 14 days to update the Court regarding the outcome of the mediation If the case has resolved, the ° parties will promptly complete the necessary closing documents and file a Stipulation and Order for ° Dismissal. If the case does not settle, the parties will include with the Joint Status Report a proposed " Stipulation and Order with amended discovery deadlines. IT IS SO ORDERED: 3 Dated: December 5, 2019 14 15 16 LZ la WER 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28