Nautilus Insurance Company v. Access Medical, LLC ( 2022 )

TRACY A. DIFILLIPPO, ESQ. 1 Nevada Bar No. 7676 MICHELLE D. ALARIE, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 11894 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 3 One Summerlin 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 750 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: 702.678.5070 5 Facsimile: 702.878.9995 tdifillippo@atllp.com 6 malarie@atllp.com 7 LINDA WENDELL HSU, ESQ. (LR IA 11-2 admitted) California Bar No. 162971 8 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor 9 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: 415.979.0400 10 Facsimile: 415.979.2099 lhsu@selmanlaw.com 11 slipsitz@selmanlaw.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Company 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.: 2:15-cv-00321-JAD-BNW 16 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 17 vs. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE NEW MOTION REGARDING THE 18 ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC, ROBERT CLARK REASONABLENESS OF NAUTILUS’S WOOD, II; FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT, REIMBURSABLE DEFENSE 19 LLC; does 1-10, inclusive, EXPENDITURES 20 Defendants. ECF No. 200 [SECOND REQUEST] 21 22 Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Company (“Nautilus”), by and through its counsel, Selman 23 Breitman, LLP and Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Defendants Access Medical, LLC, and Robert 24 “Sonny” Wood, II (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, the Schnitzer Law Firm, 25 hereby stipulate to extend Nautilus’s deadline from December 23, 2022, to January 6, 2023, to file a 26 new motion as contemplated in the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nautilus’s 27 Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 194) (“Order”). This is the second request to extend this 1 In the Order, the Court held that it was unable to make a determination whether Nautilus’ pre- 2 complaint expenditures on the insureds’ behalf were reasonable. As a result, it denied that part of 3 Nautilus’ motion for summary judgment requesting a ruling that such expenditures were reasonable, 4 without prejudice. However, the Court allowed Nautilus 14 days from the date of the entry of the Order 5 to file a new motion on the narrow issue of whether the amount of attorney fees expended by Nautilus 6 in the underlying Switzer action was reasonable under local practices and reasonable under the factors 7 set forth in Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969). Given that the Order was 8 entered on November 10, 2022, the deadline for filing the new motion was November 24, 2022. The 9 parties thereafter agreed to continue the deadline to December 23, 2022, which this Court approved. 10 (ECF No. 197.) The parties have now agreed for Nautilus to have an additional two weeks, or until 11 January 6, 2023, to file the new motion. 12 Good cause exists to extend Nautilus’ deadline to file a new motion. As set forth in the first 13 stipulation, the attorney fee analysis requested requires Nautilus to analyze the following factors set 14 forth in Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969): 15 (1) the qualities of the advocate: his ability, his training, education, experience, 16 professional standing and skill; (2) the character of the work to be done: its difficulty, its intricacy, its importance, time and skill required, the responsibility imposed and the 17 prominence and character of the parties where they affect the importance of the litigation; (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer: the skill, time and attention 18 given to the work; [and] (4) the result: whether the attorney was successful and what benefits were derived. 19 20 Although Nautilus has been diligent to date in preparing the renewed motion seeking reimbursement, 21 which has included requesting and obtaining declarations from all counsel billing the defense fees paid 22 by Nautilus to meet the analysis under Brunzell and Local Rules, Nautilus requires additional time to 23 complete this process as it continues to work with former defense counsel on these issues. Nautilus 24 believes that an additional two weeks will be sufficient to complete this process. Defendants do not 25 object to this two week extension. This request is made in good faith and is not intended to 26 unreasonably delay this matter. 27 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend Nautilus’ 2 || deadline to file a new motion on the reasonableness of its attorney fee request from December 23, 3 || 2022, to January 6, 2023. 4 5 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP THE SCHNITZER LAW FIRM 6 By:___/s/ Michelle D. Alarie By:__/s/ Jordan P. Schnitzer 7 TRACY A. DIFILLIPPO, ESQ. JORDAN P. SCHNITZER, NV Bar #10744 Nene pan OE ESO 9205 W. Russell Road, Suite 240 8 . , Nevada Bar No. 11894 Las Vegas, NV 89148 9 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP One Summerlin Attorneys for Defendants Access Medical LLC 10 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 750 & Robert “Sonny” Wood, IT Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 1] LINDA WENDELL HSU, ESQ. (LR IA 12 11-2 admitted) California Bar No. 162971 13 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor 14 San Francisco, California 94105 15 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Co. 7 ORDER 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 UNITED ai S aT JUDGE 1 12/29/22 nunc pro tunc to 12/23/22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28