American Contractors Indemnity Company v. Alpha Energy and Electric, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 KURT C. FAUX, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 003407 WILLI H. SIEPMANN, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 002478 JORDAN F. FAUX, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 12205 THE FAUX LAW GROUP 4 2625 N. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 100 Henderson, Nevada 89014 5 Telephone: (702) 458-5790 Facsimile: (702) 458-5794 Email: kfaux@fauxlaw.com 6 wsiepmann@fauxlaw.com jfaux@fauxlaw.com 7 Attorneys for American Contractors Indemnity Company 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a California corporation, 10 Plaintiff, CASE NO: 2:23-cv-00615-JCM-EJY 11 v. 12 ALPHA ENERGY AND ELECTRIC, INC., a STIPULATION TO STAY Missouri corporation, also known as ALPHA (FIRST REQUEST) 13 E GN EE NR EG RY A L AN CD O NE TL REC AT CR TI IC N GD ; BA G AA BL RP IH EA L OKAFOR, an individual; NICKY OKAFOR, an 14 individual; EMMANUEL NWABUONWU, an individual; BETTY NWABUONWU, an 15 individual; 16 Defendants. 17 INTRODUCTION 18 The Complaint in this matter was filed on April 20, 2023. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary 19 judgment on September 26, 2023 (ECF No. 17). The motion was fully briefed by both parties which 20 included a sur-reply. During the pendency of the motion, the parties were able to resolve a portion of 21 Plaintiff’s claims via joint stipulation reflected in the Court’s Order (ECF No. 38) dated March 8, 22 2024. The Court recently issued its decision on the remaining issues in Plaintiff’s motion for summary 23 judgment in its Order (ECF No. 43) dated September 18, 2024 wherein it denied Plaintiff’s motion for 24 summary judgment and found there were genuine issues of material fact. 1 In light of these developments and narrowing of the issues per the Court’s Order (ECF No. 2 43), the parties wish to attempt to resolve the remaining dispute through private mediation. Time is 3 needed in order to coordinate for such as Plaintiffs’ main place of business is in California and 4 Defendants’ main place of business is in Kansas/Missouri and this litigation is taking place in Nevada. 5 The parties are currently discussing and performing due diligence on potential mediators and will need 6 to accommodate the schedule of the chosen mediator as well. This request is made in good faith and 7 not for any purpose of delay. 8 The Court has broad discretion to control its own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706- 9 07 (1997). The parties believe that having mediation prior to trial is likely to serve the interests of 10 justice and conserve judicial resources and warrants the requested stay as set forth below. When 11 looking at whether to grant a stay to allow parties to mediate, the court may consider the following 12 factors: 13 • a meaningful showing is made that the parties have otherwise been diligent in 14 prosecuting the case, 15 • the request is made preemptively rather than after the parties agreed without judicial 16 approval to avoid their discovery obligations, 17 • the parties are reasonably close to settlement or there is otherwise a substantial 18 likelihood of settlement, 19 • settlement is more likely achievable if certain litigation obligations are delayed in the 20 interim, 21 • substantial judicial or party resources may be spared if settlement is achieved, and/or 22 • a concrete date is set in the relative near-term by which the settlement discussions or 23 alternative dispute resolution will be completed. 24 Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1182 n.8 (D. Nev. 2022). 1 Here, the factors support a showing of good cause that a stay is warranted. The parties have 2 been diligent in prosecuting this case. A dispositive motion on all substantive matters was filed early 3 on, nearly 6 months after initial filing. The parties have completed discovery. The parties have already 4 settled a significant portion of Plaintiff’s claims ($82,955.65)1 leaving only Plaintiff’s claims for 5 reimbursement of attorney fees and costs. The parties have agreed to mediate, they just require time 6 to choose an appropriate mediator, mediation venue, and coordinate schedules so the mediation can 7 occur. The parties have exchanged names of potential mediators and are in the process of performing 8 due diligence on same. The parties have shown they have been diligent in prosecuting this case and 9 fulfilling their duties to the Court. The parties would save considerable time and expense if settlement 10 is achieved including, but not limited to, attorney fees and costs, and expenses for travel to and 11 accommodations in Las Vegas for trial. The parties agree that now is the best time to coordinate their 12 resources towards a potential resolution through mediation. The parties agree that this constitutes good 13 cause to stay this case as set forth below. 14 STIPULATION 15 The parties stipulate as follows: 16 1) This case shall be stayed so that the parties may pursue private mediation. 17 2) The parties are to file a joint status report every 30 days from the date of this order to keep the 18 Court apprised of progress. 19 3) The stay may be lifted upon request of either party. 20 4) The joint pre-trial order shall be due 30 days from the lifting of stay, if the matter does not 21 resolve. 22 /// 23 24 1 This was roughly 38% of the amount sought in Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (ECF 1 || /// 2 5) If the matter resolves, the parties will file a joint notice of settlement with the Court and 3 relevant stipulation for dismissal or other appropriate papers within a reasonable time after 4 filing the notice of settlement. 5 || Respectfully submitted this 14th day of October, 2024: 6 7 /s/ Jordan F. Faux 8 || LORTCE AUX. ESQ. Ls{/ Stephen J. Moore __ Nevada Bar No. 003407 Stephen J. Moore Pro Hac Vice 9 WILLI H. SIEPMANN, ESQ. 4520 Main Street, Suite 700 Nevada Bar No. 002478 Kansas City, Missouri 64111 10 JORDAN F. FAUX, ESQ. Telephone: 816.756.5800 Nevada Par oeOUP Facsimile: 816.756.1999 + I1 i i 2625 N. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 100 simoore@krigelandkrigel.com 10 ‘torn f Neva S018 Charles R. Kozak SBN 11179 25 Onney8 JO KOZAK & ASSOCIATES, LLC 13 3100 Mill Street, Suite 115 20 Reno, Nevada 89502 = 14 Telephone: 775.322.1239 Facsimile: 775.800.1767 15 chuck@kozaklawfirm.com 16 Attorneys for Defendants 17 18 19 IT ISSO ORDERED: 20 : a (did © Atal Wun 1 HON. JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 DATED: October 17, 2024 23 24