Nautilus Insurance Company v. Access Medical, LLC

TRACY A. DIFILLIPPO, ESQ.

1 Nevada Bar No. 7676 MICHELLE D. ALARIE, ESQ.

2 Nevada Bar No. 11894 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP One Summerlin 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 750 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: 702.678.5070 Facsimile: 702.878.9995 [email protected] [email protected] LINDA WENDELL HSU, ESQ. (LR IA 11-2 admitted) California Bar No. 162971 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP New Montgomery, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: 415.979.0400 Facsimile: 415.979.2099 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Company 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 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 ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC, ROBERT CLARK REASONABLENESS OF NAUTILUS’S WOOD, II; FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT, REIMBURSABLE DEFENSE LLC; does 1-10, inclusive, EXPENDITURES 20 Defendants. ECF No. 200 [SECOND REQUEST] 22 Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Company (“Nautilus”), by and through its counsel, Selman Breitman, LLP and Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Defendants Access Medical, LLC, and Robert “Sonny” Wood, II (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, the Schnitzer Law Firm, hereby stipulate to extend Nautilus’s deadline from December 23, 2022, to January 6, 2023, to file a new motion as contemplated in the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nautilus’s 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- complaint expenditures on the insureds’ behalf were reasonable. As a result, it denied that part of Nautilus’ motion for summary judgment requesting a ruling that such expenditures were reasonable, without prejudice. However, the Court allowed Nautilus 14 days from the date of the entry of the Order to file a new motion on the narrow issue of whether the amount of attorney fees expended by Nautilus in the underlying Switzer action was reasonable under local practices and reasonable under the factors set forth in Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969). Given that the Order was entered on November 10, 2022, the deadline for filing the new motion was November 24, 2022. The 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 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 stipulation, the attorney fee analysis requested requires Nautilus to analyze the following factors set forth in Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969): (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.

20 Although Nautilus has been diligent to date in preparing the renewed motion seeking reimbursement, which has included requesting and obtaining declarations from all counsel billing the defense fees paid by Nautilus to meet the analysis under Brunzell and Local Rules, Nautilus requires additional time to complete this process as it continues to work with former defense counsel on these issues. Nautilus believes that an additional two weeks will be sufficient to complete this process. Defendants do not object to this two week extension. This request is made in good faith and is not intended to unreasonably delay this matter.

27 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend Nautilus’ || deadline to file a new motion on the reasonableness of its attorney fee request from December 23, || 2022, to January 6, 2023.

5 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP THE SCHNITZER LAW FIRM 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 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor 14 San Francisco, California 94105 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Co. 7 ORDER 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 UNITED ai S aT JUDGE 1 12/29/22 nunc pro tunc to 12/23/22