-PAL Choice Construction, Inc. v. JMR Construction Corp. et al, No. 2:2012cv00192 - Document 39 (D. Nev. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 38 Motion to Extend Discovery. Discovery due by 3/20/2013. Motions due by 4/17/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/9/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-PAL Choice Construction, Inc. v. JMR Construction Corp. et al Doc. 39 Case 2:12-cv-00192-MMD -PAL Document 38 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MICHAEL W. BRIMLEY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3684 mbrimley@peelbrimley.com CARY B. DOMINA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10567 PEEL BRIMLEY LLP 3333 E. Serene Avenue, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89074-6571 Phone: (702) 990-7272 mbrimley@peelbrimley.com cdomina@peelbrimley.com Attorneys for Choice Construction, Inc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 PEEL BRIMLEY LLP 3333 E. SERENE AVE., STE 200 HENDERSON, NEVADA 89074 11 12 CHOICE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 2:12-cv-00192-MMD-PAL vs. JMR CONSTRUCTION CORP., a foreign corporation; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nevada authorized surety; DOES 1 through 10; ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 10; BOE BONDING COMPANIES 1 through 10, JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (First Request) Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 26-4, Plaintiff, Choice Construction, Inc. ("Choice"), by and through its attorneys, Peel Brimley LLP, and Defendant Great American Insurance Company, ("GAIC"), by and through its attorneys, The Faux Law Group, jointly move the Court for an order extending the discovery cut off date in the above captioned case to March 20, 2013. The current discovery deadline is August 20, 2012. The parties request this extension based on the following reason: the parties lost several months of Discovery time as a result of the Motion to Stay and the transition from Judge Hicks to Judge Du. 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:12-cv-00192-MMD -PAL Document 38 Filed 08/08/12 Page 2 of 7 1 The parties hereby submit this Joint Motion to clarify the need to extend the dates, several of 2 which have passed because the dates were in close proximity to the final adjudication of JMR’s Motion to 3 Stay. The parties request a hearing or meeting with the Court concerning this matter as soon as possible. 4 5 This Joint Motion is based on the points and authorities below, together with al pleadings and papers filed in the action and any argument of counsel at the hearing of said Joint Motion. 6 DATED this 8th day of August, 2012. DATED this 8th day of August, 2012. 8 PEEL BRIMLEY LLP THE FAUX LAW GROUP 9 /s/Cary B. Domina Michael W. Brimley, Esq. (#3684) Cary B. Domina, Esq. (#10567) 3333 E. Serene Avenue, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89074 Attorneys for Choice Construction, Inc. /s/ Leland K. Faux Kurt C. Faux, Esq. Leland K. Faux, Esq. 1540 W. Warm Springs Rd., #100 Henderson, NV 89014 Attorneys for Great American Insurance Company 7 10 PEEL, BRIMLEY LLP 3333 E. SERENE AVE.,STE 200 HENDERSON, NEVADA 89074 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. STATEMENT OF FACTS This Case arises out of a payment dispute regarding the construction of the Brac Aircraft Maintenance Shop Facility project, at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas, Nevada (“the Project”). On or about June 26, 2007, Choice and JMR Construction Corp (“JMR”) entered into a subcontract agreement whereby Choice agreed to furnish certain electrical related work, materials and equipment (“Work”) for the Project. GAIC issued a contractor payment bond for the Project with JMR as the principal and Choice as an obligee. Choice filed a Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada on January 6, 2012, alleging that JMR failed to pay Choice for the Work it provided to the Project. In its Complaint, Choice also asserted a claim against GAIC, alleging that GAIC violated certain provisions of Nevada’s Unfair Claims Practices Act (NRS 686A.310). On February 7, 2012, GAIC filed a Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. §144(b) which was joined by JMR by way of its Consent to Petition for Removal filed on or about February 28, 2012. 27 28 -2- Case 2:12-cv-00192-MMD -PAL Document 38 Filed 08/08/12 Page 3 of 7 1 On April 13, 2012, the Court entered a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, setting the 2 close of discovery for August 20, 2012 (Dkt. #18). On April 30, 2012, JMR filed an Emergency 3 Motion to Stay (Dkt. #19) and on May 1, 2012, the Honorable Larry R. Hicks granted the request 4 for Order Shortening Time and issued an expedited briefing schedule. 5 On May 23, 2012, after the Motion was fully briefed by the parties, this Action was 6 reassigned to the Honorable Miranda M. Du for all further proceedings. On June 21, 2012, the 7 parties filed a Joint Interim Status Report and Stipulation and order to Extend Discovery and 8 Related Deadlines. On July 5, 2012, Magistrate Peggy A. Leen denied the Stipulation to Extend 9 without prejudice, but stated: 10 In the event the Motion to Stay is denied, the parties may submit a request for extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines within fourteen days of the district judge’s decision. PEEL, BRIMLEY LLP 3333 E. SERENE AVE.,STE 200 HENDERSON, NEVADA 89074 11 12 13 14 On July 11, 2012, the Motion to Stay was heard before Judge Du and the matter taken under advisement. On July 16, the Court granted JMR’s Motion to Stay as to claims involving JMR only, but denied GAIC’s joinder thereto. Specifically, the Court held: 15 Choice’s request for limited discovery is DENIED; GAIC’s Motion to Stay is DENIED; JMR’s Motion for Stay is GRANTED; the proceedings against JMR are stayed until the Federal Claims Court issues a final decision in JMR Construction v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-187 and instructed JMR to file status reports every three months. 16 17 18 19 20 Exactly 14 days after receiving Judge Du’s written Order denying GAIC’s Motion to Stay, 21 on July 30, 2012, Choice and GAIC submitted a Stipulation to Extend, which was DENIED for 22 lack of sufficient explanation justifying the additional time requested. The purpose of this Joint 23 Motion is to identify the legal and factual basis for Choice’s and GAIC’s request to extend the 24 discovery deadlines in the Action. 25 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 26 LR 26-4 allows the Court to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, 27 or other order when the request to do so is supported by good cause. Along with the requisite 28 showing of good cause, a motion to extend discovery must include the following: “(a) A -3- Case 2:12-cv-00192-MMD -PAL Document 38 Filed 08/08/12 Page 4 of 7 1 statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) A specific description of the discovery that 2 remains to be completed; (c) The reasons why discovery remaining was not completed within the 3 time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining 4 discovery.” LR 26-4. In this Case, good cause exists for an extension of the current discovery deadlines. JMR’s 6 Motion for Stay was filed shortly after removing this matter from the Eighth Judicial District 7 Court to this Court. While JMR’s Motion for stay was filed on April 30, 2012, as a result of the 8 Case being transferred to Judge Du, several months past before the Court actually heard and 9 decided JMR’s Motion. In an effort to minimize costs, the parties refrained from conducting 10 discovery during the pendency of the Motion. JMR’s Motion to Stay was decided on July 16, 11 PEEL, BRIMLEY LLP 3333 E. SERENE AVE.,STE 200 HENDERSON, NEVADA 89074 5 2012, three months after it was initially filed, and only a month before the August 20, 2012 12 discovery deadline. 13 Furthermore, although LR 26-4 requires that motions or stipulations to extend discovery 14 be submitted “no later than twenty (20) days before the discovery cut-off date or any extension 15 thereof,” in this case, the Court ordered that “the parties may submit a request for extension of the 16 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order deadlines within fourteen days of the district judge’s 17 decision” on JMR’s motion to stay. The parties submitted their stipulation to extend discovery 18 deadlines within those 14 days and has acted diligently in providing the court with the additional 19 information required under LR 26-4 through this current motion. See Johnson v. Mammoth 20 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (The good cause standard [in modifying a 21 scheduling order] primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.) 22 Based on the foregoing, good cause exists for an extension of the current discovery 23 deadlines. 24 A. 25 Pursuant to LR 26-4, the parties submit the following statements regarding the current 26 REQUIREMENTS OF LR 26-4 status of Discovery. 27 1. 28 As a result of the Motion to Stay, the Parties have conducted no discovery in this matter. Discovery Completed. To date, the following discovery has been completed: -4- Case 2:12-cv-00192-MMD -PAL Document 38 Filed 08/08/12 Page 5 of 7 1 2. 2 All discovery remains to be completed. 3 3. 4 As previously mentioned, given the time that transpired between JMR filing its Motion to 5 Stay, and this Court rendering its decision, the parties did not engage in discovery in an effort to 6 minimize costs in the event the Court granted the Motion in its entirety. 7 8 4. Remaining Discovery. The following discovery remains to be completed; Reasons the Above Discovery is Remaining. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery. The Parties have stipulated and agreed to the Discovery Schedule below: a. 10 March 20, 2013. 11 PEEL, BRIMLEY LLP 3333 E. SERENE AVE.,STE 200 HENDERSON, NEVADA 89074 9 b. Discovery in the above captioned case shall be completed on or before Any and all pleadings and/or motions brought under the following rules 12 shall be filed on or before December 20, 2012. 13 (1) Fed R. Civ.P. 13 regarding counterclaims and cross-claims. 14 (2) Fed R. Civ.P. 14 regarding third-party actions. 15 (3) Fed R. Civ.P. 15 regarding amended and supplemental pleadings. 16 (4) Fed. R. Civ.P. 19 & 20 regarding joinder of additional parties. 17 18 c. Disclosures pursuant to Fed R. Civ.P. 26(a)(2) shall be made on or before January 16, 2012 and rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made on or before February 15, 2013. 19 d. The parties shall file an Interim Status Report On or before January 21, 20 2013 as required by LR 26-3, stating the times estimated for trial, three alternative dates for trial, 21 and whether or not trial will be proceeding or affected by substantive motions. 22 e. 23 2013. 24 III. Dispositive motions in this matter shall be filed on or before April 17, 25 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Choice and GAIC respectfully request the Court extend 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -5- Case 2:12-cv-00192-MMD -PAL Document 38 1 Filed 08/08/12 Page 6 of 7 the current discovery deadlines to the proposed dates. 2 DATED this 8th day of August, 2012. DATED this 8th day of August, 2012. 4 PEEL BRIMLEY LLP THE FAUX LAW GROUP 5 /s/Cary B. Domina Michael W. Brimley, Esq. (#3684) Cary B. Domina, Esq. (#10567) 3333 E. Serene Avenue, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89074 Attorneys for Choice Construction, Inc. /s/Leland K. Faux Kurt C. Faux, Esq. Leland K. Faux, Esq. 1540 W. Warm Springs Rd., #100 Henderson, NV 89014 Attorneys for Great American Insurance Company 3 6 7 8 9 10 PEEL, BRIMLEY LLP 3333 E. SERENE AVE.,STE 200 HENDERSON, NEVADA 89074 11 12 13 IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Discovery (Dkt. #38) is GRANTED. The proposed discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines set forth in the Joint Motion are APPROVED. Dated this 9th day of August, 2012. 14 15 16 17 18 19 ____________________________________ PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- Case 2:12-cv-00192-MMD -PAL Document 38 1 Filed 08/08/12 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 4 5 Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of PEEL BRIMLEY LLP and that on this 8th day of August, 2012, I caused the above and foregoing document entitled JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY to be served as follows: by placing same to be deposited for mailing in the United States Mail, in a sealed envelope upon which first class postage was prepaid in Las Vegas, Nevada; and/or 6 7 X the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system; 8 9 10 PEEL, BRIMLEY LLP 3333 E. SERENE AVE.,STE 200 HENDERSON, NEVADA 89074 11 12 13 to the party(ies) and/or attorney(s) listed below at the address and/or facsimile number indicated below: Kurt C. Faux, Esq. Leland K. Faux, Esq. THE FAUX LAW GROUP 1540 W. Warm Springs Rd., #100 Henderson, NV 89014 Attorneys for Great American Insurance Company 14 15 16 17 18 19 K.A.Gentile______________ An Employee of Peel Brimley LLP 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
