Search court records - party Cheryl Mondi, page 3

NEWTON, TIMOTHY J -VS- BR AUTOMOTIVE INC et al

Docket 2016 L 00000006, Illinois State, Kankakee County (Jan. 22, 2016)

ALBRECHT, ADRIENNE W, presiding

Case Type	L - LAW >$50,000 - LAW: DAMAGES OVER $50,000
Tags	L, Law, Damages Over
PLAINTIFF	NEWTON, TIMOTHY J
DEFENDANT	BR AUTOMOTIVE INC
DEFENDANT	FOREST RIVER INC

Cite Docket

Analyze

Search within this case
Find cases with Judge
- Albrecht Adrienne W
Find cases with Party
Find cases with Firm
- Brian G Hiatt
- Fisher Kanaris

Filed Respondent's (Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.) Supplemental Authorities Response to Appellants' Notice of Supplemental Authority. (SC)

Document ZURICH AM. INS. CO. VS. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., 86689, 23 21413 (Nev. Jul. 5, 2023)

Pursuant to NRAP 31(e), Respondent Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. (“Hilton”) respectfully submits its Response to Appellants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority dated June 30, 2023 (“Notice”).

—, 2023 WL 4138983 (June 23, 2023), which Appellants characterize as “support[ing] Insurers’ assertion that NRAP 3A(b)(6) applies to orders denying forum non conveniens motions[.

Coinbase, however, dealt with an appellant that had filed an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration by statutory right under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a).

In addressing the specific scenario before it (concerning the denial of a motion to compel arbitration; not an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens), the Coinbase court applied relevant federal precedent and held: Because the question on appeal is whether the case belongs in arbitration or instead in the district court, the entire case is essentially “involved in the appeal.” ... .

Hilton respectfully submits that this Court should adhere to longstanding principles of Nevada law and decline Appellants’ invitation to apply NRAP 3A(b)(6) to motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Find cases with Party
- Ace American Insurance Company
- Arch Specialty Insurance Company
Find cases with Firm

Filed Appellants' (Continental Casualty Company, Tokio Marine Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Et. Al.) Joinder in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal. (SC)

Document ZURICH AM. INS. CO. VS. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., 86689, 23 19546 (Nev. Jun. 20, 2023)

Joint Appellants1 hereby support, concur with, and join in the Electronically Filed Docket No. 86689 Jun 20 2023 10:04 PM Elizabeth A. Brown Clerk of Supreme Court

1 Appellants Zurich and Liberty Mutual filed an initial Notice of Appeal to this Court on May 26, 2023.

Thereafter, on June 2, 2023, the following Appellants (hereinafter collectively “Joint Appellants”), who are Co- defendants in the district court below, submitted a Joint Notice of Appeal to this Court: Arch Specialty Insurance Co., Everest Indemnity Insurance Co., Great Lakes Insurance SE., and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy Nos. BOWPN1900216 (joint),

This Court formally accepted and filed the Joint Notice of Appeal on June 13, 2023.

For the reasons set forth in the Opposition, Joint Appellants request that Respondent Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss this appeal be denied.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Find cases with Party
- Ace American Insurance Company
- Arch Specialty Insurance Company
Find cases with Firm

Filed Respondent's Reply to Response in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal. (SC)

Document ZURICH AM. INS. CO. VS. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., 86689, 23 19061 (Nev. Jun. 15, 2023)

There can be no confusing this situation with a motion for change of venue under NRS 13.050, which simply permits the transfer of a case to another Nevada county.

]” Appellants would have this Court ignore the plain language of the Rule, claiming that “[t]he mechanism of changing the place of proceedings and trial is irrelevant to appealability under NRAP 3A(b)(6).” Opp.

As an initial matter, Hilton respectfully submits the Pepper court did not “analyze” the application of NRS 13.050 to a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens for the purposes of immediate appealability under NRAP 3A(b)(6).

In any event, it appears the relevance of NRS 13.050 to the issues on appeal in Pepper was that the appellant there argued the movant failed to submit affidavits in support of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens as required under Mountain View Rec. v. Imperial Com., 129 Nev. 413, 419, 305 P.3d 881, 884 (2013).

Accordingly, there is simply no Nevada precedent permitting an immediate appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss—regardless of the basis for dismissal.1 Nothing in the Pepper decision or in the appellate papers in that case suggest otherwise.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Find cases with Party
- Ace American Insurance Company
- Arch Specialty Insurance Company
Find cases with Firm

Filed Appellants' (Zurich American Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company) Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal. (SC)

Document ZURICH AM. INS. CO. VS. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., 86689, 23 18707 (Nev. Jun. 13, 2023)

This is evidenced by the fact that none of the parties in Pepper raised NRS 13.050(2)(c), and this Court relied on it anyway.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Find cases with Party
- Ace American Insurance Company
- Arch Specialty Insurance Company
Find cases with Firm

Filed Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Jurisdictional Defect. (SC)

Document ZURICH AM. INS. CO. VS. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., 86689, 23 17886 (Nev. Jun. 6, 2023)

As this Court has previously recognized, the denial of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens does not create standing to appeal under NRAP 3(A)(b)(6).

That same day, three of the twenty-one Insurers, including Appellants, filed a declaratory judgment action against Hilton in Virginia state court.

In Estrada, the appellant had filed a motion to dismiss respondent’s complaint under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that trial was more appropriate in the Philippines.

It is correct that NRS 13.050 embodies the doctrine of forum non conveniens—in the context of determining the Nevada county in which a case should proceed.

In denying Insurers’ FNC Motion to Dismiss, the District Court exercised its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Hilton’s first-filed Nevada action against Appellants.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Find cases with Party
- Ace American Insurance Company
- Arch Specialty Insurance Company
Find cases with Firm

No. 89 STIPULATION of dismissal (Joint) by All Parties by Jefferson Heights Apartments, LLC

Document Jefferson Heights Apartments, LLC v. Lexington Insurance Company, 2:22-cv-04037, No. 89 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 22, 2024)

Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)

COMES NOW Plaintiff Jefferson Heights Apartments, LLC, by and through its undersigned attorney, and Defendant Lexington Insurance Company, by and through its undersigned attorney, and hereby jointly stipulate to the dismissal of this action, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

Cite Document

Analyze