Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2:2:17-cv-01504-RFB-CWH. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180327i10
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . On April 21, 2017, this Court certified a question of law regarding NRS 116's notice requirement to the Nevada Supreme Court in Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Star Hill Homeowners Ass'n , Case No. 2:16-cv-02561-RFB-PAL, ECF No. 41. The Court finds that the outcome of that decision will impact the pending motions in this case. For reasons of judicial economy and to avoid inconsistent decisions or partial decisions on some but not all issues, the Cour
Summary: ORDER RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . On April 21, 2017, this Court certified a question of law regarding NRS 116's notice requirement to the Nevada Supreme Court in Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Star Hill Homeowners Ass'n , Case No. 2:16-cv-02561-RFB-PAL, ECF No. 41. The Court finds that the outcome of that decision will impact the pending motions in this case. For reasons of judicial economy and to avoid inconsistent decisions or partial decisions on some but not all issues, the Court..
More
ORDER
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.
On April 21, 2017, this Court certified a question of law regarding NRS 116's notice requirement to the Nevada Supreme Court in Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Star Hill Homeowners Ass'n, Case No. 2:16-cv-02561-RFB-PAL, ECF No. 41. The Court finds that the outcome of that decision will impact the pending motions in this case. For reasons of judicial economy and to avoid inconsistent decisions or partial decisions on some but not all issues, the Court will not consider any further motions until the parties have had the opportunity to receive and address the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion on this issue.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is hereby STAYED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC., Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. ECF No. 24. The moving party shall have 21 days from the date of the Nevada Supreme Court's decision on the certified question to file a modified Motion to Dismiss or to file a notice renewing the previously filed motion. The opposing party shall have 21 days to respond. The moving party shall have 14 days to reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are DENIED without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
