Wilmington Trust Company v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2:16-cv-00326-RFB-PAL. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170111e62
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE (First Request) PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . WHEREAS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BEAR STEARNS ALT-A TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-1 (the "Bank") filed a Motion to Amend Complaint and Caption on September 12, 2016 [ECF No. 35]; and WHEREAS an Order regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Caption [ECF No. 35] has not yet been entered; IT IS HERE
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE (First Request) PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . WHEREAS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BEAR STEARNS ALT-A TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-1 (the "Bank") filed a Motion to Amend Complaint and Caption on September 12, 2016 [ECF No. 35]; and WHEREAS an Order regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Caption [ECF No. 35] has not yet been entered; IT IS HEREB..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE
(First Request)
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
WHEREAS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BEAR STEARNS ALT-A TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-1 (the "Bank") filed a Motion to Amend Complaint and Caption on September 12, 2016 [ECF No. 35]; and
WHEREAS an Order regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Caption [ECF No. 35] has not yet been entered;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the Bank, Counter-Defendant NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC ("Nationstar"), Counter-Defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. ("MERS") and Defendant/Counterclaimant SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC ("SFR") (collectively "the Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, to extend and stay the dispositive motions deadline in this matter. As grounds therefore, the parties state as follows:
1. Discovery in this case closed on December 12, 2016. [ECF No. 34], 3:5-7. The dispositive motions deadline is currently January 9, 2017. Id., at 3:27-28.
2. The Bank filed a Motion to Amend Complaint and Caption on September 12, 2016 ("Bank Mot.) [ECF No. 35]. No opposition has been filed and the Bank filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Caption on October 27, 2016 [ECF No. 37].
3. The Bank Mot. seeks to add Nevada Association Services, Inc. ("NAS") as a party and the proposed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint") modifies the Causes of Action against the existing parties. [ECF No. 35-1.]
4. Because the Court has not yet entered an Order regarding the Bank Mot. and, if granted, the proposed Amended Complaint, which will impact the briefing on the parties respective dispositive motions, will not be filed until after the current January 9, 2017 dispositive motion deadline, good cause exists to extend the dispositive motions deadline.
5. Additionally pending before this Court is SFR's motion to certify the question of law regarding the statutory interpretation of NRS 116.31168 to the Nevada Supreme Court. [ECF No. 38.] If this Court grants the motion to certify and the Nevada Supreme Court accepts the question, then the legal analysis for the arguments in the dispositive motion may be significantly affected.
6. This is the parties' first request for an extension and is not intended to cause any delay or prejudice to any party.
7. Accordingly, the parties stipulate and respectfully request the court stay the dispositive motions deadline to allow sufficient time for the court to rule on the pending Bank Mot. and Motion to Certify. Once the Court rules on the pending motions, within 14 days the parties will file a Joint Status Report with a new proposed plan with (1) new discovery dates based on the addition of a new party dates; (2) new dates for the dispositive motions deadline; and/or (3) proposed stay pending resolution of the certified question., if necessary, new discovery dates based on the addition of a new party, or a request for stay pending a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court.
8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the stay shall not affect the right of any party to file dispositive motions solely on the legal effect of Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016).
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
