Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bank of America, N.A. v. Lake Mead Court Homeowners' Association, 2:16-cv-00504-GMN-NJK. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180309f26 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE PENDING RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [FIRST REQUEST] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff and counter-defendant Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP ( BANA ); defendant Lake Mead Court Homeowners Association; and defendant and cross-claimant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC stipulate to extend the dispositive motions deadline until sevent
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE PENDING RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[FIRST REQUEST]

Plaintiff and counter-defendant Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (BANA); defendant Lake Mead Court Homeowners Association; and defendant and cross-claimant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC stipulate to extend the dispositive motions deadline until seventy five (75) days after the Court enters an order on BANA's motion for protective order, ECF No. 70, as follows:

1. BANA filed its complaint on March 8, 2016 asserting a quiet title/declaratory judgment claim against all defendants, breach of NRS 116.1113 and wrongful foreclosure claims against Lake Mead and Alessi, and an injunction claim against SFR. (ECF No. 1.)

2. The Court entered an initial discovery plan and scheduling order on May 9, 2016, setting a November 25, 2016 dispositive motions deadline. (ECF No. 25.)

3. The Court administratively stayed this case pending exhaustion of all appeals in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Ninth Cir. Case No. 15-15233 on September 20, 2016. (ECF No. 56.) The case remained stayed until November 3, 2017. (ECF No. 63.)

4. The parties subsequently filed an amended discovery plan and scheduling order on December 5, 2017, setting a February 5, 2018 discovery cut-off and a March 7, 2018 dispositive motions deadline. (ECF No. 66.) The Court approved the amended discovery plan. (ECF No. 68.)

5. SFR noticed BANA's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on January 2, 2018. (ECF No. 70-1, at 12.) BANA initially disputed seven of the thirteen noticed topics. The parties resolved their dispute regarding four topics during their meet and confer. BANA moved for a protective order regarding the remaining three on January 24, 2018, ECF No. 70, and SFR agreed to hold BANA's deposition in abeyance pending a ruling. The parties completed the briefing on BANA's motion on February 21, 2018, ECF No. 75, and do not anticipate a ruling before the current March 8, 2018 dispositive motions deadline.

6. To allow time for the Court to rule on BANA's motion for protective order, ECF No. 70, to allow time to complete BANA's deposition after the Court makes its ruling, and to avoid additional Rule 56(d) motions, the parties stipulate to extending the dispositive motions deadline until seventy five (75) days from the date the Court enters an order on BANA's motion for protective order, ECF No. 70. The parties further stipulate SFR shall have forty five (45) days to complete BANA's deposition after the Court enters an order. The parties select these deadlines to allow sufficient time to coordinate a deposition and obtain transcripts before filing dispositive motions.

7. The parties do not file this stipulation with the intent to delay, but instead to streamline the anticipated summary judgment briefing and avoid additional Rule 56(d) motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer