Filed: Oct. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE CERTIFIED QUESTION TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon tka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-4CB, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4CB and cross-defendant, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for BRS Citizens, N.A. (BNYM), and defendants SFR
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE CERTIFIED QUESTION TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon tka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-4CB, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4CB and cross-defendant, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for BRS Citizens, N.A. (BNYM), and defendants SFR ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE CERTIFIED QUESTION TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.
Plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon tka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-4CB, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4CB and cross-defendant, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for BRS Citizens, N.A. (BNYM), and defendants SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, Hampton & Hampton Collections LLC, and Silverstone Ranch Community Association, respectfully submit the following stipulation and proposed order:
1. This case arises out of a homeowner's association foreclosure, which BNYM contends did not impact its lien position.
2. On April 21, 2017 the Judge Boulware certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court:
Whether NRS § 116.31168(1)'s incorporation of NRS § 107.090 required a homeowner's association to provide notices of default and/or sale to persons or entities holding a subordinate interest even when such persons or entities did not request notice, prior to the amendments that took effect on Oct 1, 2015?
See Bank of N.Y. Mellon, etc. v. Star Hill Homeowners Assoc., et al, Case No. 2:16-cv-02561-RFB-PAL (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2017).
3. The Nevada Supreme Court accepted the certified question on June 13, 2017, setting forth a briefing schedule. See SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, et al v. Bank of New York Mellon, etc., Case No. 72931 (Nev. 2017). Briefing is in progress. In order to avoid discovery and dispositive
4. Judge Boulware has indicated since stayed the above-referenced HOA litigation until that question is resolved. See 2:16-cv-02561 at ECF No. 45. Because the Nevada Supreme Court's answer to the certified question may impact the course of discovery and the claims and issues in this case, the parties similarly request a stay of this litigation.
5. "[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,254 (1936). "A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case." Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857,863 (9th Cir. 1979).
6. To determine if a stay is appropriate, the Court considers (1) damage from the stay; (2) hardship or inequity that befalls one party more than the other; and (3) the orderly course of justice. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth factors). The factors support a stay of this case.
a. Damage from Stay: Any damage from a temporary stay in this case will be minimal if balanced against the potential fees, costs, and time which would surely ensue in this matter if litigation were allowed to continue that could be rendered moot by the Nevada Supreme Court's answer to the certified question. The parties will be able to avoid the cost and expense of continued legal proceedings in light of what is unsettled law. The Court will also be relieved of expending further time and effort until the certified question is answered. A stay will benefit all parties involved.
b. Hardship or Inequity: There will be no significant hardship or inequity that befalls one party more than the other. This relatively equal balance of equities results from the need for all parties to have finality on an important issue. The parties agree that any hardship or inequity falling on any of them is outweighed by the benefits of a stay.
c. Orderly Course of Justice: At the center of this case is a homeowners' association's foreclosure sale under NRS 116. Without a stay, the parties will likely expend resources that may be unnecessary once the certified question is answered. A temporary stay would substantially promote the orderly course of justice in this case.
7. The parties agree that all proceedings in the instant case, including discovery, motion, and other litigation deadlines, are stayed pending an answer to the certified question from the Nevada Supreme Court.
8. The parties agree that reasoning set forth in this stipulation is negotiated solely in relation to the applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
9. Any party may file a written motion to lift stay at any time if either party determines it appropriate.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
