Broxmeyer v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 56

ORDER Denying 53 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order and 54 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/9/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

BARBARA L. BROXMEYER,

9
10
11
12

2:10-CV-1997 JCM (RJJ)

Plaintiff,
v.
MOUNTAINVIEW MORTGAGE
COMPANY, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., et. al.’s

17

emergency request for a stay or expedited consideration on shortened time. (Doc. #53). This motion

18

was filed contemporaneously with a motion to reconsider magistrate judge’s order. (Doc. #53).

19

On October 14, 2011, Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston held a settlement conference with

20

the parties to this case. (Doc. #50). A settlement was reached with defendant Fidelity National Title

21

Insurance Company. (Doc. #50). However, no settlement was reached with defendant American

22

Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. (“AHMSI”), allegedly because AHMSI failed to send a person with

23

authority to settle the case to the settlement conference. (Doc. #50).

24

Subsequently, on October 27, 2011, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause and

25

an order scheduling a second settlement conference. (Doc. #51). This order mandates that a duly

26

authorized representative of AHMSI appear for a settlement conference on November 14, 2011.

27

(Doc. #53).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Defendants waited almost two weeks, until November 8, 2011, to file the instant emergency

2

motion to stay or expedite consideration and motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order.

3

(Doc. #53). These motions were filed less than one week prior to the scheduled settlement

4

conference. This unexplained delay effectively prevented the court from hearing the motion on an

5

expedited schedule. If the court were to consider the motion to reconsider at all, it would be required

6

to stay the November 14, settlement conference. At this late stage, the court is not inclined to stay

7

the second scheduled settlement conference.

8

Further, defendants state that, pursuant to the magistrate judge’s order, a representative from

9

AHMSI will have to travel from California to Nevada to attend the settlement conference. (Doc.

10

#55). Accordingly, this motion to stay allegedly qualifies for the emergency relief requested. (Doc.

11

#55). The court again notes that this issue could have been resolved on an expedited basis if

12

defendants had timely filed their motion to reconsider.

13

Finally, the court does not perceive an emergency under these facts. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16;

14

G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989). If defendants

15

object to the magistrate judge’s findings or orders after the second settlement conference, they are

16

free to file a motion to reconsider with this court.

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants American

19

Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., et. al.’s emergency request for a stay or expedited consideration on

20

shortened time and emergency motion to reconsider magistrate judge’s order (docs. #53 and #54)

21

be, and the same hereby are, DENIED.

22

DATED November 9, 2011.

23
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-