Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Post Rainbow, LLC et al

Filing 57

ORDER that the Court DISCHARGES the 54 Order to Show Cause, but ORDERS the parties to file a notice of related cases, no later than April 8, 2013, in this case and in 2:11-cv-01776-JCM-GWF and 2:11-cv-01819-KJD-VCF. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/3/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST CO.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
POST RAINBOW, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01820-GMN-NJK
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE (Docket No. 54)
AND REQUIRING THE FILING OF
NOTICES OF RELATED CASES

Currently before the Court is an order to show cause, Docket No. 54, and the parties’

17

responses thereto, Docket Nos. 55, 56. For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby

18

DISCHARGES the order to show cause. The parties are further ORDERED to file a notice of

19

related cases, no later than April 8, 2013.

20

On March 22, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation to extend discovery, which states that

21

“[t]here are currently two other cases pending before this Court involving the same parties, same

22

claims for relief, and identical legal issues: BB&T v. Ford Duneville, LLC, Case 2:11-cv-01776-

23

JCM-GWF (the ‘Ford Duneville Case’) and BB&T v. The Borsack Group, Inc., Case 2:11-cv-

24

01819-KJD-VCF (the ‘Borsack Group Case’).” See, e.g., Docket No. 53 at 4. The parties further

25

indicate that they have taken depositions simultaneously for all three cases and would like all three

26

cases to have the same deadlines “in the interests of efficiency and economy.” Id. at 4, 5.

27
28

The Local Rules require that any “[c]ounsel who has reason to believe that an action on file
or about to be filed is related to another action on file (whether active or terminated) shall file in

1

each action and serve on all parties in each action a notice of related cases.” Local Rule 7-2.1

2

(emphasis added). Despite the parties’ statement in their recent stipulation, a notice of related cases

3

has not been filed.

4

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause challenges whether the cases are related for

5

purposes of the Local Rules. See Docket No. 56 at 3.1 But Plaintiff also notes that there is

6

commonality in the cases related to the defenses raised based on its acquisition of loans from the

7

FDIC. See id. at 4. According to Plaintiff, this commonality necessitated streamlining discovery

8

since “the deponents and documents connected to these FDIC-related defenses were the same for all

9

three cases.” Id. As such, the parties had “reason to believe” that grounds may exist to find the

10

cases related, at the very least, under Local Rule 7-2.1(c) (actions involving similar questions of fact

11

exist, as well as the same question of law) or Local Rule 7-2.1(d) (not having cases related would

12

entail substantial duplication of labor if assigned to different district judges or magistrate judges).

13

Indeed, the renewed stipulation for an extension of discovery deadlines indicates that the same

14

discovery motions were filed in three different cases, requiring review by three different Magistrate

15

Judges. See Docket No. 53 at 4-5.

16

For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby DISCHARGES the order to show cause,

17

but ORDERS the parties to file a notice of related cases, no later than April 8, 2013, in this and the

18

two cases identified above.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: April 3, 2013

21
22

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Concurrently herewith the Court is issuing a second order to show cause in light of the
contradictory statements made in the stipulation and in Plaintiff’s response to the original order to show
cause.
The Court defers ruling on the renewed motion to extend time regarding discovery at this time.
2