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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?