Branch Banking and Trust Company vs Jones/Windmill, LLC, et al.

Filing 45

ORDER Granting 35 Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is stayed until March 7, 2013 or until the Nevada Supreme Court rules on the relevant appeals, whichever is shorter. Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/27/2013 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 01/23/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JONES/WINDMILL, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00452-JCM-GWF
ORDER
Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Proceedings (#35)

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (#35), filed on

14

December 7, 2012. Plaintiff filed a timely Opposition (#39) on December 21, 2012. Defendants filed a

15

timely Reply (#40) on December 27, 2012.
Courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098,

16
17

1109 (9th Cir. 2005). A stay may be appropriate pending resolution of independent proceedings which

18

bear upon the case. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th cir. 1979). In

19

particular, a stay may be warranted when rulings in independent proceedings will simplify pre-trial

20

activity or questions of law. See, e.g., Minor v. FexEx, 2009 WL 1955816, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 6,

21

2009).

22

Defendants seek a stay in this case pending certain rulings from the Nevada Supreme Court.

23

Plaintiff asserts claims of deficiency, breach of guaranty, and breach of the covenant of good faith and

24

fair dealing regarding an alleged default on a promissory note. Defendants have raised numerous

25

affirmative defenses, asserting that Plaintiff’s claims are barred for failure of consideration and because

26

Plaintiff is not a proper holder in due course. See Defendant’s Answer, Doc. #22 at 6. Defendant

27

argues the issues in this case are largely matters of Nevada state law and are inextricably related to

28

appeals pending before the Nevada Supreme Court.

The relevant appeals1 address conflicting Nevada state trial court rulings regarding recently-

1
2

enacted Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 40.459(1)(c) and 40.459(2) (“Statutes”). The Statutes

3

govern aspects of acquiring the rights to obtain judgments on, among other things, deeds of trust. NRS

4

40.459(1)(c), for example, addresses adequate consideration for acquiring the rights to obtain

5

judgments. Nevada state trial courts have reached varying conclusions regarding the Statutes’ scope

6

and retroactivity. The Court finds that the Nevada Supreme Court’s resolution of the Statutes’ ambit

7

will simplify the proceedings and legal questions in this case. Therefore, a stay in this case pending the

8

Nevada Supreme Court’s rulings on the relevant appeals is warranted. Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (#35) is granted.

10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is stayed until March 7, 2013 or until the Nevada
Supreme Court rules on the relevant appeals, whichever is shorter.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall conduct a telephonic status conference for

13

this case on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. The parties are instructed to call telephone

14

number: [phone], password 123456, five (5) minutes prior to the hearing time. Please remain

15

on the line until such time as the Court joins the call and convenes the proceedings. The use of a cell

16

phone or speaker phone during the call is prohibited. The call must be made using a land line.

17

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2013.

18
19

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Sandpointe Atp.’s LLC v. Dist. Ct., NV S.Ct. No. 59507; Branch Banking and Trust Co. v.
Nielsen, NV S.Ct. Nos. 60256, 59823, 61092; Lavi v. Dist. Ct., NV S.Ct. No. 58968.
2