Eagle SPE NV1 Inc v Southern Highlands Development Corp et al

Filing 32

ORDER Regarding Supplemental Briefing. Parties must submit their briefs by 2/13/2013. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/4/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

EAGLE SPE NV 1, INC.,

Case No. 2:12-cv-00550-MMD-PAL
Plaintiff,

10
v.

ORDER REGARDING
SUPPLEMENAL BRIEFING

11
12

SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS
DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

Defendants inform the Court that there are pending cases on appeal with the

16

Nevada Supreme Court presenting identical issues as this case. See Sandpointe

17

Apartments, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court of Nev., et al., case no. 59507; Nielson

18

v. Eighth Judicial District Court of Nev., et al., case no. 59823, Branch Banking and Trust

19

Company v. Nielson, case no. 60256; First Fin. Bank, NA v. Lane, et al., case no. 60927.

20

The issues presented in these appeals that are related to the questions in this case are:

21

I.

Did the Nevada State Legislature intend NRS § 40.459(1)(c) to apply to a

22

deficiency judgment when the successor-creditor acquired the right to

23

obtain the deficiency judgment before the statute’s effective date?

24

II.

Did the Legislature intend NRS § 40.459(1)(c) to apply to a deficiency

25

judgment when the successor-creditor acquired the right to obtain the

26

deficiency judgment before the foreclosure sale?

27
28

III.

Did the Legislature intend NRS § 40.459(1)(c) to apply to a deficiency
judgment when the successor-creditor is the Federal Deposit Insurance

1

Corporation (“FDIC”) or a successor-creditor which acquired the right to

2

obtain the deficiency from the FDIC?

3

Further, this Court stayed Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Yoel Iny, et al., 2:11-

4

cv-1777-MMD-VCF (dkt. no. 43) and Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Pebble Creek

5

Plaza Pad, 2:12-cv-01736-MMD-CWH (dkt. no. 15), because those cases raised the

6

above issues currently in front of the Nevada Supreme Court.

7

Given Defendants’ representation to the Court and the Court’s decision to stay

8

similar cases, the parties are HEREBY ORDERED to file supplemental briefing

9

regarding the following:
(1)

10

What is the state of the proceedings on the three issues addressed above
(I – III) before the Nevada Supreme Court?

11
(2)

12

Should this case be stayed in light of the foregoing discussion, and the

13

Court’s discretion to stay cases where a Nevada Supreme Court’s pending

14

decision will lend direction and clarity to the disputed matters in this case?

15

The parties must file supplemental briefs of no more than five (5) pages. The

16

parties must submit their briefs to the Court on or before Wednesday, February 13,

17

2013.

18

DATED THIS 4th day of February 2013.

19
20
21

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2