Platinum Realty and Holdings, LLC v. Lee et al

Filing 100

ORDER. This case is administratively STAYED pending exhaustion of all appeals. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED without prejudice with leave to refile within twenty-one days after the stay is lifted. Status Report beginnin g 2/27/2017. The parties must file a joint status report updating the Court on the status of this case every one-hundred and eighty days. (See Order for further details.) Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/27/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 4 5 PLATINUM REALTY AND HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff vs. 6 7 8 RANDALL M. LEE, et al., Defendants. 9 10 11 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Counterclaimant, vs. 12 13 14 PLATINUM REALTY AND HOLDINGS, LLC, Counter-Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. SILVERADO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Third-Party Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:13-cv-00535-GMN-NJK ORDER 22 23 Lenders and investors have been at odds over the legal effect of a homeowners’ 24 association’s (“HOA”) nonjudicial foreclosure of a superpriority lien on a lender’s first trust 25 deed pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes § 116.3116. See Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Las Vegas Page 1 of 4 1 Dev. Grp., LLC, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1180 (D. Nev. 2015). The Nevada Supreme Court 2 seemed to have settled the debate in SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, 334 P.3d 408, 419 3 (Nev. 2014), holding that “NRS 116.3116(2) gives an HOA a true superpriority lien, proper 4 foreclosure of which will extinguish a first deed of trust.” SFR, 334 P.3d at 419. However, on August 12, 2016, two members of a Ninth Circuit panel held in Bourne 5 6 Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank that Chapter 116’s nonjudicial foreclosure scheme 7 “facially violated mortgage lenders’ constitutional due process rights” before it was amended in 8 2015. Bourne Valley Ct. Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2016 WL 4254983, at *5 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 9 2016). As a result, Bourne Valley is likely dispositive of this and the hundreds of other 10 foreclosure cases pending in both state and federal court. To save the parties from the need to 11 invest resources briefing the effect of the Bourne Valley opinion before the finality of that 12 opinion has been determined, the Court STAYS all proceedings in this case pending exhaustion 13 of all appeals of Bourne Valley. 14 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 16 control the disposition of the causes of action on its docket with economy of time and effort for 17 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “A trial 18 court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the 19 parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings 20 which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 21 1979). In deciding whether to grant a stay, a court may weigh the following: (1) the possible 22 damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party 23 may suffer in being required to go forward; (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms 24 of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 25 expected to result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Page 2 of 4 1 However, “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant in one case be compelled to stand aside 2 while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Landis, 299 3 U.S. at 255. A district court’s decision to grant or deny a Landis stay is a matter of discretion. 4 See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 5 2007). 6 7 II. DISCUSSION At the center of this case are the HOA-foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to Nevada 8 Revised Statutes § 116.3116 and the competing arguments that the foreclosure sale either 9 extinguished the bank’s security interest under the SFR holding or had no legal effect because 10 the statutory scheme violates due process. Because the Ninth Circuit in Bourne Valley held that 11 the scheme was facially unconstitutional, see Bourne Valley, 2016 WL 4254983, at *5, the 12 Bourne Valley opinion and any modification of that opinion have the potential to be dispositive 13 of this case. Under this circumstance, the Landis factors weigh strongly in favor of staying this 14 action pending final resolution of the Bourne Valley decision. Indeed, the possible prejudice to 15 the parties is minimal as the only potential harm is that the parties may wait longer for 16 resolution of this case if it is stayed. However, if this case is not stayed, a delay would also 17 result from any motions for reconsideration that may be necessitated if the current decision in 18 the Bourne Valley case does not stand. Accordingly, a stay is not likely to appreciably lengthen 19 the life of this case. Further, in the absence of a stay, judicial resources may be unnecessarily 20 expended to resolve issues which may ultimately be decided by higher courts to which this 21 Court is bound to adhere. Because the Bourne Valley decision is squarely on point, the orderly 22 course of justice likewise weighs in favor of a stay. Accordingly, the Court finds that staying 23 this action pending final resolution of Bourne Valley would be efficient for the Court’s own 24 docket and the fairest course for the parties. See Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863. 25 Page 3 of 4 1 2 III. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is administratively STAYED pending 3 exhaustion of all appeals of Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 15-15233 (9th 4 Cir. Aug. 12, 2016). Once exhaustion occurs, any party may move to lift the stay. Until that 5 time, all proceedings in this action are stayed. 6 7 8 9 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED without prejudice with leave to refile within twenty-one days after the stay is lifted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Platinum Realty and Holdings, LLC (“Platinum Realty”) shall care for, preserve, and maintain the Property. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, beginning on February 27, 2017, the parties must 11 file a joint status report updating the Court on the status of this case every one-hundred and 12 eighty days. Along with the joint status report, Platinum Realty shall submit a statement 13 affirming that all expenses necessary to maintain the property, including but not limited to, 14 timely and full payment of all homeowners association assessments, property taxes, and 15 property insurance premiums due and owing or past due at any time during the effective period 16 of this Stay are current and up to date. 17 18 27 DATED this _____ day of August, 2016. 19 20 21 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 Page 4 of 4

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?