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)

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