Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 148

ORDER granting 142 Motion to Stay Discovery. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days of the court's ruling on Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment in the event any of the parties' claims survive. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BOURNE VALLEY COURT TRUST,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:13-cv-00649-JCM-GWF

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

12

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)’s

13

Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 142), filed on May 4, 2018. Plaintiff Bourne Valley Court

14

Trust filed its Opposition (ECF No. 143) on May 18, 2018 and Defendant Wells Fargo filed its

15

Reply (ECF No. 147) on June 1, 2018.

16

This matter arises from claims for quiet title and declaratory relief as it relates to non-

17

judicial foreclosure of real property located in North Las Vegas, Nevada. Defendant Wells Fargo

18

requests a stay of discovery pending a decision on its motion for summary judgment. Defendant

19

argues that Freddie Mac’s deed of trust could not have been extinguished as the Federal

20

Foreclosure Bar preempts the Nevada HOA foreclosure statute and that the Ninth Circuit has held

21

that a Freddie Mac protected property interest survives an HOA sale when a servicer or nominee

22

acting on behalf of Plaintiff appears as record deed of trust beneficiary. See Motion to Stay (ECF

23

No. 142), 2. See also Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2017); Elmer v. JPMorgan

24

Chase & Co., 707 F. App’x 426 (9th Cir. 2017); Saticoy Bay, LLC v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 699 F.

25

App’x 658 (9th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff argues that it did not file a motion for summary judgment

26

prior to discovery, unlike the Plaintiff purchaser in Berozovsky, and that it should be able to

27

conduct discovery regarding the property interest and sufficiency of business records of Defendant

28

Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac. See Opposition (ECF No. 143), 4-10.
1

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of

2

discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. See Skellerup Indus. Ltd. V. City of

3

L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598, 600-1 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Ordinarily, a dispositive motion does not warrant

4

a stay of discovery. See Twin City Fire Insurance v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653

5

(D. Nev. 1989). See also Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554,

6

556 (D. Nev. 1997). The moving party carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing of

7

why discovery should be denied. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev.

8

2013).

9

Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle,

10

863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). When deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court

11

is guided by the objectives of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 1 that ensures a “just, speedy, and inexpensive

12

determination of every action.” Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581. The Court may grant a

13

motion to stay discovery when “(1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the

14

potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has

15

taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that

16

the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581.

17

After conducting its “preliminary peek” of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the

18

Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted. First, the pending motion for summary judgment,

19

if granted, may resolve the primary issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Second, although

20

Plaintiff argues that there are factual issues remaining regarding Defendant’s property interest, the

21

Court finds that the motion for summary judgment can be decided without additional discovery.

22

Defendant submitted business records and a sworn declaration of an employee of Freddie Mac

23

confirming the date of its acquisition and interest in the subject loan at the time of the HOA sale.

24

The remaining issues are questions of law regarding the court’s interpretation of the federal

25

foreclosure bar and its preemptive effect on Nevada law. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Terraces at

26

Rose Lake Homeowners Ass'n, 2017 WL 7037740, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2017). Finally, the

27

...

28

...
2

1

Court is convinced that a stay of discovery is warranted based upon the merits of Defendant’s

2

motion for summary judgment. Accordingly,

3
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)’s
Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 142) is granted.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan and

6

scheduling order within 14 days of the court’s ruling on Defendant’s pending motion for summary

7

judgment in the event any of the parties’ claims survive.

8

Dated this 17th day of July, 2018.

9
10
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3