Daisy Trust v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA et al

Filing 78

ORDER approving ECF No. 77 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 10/31/2016, Motions due by 11/30/2016, Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/6/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 09/02/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1 Abran E. Vigil, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 7548
2 Sylvia O. Semper, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12863
3 Joseph P. Sakai
Nevada Bar No. 13578
4 BALLARD SPAHR LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750
5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
7 [e-mail]
8 Attorneys for JPMorgan Chase
9

Bank, N.A.

Ballard Spahr LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4617

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14
15

DAISY TRUST,
Plaintiff,
vs.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; MTC
16 FINANCIAL, INC., dba TRUSTEE
CORPS; and CLAIRE ALI,
17
Defendants.
18

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00966-RCJ-VCF
STIPULATED MOTION TO AMEND
SCHEDULING ORDER
(FOURTH REQUEST)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-4, Plaintiff

19

20 Daisy Trust (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”)
21 (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record,
22 hereby stipulate to amend the Scheduling Order entered on July 14, 2016 [ECF No.
23 69].
24

The Parties have previously exchanged documents in this matter and

25 responded to written discovery requests. The Parties seek to extend by sixty (60)
26 days all remaining discovery and scheduling dates that have not yet passed to
27 ensure available time to pursue necessary discovery, including party and non-party
28 depositions.
DMWEST #14370658 v2

1

Although the deadline to request an extension of the discovery has passed

2 (current close of discovery is August 30, 2016), Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
3 Civil Procedure provides that the Court may, for good cause, extend the time if the
4 party failed to act because of excusable neglect. “To determine whether a party’s
5 failure to meet a deadline constitutes ‘excusable neglect,’ courts must apply a four6 factor equitable test, examining: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party;
7 (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the
8 reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Ahanchian v.
9 Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Here,

Ballard Spahr LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4617

10 all four factors weigh in favor of granting a sixty (60) day extension.
11

The amendment to the current scheduling order is necessary in order to

12 allow sufficient time for the court to issue a ruling on Plaintiff’s objection to, and
13 motion for reconsideration of, Magistrate Ferenbach’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s
14 Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 75]. In addition, despite repeated efforts to
15 notice the depositions of El Capitan Ranch Landscape Maintenance Association and
16 Alessi & Koenig, there have been several last minute scheduling conflicts and
17 cancellations requiring these depositions to be re-noticed as well. The cancellations
18 and rescheduling of the deposition of El Capitan Ranch were a result of not
19 receiving documents responsive to the subpoena duces tecum. The scheduling
20 conflicts were a result of Alessi & Koenig’s increasingly crowded calendar of 30(b)(6)
21 depositions for similar Nevada HOA Lien matters in which Alessi & Koenig served
22 as the agent for the homeowners association. The Parties are currently working
23 with both Alessi & Koenig and El Capitan Ranch to determine mutually agreeable
24 dates on which Chase may take these depositions.
25

Further, the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinions in Weeping Hollow Avenue Trust

26 v. Spencer, et al., __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. 2016) and Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells
27 Fargo Bank, N.A., __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. 2016), have made additional motion practice
28 in this action necessary. That motion practice may have an effect on the upcoming
2
DMWEST #14370658 v2

1 depositions, as well as the ability of this Court to further hear this matter. It
2 necessarily follows that these motions must be fully briefed and decided prior to the
3 taking of deposition testimony.
4
5
6
7
8
9

Ballard Spahr LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4617

10
11
12

(remainder of page intentionally left blank)

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

3
DMWEST #14370658 v2

1

Neither party will be prejudiced by the brief extension to discovery.

2 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate and jointly request that the Court enter a
3 Second Amended Scheduling Order modifying the current Scheduling Order to
4 establish the following deadlines:
5

6.

a.

6
7

9.

Ballard Spahr LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4617

10

11.

October 31, 2016

Dispositive Motions
a.

8
9

Discovery Cut-Off Date

November 30, 2016

Joint Pretrial Order
a.

January 6, 2016

11 The Parties make this request in good faith and not for the purposes of delay.
12
13
14

Dated: September 1, 2016
BALLARD SPAHR LLP

LAW OFFICES
LTD.

15 By: __ /s/ Sylvia Semper_______
Abran E. Vigil
16
Nevada Bar No. 7548
Sylvia O. Semper
17
Nevada Bar No. 12863
Joseph P. Sakai
18
Nevada Bar No. 13578
100 N. City Parkway, Suite 1750
19
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
20
21

By: __/s/ Michael Bohn_____
Michael F. Bohn, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 1641
376 East Warm Springs Road
Suite 140
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

Attorney for Daisy Trust

ORDER

23
25

MICHAEL F. BOHN, ESQ.

Attorneys for Intervenor JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A.

22
24

OF

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

DATED:
4
DMWEST #14370658 v2

9-2-2016