Federal National Mortgage Association v. Canyon Willow Owners Association et al

Filing 24

ORDER Denying without prejudice 23 Stipulation to Stay Discovery and Litigation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 02/11/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CANYON WILLOW OWNERS
)
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01328-APG-CWH
ORDER

13
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order to Stay
14
Discovery and Litigation (#23), filed on January 16, 2014. The parties seek to stay discovery and
15
this entire action based on pending cases on appeal at the Supreme Court of Nevada regarding a
16
HOA lien foreclosure issue. They assert that any dispositive ruling in this case would lead to an
17
appeal and seek to stay for at least 120 days, when they would provide a status report.
18
A court has broad discretionary power to control its docket, which extends to the issuance
19
of a stay. See e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power to stay is
20
“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on
21
its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. In
22
exercising its discretion, the court must consider factors like, “wise judicial administration, giving
23
regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Colorado
24
River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). An overly lenient standard
25
for granting a motion to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Moreover, a court
26
should not grant a stay absent a showing of hardship if “there is even a fair possibility that the stay .
27
. . will work damage to someone else.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators
28
Insurance Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the court must balance the

1

competing interests affected by a stay such as, the “hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in

2

being required to go forward.” Lockyer v. State of California, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

3

Here, the Court finds that a stay is not warranted. The parties have failed to file any points

4

and authority in support of their request for a stay as required by Local Rule 7-2. Further, the

5

parties have failed to cite to any cases that have been stayed in this Court due to the pending HOA

6

issue that is on appeal in the Supreme Court of Nevada. In addition, the Court finds that a stay is

7

not warranted as it would delay the efficient resolution of this case and unnecessarily disrupt the

8

Court’s schedule. Accordingly, the Court finds that a stay of discovery and of the entire action is

9

not warranted at this time.

10

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order to Stay

12
13

Discovery and Litigation (#23) is denied without prejudice.
DATED this 11th day of February, 2014.

14
15

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2