My Home Now, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.
Filing
84
ORDER STAYING CASE - This case is administratively STAYED. Once all appeals are exhausted and the mandate has issued in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, case number 15-15233 (2:13-cv-649-PMP-NJK), any party may move to lift t he stay. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED without prejudice to their refiling within 20 days after the stay is lifted. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 11/22/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
5
Case No.: 2:14-cv-01957-RFB-CWH
MY HOME NOW, LLC a Nevada limited
liability company,
ORDER
STAYING CASE
6
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
10
11
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Successor by
Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP,
f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP,
a National Banking Corporation and DOES I
through X, inclusive; ROE ENTITIES XI
through XX, inclusive,
Defendants.
12
13
I.
Introduction
14
On August 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Bourne Valley Court Trust v.
15
Wells Fargo Bank, 2016 WL 4254983 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016). In this decision, the Ninth Circuit
16
declared
17
unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution. The Ninth Circuit
18
has declined a rehearing en banc, and Appellees have indicated that they will seek certiorari at the
19
United States Supreme Court.
Nevada’s
nonjudicial
statutory
foreclosure
framework
under
Chapter
116
20
The ultimate resolution of this issue may have a dispositive effect upon this litigation, since
21
a due process challenge has been raised in this litigation. To avoid potentially unnecessary further
22
litigation, this Court stays this case pending the exhaustion of all appeals in Bourne. This Court
23
further denies all motions without prejudice to being refiled upon a lifting of the stay in this case.
24
25
- 1 -
1
II.
Discussion
2
A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the
3
efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936).
4
When determining whether a stay is appropriate pending the resolution of another case, the district
5
court must consider: (1) the possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any hardship or
6
inequity that a party may suffer if required to go forward, (3) and the orderly course of justice
7
measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law that a
8
stay will engender. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066
9
(9th Cir. 2007)(citations omitted). Considering these factors in the context of this case, the Court
10
finds that a stay is appropriate.
11
A.
Damage From A Stay
12
The Court finds there is minimal, if any, damage from a stay in this case. While there is a
13
potential damage in terms of the length of time to resolve this case should the Bourne panel’s
14
decision be upheld, the significance or severity of this damage is negated by the fact that there
15
almost certainly would have been a full appellate process even if the decision had reached the
16
opposite result. This is to say that the appellate process would have had run its course for either
17
side to have the finality it seeks to have clear or encumbered title to the respective property
18
involved.
19
B.
20
The Court finds that there is no significant hardship or inequity that befalls one party more
21
than the other. This relatively equal balance of equities results from the need, as noted above, for
22
both parties to have finality in the appellate process in order to claim their title or interest in the
23
respective property.
Hardship Or Inequity
24
25
- 2 -
1
The Court also finds that there would an equal hardship on both parties in terms of resources
2
expended if the Court did not stay this litigation. This hardship would arise from the various
3
motions and supporting briefs the parties would file to preserve their respective legal positions
4
regarding the ultimate decision in Bourne. By staying this case, the Court prevents this hardship
5
or expenditure for both parties.
6
C.
Orderly Course of Justice
7
The Court finds that a stay would substantially promote the orderly course of justice in this
8
case. The stay and the temporary denial of motions without prejudice will avoid the likely deluge
9
of the various motions related to the precedent established (or not) by the split panel’s decision
10
Bourne. Upon exhaustion of all appeals and an issuance of the mandate in Bourne, this Court will
11
be in a position to completely and finally resolve the constitutional issues related to Bourne in this
12
case. This will streamline and simply the proceedings and minimize the unnecessary expenditure
13
of the parties’ and the Court’s time and resources.
14
Additionally, the stay will last no longer than it takes for the mandate to issue in Bourne. In
15
this way, the stay will be as short as it can be and still provide finality on the particular
16
constitutional issues. Granted this may not necessarily be a short period of time. However, as
17
noted previously, the parties would likely have had to wait this same time for finality in any event.
18
III.
Conclusion
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is administratively STAYED. Once all
20
appeals are exhausted and the mandate has issued in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo
21
Bank, case number 15-15233 (2:13-cv-649-PMP-NJK), any party may move to lift the stay.
22
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED without prejudice to
their refiling within 20 days after the stay is lifted.
24
25
- 3 -
1
2
3
DATED this 22nd day of November, 2016.
____________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Court Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- 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?