Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association v. D.R. Horton, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/26/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 8 AZURE MANOR/RANCHO DE PAZ HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ORDER Plaintiff(s), 9 v. 10 11 Case No. 2:14-CV-2222 JCM (NJK) D.R. HORTON, INC., Defendant(s). 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge Presently before the court is plaintiff Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association’s motion for “a declaratory judgment that allows formal litigation to proceed against defendant D.R. H[orton], I[nc].” (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff submitted an identical document (ECF No. 20) as a motion to lift stay—presumably because the document requested two forms of relief— to which defendant submitted a response (ECF No. 23). Thereafter, plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 24). “On March 15, 2016, [this court] stayed this case pending the completion of all [Nevada Revised Statutes (“] NRS [”)] Chapter 40 pre-litigation requirements.” (ECF No. 25 at 1) (citing (ECF No. 19)) (denying the aforementioned motion to lift the stay). This court is also cognizant of defendant’s July 6, 2017, motion to dismiss, which argues that plaintiff has not complied with NRS 40.680. (ECF No. 28). Thus, this court will deny the instant motion because it is either moot, as Magistrate Judge Koppe denied the motion to lift the stay (ECF No. 25), or not yet ripe because there is a question of whether the terms of this court’s original order staying the case have been satisfied See (ECF No. 28); see also Pub. Utilities Comm’n of State of Cal. v. F.E.R.C., 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1 1996) (discussing the mootness doctrine); Lee v. Clark Cty. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 145 F. Supp. 2 2d 1185, 1187 (D. Nev. 2001) (“Ripeness generally requires that there be a hardship to the parties 3 in failing to adjudicate the matter and that the issues are fit for judicial review.” (emphasis added)). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for 6 7 8 9 declaratory judgment (ECF No. 21) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. DATED July 26, 2017. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

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?