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)

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-