Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. SFR Investments Pool I, LLC et al

Filing 67

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay in this action is lifted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that stipulations, motions to modify the discovery plan and scheduling order, or in the absence of such stipulations or motions, dispositive motions are due within forty-five (45) days after the entry of this order. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 10/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee,

Case No. 2:15-cv-00218-KJD-NJK

8
9
10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL I, LLC, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

I. Background and Analysis

14

This case emerges from the non-judicial foreclosure sale by Defendant White Horse

15

Estates Homeowners Association on or about November 1, 2013 of the property located at 6353

16

Ebony Legends Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89131 (“the Property”). This case shares a similar

17

fact pattern with many cases currently pending before this Court, all having to do with HOA

18

foreclosure sales. One of the issues before the Court centers in whole or in part around the

19

question of what notice of default the foreclosing party was required to provide Plaintiff prior to

20

its foreclosure sale on the Property. After the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in SFR Invs.

21

Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, the Ninth Circuit decided Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo

22

Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding NRS 115.3116(2)’s statutory notice

23

scheme was facially unconstitutional).

24

On April 21, 2017, in Bank of New York Mellon v. Star Hills Homeowners Ass’n, this

25

Court certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court: “Whether NRS §

26

116.31168(1)’s incorporation of NRS § 107.090 requires homeowners associations to provide

27

notices of default to banks even when a bank does not request notice?” Bank of New York

28

Mellon v. Star Hill Homeowners Ass’n, 2017 WL 1439671, at *5 (D. Nev. April 21, 2017).

In granting certification, the Court reasoned the following: In Bourne Valley, the Ninth

1
2

Circuit definitively answered the question that the statute’s “opt-in” framework was

3

unconstitutional. Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th

4

Cir. 2016). However, that left the Court with the unresolved question of what notice must be

5

provided. “It is solely within the province of the state courts to authoritatively construe state

6

legislation.” Cal. Teachers Ass’n v. State Bd. of Educ., 271 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). As

7

such, state law questions of first impression like this one should be resolved by the state’s

8

highest court. See Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U.S. 232, 237 (1944).
On August 2, 2018, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question. See

9
10

SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018). Further, it has

11

since issued two new opinions that bear on the issues in this action. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

12

v. Tim Radecki, 2018 WL 4402403 (Nev. September 13, 2018); Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR

13

Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 2018 WL 4403296 (Nev. September 13, 2018) (tender of the superpriority

14

amount prior to foreclosure results in buyer taking property subject to deed of trust).

15

A. Stay of the Case

16

A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the

17

efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S., 248, 254-55 (1936);

18

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 200). A

19

stay is no longer necessary in this action where the certified question has already been decided.

20

B. Briefing Schedule

21

The parties may either file a stipulation or move the Court for a modified discovery plan

22

and scheduling order as necessary. If the parties fail to do so, dispositive motions are due no later

23

than forty-five (45) days after the entry of this order. Any future dispositive motions must

24

address the most recent case law applicable to the issues in this action.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

II. Conclusion

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay in this action is lifted;

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that stipulations, motions to modify the discovery plan and

4

scheduling order, or in the absence of such stipulations or motions, dispositive motions are due

5

within forty-five (45) days after the entry of this order.

6

Dated this 22nd day of October, 2018.

7
8
9
10

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-