Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. RLP Mercer Valley, LLC et al

Filing 52

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 51 the parties' stipulation to stay is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within 30 days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 6 7 8 CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) RLP MERCER VALLEY, LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________ ) Case No. 2:15-cv-00668-JCM-CWH ORDER 9 Presently before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay (ECF No. 51), filed on January 5, 10 2017. The parties request a stay of all litigation pending final appeals in Bourne Valley Court Trust 11 v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and Saticoy Bay v. Wells Fargo, 133 Nev. 12 Adv. Op. 5 (2017). The Court notes that the Nevada Supreme Court has stayed execution of its 13 judgment until June 21, 2017, to allow time to seek certiorari. Saticoy Bay, Nev. S. Ct. Case No. 14 68630, Doc. 17-04543 (Feb 8, 2017). Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has extended 15 the deadline for the Bourne Valley cert petition until April 3, 2017. Case No. 16A753 (Feb 24, 16 2017). 17 Upon review, there is no appeal currently pending in the above cases, and the timeline for a 18 decision on any potential appeal is remote. The Court does not find good cause to stay the case at 19 this time. 20 21 22 23 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to stay (ECF No. 51) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within 30 days of the date of this order. DATED: February 28, 2017. 25 26 _________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 1

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?