Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting 14 Joint Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/29/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7785
DAVID T. GLUTH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10596
ASHLIE L. SURUR, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11290
GORDON & REES LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

8
9

Attorneys for Monterosso Premier
Homeowners Association

Gordon & Rees LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

CASE NO.: 2:15-cv-00693-GMN-VCF

13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.

JOINT STIPULATION AND
(PROPOSED) ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY

15
16
17

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL1, LLC;
MONTEROSSO PREMIER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION; DOE INDIVIDUALS I-X,
inclusive, and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X,
inclusive,

(First Request)

18
Defendants.
19
20
Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), by and through its attorneys of record,
21
Akerman, LLP, Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”), by and through its attorneys
22
of record, Howard Kim & Associates, and Defendant Monterosso Premier Homeowners
23
Association (“Monterosso”), by and through its attorneys of record Gordon Rees, LLP, hereby
24
stipulate and agree pursuant to Local Rule 7-1 as follows:
25
1.

Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(d), the plaintiff shall initiate “the Fed. R. Civ. P.

26
26(f) meeting within thirty (30) days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears.” On
27
June 19, 2015, Monterosso filed its Motion to Dismiss Complaint for failure to comply with
28
-1-

1

NRS 38.310 (Dkt. #10) (“Motion to Dismiss”). On July 7, 2015, SFR filed its Answer,

2

Counterclaim, and Cross-claim (Dkt. #11).

3

2.

Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(d), “the parties shall submit a stipulated discovery

4

plan and scheduling order” fourteen (14) days after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)

5

conference.

6

3.

The parties held a conference on July 24, 2015 to discuss discovery and case

7

deadlines, and agreed to enter a stipulation to extend discovery deadlines for the following

8

reasons:

9

4.

Monterosso’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #10) seeks to dismiss all the claims against

Gordon & Rees LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

10

it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Monterosso alleges that all of BANA’s claims relate to

11

the interpretation, application, and/or enforcement of the CC&Rs, and other governing

12

documents. It is alleged that BANA failed to submit this case to mandatory mediation with the

13

Nevada Real Estate Division prior to filing a civil action pursuant to NRS 38.310. As such, all

14

the claims against Monterosso are subject to mandatory dismissal without prejudice.

15

5.

The parties agree it is in the best interest of all parties to await the Court’s ruling

16

on the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #10) prior to setting discovery deadlines and incurring the time

17

and expense of written discovery and depositions in the event the Court dismisses the action in

18

whole or in part.

19

6.

Federal district courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v.

20

City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In exercising this discretion, a district court

21

may stay discovery based on the filing of a motion that is “potential dispositive of the entire

22

case.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). See also Turner

23

Broadcasting Sys. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (holding that

24

“[w]hether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the Court…”); Ministerio Roca Solida v.

25

U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (“discovery should be stayed

26

while dispositive motions are pending only when there are no factual issues in need of further

27

immediate exploration, and the issues before the Court are purely questions of law…”) (internal

28

quotations omitted). Monterosso takes the position that the Motion to Dismiss is jurisdictional
-2-

1

and raises purely legal questions that can be resolved without discovery. As such, it is within the

2

Court’s power to grant a stay of discovery at this time.

3

7.

It would be burdensome and unfair to have the parties incur the expense of time-

4

consuming and costly discovery because the parties have agreed to a stay. Rule 1 of the Federal

5

Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the federal rules of practice should be “construed and

6

administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and

7

proceeding.” (Emphasis added). Thus, staying discovery in this case is consistent with the spirit

8

and intent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, should the Court agree that this

9

entire matter is governed under NRS 38.310, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (on some

Gordon & Rees LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

10

or all of BANA’s claims) until the parties exhaust administrative remedies. If a stay is not

11

granted, the parties will be required to engage in and incur the costs of discovery which may not

12

be necessary.

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-3-

1

8.

In order to preserve the parties’ resources, and to promote judicial economy, the

2

parties have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, to stay discovery until this Court rules on

3

Monterosso’s pending Motion to Dismiss. The parties further stipulate to delay submission of

4

the stipulated discovery plan and discovery order for fourteen (14) days after this Court rules on

5

Monterosso’s pending Motion to Dismiss.

6

DATED: July 29th , 2015.

DATED: July 29th , 2015.

7

AKERMAN LLP

GORDON & REES LLP

8

/s/ Eric S. Powers
DARREN T. BRENNER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8386
ERIC S. POWERS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12850
1160 Town Center Drive, Suite 330
Las Vegas, NV 89144

/s/ David T. Gluth
ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7785
DAVID T. GLUTH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10596
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Bank of America, N.A.

Attorneys for Monterosso Premier
Homeowners Association

9

Gordon & Rees LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DATED: July 29th , 2015.
HOWARD KIM & ASSOCIATES
/s/ Jacqueline A. Gilbert
HOWARD V. KIM ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10386
DIANA S. CLINE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10580
JACQUELINE A. GILBERT, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10593
1160 Town Center Drive, Suite 330
Las Vegas, NV 89144
Attorneys for Defendant
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
United States District Court
DATED:

07/29/2015.

27
28
1106648/24444766v.1

-4-