Summit Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Coropration et al

Filing 43

ORDER Granting 42 Stipulation Staying Case. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 09/26/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KEVIN HAHN, #9821
NATHAN F. SMITH, #12642
MALCOLM CISNEROS, A Law Corporation
608 South 8th Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation; M&T Bank

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11

Case No. 2:15-cv-00760-KJD-GWF

SUMMIT REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; FHLMC BANK, MITCHELL
LABORWIT,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING CASE

19

On August 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit released its decision in Bourne Valley Court Trust v.

20

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a decision which may have a significant effect on this case. See Bourne Valley

21

Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 15-15233, 2016 WL 4254983 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016). The

22

appellant in Bourne Valley Court Trust has petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which

23

the parties expect the Ninth Circuit to grant.

24

settlement discussions, they submit that the case should be stayed, pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision

25

on the petition for a rehearing en banc and the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of its mandate. The parties

26

respectfully request that the case should be stayed for a period of six months or until the Ninth Circuit

27

issues its mandate in Bourne Valley Court Trust.

28

Therefore, although the parties desire to continue

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

Stipulation and Order

1

1

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

2

Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). When determining

3

whether to stay a case pending the resolution of another case, a district court must consider (1) the

4

possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party may suffer if

5

required to go forward, (3) “and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or

6

complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law” that a stay will engender. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,

7

398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

8

In this case, the parties submit that no damage will result from a six month stay of the instant

9

case and that no hardship or inequity will be suffered by the parties, which have agreed to the stay. The

10

parties further submit that the stay is warranted under the circumstances, based upon the Ninth Circuit’s

11

decision in Bourne Valley, and the anticipated length of time that it will take for the Ninth Circuit to

12

issue its mandate in that case.

13

Dated: September 22, 2016

Dated: September 22, 2016

14

/s/ Nathan F. Smith
Nathan F. Smith, #12642
Malcolm Cisneros, A Law Corporation
608 South 8th Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Phone: [phone]

/s/ Zachary T. Ball
Zachary T. Ball, #8364
The Ball Law Group
3455 Cliff Shadows Parkway, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89129
Phone: [phone]

Attorney for Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation and M&T Bank

Attorney for Plaintiffs

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ___ day of September, 2016

23
24
25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
TED
DISTRIC

26
27
28

Stipulation and Order

2