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

Filing 49

ORDER Granting 48 Stipulation to Continue Stay. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
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: (800) 741-8806 Fax: (949) 252-1032 Email: nathan@mclaw.org 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 TO CONTINUE STAY 19 On February 27, 2017, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to continue the stay of this 20 case for a further 30 days pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States 21 Supreme Court concerning the Ninth Circuit’s decision Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, 22 NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016). As of the filing of the previous stipulation, the deadline to file a 23 petition for a writ of certiorari was March 6, 2017. However, on February 24, 2017, Justice Anthony 24 Kennedy extended the deadline to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to April 3, 2017. 25 The parties also note that the Nevada Supreme Court has stayed the issuance of remittitur in 26 Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., a Div. of Wells Fargo Bank, 27 N.A., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (2017) to June 21, 2017, pending the prospective filing of Wells Fargo Home 28 Mortgage’s petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Based upon the Stipulation and Order 1 1 foregoing, the parties anticipate that the United States Supreme Court may grant certiorari and hear the 2 cases jointly. 3 A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the 4 efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936); Dependable 5 Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). When determining 6 whether to stay a case pending the resolution of another case, a district court must consider (1) the 7 possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party may suffer if 8 required to go forward, (3) “and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 9 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law” that a stay will engender. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 10 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). 11 In this case, the parties submit that no damage will result from a continuance of the stay of this 12 case for a further 30 days, pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States 13 Supreme Court. However, should such petition not be filed, the parties will promptly stipulate to end 14 the stay in this case and proceed with filing any dispositive motions within 30 days of the Court’s order 15 terminating the stay of this case. Moreover, if the Court is not inclined to continue the stay of this case, 16 the parties will promptly file a stipulation ending such stay upon denial of the instant stipulation. 17 Dated: March 24, 2017 Dated: March 24, 2017 /s/ Nathan F. Smith Nathan F. Smith, #12642 Malcolm ♦ Cisneros, A Law Corporation 608 South 8th Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Phone: (800) 741-8806 /s/ Zachary T. Ball Zachary T. Ball, #8364 The Ball Law Group 3455 Cliff Shadows Parkway, Suite 150 Las Vegas, Nevada 89129 Phone: (702) 303-8600 Attorney for Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and M&T Bank Attorney for Plaintiffs 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28th DATED this ___ day of March, 2017 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Stipulation and Order 2

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?