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

Filing 53

ORDER Granting 52 Stipulation to Continue Stay. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 9/29/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

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: Attorneys for Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; M&T Bank 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 Case No. 2:15-cv-00760-KJD-GWF SUMMIT REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; FHLMC BANK, MITCHELL LABORWIT, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STAY 18 On April 27, 2017, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to continue the stay of this 19 pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision on a petition for writ of certiorari filed in 20 connection with the Ninth Circuit’s decision Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 21 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016). Subsequently, the Supreme Court denied the petition. 22 The parties also note that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 23 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., a Div. of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 24 (2017) was not appealed. 25 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the results of the foregoing cases have informed the parties’ 26 settlement discussions, which are ongoing. Currently, a settlement offer has been communicated and is 27 under consideration by Defendants. 28 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 light of the parties’ ongoing settlement discussions and in furtherance of the parties’ desire to 9 exhaust settlement efforts prior to incurring attorney fees and costs associated with filing, briefing, and 10 litigating dispositive motions and, potentially, proceeding with trial, the parties submit that no damage 11 will result from a continuance of the stay of this case for a further 90 days. The parties expect that they 12 will either settle the case within the next 90 days or will have exhausted settlement efforts and be 13 prepared to proceed with filing dispositive motions. Moreover, in the interim, should either party 14 conclude that settlement efforts have been exhausted, the parties will stipulate to dissolve the stay and 15 stipulate to a deadline by which dispositive motions must be filed. 16 Dated: September 26, 2017 Dated: September 26, 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29th DATED this ___ day of September, 2017 26 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 28 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?