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)

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

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: [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

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