Capital One, National Association v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

Filing 61

ORDER Granting 60 Stipulation re Discovery Deadlines (Third Request). In the event Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, the parties shall submit a stipulation and proposed order within 14 days of decision of the pending motion for summary judgment to request reinstatement of the motion to compel and complete the deposition described in this stipulation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 1/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
Case 2:15-cv-01324-KJD-PAL Document 60 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Abran E. Vigil Nevada Bar No. 7548 Matthew D. Lamb Nevada Bar No. 12991 Joseph P. Sakai Nevada Bar No. 13578 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Telephone: (702) 471-7000 Facsimile: (702) 471-7070 vigila@ballardspahr.com lambm@ballardspahr.com sakaij@ballardspahr.com Attorneys for Plaintiff/CounterDefendant DISTRICT OF NEVADA (702) 471-7000 FAX (702) 471-7070 12 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106 BALLARD SPAHR LLP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1750 10 13 14 15 16 17 CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association, Plaintiff, vs. 20 STIPULATION REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL, DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, AND JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; SOUTHERN (Third Request) HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a Nevada non-profit corporation, 18 19 Case No. 2:15-cv-01324-KJD-PAL Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, 21 Counterclaimant/Cross-Claimant, 22 vs. 23 24 CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association; and EILAT BENARON, an individual, 25 Counter-Defendants/Cross-Defendants. 26 27 Plaintiff Capital One, National Association (“Capital One”), defendant SFR 28 Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”), and defendant Southern Highlands Community DMWEST #15353945 v2 Case 2:15-cv-01324-KJD-PAL Document 60 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 4 1 Association (“Southern Highlands,” and together with Capital One and SFR, the 2 “Parties”) stipulate as follows: 3 1. On September 5, 2016, the Court entered an order (ECF No. 56) 4 granting the Parties’ stipulation to stay litigation based on the Ninth Circuit’s 5 decision in Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 6 2016). 7 8 2. the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in Bourne Valley. 9 10 3. (702) 471-7000 FAX (702) 471-7070 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1750 The order further provided that the dispositive motion deadline would automatically reset to 30 days after the date the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate. 11 12 The order provided that the litigation stay would automatically lift when 4. The order further provided that Capital One would be permitted to depose SFR’s expert witness, Michael Brunson, after the stay was lifted. 13 5. The Court subsequently issued a minute order (ECF No. 57) which 14 deemed Capital One’s motion to compel against SFR (ECF No. 52) withdrawn. The 15 minute order stated the Parties could request reinstatement of the motion to compel 16 after the litigation stay was lifted. 17 18 19 20 21 6. The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in Bourne Valley on December 14, 7. Accordingly, the dispositive motions deadline automatically reset to 2016. January 13, 2017. 8. On December 29, 2016, SFR filed a Motion to Certify Question of Law to 22 Supreme Court of Nevada (ECF No. 58) and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 23 re: a Pure Issue of Law: Application of the Return Doctrine Post-Bourne Valley (ECF 24 No. 59). 25 9. Capital One intends to file a motion for summary judgment on or before 26 the January 13, 2017 deadline. The motion will address various arguments which do 27 not require the Parties to hold the deposition of Brunson or to reinstate Capital One’s 28 motion to compel. Capital One’s motion will be limited to three issues: (1) that 2 DMWEST #15353945 v2 Case 2:15-cv-01324-KJD-PAL Document 60 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 4 1 Capital One is entitled to summary judgment under Bourne Valley, (2) that the 2 Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 preempted the subject foreclosure sale 3 from extinguishing the subject deed of trust, and (3) that the Nevada Supreme 4 Court’s opinion in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. Adv. 5 Rep. 75, 334 P.3d 408 (2014), does not apply retroactively. 6 10. In the event the Court denies Capital One’s planned motion for the foreclosure sale price, the validity of the foreclosure sale under Shadow Wood 11 Homeowners Ass’n v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp. Inc., 132 Nev. Adv. Rep. 5, 366 P.3d 1105 12 (702) 471-7000 FAX (702) 471-7070 One’s planned motion. These issues include, among other things, the sufficiency of 10 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106 the motion to compel, and to litigate any remaining issues not addressed in Capital 9 BALLARD SPAHR LLP summary judgment, the Parties agree to hold the deposition of Brunson, to reinstate 8 100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1750 7 (2016), and Capital One’s argument that the sale is a constructively fraudulent 13 transfer. 14 11. Accordingly, if the Court denies Capital One’s planned motion for 15 summary judgment, the Parties will submit a further stipulation that reinstates 16 Capital One’s motion to compel, schedules a date and time for the deposition of 17 Brunson, sets a deadline for filing any dispositive motions on the remaining issues in 18 the case, and sets a new deadline for the joint pretrial order. 19 12. Good cause exists for granting this stipulation because it will not be 20 necessary to hold the deposition of Brunson, to reinstate the motion to compel, or to 21 litigate any additional issues if the Court grants Capital One’s planned motion for 22 summary judgment. 23 13. The Court previously granted a stipulation to extend the dispositive 24 motions deadline from April 15, 2016 to July 14, 2016 and to extend the pretrial order 25 deadline from May 13, 2016 to August 11, 2016 (ECF No. 37). This extension was 26 primarily due to a medical issue affecting Southern Highlands’ Rule 30(b)(6) 27 deponent. The Court later granted a stipulation to extend the dispositive motion 28 deadline to September 12, 2016 and to extend the pretrial order deadline to October 3 DMWEST #15353945 v2 Case 2:15-cv-01324-KJD-PAL Document 60 Filed 01/09/17 Page 4 of 4 1 11, 2016 (ECF No. 43). These deadlines were vacated when the Ninth Circuit issued 2 its Bourne Valley opinion and the Court stayed litigation. 3 Dated: January 9, 2017. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 KIM GILBERT EBRON By: /s/ Matthew D. Lamb Abran E. Vigil Nevada Bar No. 7548 Matthew D. Lamb Nevada Bar No. 12991 Joseph P. Sakai Nevada Bar No. 13578 100 North City Pkwy, Suite 1750 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 By: /s/ Diana Cline Ebron Diana Cline Ebron Nevada Bar No. 10580 Jacqueline Gilbert Nevada Bar No. 10593 Karen L. Hanks Nevada Bar No. 9578 7625 Dean Martin Drive, Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89139 ATTORNEYS FOR CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS FOR SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC (702) 471-7000 FAX (702) 471-7070 12 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1750 11 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ALVERSON TAYLOR MORTENSEN & SANDERS By: /s/ David J. Rothenberg Kurt R. Bonds Nevada Bar No. 6228 David J. Rothenberg Nevada Bar No. 13576 7401 West Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 ATTORNEYS FOR SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IT IS ORDERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is IT IS SO ORDERED: 21 denied, the parties shall submit a stipulation and proposed order within 14 days of decision of the pending motion for summary judgment to request reinstatement of the 22 motion to compel and complete the deposition described in this stipulation. 20 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 Dated: January 10, 2017. 25 26 27 28 4 DMWEST #15353945 v2

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?