U.S. Bank N.A. v. Antelope Canyon Homeowners Association, et al.

Filing 111

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this court's order (ECF No. 70 ) be, and the same hereby is, VACATED as to its granting summary judgment to SFR. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment entered in favor of SFR (ECF No. 78 ) be, and the same hereby is, VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SFR's motion to substitute counsel (ECF No. 106 ) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The clerk is instructed to reopen this case for further proceedings and to appoint a new magistrate judge. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/24/2022., Case reopened. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff(s),

Case No. 2:15-CV-1423 JCM (PAL)
ORDER

v.
ANTELOPE CANYON HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before this court is the matter of U.S. Bank N.A. v. Antelope Canyon Homeowners
Association, et al., case number 2:15-cv-01423-JCM-PAL. On March 15, 2017, this court granted
SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) and denied
U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for the holders of the WMALT 20060-AR8 trust (“U.S.
Bank”); Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”); and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (“Nationstar”)
(collectively “the banks”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 39). (ECF No. 70). This court
then entered final judgment in favor of SFR. (ECF No. 78; see ECF Nos. 94; 102). The banks
appealed. (ECF No. 95).
The Ninth Circuit held that this court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of
SFR, but properly denied the banks’ motion. (ECF No. 107). Consequently, the Ninth Circuit
reversed this court’s decision in favor of SFR and remanded this matter for further proceedings.
Id. The order on mandate was issued on March 21, 2022. (ECF No. 110).
SFR now moves to substitute the law firm, Hanks Law Group, including Karen L Hanks,
Esq. and Chantel M. Schimming, Esq. as its counsel in the place and stead of the law firm of Kim

1

Gilbert Ebron, including Diana S. Ebron, Esq., Jacqueline A. Gilbert, Esq. and Howard C. Kim,

2

Esq. (ECF No. 106). SFR’s former counsel all consent to the substitution. Id.

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this court’s order (ECF

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

No. 70) be, and the same hereby is, VACATED as to its granting summary judgment to SFR.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment entered in favor of SFR (ECF No. 78) be,
and the same hereby is, VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SFR’s motion to substitute counsel (ECF No. 106) be,
and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
The clerk is instructed to reopen this case for further proceedings and to appoint a new
magistrate judge.1
DATED March 24, 2022.

13

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

This case is currently referred to former Magistrate Judge Leen, who retired while this
case was pending before the Ninth Circuit.
-2-