Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Giavanna Homeowners Association et al

Filing 106

ORDER denying 89 Motion for Magistrate Judge to Reconsider Magistrate Judge Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) GIAVANNA HOMEOWNERS ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:15-cv-01992-LDG-CWH ORDER Presently before the court is Defendant SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion for 14 reconsideration (ECF No. 89), filed on March 15, 2017. Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC 15 (“Nationstar”) filed a response (ECF No. 96) on March 29, 2017. SFR filed a reply (ECF No. 101) 16 on April 5, 2017. 17 SFR moves for reconsideration of the undersigned’s order (ECF No. 87) granting in part 18 and denying in part Nationstar’s emergency motion for protection from its Rule 30(b)(6) 19 deposition, arguing that the order is contrary to intervening case law regarding Nevada 20 homeowners’ associations liens. Nationstar opposes the motion, arguing that SFR fails to 21 specifically identify how the court should alter its ruling on the 30(b)(6) deposition topics at issue. 22 Under Local Rule 59-1(a), a party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order “must 23 state with particularity the points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misunderstood. 24 Changes in legal or factual circumstances that may entitled the movant to relief also must be stated 25 with particularity.” Here, SFR’s motion includes an analysis of the intervening changes in HOA 26 lien case law since the undersigned’s order was entered, but SFR does not provide the court with 27 concrete proposals for altering the court’s ruling on each deposition topic based on these changes in 28 the law. Even with the argument provided for the first time in SFR’s reply regarding individual 1 deposition topics, it is unclear to the court exactly how SFR requests that the court change each of 2 its rulings. The court therefore will deny the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with 3 LR 59-1(a). If SFR chooses to re-file the motion, it is directed to set forth the full text of each of 4 the disputed deposition topics followed by (1) the court’s current ruling set forth in its order (ECF 5 No. 87) dated March 1, 2017, and (2) specific proposed rulings on each of the topics at issue, 6 supported by points and authorities. 7 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 89) is DENIED without prejudice. 9 10 DATED: April 24, 2017 11 12 13 ______________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?