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)

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