Bank Of New York Mellon v Log Cabin Manor Homeowners Association, et al

Filing 68

ORDER Staying Case Pending Issuance of Mandate in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank and Denying Pending Motions without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/19/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***
Goldsmith v. U.S. Bank
Bank of America v. Woodcrest HOA
Wells Fargo v. Tides I HOA
Nationstar v. Aurora Canyon HOA
Nationstar v. Shara Sunrise HOA
Nationstar v. Augusta Belford and Ellingwood HOA
1290 Village Walk Trust v. Bank of America
Bank of New York Mellon v. Log Cabin Manor HOA
US Bank v. Ski Way Trust
Bank of New York Mellon v. Imagination North
Bank of America v. Green Valley South
Bank of America v. Inspirada Community Assoc.
Bank of America v. Sunrise Ridge
Deutsche Bank v. Independence II HOA
Bank of America v. Inspirada Community Assoc.
Bank of America v. Peccole Ranch Community Assoc.
Nationstar v. SFR Investments Pool
Bank of Amierca v. Treo North and South HOA
Wells Fargo v. SFR Investments Pool
US Bank v. Thunder Properties
PNC Bank v. Wingfield Springs Community Assoc.
Nationstar v. Highland Ranch HOA
US Bank v. White Lake Ranch Assoc.
GMAT Legal Title Trust v. SFR Investments Pool
Bank of New York Mellon v. Thunder Properties
Bank of America v. North Truckee Townhomes HOA
Bank of America v. Grand Sierra Resort Unit Owners
Bank of America v. Tenaya Creek HOA
Bank of America v. Southwest Meadows HOA
Bank of America v. The Siena HOA
Ditech Financial v. Highland Ranch HOA
Bank of America v. Aspen Meadows
US Bank v. Fairway Pines Assoc.

2:15-cv-00991-MMD-PAL
2:15-cv-01193-MMD-GWF
2:15-cv-01204-MMD-PAL
2:15-cv-01308-MMD-NJK
2:15-cv-01597-MMD-NJK
2:15-cv-01705-MMD-PAL
2:15-cv-01903-MMD-PAL
2:15-cv-02026-MMD-CWH
2:16-cv-00066-MMD-GWF
2:16-cv-00383-MMD-NJK
2:16-cv-00424-MMD-PAL
2:16-cv-00438-MMD-VCF
2:16-cv-00467-MMD-CWH
2:16-cv-00536-MMD-VCF
2:16-cv-00605-MMD-VCF
2:16-cv-00660-MMD-CWH
2:16-cv-00703-MMD-GWF
2:16-cv-00845-MMD-NJK
3:15-cv-00240-MMD-VPC
3:15-cv-00328-MMD-WGC
3:15-cv-00349-MMD-VPC
3:15-cv-00375-MMD-VPC
3:15-cv-00477-MMD-VPC
3:15-cv-00518-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00097-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00135-MMD-VPC
3:16-cv-00146-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00158-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00183-MMD-VPC
3:16-cv-00188-MMD-VPC
3:16-cv-00194-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00413-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00446-MMD-VPC

ORDER
Staying Case Pending Issuance of Mandate in
Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank
and Denying Pending Motions without Prejudice

27

The above referenced cases arise out of a homeowner’s association (“HOA”)

28

foreclosure and involve a constitutional due process challenge to Nevada Revised
1

1

Statute Chapter 116’s notice provisions. On August 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of

2

Appeals, in a 2-1 panel decision, found that Chapter 116’s notice provisions as applied

3

to nonjudicial foreclosure of an HOA lien before the 2015 amendment to be facially

4

unconstitutional. Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 15-15233,

5

2016 WL 4254983 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016). The Bourne Valley decision obviously has

6

profound impact on each case. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is appropriate to sua

7

sponte impose a temporary stay until the mandate is issued in Bourne Valley.

8

A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.

9

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,

10

398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient

11

for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action

12

before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”

13

Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). “When

14

considering a motion to stay, the district court should consider three factors: (1)

15

potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving

16

party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by

17

avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated.” Pate v. Depuy

18

Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01168-MMD-CWH, 2012 WL 3532780, at *2 (D. Nev.

19

Aug. 14, 2012) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal.

20

1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v.

21

Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2007).

22

These three factors weigh in favor of a brief temporary stay. A temporary stay

23

would promote judicial economy, particularly given Bourne Valley’s ruling’s effect on the

24

due process issue raised in each case. Any potential hardship or prejudice would be

25

minimal in light of the brief duration of the stay until a mandate is issued in Bourne

26

Valley. In fact, a stay would benefit the parties as they assess Bourne Valley’s import

27

without having to file any unnecessary supplemental briefing.

28

///
2

1

It is therefore ordered that the above referencedactions are temporarily stayed.

2

Upon the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of the mandate in Bourne Valley, the parties in each

3

case may move to lift the stay. Until that time, all proceedings are stayed.

4
5

It is further ordered that all pending motions are denied without prejudice to their
refiling within thirty (30) days after the stay is lifted.

6
7

DATED THIS 19th day of August 2015.

8
9

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3