Bank Of New York Mellon v Log Cabin Manor Homeowners Association, et al
Filing
86
ORDER granting ECF No. 75 Motion to Stay; denying without prejudice ECF Nos. 72 , 73 , 74 Motions for Summary Judgment. Case temporarily stayed until resolution of the certiorari proceedings before the USSC in Bourne Valley and/or Saticoy Bay. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/5/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
8
9
10
11
BANK OF NEW YOUR MELLON,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
LOG CABIN MANOR HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendant.
12
13
Case No. 2:15-cv-02026-MMD-CWH
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS
14
15
This case arises out of a homeowner’s association (“HOA”) foreclosure and
16
involves a constitutional due process challenge to Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 116’s
17
notice provisions. Before the Court is Defendant/counter-claimant SFR Investment Pool
18
1, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff/counter-defendant
19
(“Plaintiff”) has opposed (ECF No. 76) and Defendant has replied (ECF No. 82.)
20
The Court had sua sponte imposed a temporary stay because of the potential
21
impact of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Bourne Valley Court Trust v.
22
Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), r’hng denied (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016).
23
(ECF No. 68.) In Bourne Valley, the Ninth Circuit found that Chapter 116’s notice
24
provisions as applied to a nonjudicial foreclosure of an HOA lien before the 2015
25
amendment was facially unconstitutional. Id. at 1157-60. The Court subsequently lifted
26
the stay after the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate in Bourne Valley. (ECF No. 69.) The
27
Court reasoned that Bourne Valley’s holding is binding precedent unless and until it is
28
reversed, though such finality may not occur for months. (Id.) Within days, the Nevada
1
Supreme Court in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home
2
Mortgage, a Division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 388 P.3d 970 (Nev. 2017), reached the
3
opposite conclusion, finding that Nevada’s superpriority lien statutes are not facially
4
unconstitutional. The nonprevailing parties in Bourne Valley and Satico Bay are seeking
5
review of both decisions in the United States Supreme Court. In light of this latest
6
development, the Court finds that a stay is warranted and will grant Defendant’s Motion.
7
A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court. Landis
8
v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d
9
1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own
10
docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending
11
resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified
12
Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). “When considering a motion to
13
stay, the district court should consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-
14
moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and
15
(3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases
16
are in fact consolidated.” Pate v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01168-MMD-
17
CWH, 2012 WL 3532780, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2012) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney
18
Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). See
19
also Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir.
20
2007).
21
These three factors weigh in favor of a temporary stay in this case, though the
22
duration of the stay may be extended depending on whether the Supreme Court will grant
23
Bourne Valley and Well Fargo’s petitions for a writ of certiorari. Plaintiff insists that a stay
24
will be prejudicial because of the continued damages to Plaintiff caused by Defendant’s
25
assertion of title to the property at issue. (ECF No. 76 at 3.) However, any damage to
26
Plaintiff from a stay will be outweighed by the fees that all parties will surely incur from
27
continued litigation because a decision by the Court could be rendered moot by a decision
28
in the certiorari proceedings before the Supreme Court. Until there is finality on the issue
2
1
of whether Nevada’s superpriority lien statutes are constitutional, a stay will benefit the
2
parties and conserve judicial resources.
3
It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 75) is granted.
4
This action is temporarily stayed until resolution of the certiorari proceedings before the
5
United States Supreme Court in Bourne Valley and/or Saticoy Bay. The parties must file
6
a status report within 15 days from such resolution. All pending motions for summary
7
judgment (ECF No. 72, 73, 74) are denied without prejudice and may be refiled within
8
thirty (30) days after the stay is lifted.
9
DATED THIS 5th day of April 2017.
10
11
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?