JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Las Vegas Development Group, LLC

Filing 50

ORDER Granting 49 Stipulation to Stay Litigation. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 4/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:15-cv-02159-RFB-GWF Document 49 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Abran E. Vigil
Nevada Bar No. 7548
Russell J. Burke
Nevada Bar No. 12710
Kyle A. Ewing
Nevada Bar No. 14051
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

[phone] FAX [phone]

12
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1750

10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a
national banking association, For Itself
and As Successor By Merger To Chase
Home Finance LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; HACIENDA
NORTH HOMEOWNERS’
ASSOCIATION, a Nevada non-profit
corporation,
Defendants.

22

)
) CASE NO. 2:15-cv-02159-RFB-GWF
)
)
)
) STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING
) LITIGATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

23
24

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a National Banking Association, for

25

itself and as Successor by Merger to Chase Home Finance LLC (“Chase”), Defendant

26

Las Vegas Development Group, LLC (“LVDG”), and Defendant Hacienda North

27

Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby stipulate

28

and agree as follows:

DMWEST #14325601 v2

Case 2:15-cv-02159-RFB-GWF Document 49 Filed 04/12/17 Page 2 of 5

1

1.

This is a quiet title action arising from a homeowners’ association

2

foreclosure sale (the “Sale”) of residential property located at 5272 Fire Night Ave,

3

Las Vegas, NV 89122 (the “Property”).

4
5

2.

Absolute Collection Services, LLC, as agent for the HOA, conducted the

Sale pursuant to NRS Chapter 116.

6

3.

Chase alleges it is the beneficiary of a deed of trust recorded against the

7

Property. Chase contends that the deed of trust survived the Sale or, alternatively,

8

that the Sale was void.

9
10

LVDG contends the Sale extinguished the deed of trust as a matter of

5.

Chase argues, among other things, that the notice provisions of NRS

law.

[phone] FAX [phone]

12
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1750

11

4.

Chapter 116 are facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the

13

Fourteenth Amendment.

14

6.

In Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154

15

(9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted this argument and held

16

that Chapter 116’s notice provisions facially violate due process by requiring

17

purported junior lienholders to “opt in” for notice of a homeowners’ association

18

foreclosure sale.

19

7.

In Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home

20

Mortg., 388 P.3d 970, 972 (Nev. 2017), the Nevada Supreme Court disagreed with

21

Bourne Valley by holding that a foreclosure sale under Chapter 116 does not involve

22

sufficient state action to implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

23

Amendment.

24

United States Supreme Court for certiorari on or about April 5, 2017, the non-

25

prevailing party in Saticoy Bay has indicated that it will also file for a writ of

26

certiorari.

27
28

8.

See id.

The non-prevailing party in Bourne Valley petitioned the

The Parties request a stay of litigation to allow the United States

Supreme Court to address the certiorari petitions in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay.
2
DMWEST #14325601 v2

Case 2:15-cv-02159-RFB-GWF Document 49 Filed 04/12/17 Page 3 of 5

1

9.

Several judges in this district have stayed similar cases pending the

2

exhaustion of all appeals before the United States Supreme Court. E.g., Nationstar

3

Mtg. LLC v. Green Valley S. Owners Assoc., No. 2:16-cv-00883-GMN-GWF (D. Nev.,

4

Oct. 5, 2016); Bank of America, N.A. v. Canyon Willow Trop Owners' Assoc., No. 2:16-

5

cv-01327-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2016); Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Copper

6

Sands HOA, No. 2:16-cv-00763-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2017); Ditech Financial

7

Services, LLC v. Highland Ranch Homeowners Assoc., No. 3:16-cv-00194-MMD-WGC

8

(D. Nev. Mar. 7, 2017); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Las Vegas Dev. Group, LLC, 2:16-

9

cv-02621-RFB-NJK (D. Nev. Mar. 9, 2017).

10

10.

To determine if a continued stay is appropriate, the Court considers (1)

[phone] FAX [phone]

any potential damage or prejudice arising from the stay; (2) any potential hardship or

12
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1750

11

inequity that befalls one party more than the other as a result of the stay; and (3) the

13

orderly course of justice. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co.,

14

498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth factors). Here, the factors support a

15

stay of litigation.

16

a. Damage or Prejudice from Stay:

Any potential damage or prejudice

17

arising from a temporary stay in this case would be minimal when

18

balanced against the fees, costs, and time which will be incurred in

19

litigation. The resolution of appeals in Bourne Valley and/or Saticoy

20

Bay could resolve threshold issues pending in this matter and

21

accordingly influence the litigation strategies of the parties. A stay

22

would also ensure that the issues raised in this matter are resolved in a

23

consistent and efficient manner. Moreover, a stay will conserve judicial

24

resources and promote judicial efficiency by preventing potentially

25

unnecessary litigation pending the outcome of the appeals.

26

b. Hardship or Inequity: The Parties agree that any potential hardship or

27

inequity falling on any of them is outweighed by the benefits of a stay, as

28

all parties will benefit from waiting until the appeals are resolved.
3
DMWEST #14325601 v2

Case 2:15-cv-02159-RFB-GWF Document 49 Filed 04/12/17 Page 4 of 5

1

c. Orderly Course of Justice: At the center of this case is a homeowners'

2

association's foreclosure sale under NRS 116.

3

Supreme Court appellate proceedings in Bourne Valley and/or Saticoy

4

Bay has the potential to resolve threshold issues pending in this matter.

5

Without a stay, the parties will expend resources on litigation involving

6

these cases that could be rendered unnecessary if either or both petitions

7

are granted. A temporary stay would substantially promote the orderly

8

course of justice in this case by preventing unnecessary expenditure of

9

the parties’ and the Court’s resources pending final resolution of Bourne

Valley and/or Saticoy Bay.

10
11.

The Parties agree that all proceedings in the instant case, including

[phone] FAX [phone]

12
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

11
100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1750

The outcome of any

motion and other litigation deadlines, are stayed pending final resolution of the

13

Bourne Valley and/or Saticoy Bay certiorari proceedings before the U.S. Supreme

14

Court.

15
16

12.

after the date of an order granting this joint motion.

17
18

The Parties agree to submit a status report to the Court every 90 days

13.

The Parties further agree that each report will inform the Court of the

status of the certiorari petitions in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay.

19

14.

The Parties further agree that each report will inform the Court

20

regarding whether the Parties wish to keep the stay of litigation in place or lift the

21

stay.

22

15.

The Parties further agree that if the Court enters the order granting this

23

stipulation, all pending motions shall be denied without prejudice as moot. The

24

Parties may re-file any appropriate motions upon expiration of the stay.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
4
DMWEST #14325601 v2

Case 2:15-cv-02159-RFB-GWF Document 49 Filed 04/12/17 Page 5 of 5

1
2

16.

The Parties further agree that any party to this case may independently

move to lift the stay at any time.

3
4

Dated: April 12, 2017

5

MADDOX, ISAACSON & CISNEROS, LLP

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

6

By: /s/ Barbara M. McDonald
Troy L. Isaacson, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6690
Barbara M. McDonald, Esq.
Nevada Bar 11651
11920 Southern Highlands Parkway,
Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89141

By: /s/ Russell J. Burke
Abran E. Vigil, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 7548
Russell J. Burke, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12710
Kyle A. Ewing
Nevada Bar No. 14051
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106

7
8
9
10

[phone] FAX [phone]

12
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1750

11

Attorneys for Defendant Hacienda North
Homeowners’ Association

13
14

ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES

15

Attorneys for Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A.

By: /s/ Timothy E. Rhoda
Roger P. Croteau Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 4958
Timothy E. Rhode, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 7878
9120 West Post Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148

16
17
18
19
20
21

Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas
Development Group

22
ORDER

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED:
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26

April 13, 2017

Dated:

27
28

5
DMWEST #14325601 v2