Las Vegas Development Group, LLC v. Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage Company, et al
Filing
38
ORDER Granting 37 Stipulation to Stay Discovery (First Request). Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 4/5/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)
Case 2:16-cv-00038-RFB-GWF Document 37 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7785
DAVID T. GLUTH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10596
GORDON & REES LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: (702) 577-9300
Facsimile: (702) 255-2858
Email: rlarsen@gordonrees.com
dgluth@gordonrees.com
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Hollow De Oro
Homeowners Association
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, a
Nevada Limited Liability Company,
12
Case No.: 2:16-cv-00038-RFB-GWF
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
15
16
17
18
19
STEVEN P. SCHNEIDER, an individual;
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; AZTEC
FORECLOSURE CORPORATION, a California
corporation; TRACY BURR, an individual;
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, a federally chartered corporation;
EVERGREEN MONEYSOURCE MORTGAGE
COMPANY, a Washington corporation; DOE
individuals X through XX; and ROE
`CORPORATIONS I through XX,
20
21
Defendants.
________________________________________
22
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
23
Counter-Claimant,
24
v.
25
LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC;
26
Counter-Defendant.
27
28
-1-
JOINT STIPULATION AND
(PROPOSED) ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY
(First Request)
Case 2:16-cv-00038-RFB-GWF Document 37 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 5
1
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
2
v.
3
Counter-Claimant,
4
HOLLOW DE ORO HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
5
Cross-Defendant.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 7-1, Plaintiff Las Vegas Development Group, LLC
(“Plaintiff”), Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Defendant
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”), Defendant Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage
Company (“Evergreen”), Defendant Steven Schneider (“Schneider”), and Cross-defendant,
Hollow De Oro Homeowners Association (“Hollow De Oro”) by and through their respective
attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree pursuant to Local Rule 7-1 as follows:
13
14
15
16
1.
26(f) meeting within thirty (30) days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears.” On
January 9, 2016, Evergreen removed this action to this Court. (Dkt.# 3). On January 15, 2016,
Hollow De Oro filed its Motion to Dismiss Crossclaims (Dkt. #8).
17
18
19
2.
22
23
24
conference.
3.
On March 9, 2016, this Court issued an order directing the parties to file
stipulation discovery plan by March 21, 2016. (Dkt. #31). On March 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
motion to enlarge time to hold the FRCP 26(f) conference. (Dkt.#33). On March 22, 2016, the
motion was granted extending the deadline to file a proposed discovery plan until April 4, 2016.
(Dkt.#35).
25
26
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(d), “the parties shall submit a stipulated discovery
plan and scheduling order” fourteen (14) days after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)
20
21
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(d), the plaintiff shall initiate “the Fed. R. Civ. P.
3.
On March 28, 2016, the parties held a FRCP 26(f) conference to discuss
discovery and case deadlines.1 The parties agreed to enter a stipulation to stay discovery
27
28
1
Defendant Aztec Foreclosure was invited but did not participate in the FRCP 26(f) conference.
The claims against Aztec Foreclosure were dismissed while the case was pending is state court.
-2-
Case 2:16-cv-00038-RFB-GWF Document 37 Filed 04/04/16 Page 3 of 5
1
2
deadlines for the following reasons:
4.
Hollow De Oro filed its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #8), in part, to dismiss Fannie
3
Mae and Nationstar’s claims against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hollow De Oro
4
alleges that some or all of Fannie Mae’s claims relate to the interpretation, application, and/or
5
enforcement of the CC&Rs, and other governing documents subject to NRS 38.310. As alleged,
6
Fannie Mae already filed a NRED claim prior to filing its crossclaims in this case. Hollow De
7
Oro filed its response with NRED. On March 22, 2016, NRED assigned a mediator to Fannie
8
Mae’s claim. The parties are now waiting for confirmation of the mediation date to be set within
9
the next 90 days.
10
5.
The parties agree it is in the best interest of all parties to wait until the mediation
11
process has been completed prior to setting discovery deadlines and incurring the time and
12
expense of written discovery and depositions in the event the Court dismisses the action in whole
13
or in part. Plaintiff intends to participate in the mediation process and it is conceivable that the
14
mediation could resolve this matter in its entirety, thereby relieving both the parties and the court
15
of further cost and expense.
16
6.
Federal district courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v.
17
City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In exercising this discretion, a district court
18
may stay discovery based on the filing of a motion that is “potential dispositive of the entire
19
case.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). See also Turner
20
Broadcasting Sys. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (holding that
21
“[w]hether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the Court…”); Ministerio Roca Solida v.
22
U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (“discovery should be stayed
23
while dispositive motions are pending only when there are no factual issues in need of further
24
immediate exploration, and the issues before the Court are purely questions of law…”) (internal
25
quotations omitted). Hollow De Oro takes the position that its Motion to Dismiss raises purely
26
27
28
Prior to this case being removed to federal court, Aztec filed a motion for attorney’s fees as a
prevailing party. Aztec refiled the motion for attorney’s fees in this Court post-removal.
(Doc.#7). Plaintiff has represented that he has reached an agreement with Aztec regarding its
outstanding motion. (Doc.#34)
-3-
Case 2:16-cv-00038-RFB-GWF Document 37 Filed 04/04/16 Page 4 of 5
1
legal questions that can be resolved without discovery. As such, it is within the Court’s power to
2
grant a stay of discovery at this time.
3
7.
It would be burdensome and unfair to have the parties incur the expense of time-
4
consuming and costly discovery because the parties have agreed to a stay. Rule 1 of the Federal
5
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the federal rules of practice should be “construed and
6
administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
7
proceeding.” (Emphasis added). Thus, staying discovery in this case is consistent with the spirit
8
and intent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, should the Court agree that this
9
entire matter is governed under NRS 38.310, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (on some
10
or all of Fannie Mae’s claims) until the parties exhaust administrative remedies. If a stay is not
11
granted, the parties will be required to engage in and incur the costs of discovery which may not
12
be necessary, and be forced to litigate in two forums.
13
8.
In order to preserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources, and to promote judicial
14
economy, the parties have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, to stay discovery for 90 days,
15
or until July 5, 2016, in order for the parties to complete the mediation process.
16
9. The parties further stipulate to delay submission of the stipulated discovery plan and
17
discovery order until ten (10) days following the completion of the NRED mediation, or until
18
July 15, 2016, whichever is sooner.
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
-4-
Case 2:16-cv-00038-RFB-GWF Document 37 Filed 04/04/16 Page 5 of 5
1
10. In the event that the Court determines that a stay of discovery is not appropriate, the
2
parties shall submit a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within five (5) days after
3
the entry of an order denying this stipulation or such other time period as the Court may require.
4
DATED: April 4th, 2016.
DATED: April 4th, 2016.
5
GORDON & REES LLP
AKERMAN LLP
6
10
/s/ David T. Gluth
ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7785
DAVID T. GLUTH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10596
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Attorneys for Hollow De Oro Homeowners’
Association
/s/ Christine Parvan
ARIEL E. STERN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8276
CHRISTINE PARVAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10711
1160 Town Center Drive, Suite 330
Las Vegas, NV 89144
Attorneys for Federal National Mortgage
Association and Nationstar Mortgage
11
DATED: April 4th, 2016.
DATED: April 4th, 2016.
12
ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES,
LTD.
SPRINGEL & FINK LLP
/s/ Timothy E. Rhoda
ROGER P. CROTEAU, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 4958
TIMOTHY E. RHODA, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7878
912 West Post Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s /Michael A. Arata
LEONARD T. FINK, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6296
MICHAEL A. ARATA, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11902
10655 Park Run Drive, Ste. 275
Las Vegas, NV 89144
Attorneys for Defendants Steven Schneider and
Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage Company
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED:
25
26
27
28
1110655/27444755v.1
-5-
April 5, 2016
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?