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)

Download PDF
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: 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?