Bank of America, N.A. v. Mesa Verde Homeowners Association et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting SFR's ECF No. 58 Motion for Leave to File an Opposition; granting in part and denying in part SFR's ECF No. 57 Motion for Reconsideration; denying as moot Plaintiff's ECF No. 59 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
MESA VERDE HOMEOWNERS
)
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00498-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 57, 58, 59)

16

Pending before the Court are SFR’s motion to reconsider the prior order granting Plaintiff’s

17

motion for protective order and for sanctions as unopposed, and motion for leave to file an untimely

18

opposition brief. Docket Nos. 57, 58. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and SFR filed a reply.

19

Docket Nos. 62, 65. The Court finds the motions properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule

20

78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion for leave to file an untimely opposition

21

brief is GRANTED, and the motion to reconsider is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In

22

addition, Plaintiff’s motion for calculation of attorneys’ fees at Docket No. 59 is DENIED as moot.

23

I.

SFR’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE RESPONSE

24

On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed its motion for protective order. Docket No. 50. The deadline

25

for SFR to file its opposition brief was October 24, 2016. See Local Rule 7-2(b); see also Fed. R. Civ.

26
27
28

1

P. 6(d) (previous version).1 SFR did not meet that deadline. On October 26, 2016, the Court granted

2

Plaintiff’s motion as unopposed. See Docket No. 56.

3

To determine whether to allow for the untimely filing of the opposition, the Court looks to

4

whether excusable neglect has been established in failing to comply with the already-established

5

deadline. In doing so, the Court considers: (1) the reason for the delay and whether it was in the

6

reasonable control of the moving party, (2) whether the moving party acted in good faith, (3) the length

7

of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, and (4) the danger of prejudice to the

8

nonmoving party. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The reason

9

for SFR’s failure to comply with the local rules is not a compelling one, by any stretch.2 Nonetheless,

10

the Court finds that balancing of the equitable factors tilts in favor of permitting the late filing of an

11

opposition brief. As such, the motion for leave to file an opposition will be GRANTED.

12

SFR has not actually prepared and submitted a proposed responsive brief in this case. Instead,

13

it has referenced the responsive brief that it filed in Bank of America v. Desert Pine Villas Homeowners

14

Association, Case No. 2:16-cv-00725-JCM-NJK. See Docket No. 65 at 5. SFR represents that the

15

issues raised in the motion for protective order in this case are identical to those at issue in the motion

16

filed in the Desert Pine case. See id. As such, the Court will deem that responsive brief as having also

17

been filed in this case.

18

II.

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

19

The Court has issued an order resolving the motion for protective order in the Desert Pine case

20

and hereby incorporates that order herein to conclude that the motion for protective order shall be

21

granted, but that an award of attorneys’ fees is not appropriate.

22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

Effective December 1, 2016, the Federal Rules were amended to omit the provision allowing three
additional days when service is completed by electronic means, including the Court’s CM/ECF system. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
2

The reason provided is nonsensical, as counsel asserts that she miscalculated the deadline based
on the date of issuance of the briefing schedule order on October 10, 2016. Docket No. 58, Ebron Decl. ¶
6. There is no order dated or issued on October 10, 2016, and the referenced minute order was issued one
hour after Plaintiff’s motion was filed, at 4:13 p.m. on October 7, 2016, Docket No. 51.
2

1

The Court therefore GRANTS the motion for reconsideration of its order at Docket No. 56 in

2

this case to the extent that order is inconsistent with this ruling, and it is otherwise DENIED.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

For the reasons discussed above, SFR’s motion for leave to file an opposition (Docket No. 58)

5

is GRANTED, SFR’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 57) is GRANTED in part and DENIED

6

in part, and Plaintiff’s motion for calculation of attorneys’ fees (Docket No. 59) is DENIED as moot.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: January 17, 2017

9
10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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