Bank of America, N.A. v. Nevada Trails II Community Association, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 26 the parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order is NOT APPROVED andis DENIED. The Stipulation to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline 30 is GRANTED to the extent that the parties shall have until 5/5/2017, to file any dispositive motions. See Order for further details/deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/7/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
    1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, v. NEVADA TRAILS ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00880-JCM-PAL II ORDER (Stip to Stay – ECF No. 26) (Stip Ext Ddln – ECF No. 30) COMMUNITY Defendants. 12 13 This matter is before the court on the parties’ Stipulation and Order to Stay Litigation 14 Pending Final Resolution of Petition(s) for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, 15 or, in the Alternative, Pending Relief From Stay in the Bankruptcy Court (ECF No. 26). The 16 matter was referred to me pursuant to LR IB 1-7 of the Local Rules of Practice. For the reasons 17 explained below, the Stipulation and Proposed Order (ECF No. 26) is denied. 18 The Complaint (ECF No. 1) was filed April 18, 2016. It involves a quiet title and 19 declaratory relief action arising out of a non-judicial homeowners’ association foreclosure sale of 20 real property located at 7623 Cascade Ridge Court in Las Vegas, Nevada. The property was 21 purchased by homeowners in 2008. The homeowners obtained a loan from Bank of America in 22 the amount of $267,600.00 secured by a senior deed of trust. It was subsequently sold in an HOA 23 foreclosure sale in 2012 for $6,300.00. The complaint alleges that Chapter 116 of the Nevada 24 Revised Statutes violates plaintiff’s right to procedural due process under the United States and 25 Nevada Constitutions. 26 foreclosure sale did not extinguish the plaintiff’s senior deed of trust. The prayer for relief seeks 27 an order declaring that the buyer purchased the property subject to BANA’s senior deed of trust. 28 In the alternative, BANA seeks an order that the HOA foreclosure sale and any resulting The complaint also alleges additional legal theories why the HOA 1     1 foreclosure deed was void at ab initio. In the alternative, BANA seeks an order requiring Nevada 2 Trails and the lessee to pay it all amounts by which it was damaged as a result of wrongful 3 foreclosure and/or violation of the good faith provisions of NRS 116.1113; a preliminary 4 injunction prohibiting the buyer, its successors, assigns, or agents from conducting any sale, 5 transfer, or encumbrance of the property that is claimed to be superior to the senior deed of trust; 6 a preliminary injunction requiring the buyer to pay all taxes, insurance, and homeowners’ 7 association dues during the pendency of this action; and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and 8 special damages. 9 A Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 19) was entered June 23, 2016, which 10 established a November 2, 2016 discovery cutoff and related case management deadlines 11 consistent with LR 26-1. The court granted the parties’ stipulation for an extension of the 12 discovery cutoff and extended discovery until February 2, 2017. See Stipulation (ECF No. 23) 13 and Order (ECF. 24). On January 5, 2017, a Notice of Bankruptcy was filed on the record on 14 behalf of Defendant Alessi & Koenig indicating that it had filed a Chapter 7 petition in the 15 bankruptcy court on December 13, 2016. Alessi & Koenig was served with the complaint in this 16 case on April 24, 2016. See Summons Returned Executed (ECF No. 7). However, it did not make 17 an appearance, and plaintiff did not request default. On March 17, 2017, the district judge granted 18 the parties’ stipulation to withdraw defendant Daisy Trust’s motion for summary judgment. The 19 stipulation provided no reason for the requested withdrawal. 20 The parties assert that a stay will 1) avoid the cost and expense of continued legal 21 proceedings in light of unsettled law, 2) save the resources of the court and the parties, and 3) 22 promote the orderly course of justice by avoiding the need to move forward without a final 23 resolution of the federal issues and the state court/federal court conflict. The stipulation also points 24 out that several judges in this district have stayed HOA cases pending exhaustion of these two 25 appeals. 26 This is one of hundreds of cases pending in this court arising out of HOA foreclosures. 27 The parties in these cases have requested serial stays of proceedings while various decisions were 28 under submission to the Nevada Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit. In a series of motions and 2     1 stipulations for stay, counsel for the parties have repeatedly assured the court that a decision in a 2 case under submission was potentially dispositive of all the parties’ claims and defenses. Stays 3 have been requested based on similar arguments that the law is unsettled, that judicial decisions in 4 state and federal courts are in conflict, and that resources will be saved if the court stays the case 5 until the most recent case under submission is decided. Although numerous stays have been 6 granted over the past several years based on these arguments, the stays have not accomplished 7 their stated objectives. To the contrary, the series of stays entered awaiting decisions by the 8 Nevada Supreme Court and/or Ninth Circuit have only resulted in more litigation and requests for 9 enlarging or reopening discovery on new claims and theories. The evolving case law has generated 10 more rather than less litigation and expenditure of resources. 11 Staying cases congests the court’s docket. When cases are not resolved in a timely manner, 12 the court’s docket increases exponentially because cases are not closed and new filings continue 13 to increase. The court’s experience in these HOA foreclosure cases is that stays only kick the can 14 down the road. 15 The court is fully aware that a number of district judges in this district have stayed most or 16 all of their HOA foreclosure cases pending a decision on whether the Supreme Court will grant or 17 deny certiorari in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay. Those district judges have entered orders in all 18 of their cases. However, the district judge assigned to this case referred this stipulation to the 19 undersigned. 20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that: 22 1. The parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order (ECF No. 26) is NOT APPROVED and 23 is DENIED.  24 2. The Stipulation to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED 25 to the extent that the parties shall have until May 5, 2017, to file any dispositive 26 motions.  27 3. Pursuant to LR 26-1, the joint pretrial order is due June 5, 2017, unless dispositive 28 motions are timely filed. In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing 3     1 the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 days after a decision of the 2 dispositive motions. The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and any 3 objections thereto, shall be included in the pretrial order. 4 DATED this 7th day of April, 2017. 5 6 PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?