Bank of America, N.A. v. Madeira Canyon Homeowners Association, et al

Filing 22

ORDER STAYING CASE. IT IS ORDERED that this case is administratively STAYED. Once the Ninth Circuit issues the mandate in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, case number 15-15233 (2:13-cv-649-PMP-NJK), any party may move to lift the st ay. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED without prejudice to their refiling within 20 days after the stay is lifted. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/25/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 5 6 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L SERVICING, LP, Case No.: 2:16-cv-01053-RFB-CWH ORDER STAYING CASE 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 MADIERA CANYON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al. 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 I. Introduction 15 On August 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. 16 Wells Fargo Bank, 2016 WL 4254983 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016). In this decision, the Ninth Circuit 17 declared 18 unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution. The mandate for 19 this decision has yet to issue. The Appellee has indicated that it will be seeking a rehearing en 20 banc before the Ninth Circuit. Nevada’s nonjudicial statutory foreclosure framework under Chapter 116 21 The Ninth Circuit’s ultimate resolution of this issue may have a dispositive effect upon this 22 litigation, since a due process challenge has been raised in this litigation. To avoid potentially 23 unnecessary further litigation, this Court stays this case pending the issuance of the mandate in 24 Bourne. This Court further denies all motions without prejudice to being refiled upon a lifting of 25 the stay in this case. 1 II. Discussion 2 A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the 3 efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). 4 When determining whether a stay is appropriate pending the resolution of another case, the district 5 court must consider: (1) the possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any hardship or 6 inequity that a party may suffer if required to go forward, (3) and the orderly course of justice 7 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law that a 8 stay will engender. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 9 (9th Cir. 2007)(citations omitted). Considering these factors in the context of this case, the Court 10 finds that a stay is appropriate. 11 A. Damage From A Stay 12 The Court finds there is minimal, if any, damage from a stay in this case. While there is a 13 potential damage in terms of the length of time to resolve this case should the Bourne panel’s 14 decision be upheld, the significance or severity of this damage is negated by the fact that there 15 almost certainly would have been a full appellate process even if the decision had reached the 16 opposite result. This is to say that the appellate process would have had run its course for either 17 side to have the finality it seeks to have clear or encumbered title to the respective property 18 involved. 19 B. 20 The Court finds that there is no significant hardship or inequity that befalls one party more 21 than the other. This relatively equal balance of equities results from the need, as noted above, for 22 both parties to have finality in the appellate process in order to claim their title or interest in the 23 respective property. Hardship Or Inequity 24 The Court also finds that there would an equal hardship on both parties in terms of resources 25 expended if the Court did not stay this litigation. This hardship would arise from the various 1 motions and supporting briefs the parties would file to preserve their respective legal positions 2 regarding the panel’s decision in Bourne. By staying this case, the Court prevents this hardship or 3 expenditure for both parties. 4 C. Orderly Course of Justice 5 The Court finds that a stay would substantially promote the orderly course of justice in this 6 case. The stay and the temporary denial of motions without prejudice will avoid the likely deluge 7 of the various motions related to the precedent established (or not) by the split panel’s decision 8 Bourne. Upon an issuance of the mandate in Bourne, this Court will be in a position to completely 9 and finally resolve the constitutional issues related to Bourne in this case. This will streamline and 10 simply the proceedings and minimize the unnecessary expenditure of the parties’ and the Court’s 11 time and resources. 12 Additionally, the stay will last no longer than it takes for the mandate to issue in Bourne. In 13 this way, the stay will be as short as it can be and still provide finality on the particular 14 constitutional issues. Granted this may not necessarily be a short period of time. However, as 15 noted previously, the parties would likely have had to wait this same time for finality in any event. 16 III. Conclusion 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is administratively STAYED. Once the 18 Ninth Circuit issues the mandate in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, case number 19 15-15233 (2:13-cv-649-PMP-NJK), any party may move to lift the stay. 20 21 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED without prejudice to their refiling within 20 days after the stay is lifted. DATED this 25th day of August, 2016. 23 24 25 ___________________________ RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge

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?