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

Filing 83

ORDER granting 80 Motion for Leave to File Document Re: 78 Motion for 56(d) Relief. Responses due by 8/15/2022. Replies due by 8/22/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 8/1/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Case 2:16-cv-01053-RFB-DJA Document 83 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

***
Bank of America, N.A., successor by
merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing,
LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans
Servicing, LP; and Federal National
Mortgage Association, et al.,

Case No. 2:16-cv-01053-RFB-DJA
Order

Plaintiffs,
v.
Madeira Canyon Homeowners Association;
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC; and Nevada
Association Services, Inc.,
Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a response to SFR Investments Pool

15

1, LLC’s motion for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(2) relief. (ECF No. 80). SFR filed a

16

response. (ECF No. 81). And Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 82).

17

On April 19, 2022, the Honorable District Judge Richard F. Boulware ordered the parties

18

to brief any remaining live issues in the case after the Ninth Circuit had remanded the case for

19

further proceedings. (ECF No. 77). Plaintiffs filed a brief. (ECF No. 79). SFR filed a motion—

20

styled as a “request”—for FRCP 56(d)(2) relief, arguing that limited discovery is necessary for

21

SFR to properly oppose any supplemental summary judgment briefing by Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 78

22

at 2). Plaintiffs move for leave to file a response to SFR’s FRCP 56(d)(2) motion. (ECF No. 80).

23

Plaintiffs argue that, although they were ordered to file simultaneous briefs, SFR’s motion

24

requires a response because it moves for specific relief: to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 80 at 3).

25

SFR responds that nothing in Judge Boulware’s order provided that the parties could respond to

26

the simultaneous briefs. (ECF No. 81). SFR adds that “there is no basis for this Court to grant

27

Bank of America/Fannie Mae a response, while depriving SFR of the same opportunity.” (Id.).

28

Plaintiffs reply that SFR’s motion is different than Plaintiffs’ brief because SFR’s motion seeks

Case 2:16-cv-01053-RFB-DJA Document 83 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 2

1

new relief, while Plaintiffs’ brief outlines items Plaintiffs already argued in their motion for

2

summary judgment that remain post-remand. (ECF No. 82). They add that, SFR’s request to also

3

respond to Plaintiffs’ brief was procedurally improper because SFR did not move to respond.

4

(Id.).

5

SFR’ request for FRCP 56(d)(2) relief is, procedurally, a motion. It requests relief in the

6

form of a court order, to which Plaintiffs should be able to respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)

7

(explaining that a request for a court order must be made by motion); see LR 7-2(d) (explaining

8

that the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion

9

constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion). Moreover, the relief SFR seeks is distinct

10

from the type of briefing—outlining remaining live issues—that Judge Boulware ordered.

11

Plaintiffs’ brief, on the other hand, falls more in line with Judge Boulware’s order. The brief

12

outlines remaining live issues which Plaintiffs assert are already fully briefed. And SFR did not

13

argue that Plaintiffs’ brief contains new material or requests new relief not already briefed.

14
15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to respond to SFR’s

16

motion for FRCP 56(d)(2) relief (ECF No. 80) is granted. Plaintiffs’ response will be due

17

August 15, 2022. SFR’s reply will be due August 22, 2022.

18
19
20
21

DATED: August 1, 2022
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2