Bank of America, N.A. v. Madeira Canyon Homeowners Association, et al
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
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
Madeira Canyon Homeowners Association;
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC; and Nevada
Association Services, Inc.,
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a response to SFR Investments Pool
1, LLC’s motion for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(2) relief. (ECF No. 80). SFR filed a
response. (ECF No. 81). And Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 82).
On April 19, 2022, the Honorable District Judge Richard F. Boulware ordered the parties
to brief any remaining live issues in the case after the Ninth Circuit had remanded the case for
further proceedings. (ECF No. 77). Plaintiffs filed a brief. (ECF No. 79). SFR filed a motion—
styled as a “request”—for FRCP 56(d)(2) relief, arguing that limited discovery is necessary for
SFR to properly oppose any supplemental summary judgment briefing by Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 78
at 2). Plaintiffs move for leave to file a response to SFR’s FRCP 56(d)(2) motion. (ECF No. 80).
Plaintiffs argue that, although they were ordered to file simultaneous briefs, SFR’s motion
requires a response because it moves for specific relief: to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 80 at 3).
SFR responds that nothing in Judge Boulware’s order provided that the parties could respond to
the simultaneous briefs. (ECF No. 81). SFR adds that “there is no basis for this Court to grant
Bank of America/Fannie Mae a response, while depriving SFR of the same opportunity.” (Id.).
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
new relief, while Plaintiffs’ brief outlines items Plaintiffs already argued in their motion for
summary judgment that remain post-remand. (ECF No. 82). They add that, SFR’s request to also
respond to Plaintiffs’ brief was procedurally improper because SFR did not move to respond.
SFR’ request for FRCP 56(d)(2) relief is, procedurally, a motion. It requests relief in the
form of a court order, to which Plaintiffs should be able to respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)
(explaining that a request for a court order must be made by motion); see LR 7-2(d) (explaining
that the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion
constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion). Moreover, the relief SFR seeks is distinct
from the type of briefing—outlining remaining live issues—that Judge Boulware ordered.
Plaintiffs’ brief, on the other hand, falls more in line with Judge Boulware’s order. The brief
outlines remaining live issues which Plaintiffs assert are already fully briefed. And SFR did not
argue that Plaintiffs’ brief contains new material or requests new relief not already briefed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to respond to SFR’s
motion for FRCP 56(d)(2) relief (ECF No. 80) is granted. Plaintiffs’ response will be due
August 15, 2022. SFR’s reply will be due August 22, 2022.
DATED: August 1, 2022
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
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?