Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. San Rafael Townhomes, Phase I Homeowners Association et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting 37 Motion for Exception to Party Attendance Requirement. The HOA Board member shall participate by telephone for the duration of the settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
Case 2:16-cv-01961-GMN-NJK Document 37 Filed 07/05/17 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Edward D. Boyack, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5229 Colli C. McKiever Nevada Bar No. 13724 BOYACK ORME & ANTHONY 7432 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 Ted@boyacklaw.com Colli@boyacklaw.com 702.562.3415 702.562.3570 (fax) Attorney for Defendant Rancho San Rafael Townhomes Phase I HOA 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, 11 Case No. 2:16-cv-1961-GMN-NJK Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 RANCHO SAN RAFAEL TOWNHOMES, PHASE I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THUNDER PROPERTIES INC. 14 15 RANCHO SAN RAFAEL TOWNHOMES PHASE I HOA’S MOTION FOR EXCEPTION TO PARTY ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS Defendants. 16 18 RANCHO SAN RAFAEL TOWNHOMES, PHASE I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THUNDER PROPERTIES INC. 19 vs. 20 HAMPTON & HAMPTON COLLECTIONS, LLC.; DOES 1 - 10; ROE CORPORATIONS 1120, inclusive, jointly and severally, 17 21 22 Third-party Plaintiff Third-party Defendant 23 24 25 NOW COMES the Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, RANCHO SAN RAFAEL 26 TOWNHOMES, PHASE I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, through its counsel, EDWARD 27 28 D. BOYACK, ESQ. and COLLI C. MCKIEVER, ESQ. and of the law firm BOYACK ORME & ANTHONY, who hereby file this Motion for Exception to Party Attendance Requirement. Page 1 of 4 Case 2:16-cv-01961-GMN-NJK Document 37 Filed 07/05/17 Page 2 of 4 1 This Request is made pursuant to the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 2 all papers and pleadings on file herein, all judicially noticed facts, and any such further oral 3 argument as the Court may entertain. 4 Dated this 5th day of July, 2017. 5 BOYACK ORME & ANTHONY 6 By: /s/ Edward D. Boyack Edward D. Boyack, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5229 Colli C. McKiever, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13724 7432 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Attorney for Defendant Rancho San Rafael Townhomes Phase I HOA 7 8 9 10 11 12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 13 14 15 16 On June 26, 2017, the Court entered an Order referring the above-identified litigation to the Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference. See ECF No. 36. Pursuant to this Order the Court scheduled the settlement conference for September 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. See ECF No. 36. Included within the Order was a requirement that “[a]ll counsel of record who will be 17 participating in the trial and who have full authority to settle this case, all parties appearing pro 18 se, if any, and all individual parties must be present. In the case of non-individual parties, 19 counsel of record shall arrange for an officer or representative with binding authority to settle this 20 matter up to the full amount of the claim or last demand made to be present for the duration of 21 the conference.” 22 Id. at 1:21-2:4 (emphasis in original). The Order also stated, “[a] request for an exception to the above attendance requirements must be filed and served on all parties within 23 seven (7) days of the issuance of this order.” 24 Id. at 2:5-7. “A settlement conference without all of the necessary parties present is not productive.” 25 26 Painter. Joint Comm. v. J.L. Wallco, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105720; 2:10-cv-01385-JCM-PAL (D. Nev., July 26, 2013). However, “the district court has inherent power ‘to control the 27 disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and 28 Page 2 of 4 Case 2:16-cv-01961-GMN-NJK Document 37 Filed 07/05/17 Page 3 of 4 1 for litigants.’” U.S. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 694 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Landis v. 2 N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163 (1936)). District courts should take a “practical 3 approach” in determining whether to require a party to send a representative with full settlement 4 authority to a pretrial settlement conference and should consider less drastic steps before doing 5 so. In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 904-05 (5th Cir. 1993). The Federal Rules “should be construed, 6 administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy and 7 inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 8 The representative from Rancho San Rafael Townhomes, Phase I Homeowners 9 Association (“HOA”) is a member of the HOA Board, which is an unpaid, voluntary position. 10 Further, the HOA is a non-profit entity, funded by the assessments paid by the owners of the 11 Association. The HOA Board member who is the representative with settlement authority is a 12 resident of Reno, Nevada. Travel to attend the in-person Settlement Conference would create 13 both a financial and personal hardship upon the Board Member. The HOA requests that the 14 Board Member be allowed to participate in the Settlement Conference by video or telephonic 15 means. 16 Accordingly, Rancho San Rafael Townhomes, Phase I Homeowners Association 17 respectfully requests that the personal attendance of the HOA Board Member be excepted from 18 the Settlement Conference and that video or telephonic participation by the HOA Board Member 19 be allowed at the September 14th, 2017 Settlement Conference. 20 Dated this 5th day of July, 2017. 21 22 23 24 25 BOYACK ORME & ANTHONY GRANTED. The HOA Board member shall participate by telephone for the duration of the settlement conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6, 2017 26 27 ____________________________ United States Magistrate Judge By: /s/ Edward D. Boyack Edward D. Boyack, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5229 Colli C. McKiever, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13724 7432 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Attorney for Defendant Rancho San Rafael HOA 28 Page 3 of 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?