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)
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?