The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. v. Thunder Properties, Inc., et al

Filing 22

ORDER that Defendant Copper Ridge Homeowners' Association's 21 Motion to Withdraw is Granted and the 13 Motion to Lift Stay and 14 Motion to Dismiss are Withdrawn. The 20 Stipulation to Lift Stay is Denied. This case is administratively STAYED. Once the proceedings in the United States Supreme Court in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank and Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage have concluded, any party may move to lift the stay. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8

v.
THUNDER PROPERTIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

Case No. 2:16-cv-02399-APG-NJK
ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW MOTIONS TO DISMISS
AND TO LIFT STAY AND (2)
DENYING STIPULATION TO LIFT
STAY
(ECF Nos. 13, 14, 20, 21)

This is one of many disputes over the effect of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted by

11

a homeowners association (“HOA”) after the prior owner failed to pay HOA assessments. On

12

August 12, 2016, a divided Ninth Circuit panel in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank

13

held that Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 116’s HOA nonjudicial foreclosure scheme, as it

14

existed before the statutory scheme was amended in 2015, “facially violated mortgage lenders’

15

constitutional due process rights.” 832 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 2016); but see id. at *6-11

16

(Wallace, J., dissenting). I previously stayed this case pending issuance of the mandate in Bourne

17

Valley because counsel for the purchaser in that case had indicated that he would be filing a

18

motion for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. ECF No. 6. Those motions were denied and

19

the mandate issued on December 14, 2016. Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 9th Cir.

20

Dkt. No. 15-15233, ECF Nos. 75, 76.

21

Defendant Copper Ridge Homeowners’ Association moved to lift the stay and to dismiss

22

the complaint. But Copper Ridge since has moved to withdraw its motions to dismiss and to lift

23

stay because it believes settlement is likely in this case. I therefore will grant the motion to

24

withdraw.

25

The parties also stipulated to lift the stay. I deny that stipulation. The Supreme Court of

26

Nevada recently decided Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home

27

Mortgage, holding that “the Due Process Clauses of the United Sates and Nevada Constitutions

28

1

are not implicated in an HOA’s nonjudicial foreclosure of a superpriority lien.” 388 P.3d 970, 975

2

(Nev. 2017). The losing parties in both Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay have indicated they intend

3

to file petitions for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Because Bourne Valley and

4

Saticoy Bay reached opposite conclusions, the constitutionality of Nevada’s HOA nonjudicial

5

foreclosure scheme may be decided by the United States Supreme Court. See Sup. Ct. R. 10(b)

6

(identifying as a compelling reason for granting certiorari that “a state court of last resort has

7

decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision . . . of a United

8

States court of appeals”). I therefore sua sponte continue the stay in this case pending a decision

9

on the petitions for certiorari in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay.

10

A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the

11

efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936);

12

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).

13

When determining whether to stay a case pending the resolution of another case, I must consider

14

(1) the possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party

15

may suffer if required to go forward, (3) “and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of

16

the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law” that a stay will engender.

17

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). I find that a Landis stay is

18

appropriate here.

19

The crux of the parties’ dispute is whether the HOA foreclosure sale extinguished the

20

deed of trust. If the HOA sale was void because Chapter 116 is facially unconstitutional, then the

21

parties’ dispute is, in large part, resolved or at least simplified. The Supreme Court’s

22

consideration of the petitions in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay thus could be dispositive of this

23

case, or at least of significant issues in the case. As the jurisprudence and the parties’ arguments

24

in this area evolve, the parties file new motions or move to supplement the pending briefs,

25

burdening our already-busy docket. Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay no doubt will inspire more

26

motions and supplements. Staying this case pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of the

27

petitions in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay will permit the parties to present arguments and

28
Page 2 of 4

1

evidence in the context of complete and resolved precedent, and it will allow me to evaluate the

2

claims in light of this legal authority. Consequently, a stay pending the disposition of the

3

certiorari proceedings will simplify the proceedings and promote the efficient use of the parties’

4

and the court’s resources.

5

Resolving the claims or issues in this case before the Supreme Court decides whether to

6

grant or deny the petitions could impose a hardship on both parties. A stay will prevent

7

unnecessary or premature briefing on Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay’s impact on this case.

8

The potential damage that may result from a stay is that the parties will have to wait

9

longer for resolution of this case and any motions that they intend to file in the future. But a

10

delay would also result from new briefing that may be necessitated if the Supreme Court grants

11

certiorari. So a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision will not necessarily lengthen the life

12

of this case. Any possible damage that a stay may cause is minimal.

13

Finally, I expect the stay pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of the petitions for

14

certiorari to be reasonably short. The petition in Bourne Valley was filed on April 3, 2017. The

15

petition in Saticoy Bay is due April 25, 2017. The length of this stay is tied to the Supreme

16

Court’s decision on the petitions for certiorari, so the stay will be reasonably brief and is not

17

indefinite.1 The stay will remain in place until the proceedings in the Supreme Court have

18

concluded.

19

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Copper Ridge Homeowners’

20

Association’s motion to withdraw (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED and the motion to lift stay (ECF

21

No. 13) and motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) are WITHDRAWN.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stipulation to lift stay (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is administratively STAYED. Once the

24

proceedings in the United States Supreme Court in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo

25
26
1

27
28

The Supreme Court of Nevada stayed the issuance of the remittitur in Saticoy Bay pending the
Supreme Court’s disposition of the certiorari proceedings. No. 68630, Dkt. No. 17-04543 (Nev. Feb. 8,
2017).

Page 3 of 4

1

Bank and Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage have

2

concluded, any party may move to lift the stay.

3

DATED this 11th day of April, 2017.

4
5
6

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 4