Selene Finance, L.P. v. Sunrise Highlands Community Association et al
Filing
63
ORDERED that all pending Motions for Summary Judgment (## 41 , 42 , 43 ) are DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 7/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
SELENE FINANCE, L.P.,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
Case No. 2:16-cv-02521-KJD-NJK
ORDER
v.
SUNRISE HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Presently before the Court is Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion for
14
15
Summary Judgment (#41). Plaintiff filed a response (#48) to which SFR Investments Pool 1,
16
LLC replied (#58). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#42).
17
Defendants filed responses (## 50, 51) to which Plaintiff replied (#62). Also before the Court is
18
Defendant Sunrise Highlands Community Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#43).
19
Plaintiff filed a response (#49) to which Sunrise Highlands Community Association replied
20
(#59).
21
I. Background
22
This case emerges from the non-judicial foreclosure sale on or about December 17, 2013
23
of the property located at 2812 Murray Hill Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada 89142 (“Property”). This
24
case shares a similar fact pattern with many cases currently pending before this Court, all having
25
to do with HOA foreclosure sales. The several motions presently pending before the Court center
26
in whole or in part around the question of what notice of default the foreclosing party was
27
required to provide Plaintiff prior to its foreclosure sale on the Property. After the Nevada
28
Supreme Court’s decision in SFR Investments Pool 1 LLC v. U.S. Bank, the Ninth Circuit
1
decided Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.
2
2016), holding NRS 115.3116(2)’s statutory notice scheme was facially unconstitutional. In light
3
of Bourne Valley, what notice an HOA must provide prior to foreclosing on a superpriority lien
4
remains uncertain.
5
II. Analysis
6
A. Certified Question
7
On April 21, 2017, in Bank of New York Mellon v. Star Hills Homeowners Association,
8
this Court certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court: “Whether NRS §
9
116.31168(1)’s incorporation of NRS § 107.090 requires homeowners associations to provide
10
notices of default to banks even when a bank does not request notice?” Bank of New York
11
Mellon v. Star Hill Homeowners Assoc., 2017 WL 1439671, at *5 (D. Nev. April 21, 2017).
In granting certification, the Court reasoned the following: In Bourne Valley, the Ninth
12
13
Circuit definitively answered the question that the statute’s “opt-in” framework was
14
unconstitutional. Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th
15
Cir. 2016). However, that leaves this Court with the unresolved question of what notice must be
16
provided. “It is solely within the province of the state courts to authoritatively construe state
17
legislation.” Cal. Teachers Ass’n v. State Bd. of Educ., 271 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). As
18
such, state law questions of first impression like this one should be resolved by the state’s
19
highest court. See Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U.S. 232, 237 (1944). Allowing the Nevada
20
Supreme Court to answer this question before considering any other motions will provide this
21
Court the necessary guidance as to how to handle the issues of notice and actual notice in light of
22
Bourne Valley.
In Bank of New York Mellon, the Court did not and could not rely upon any controlling
23
24
state law as to the requirements of notice. This Court faces the same predicament here. An
25
answer to the above already certified question will provide much needed clarity, and may be
26
dispositive of many of the issues currently before the Court in this case.
27
//
28
//
-2-
1
B. Stay of the Case
2
The pending motions in this case implicate the previously certified question regarding
3
what notice state law requires. To save the parties from the need to invest further resources into
4
the issues surrounding the notice requirement, the Court sua sponte stays all proceedings in this
5
case and denies all pending motions without prejudice.
A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the
6
7
efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S., 248, 254-55 (1936);
8
Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 200).
9
When determining whether a stay is appropriate pending the resolution of another case—often
10
called a “Landis stay”—the district court must weigh: (1) the possible damage that may result
11
from a stay; (2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party may suffer if required to go forward; and
12
(3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,
13
proof, and question of law” that a stay will engender. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098,
14
1110 (9th Cir. 2005). Weighing these considerations, the Court finds that a Landis stay is
15
appropriate.
16
1. Damage from a stay
17
The only potential damage that may result from a stay is that the parties will have
18
to wait longer for resolution of this case and any motions that they have filed or intend to file in
19
the future. But a delay would also result from any rebriefing or supplemental briefing that may
20
be necessitated pending the Nevada Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question. It is not
21
clear that a stay will ultimately lengthen the life of this case.
22
Additionally, a stay of this case pending resolution of the certified question is
23
expected to be reasonably short. This Court certified the question approximately nine months
24
ago, and briefing on the pending petition in Nevada’s Supreme Court is completed. Because the
25
length of this stay is directly tied to the petition proceedings in that case, it is reasonably brief,
26
and not indefinite. Thus, the Court finds only minimal possible damage that this stay may cause.
27
//
28
//
-3-
1
2. Hardship and inequity
2
Both parties equally face hardship or inequity if the Court resolves the claims or
3
issues before the certified question has been resolved. And in the interim, both parties stand to
4
benefit from a stay, regardless of the outcome of the question. A stay will prevent any additional,
5
unnecessary briefing and premature expenditures of time, attorney’s fees, and resources.
6
3. Orderly course of justice
7
A focal point of this case is the question of what notice is now required under
8
NRS Chapter 116 in light of the Ninth Circuit decision Bourne Valley. The jurisprudence in this
9
area of unique Nevada law continues to evolve, causing parties in the scores of foreclosure-
10
challenge actions to file new motions or to supplement the ones that they already have pending,
11
resulting in “docket-clogging entries and an impossible-to-follow chain of briefs in which
12
arguments are abandoned and replaced.” Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Springs at Spanish Trail
13
Assoc., 2017 WL 752775, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2017). Staying this case pending the Nevada
14
Supreme Court’s disposition of the certified question in Bank of New York Mellon will permit
15
the parties to evaluate, simplify, and streamline the proceedings and promote the efficient use of
16
the parties’ and the Court’s resources.
17
Therefore, the Court orders this action stayed. Once the Nevada Supreme Court has
18
resolved the question certified in Bank of New York Mellon, any of the parties may move to lift
19
the stay.
20
III. Conclusion
21
22
23
24
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all pending Motions for Summary
Judgment (##41, 42, 43) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED.
Dated this 25th day of July, 2018.
25
26
27
_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge
28
-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?