Selene Finance, L.P. v. Weston Hills Homeowners' Association et al

Filing 39

ORDER Granting 38 Stipulation to withdraw 37 Motion for Summary Judgment. Amended Motion due by 1/4/2019. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/2/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:16-cv-02618-JAD-NJK Document 38 Filed 12/28/18 Page 1 of 3

1 MICHAEL F. BOHN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No.: 1641
2 [e-mail]
ADAM R. TRIPPIEDI, ESQ.
3 Nevada Bar No.: 12294
[e-mail]
4 LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL F. BOHN, ESQ., LTD.
5 2260 Corporate Cir, Suite 480
Henderson, Nevada 89074
6 [phone]/ [phone] FAX
Attorney for defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series
7 1168 Aspen Cliff
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 1168 ASPEN
CLIFF; WESTON HILLS HOMEOWNERS’
ASSOCIATION,

15
16
17

CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-02618-JAD-NJK

SELENE FINANCE, L.P.,

STIPULATION TO
WITHDRAW SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION (ECF 37)
ECF Nos. 37, 38

Defendants.
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 1168 ASPEN
CLIFF,
Counterclaimant,

18
19

v.

20

SELENE FINANCE, L.P.,

21

Counterdefendant.

22
23
24
25
26

Defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 1168 Aspen Cliff, by and through its attorney, Michael F.
Bohn, Esq., and plaintiff Selene Finance, L.P., by and through it’s attorney Tenesa Powell, Esq. stipulate
and agree as follows:
1. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Saticoy Bay as ECF 37 may be
withdrawn; and

27
28

1

Case 2:16-cv-02618-JAD-NJK Document 38 Filed 12/28/18 Page 2 of 3

1

2. Saticoy Bay shall have until January 4, 2019 to file an amended summary judgment motion.

2

The parties represent that the defendants summary judgment motion is being withdrawn because

3 of representations made in the motion regarding the plaintiffs responses to the defendants written
4 discovery requests. Written discovery was served on the plaintiff on February 8, 2017. This case was
5 stayed by order entered on February 27, 2017 (ECF 23). An order lifting the stay was entered on
6 September 24, 2018 (ECF 29).
7

Counsel for the plaintiff did not respond to the written discovery, however, counsel for the

8 defendant never made a request for discovery responses after the stay was lifted.
9

After discussion between counsel for Selene Finance and Saticoy Bay, it was determined that it

10 would not be fair to base part of Saticoy Bay’s motion for summary judgment based on discovery which
11 was not responded to when counsel for Saticoy Bay did not request responses after the stay was lifted.
12

DATED this 28th day of December, 2018

13 LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL F. BOHN, ESQ., LTD.
14

AKERMAN LLP

15
By: /S/ Michael F. Bohn, Esq./
By: /S/ / Tenesa Powell, Esq./
Michael F. Bohn, Esq.
Tenesa Powell, Esq.
2260 Corporate Circle, Suite 480
1635 Village Center Circle, Suite 200
17
Henderson, Nevada 89074
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Attorney for defendant Saticoy Bay
Attorney for plaintiff Selene Finance
18
2nd
19
IT IS SO ORDERED this
day of December, 2019.
January, 2018
16

20
21
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
TRICT COURT JUDG
ICT
T U
22
Respectfully submitted by:
23
LAW OFFICES OF
24 MICHAEL F. BOHN, ESQ., LTD.
25 By: /S/ Michael F. Bohn, Esq./
MICHAEL F. BOHN, ESQ.
26 2260 Corporate Circle, Suite 480
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
27 Attorney for defendant Saticoy Bay
28

2