Agha-Khan v. Bank Of New York Mellon
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 60 , 67 the Motions to Stay Litigation Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss are Granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have 14 days from decision of the last decided motion to dismiss to meet a nd confer and conduct a Rule 26(f) conference and submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order as to any claim(s) that survive. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:16-cv-02651-RFB-PAL
(Mot Stay – ECF No. 60)
(Mot Stay – ECF No. 67)
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al.,
Before the court is First American Title Insurance Company, First American Title
Company, erroneously sued and sued as First American Title, First American National Default
Title Services, First American Title Loss Mitigation Title Services – Lmts, and First American
Trustee Servicing Solutions’, erroneously sued and served as Trustee Servicing Solutions’ Motion
to Stay Litigation Pending Resolution of Their Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 19] (ECF No. 60)., and
Defendant Southern Highlands Community Association’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending of its
Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 6] (ECF No. 67). Joinders (ECF Nos. 66, 72) were filed on April 14,
2017, and May 4, 2017. No oppositions to the motions to stay have been filed, and the time for
filing oppositions has expired.
In a related case filed by Plaintiff, Agha-Khan v. Wells Fargo Bank et al, 2:16-cv-2928, the
court held a hearing on April 3, 2017. See Minutes (ECF No 75). The court granted a joint motion
to stay discovery, temporarily staying discovery, but requiring the parties to conduct a Rule 26(f)
conference, and directing that the stay would remain in effect until all parties had made an
appearance and the district judge decides pending motion to dismiss, whichever occurs first.
Both cases involve a 2012 HOA foreclosure sale of the same real property. The moving
defendants in this case argue that a decision of the motions to dismiss will promote justice and
prevent prejudice to any party, and will curb unnecessary fees and costs while the motions to
dismiss are pending.
LR 7-2(d) states, in pertinent part, that the “failure of an opposing party to file points and
authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” The
court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the pending motions to dismiss and plaintiff’s responses
and finds that the interests of Fed. R. Civ. P 1 will best be served by a stay until the pending
motions to dismiss are decided.
Having reviewed and considered the motions,
IT IS ORDERED:
The Motions to Stay Litigation Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (ECF
Nos. 60, 67) are Granted.
2. The parties shall have 14 days from decision of the last decided motion to dismiss to
meet and confer and conduct a Rule 26(f) conference and submit a proposed discovery
plan and scheduling order as to any claim(s) that survive.
DATED this 17th day of May, 2017.
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?