Bank of America, N.A. et al v. Santa Barbara Homeowners Association et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting ECF No. 43 Motion to Stay, temporarily staying action until resolution of the certiorari proceedings before the USSC in Bourne Valley and/or Saticoy Bay - status report due within 15 days of such resolution; denying without prejudice ECF No. 23 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8
9

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a successor
by merger to BAC HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP fka COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:16-cv-02768-MMD-CWH
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
SANTA BARBARA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION; SFR INVESTMENTS
POOL 1, LLC; and ABSOLUTE
COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC,,

14

Defendants.

15
16

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
Counter/Cross Claimant,

17
v.
18
19
20
21
22

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., successor by
merger to BAC HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP fka COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP;
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION; KATY L. LEE, and
individual; and KATY L. LEE, TRUSTEE
or her successor in trust, under the KLEE
LIVING TRUST, dated August 10, 2006,

23
Counter/Cross Defendants.
24
25

This case arises out of a homeowner’s association (“HOA”) foreclosure sale and

26

involves a constitutional due process challenge to Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 116’s

27

notice provisions. Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Stay (“Joint Motion”) filed by

28

Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) and Federal National

1

Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), and Defendants SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

2

(“SFR”) and Absolute Services, LLC (“ACS”) (collectively “Movants”) (ECF No. 43).

3

Defendant Santa Barbara Homeowner Association’s (“SB”) filed a response opposing the

4

Joint Motion (ECF No. 45) to which Movants filed a reply (ECF No. 46). Movants ask the

5

Court to stay all proceedings pending final resolution of the petitions for certiorari in

6

Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), r’hng

7

denied (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016), and Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells

8

Fargo Home Mortgage, a Div. of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 388 P.3d 970 (Nev. Jan. 26,

9

2017). For the stated reasons below, the Court agrees with Movants and finds that a

10

complete stay of the case, at least until the Supreme Court addresses the pending

11

certiorari petitions, is prudent.

12

In their opposition, SB contends that they will suffer additional attorney’s fees to

13

monitor the pending certiorari petitions, delay in the resolution of the ownership of the

14

property, and an inability to budget for future amounts and legal costs if the case is stayed.

15

(ECF No. 45 at 3.) Movants, however, argue that there will be minimal defense costs to

16

SB in monitoring the case and that, in the event this action is not stayed, the hardship to

17

Movants outweighs any harm to SB. (ECF No. 46 at 1-2.)

18

A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court. Landis

19

v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d

20

1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own

21

docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending

22

resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified

23

Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). “When considering a motion to

24

stay, the district court should consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-

25

moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and

26

(3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases

27

are in fact consolidated.” Pate v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01168-MMD-

28

CWH, 2012 WL 3532780, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2012) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney
2

1

Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). See

2

also Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir.

3

2007).

4

These three factors weigh in favor of a temporary stay in this case, though the

5

duration of the stay may be extended depending on whether the Supreme Court will grant

6

Bourne Valley and Well Fargo’s petitions for a writ of certiorari. SB insists that a stay will

7

create hardship because of the attorney’s fees resulting from monitoring of this case and

8

the uncertainty of defending the action (ECF No. 45 at 5.) However, any damage to SB

9

from a stay will be outweighed by the fees that all parties will surely incur from continued

10

litigation because a decision by this Court could be rendered moot by a decision in the

11

certiorari proceedings before the Supreme Court. Until there is finality on the issue of

12

whether Nevada’s superpriority lien statutes are constitutional, a stay will benefit the

13

parties and conserve judicial resources.

14

It is therefore ordered that Movants’ Joint Motion to Stay (ECF No. 43) is granted.

15

This action is temporarily stayed until resolution of the certiorari proceedings before the

16

United States Supreme Court in Bourne Valley and/or Saticoy Bay. The parties must file

17

a status report within fifteen (15) days from such resolution. The pending Motion for Partial

18

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is denied without prejudice and may be refiled within

19

thirty (30) days after the stay is lifted.

20

DATED THIS 28th day of April 2017.

21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3