JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 20

ORDER that the 18 Joint Motion to Stay Litigation is NOT APPROVED and is DENIED. The following discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines shall apply: Discovery due by 10/4/2017. Motions due by 11/3/2017. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/4/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/7/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
    1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 8 9 10 v. Case No. 2:17-cv-00074-JCM-PAL Plaintiff, ORDER SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., (Jt. Mot Stay – ECF No. 18) Defendants. 11 12 Before the court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Litigation (ECF No. 18). The matter 13 was referred to me pursuant to LR IB 1-7 of the Local Rules of Practice. The motion was filed 14 jointly by plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., defendant SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC, and 15 defendant Rancho Las Brisas Master Homeowners Association. On March 8, 2017, defendant 16 Fidel Pajarillo filed an Objection (ECF No. 19). For the reasons explained below, the Joint Motion 17 (ECF No. 18) is denied. 18 The Complaint (ECF No. 1) in this case was filed January 9, 2017. It is a quiet title action 19 arising out of a non-judicial foreclosure sale of real property commonly described as 4856 La 20 Cumbre Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada. The property was purchased by Defendant Pajarillo in 2005. 21 Pajarillo obtained a loan which was secured by a first deed of trust. He allegedly defaulted on a 22 loan and the property was sold in an HOA foreclosure sale in 2012 and purchased by SFR for 23 $16,600.00. The prayer for relief seeks a declaration and determination that SFR’s interest in the 24 property is subject to plaintiff’s deed of trust. In the alternative, plaintiff seeks an award of 25 damages against SFR for all payments advanced by Chase after the HOA sale to maintain and 26 preserve the property including amount advanced for taxes and insurance, and costs and attorney’s 27 fees. Pajarillo answered the complaint on January 23, 2017. Defendant Rancho Las Brisas Master 28 Homeowners Association answered on January 31, 2017, and defendant SFR filed a demand for 1     1 security of costs on February 2, 2017. The certificate of cash deposit was filed February 10, 2017, 2 after the district court granted SFR’s demand for security of costs. 3 The joint motion to stay requests a stay of all proceedings in this case pending petitions for 4 writs of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells 5 Fargo Bank, 831 F 3d 1154(9th Cir. 2016) and Saticoy Bay, LLC v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 6 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (2017). If a stay is granted the moving parties agree to submit a status report 7 every 90 days. 8 Pajarillo, who is appearing pro se, filed an objection indicating he objected of the 9 characterization of this case as a quiet title action arising from a foreclosure sale and the statement 10 that Rancho Las Brisas conducted a sale pursuant to the provisions of NRS 116. However, he does 11 not object to a stay. 12 The parties assert that a stay will 1) avoid the cost and expense of continued legal 13 proceedings in light of unsettled law, 2) save the resources of the court and the parties, and 3) 14 promote the orderly course of justice by avoiding the need to move forward without a final 15 resolution of the federal issues and the state court/federal court conflict. The stipulation also points 16 out that several judges in this district have stayed HOA cases pending exhaustion of these two 17 appeals. 18 This is one of hundreds of cases pending in this court arising out of HOA foreclosures. 19 The parties in these cases have requested serial stays of proceedings while various decisions were 20 under submission to the Nevada Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit. In a series of motions and 21 stipulations for stay, counsel for the parties have repeatedly assured the court that a decision in a 22 case under submission was potentially dispositive of all the parties’ claims and defenses. Stays 23 have been requested based on similar arguments that the law is unsettled, that judicial decisions in 24 state and federal courts are in conflict, and that resources will be saved if the court stays the case 25 until the most recent case under submission is decided. Although numerous stays have been 26 granted over the past several years based on these arguments, the stays have not accomplished 27 their stated objectives. To the contrary, the series of stays entered awaiting decisions by the 28 Nevada Supreme Court and/or Ninth Circuit have only resulted in more litigation and requests for 2     1 enlarging or reopening discovery on new claims and theories. The evolving case law has generated 2 more rather than less litigation and expenditure of resources. 3 Staying cases congests the court’s docket. When cases are not resolved in a timely manner, 4 the court’s docket increases exponentially because cases are not closed and new filings continue 5 to increase. The court’s experience in these HOA foreclosure cases is that stays only kick the can 6 down the road. 7 The court is fully aware that a number of district judges in this district have stayed most or 8 all of their HOA foreclosure cases pending a decision on whether the Supreme Court will grant or 9 deny certiorari in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay. Those district judges have entered orders in all 10 of their cases. However, the district judge assigned to this case referred this motion to the 11 undersigned. 12 Having reviewed and considered the matter, and for the reasons explained, 13 IT IS ORDERED that: 14 1. The Joint Motion to Stay Litigation (ECF No. 18) is NOT APPROVED and is DENIED. 15 2. The following discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines shall apply. 16 17 a. Last date to complete discovery: October 4, 2017. 18 b. Last date to amend pleadings and add parties: July 6, 2017. 19 c. Last date to file interim status report: August 5, 2017. 20 d. Last date to disclose experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2): August 5, 2017. 21 e. Last date to disclose rebuttal experts: September 4, 2017. 22 f. Last date to file dispositive motions: November 3, 2017. 23 g. Last date to file joint pretrial order: December 4, 2017. In the event dispositive 24 motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 25 days after a decision of the dispositive motions. 3. The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and any objections thereto, shall 26 be included in the pretrial order. 27 28 /// 3     1 4. Applications to extend any dates set by this discovery plan and scheduling order shall, 2 in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be supported by a showing of good 3 cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to extend discovery shall be 4 received no later than September 13, 2017, and shall fully comply with the 5 requirements of LR 26-4. 6 DATED this 7th day of April, 2017. 7 8 PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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?