RH Kids, LLC v. Lehman et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting Defendants' 14 Motion to Stay all proceedings pending resolution of the Nevada Supreme Court's acceptance of the certified questionof law, Appeal No. 72931. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/4/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

DARREN T. BRENNER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8386
REBEKKAH B. BODOFF, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12703
KAREN A. WHELAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10466
AKERMAN LLP
1635 Village Center Circle, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Bank of America, N.A.
and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

AKERMAN LLP

1635 VILLAGE CENTER CIRCLE, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89134
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12

RH KIDS, LLC,

Case No.: 2-17-cv-01004

13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
16
17
18

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC'S
MOTION
FOR
PARTIAL
STAY
PENDING FINAL RESOLUTION OF
THE CERTIFIED QUESTION TO THE
NEVADA SUPREME COURT

DEBBIE C. LEHMAN; BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A.; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
a
federally
chartered
corporation; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10
INCLUSIVE; ROE CORPORATIONS 1
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,

19

Defendants.

20

In the interests of judicial economy, Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America)

21

and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, Defendants)

22

respectfully move the Court for an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Nevada

23

Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question, Nevada Supreme Court Appeal No., 72931.

24

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

25

The Ninth Circuit declared that NRS 116 is facially unconstitutional in Bourne Valley. Bourne

26

Valley, 832 F.3d at 1159-60. The Supreme Court denied Bourne Valley's petition for review, and the

27

Ninth Circuit's decision remains intact. See id., 2017 WL 1300223, at *1.

28

…

1

On April 21, 2017, this Court, in Case No. 2:16-cv-02561-RFB-PAL, at ECF No. 41, granted

2

SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion to Certify a Question of Law to Nevada’s Supreme Court.

3

On May 21, 2017, SFR Investments filed its certifying question with the Nevada Supreme Court. On

4

June 13, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court accepted the certified question. The briefing on the certified

5

question is not yet completed, and no decision has been issued.

Court. In the instant action, Plaintiff’s claims arise from a homeowner's non-judicial foreclosure sale

8

and Plaintiff seeks, among other claims, a declaration that the HOA foreclosure sale extinguished the

9

first Deed of Trust pursuant to NRS 116—the same statute the Ninth Circuit declared unconstitutional

10

AKERMAN LLP

The current action involves the same constitutional questions presented to the Nevada Supreme

7

1635 VILLAGE CENTER CIRCLE, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89134
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

6

and that is the subject of the certified question. To save the parties’ and the Court’s resources,

11

Defendants request this Court to stay all deadlines in this case pending resolution of the certified

12

question, including discovery, summary judgment and pretrial order deadlines. The resolution of the

13

certified question may resolve the entire litigation.

14

I.

A stay is appropriate.

15

Federal district courts have "wide discretion in controlling discovery." Little v. City of Seattle,

16

863 F.2d 681,685 (9th Cir. 1988). To determine if a stay is appropriate, the Court considers (1) damage

17

from the stay; (2) hardship or inequity that befalls one party more than the other; and (3) the orderly

18

course of justice. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066

19

(9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth factors). Here, the factors support a stay of all proceedings.

20

A.

Damage from stay

21

Any damage from a discovery stay is minimal if balanced against the potentially unnecessary

22

fees, costs, and time which would ensue if discovery continues. If the motion is granted, the parties

23

will be able to avoid the cost and expense of written discovery and depositions on issues that may be

24

irrelevant based on the Nevada Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question. Moreover, the Court

25

will be relieved of expending further time and effort considering any discovery-related motions or

26

briefing on other dispositive issues. A stay will benefit all parties involved as well as the Court.

27

…

28

…
2

1

B.

Hardship or inequity

2

There will be no significant hardship or inequity that befalls the defendants as a result of the

3

stay.

The non-moving parties will benefit, at Defendants’ expense, as Plaintiff will maintain

4

possession and control of the property during the stay.

5

C.

Orderly course of justice

6

At the center of this case is a homeowners' association's foreclosure sale under NRS 116. The

7

outcome of the Nevada Supreme Court’s certified question has the potential to result in resolution of

8

the entire case. Without a stay, the parties will expend resources that will be unnecessary if the motion

9

is granted. It is therefore appropriate for this Court to exercise its power to grant a stay. Defendants’

AKERMAN LLP

1635 VILLAGE CENTER CIRCLE, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89134
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

10

request is not intended to cause any delay or prejudice to any party.

11

II.

12

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request the Court issue an order staying all

13

proceedings pending resolution of the Nevada Supreme Court’s acceptance of the certified question

14

of law, Appeal No. 72931. See also Bank of New York Mellon v. Star Hill Homeowners Ass’n, 2:16-

15

cv-02561-RFB-PAL, ECF No. 45 (staying litigation pending final resolution of the certified question

16

to the Nevada Supreme Court).

17

Conclusion

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2018.

18

AKERMAN LLP

19

/s/ Karen A. Whelan
DARREN T. BRENNER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8386
REBEKKAH B. BODOFF, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12703
KAREN A. WHELAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10466
1635 Village Center Circle, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134

20
21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED

Attorneys for Bank of America, N.A.

25

27

__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

DATED: January 4, 2018

26

3

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3rd day of January, 2018 and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b),

3

I served via CM/ECT electronic filing system, and/or deposited for mailing in the U.S. Mail postage

4

prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC'S MOTION

5

FOR PARTIAL STAY PENDING FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE CERTIFIED QUESTION

6

TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT addressed to:

7

10

Michael N. Beede, Esq.
Cheryl A. Grames, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MIKE BEEDE, PLLC
2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 420
Las Vegas, NV 89102

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

8

AKERMAN LLP

1635 VILLAGE CENTER CIRCLE, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89134
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

9

12
13
14

/s/ Patricia Larsen
An employee of AKERMAN LLP

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4