Bank of New York Mellon v. Christopher Communities at Southern Highlands Golf Club Home et al

Filing 132

ORDER Granting 131 Motion to Extend Time Re: 127 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Responses due by 5/28/2019. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/8/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

1
2
3
4

Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 10

Sophia S. Lau, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 13365
[e-mail]
EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT
GIZER & McRAE LLP
601 South Seventh Street, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendants
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY AND LAWYERS TITLE OF NEVADA, INC.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWALT,
INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST
2005-56, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-56,

14

17
18
19
20

EX PARTE MOTION OF THIRD-

PARTY DEFENDANTS
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY AND
LAWYERS TITLE OF NEVADA FOR
AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO THIRD-PARTY
PLAINTIFFS ALAN AND THERESA
LAHRS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,

15
16

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF

vs.
CHRISTOPHER COMMUNITIES AT
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION;
KUPPERLIN LAW GROUP, LLC; FIRST
100, LLC; ALAN LAHRS AND
THERESA LAHRS AS TRUSTEES OF
THE LAHRS FAMILY TRUST; DOB
INDIVIDUALS I-X, inclusive; and ROE
CORPORATIONS -X, inclusive,

21

(FIRST REQUEST)

Defendants.

22
23
24

CHRISTOPHER COMMUNITIES AT
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Cross-Complainant,

25

vs.

26
27

KUPPERLIN LAW GROUP, LLC,
Cross-Defendant.

28

1
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 10

1
2
3
4

CHRISTOPHER COMMUNITIES AT
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Cross-Complainant,

5

vs.

6
7

KUPPERLIN LAW GROUP, LLC,
Cross-Defendants.

8
9
10

KUPPERLIN LAW GROUP, LLC,
Counter-claimant,

11

vs.

12
13

NATALIE L. WINSLOW, an individual,
Counter-defendant.

14
15
16
17
18

ALAN LAHRS AND THERESA LAHRS
AS TRUSTEES OF THE LAHRS FAMILY
TRUST, a trust established under the laws
of the State of Nevada,
Cross-Complainant,

19

vs.

20
21
22
23
24

CHRISTOPHER COMMUNITIES AT
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a
homeowner’s association governed by the
laws of the State of Nevada; KUPPERLIN
LAW GROUP, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; FIRST 100, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company,

25

Cross-Defendants.

26
27
28

ALAN LAHRS AND THERESA LAHRS
AS TRUTEES OF THE LAHRS FAMILY
TRUST, a trust established under the laws
of the State of Nevada,
2
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

1

Third-Party Plaintiff,

2
3
4

Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 10

vs.
JAY BLOOM, an individual, DOE
INDIVIDUALS I-X, inclusive; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive,

5

Third-Party Defendants.

6
7
8
9

ALAN LAHRS and THERESA LAHRS,
individually and as Trustees for their Family
Trust,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,

10

vs.

11
12
13
14
15

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign
Corporation previously registered with the
Nevada Secretary of State’s Office;
LAWYERS TITLE OF NEVADA, Inc., a
Nevada Domestic Corporation; DOE
individuals I-V; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I-V,

16

Supplemental Third-Party Defendants.

17
18
19

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD

20

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and

21

Local Rules IA 6-1 and 6-2, third-party defendants Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company

22

(“Commonwealth”) and Lawyers Title of Nevada, Inc. (“Lawyers Title”) (collectively

23

“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record from Early Sullivan Wright

24

Gizer & McRae LLP, will and hereby do move the Court, on an ex parte basis, for an order

25

extending Defendants’ time to respond to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“MPSJ”) filed

26

by third-party plaintiffs Alan and Theresa Lahrs’ (collectively “Plaintiffs” or the “Lahrs”) on

27

February 21, 2019. [ECF No. 127]. Defendants’ Response to the MPSJ is currently due on March

28

14, 2019. [ECF No. 127].
3
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 10

1

As set forth herein, Defendants were only recently added to this litigation after the Lahrs

2

obtained permission from the Court (in December 2018) to file a Supplemental Third-Party

3

Complaint against Commonwealth and Lawyers Title. [ECF No. 113]. Commonwealth and

4

Lawyers Title filed an Answer to the Lahrs’ Third Party Complaint only one month ago, i.e., on

5

February 1, 2019. [ECF No. 122]. The Lahrs filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

6

just 20 days later, on February 21, 2019. [ECF 127]. Defendants have not had, and will not have,

7

an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery before Defendants’ Response to the MPSJ must be

8

filed on March 14, 2019. Defendants and the Lahrs have not held a Rule 26 meeting and have not

9

made any initial disclosures to each other. There is no scheduling order from the Court setting any

10

deadlines relative to the Lahrs’ newly filed Third-Party Complaint. Defendants respectfully request

11

a 75-day extension of time (i.e., to May 28, 2019), to file their Response to the MPSJ. This is

12

Defendants’ first request for an extension of time based upon the reasons set forth in this ex parte

13

motion. This ex parte motion is based upon the pleadings and papers on file in this action, the

14

following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the concurrently-filed declaration of Sophia

15

S. Lau.

16
17

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

18

Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon (“BONY”) filed its Complaint in this matter naming

19

the Lahrs as defendants on April 11, 2017. [ECF No. 1]. The Lahrs filed a motion to dismiss

20

BONY’s Complaint on November 22, 2017. [ECF No. 52]. The Lahrs filed an Answer to BONY’s

21

Complaint on July 16, 2018. [ECF No. 75]. Over one year after first appearing in this action, the

22

Lahrs obtained the Court’s permission to file a “Supplemental” Third-Party Complaint against

23

Commonwealth and Lawyers Title. [ECF No. 113]. The Lahrs then filed their Third-Party

24

Complaint against Commonwealth and Lawyers Title on December 17, 2018. [ECF No. 114]. The

25

Lahrs’ Third-Party Complaint asserts claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract and breach of

26

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (i.e., “bad faith”) relating to the Lahrs’

27

acquisition of a policy of title insurance. [ECF No. 114].
Commonwealth and Lawyers Title filed an Answer to the Lahrs’ Third-Party Complaint on

28

4
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 10

1

February 1, 2019. [ECF No. 122]. On February 21, 2019, just twenty days after Defendants filed

2

their Answer, the Lahrs filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“MPSJ”) against

3

Defendants seeking a declaration that they have title insurance coverage for the matters at issue in

4

this litigation. [ECF No. 127]. Among other things, the Lahrs’ MPSJ includes declarations from

5

Alan Lahrs and a declaration from an expert retained by the Lahrs concerning the results of a

6

forensic examination he claims to have conducted of the Lahrs’ computers. [ECF Nos. 127-129].

7

The Lahrs’ MPSJ involves several key factual disputes concerning, among other things: the Lahrs’

8

knowledge of a critical “Exception” to coverage in the subject title insurance policy; the Lahrs’

9

receipt and understanding of documents that were provided to the Lahrs by Lawyers Title in

10

connection with the issuance of the policy that identify the Exception and advise the Lahrs that it

11

would remain in the policy; whether the Lahrs received the final and correct title insurance policy.

12

In light of these issues, it is imperative that Defendants be given an opportunity to depose the Lahrs

13

and conduct other relevant discovery on the issues presented in the Lahrs’ MPSJ. (Declaration of

14

Sophia Lau (“Lau Decl.”) at ¶ 2.)

15

As of the date of the filing of this ex parte motion, the parties have not yet held a conference

16

of counsel or conferred regarding a discovery plan and scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule

17

of Civil Procedure 26(f). (Id. at ¶ 3.) There is thus no Scheduling Order from the Court pursuant

18

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) governing the Lahrs’ Supplemental Third-Party

19

Complaint.1 Nor have Defendants or the Lahrs served their initial disclosures relative to the Lahrs’

20

Supplemental Third-Party Complaint. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to

21

obtain discovery from the Lahrs or notice the depositions of the Lahrs and the technology specialist

22

(whose declaration, along with that of Alan Lahrs) was submitted in in support of the Lahrs’ MPSJ.

23

(Id. at ¶ 5.) Defendants are in the process of drafting their initial discovery to the Lahrs; however,

24

given that the Lahrs would have 30 days in which to provide responses, the need to conduct follow-

25

up discovery from the Lahrs and third parties, and to complete the appropriate depositions, there is

26
27
28

1

The Court previously entered a Scheduling Order in this matter on July 21, 2017. [ECF
No. 37] However, all of the dates and deadlines set forth in that Scheduling Order passed before
Commonwealth and Lawyers title were added to this litigation.
5
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 10

1

no way to conduct the required discovery and prepare and file a Response to the Lahrs’ Motion for

2

Partial Summary Judgment by March 14, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Under the circumstances, a reasonable

3

continuance of the deadline for Defendants to file their Response is warranted and appropriate.

4

In light of the foregoing, on Monday, February 25, 2019, Defendants requested that the

5

Lahrs stipulate to continue the due date for filing Defendants’ Response to the Lahrs’ MPSJ for a

6

period of at least 75 days to afford Defendants an opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare a

7

meaningful Response. (Id. at ¶ 7 and Ex. A thereto.) On Tuesday, February 26, 2019, the Lahrs’

8

counsel advised that he would not grant Defendants an extension to file the Response and informed

9

Defendants they could “run to the judge as you have said you would do here.” (Id. at ¶ 8, Ex. A.)

10
11

This e-mail exchange precipitated the filing on the instant ex parte motion.
II.

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT THIS EX PARTE MOTION

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) provides “[w]hen an act may or must be done

13

within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time…if a request is made, before

14

the original time or its extension expires.” “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been

15

construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

16

624 F. 3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) is to be liberally construed to

17

effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits); see also Dayton Valley

18

Investors, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 664 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1179 (D. Nev. 2009) (finding good

19

cause for allowing a late filed opposition to a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

6(b)(1) in light of the Ninth Circuit’s preference for adjudicating cases on the merits).

21

Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed

22

should “normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or

23

prejudice to the adverse party.” California Trout v. F.E.R.C., 572 F.3d 1003, 1027 (9th Cir. 2009)

24

(citing 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1154 (3d

25

ed. 1998)).

26

Good cause exists to grant Defendants’ requested extension of time to file a Response to the

27

Lahrs’ MPSJ because Defendants only recently appeared in this case (on February 1, 2019) and

28

the Lahrs filed their MPSJ just twenty days later, on February 21, 2019. The Lahrs appeared in
6
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 10

1

this action in 2017 and have actively litigated this case over a year prior to Defendants’ entry into

2

the litigation. As evidenced by the Lahrs’ MPSJ and supporting exhibits and declarations, the Lahrs

3

have had the opportunity to conduct discovery, including expert discovery, and gather evidence in

4

support of their motion. By contrast, Defendants were in the process of reviewing the pleadings

5

filed in this action, their clients’ documents, and preparing discovery to propound on the Lahrs

6

when they were served with the MPSJ. Without the ability to conduct discovery on the Lahrs’

7

claims against Defendants and the arguments and evidence advanced in their MPSJ, including the

8

opportunity to depose the Lahrs and their expert, Defendants will not be able to meaningfully

9

oppose and respond to the Lahrs’ MPSJ. For example, Defendants will not have the ability to rebut

10

the Lahrs’ primary contention in their motion that they never received the operative policy at issue

11

in their Supplemental Third-Party Complaint. An extension of time for Defendants to respond to

12

the Lahrs’ motion is therefore necessary to enable Defendants to obtain the evidence in support of

13

their defense and refute the Lahrs’ claims against them. Defendants’ requested extension would

14

ensure the parties’ case is tried on the merits in accordance with the general purpose of Fed. R. Civ.

15

P. 6(b)(1). See Program Engineering, Inc. v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 634 F.2d 1188, 1193 (9th

16

Cir. 1980) (generally where a party has had no previous opportunity to develop evidence and the

17

evidence is crucial to material issues in the case, discovery should be allowed before the trial court

18

rules on a motion for summary judgment).

19

Further, Defendants do not seek this continuance for any improper purpose and there is no

20

prejudice that will result to the Lahrs should the Court grant the requested extension as they only

21

recently filed their Supplemental Third-Party Complaint. Defendants reached out to the Lahrs’

22

counsel and sought a stipulation for a reasonable extension of time to file the Response promptly

23

after receiving the Lahrs’ MPSJ. (Lau Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8, Ex. A.) In requesting the stipulation,

24

Defendants explained the reasons necessitating the extension in light of Defendants very recent

25

entry into the ongoing litigation. (Id.) However, Plaintiffs refused Defendants’ request to stipulate

26

to an extension because, in Plaintiffs’ view, Defendants do not need to conduct any discovery to

27

respond to Plaintiffs’ motion. (Id.) As detailed above, this is not true as motions for summary

28

judgment are evidentiary in nature and the central issues at issue in the Lahrs’ MPSJ involve
7
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 8 of 10

1

disputed factual issues. In addition, no prejudice will occur to the Lahrs if the Court grants the

2

Defendants’ requested extension. Defendants seek an extension that will not cause any unnecessary

3

or material delay to this litigation nor will the extension cause any party to run afoul of any deadlines

4

or scheduling orders currently set in this case. In reality, it is Defendants who will be prejudiced

5

by having to respond to the Lahrs’ motion by the present deadline without the ability to present

6

facts essential to justify its opposition.

7

The relief Defendants seek may be sought ex parte. As noted above, when Defendants

8

asked the Lahrs to stipulate to an appropriate extension of its responsive deadline, they refused.

9

Even if Defendants had brought a regularly-noticed motion for an extension on February 26, 2019,

10

Plaintiffs would then have 14 days to file a response to the motion, and Defendants would have five

11

days to file a reply in support of the motion on March 18, 2019. See Local Rule 7-2(b). Therefore,

12

the motion would not be fully briefed or ruled on until after Defendants’ deadline to respond to

13

Plaintiffs’ MPSJ.

14

Accordingly, taking into account the foregoing, an additional 75-days (or until May 28,

15

2019) for Defendants to respond to the Lahrs MPSJ is reasonable. This extension will permit

16

Defendants to propound written discovery, receive an evaluate Plaintiffs’ responses to written

17

discovery 30 days later, take depositions, receive an evaluate the transcripts of those depositions

18

and, following receipt of evidence and testimony in support of their defense position, sufficiently

19

address and rebut the multiple substantive arguments raise in Plaintiffs’ dispositive motion for

20

partial summary judgment. Defendants have not previously requested an extension of time to

21

respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment from the Court. (Lau Decl. at ¶ 9.)

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
8
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

1

III.

Filed 03/01/19 Page 9 of 10

CONCLUSION

2

Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their ex parte motion and issue an order

3

extending Defendants time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment by 75-

4

days to May 28, 2019.

5

Respectfully submitted,

6

EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT
GIZER & McRAE LLP

7
8

Dated: March 1, 2019
By: /s/ Sophia S. Lau
Sophia S. Lau, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12216
601 South Seventh Street, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Third Party Defendants
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY AND LAWYERS TITLE OF NEVADA,
INC.

9
10
11
12
13
14

ORDER

15

IT IS SO ORDERED:

16

Third-party defendants Commonwealth and Lawyers
Title shall have until May 28, 2019 to file their
Response to the motion for partial summary judgment
filed by third-party plaintiffs Alan and Theresa Lahrs
[ECF No. 127].

17
18
19

________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21

March 8, 2019.
DATED: ______________ 2019

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9
EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131 (Ex Parte)

1

Filed 03/01/19 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3

I hereby certify that on the 1st day of March 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing

4

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such

5

filling to the Electronic Service List for this Case.

6
7
8
9

Daren T. Brenner, Esq.
Rex Garner, Esq.
AKERMAN, LLP
1160 Town Center Drive, Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144

James W. Pengilly, Esq.
Elizabeth B. Lowell, Esq.
Ty M. Maynarich, Esq.
PENGILLY LAW FIRM
1995 Village Center Circle, Suite 190
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134

10

Attorney for Plaintiff
11

Attorneys for Christopher Communities at
Southern Highland Gold Club HOA

12
13
14

Robert E. Atkinson, Esq.
ATKINSON LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
8965 South Eastern Ave., Suite 260
Las Vegas, Nevada 89123

John T. Steffen, Esq.
Todd W. Prall
HUTCHINSON & STEFFEN, PLLC
10080 W. Alta Drive, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145

15
16

Attorneys for Kupperlin Law Group, LLC
Attorneys for Def. Lahrs as Trustee of Lahrs
Family Trust

17
18
19
20
21
22

Jeffrey R. Albregts, Esq.
JEFFREY R. ALBREGTS, LLC
701 Shadow lane, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Attorneys for Third Party Complainants
Alan Lahrs and Theresa Lahrs as Trustees of
the Lahrs Family Trust

23
24

/s/ D’Metria Bolden
D’Metria Bolden
An employee of EARLY SULLIVAN
WRIGHT GIZER & McRae LLP

25
26
27
28

10
EX PARTE MOTION
257107.1

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131-1 (Ex Parte)

1
2
3
4

Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 8

Sophia S. Lau, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 13365
[e-mail]
EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT
GIZER & McRAE LLP
601 South Seventh Street, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Third Party Defendants
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY AND LAWYERS TITLE OF NEVADA, INC.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWALT,
INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST
2005-56, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-56,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF

DECLARATION OF SOPHIA S. LAU
IN SUPPORT OF THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANTS COMMONWEALTH
LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
AND LAWYERS TITLE OF NEVADA,
INC.’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS
ALAN AND THERESA LAHRS’
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER COMMUNITIES AT
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION;
KUPPERLIN LAW GROUP, LLC; FIRST
100, LLC; ALAN LAHRS AND
THERESA LAHRS AS TRUSTEES OF
THE LAHRS FAMILY TRUST; DOB
INDIVIDUALS I-X, inclusive; and ROE
CORPORATIONS -X, inclusive,

21

Defendants.

22
23
24

CHRISTOPHER COMMUNITIES AT
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Cross-Complainant,

25
26
27
28

vs.
KUPPERLIN LAW GROUP, LLC,
Cross-Defendant.

1
257108.1

DECLARATION OF SOPHIA S. LAU

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131-1 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 8

1
2
3
4

CHRISTOPHER COMMUNITIES AT
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Cross-Complainant,

5
6
7

vs.
KUPPERLIN LAW GROUP, LLC,
Cross-Defendants.

8
9
10

KUPPERLIN LAW GROUP, LLC,
Counter-claimant,

11
12
13

vs.
NATALIE L. WINSLOW, an individual,
Counter-defendant.

14
15
16
17
18

ALAN LAHRS AND THERESA LAHRS
AS TRUSTEES OF THE LAHRS FAMILY
TRUST, a trust established under the laws
of the State of Nevada,
Cross-Complainant,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

vs.
CHRISTOPHER COMMUNITIES AT
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a
homeowner’s association governed by the
laws of the State of Nevada; KUPPERLIN
LAW GROUP, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; FIRST 100, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company,
Cross-Defendants.

26
27
28

ALAN LAHRS AND THERESA LAHRS
AS TRUTEES OF THE LAHRS FAMILY
TRUST, a trust established under the laws
of the State of Nevada,
2

257108.1

DECLARATION OF SOPHIA S. LAU

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131-1 (Ex Parte)

1

Third-Party Plaintiff,

2
3
4

Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 8

vs.
JAY BLOOM, an individual, DOE
INDIVIDUALS I-X, inclusive; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive,

5

Third-Party Defendants.

6
7
8
9

ALAN LAHRS and THERESA LAHRS,
individually and as Trustees for their Family
Trust,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,

10

vs.

11
12
13
14
15
16

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign
Corporation previously registered with the
Nevada Secretary of State’s Office;
LAWYERS TITLE OF NEVADA, Inc., a
Nevada Domestic Corporation; DOE
individuals I-V; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I-V,
Supplemental Third-Party Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DECLARATION OF SOPHIA S. LAU
I, Sophia S. Lau, declare and state as follows:
1.

I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before the courts of the State of

Nevada and am a partner in the law firm of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, counsel for

24

third-party defendants (“Commonwealth”) and Lawyers Title of Nevada, Inc. (“Lawyers Title”)

25

(collectively “Defendants”), in the above-entitled action. I make this declaration in support of the

26
27

concurrently-filed ex parte motion for an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (“MPSJ”) filed by third-party plaintiffs Alan and Theresa Lahrs’ (collectively,

28

3
257108.1

DECLARATION OF SOPHIA S. LAU

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131-1 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 8

1

“Plaintiffs” or the “Lahrs”) on February 21, 2019. I have personal knowledge of the matters set

2

forth below and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.

3

2.

Defendants were only recently added as third-party defendants in this litigation by

4

way of the Supplemental Third-Party Complaint filed by the Lahrs on December 17, 2018. [ECF

5

No. 114]. Commonwealth and Lawyers Title filed an Answer to the Lahrs’ Third-Party Complaint

6

on February 1, 2019. [ECF No. 122]. On February 21, 2019, just twenty days after Defendants

7

filed their Answer, the Lahrs filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“MPSJ”) against

8

Defendants seeking a declaration that they have title insurance coverage for the matters at issue in

9

this litigation. [ECF No. 127]. The Response to the MPSJ is currently due on March 14, 2019.

10

Among other things, the Lahrs’ MPSJ includes declarations from Alan Lahrs and a declaration from

11

an expert retained on behalf of the Lahrs concerning the results of a forensic examination he

12

conducted of Alan Lahrs computer. [ECF Nos. 127-129]. The Lahrs’ MPSJ involves several key

13

factual disputes concerning, among other things: the Lahrs’ knowledge of a critical “Exception” to

14

coverage in the subject title insurance policy; the Lahrs’ receipt and understanding of documents

15

that were provided to the Lahrs by Lawyers Title in connection with the issuance of the policy that

16

identify the Exception and advise the Lahrs that it would remain in the policy; whether the Lahrs

17

received the final and correct title insurance policy. In light of these issues, it is imperative that

18

Defendants be given an opportunity to depose the Lahrs and conduct other relevant discovery on

19

the issues presented in the Lahrs’ MPSJ.

20

3.

As of the date of the filing of Defendants’ ex parte motion, the parties have not yet

21

held a conference of counsel or conferred regarding a discovery plan and scheduling order pursuant

22

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).

23

4.

The parties have also not received a scheduling order from the Court pursuant to

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) relative to the new pleading (the Third-Party Complaint) filed

25

by the Lahrs, nor have the Lahrs or Defendants served their initial disclosures in connection with

26

the Third-Party Complaint.

27

//

28

//
4

257108.1

DECLARATION OF SOPHIA S. LAU

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131-1 (Ex Parte)

1

5.

Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 8

Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to propound discovery to the Lahrs or

2

notice the depositions of the Lahrs and the expert they rely on in support of their motion for partial

3

summary judgment.

4

6.

Defendants are in the process of drafting their initial discovery to the Lahrs; however,

5

given that the Lahrs would have 30 days in which to provide responses, the need to conduct follow-

6

up discovery from the Lahrs and third parties, and to complete the appropriate depositions, there is

7

no way to conduct the required discovery and prepare and file a Response to the Lahrs’ motion for

8

partial summary judgment by March 14, 2019.

9

7.

After receiving the Lahrs’ motion for partial summary judgment, on February 25,

10

2019 our office requested that the Lahrs’ counsel stipulate to continue the due date for Defendants’

11

Response to the Lahrs MPSJ for a period of at least 75-days to afford Defendants an opportunity to

12

conduct discovery and meaningfully prepare the Response. A true and correct copy of the email

13

request is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

14

8.

On February 26, 2019, the Lahrs’ counsel responded that he would not grant

15

Defendants the requested extension and informed Defendants they could “run to the judge as you

16

have said you would do here.” A true and correct copy of the February 26, 2019 email response

17

from the Lahrs’ counsel is included in the e-mails attached hereto as Exhibit A.

18
19
20
21

9.

Defendants have not previously requested an extension of time to respond to

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment from the Court.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the United States of America and the
State of Nevada that the foregoing is true and correct.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT
GIZER & McRAE LLP
Dated: March 1, 2019
By: /s/ Sophia S. Lau
Sophia S. Lau, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12216
601 South Seventh Street, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Third Party Defendants
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY AND LAWYERS TITLE OF NEVADA,
INC.
5

257108.1

DECLARATION OF SOPHIA S. LAU

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131-1 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 8

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131-1 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 8

Case 2:17-cv-01033-JCM-GWF Document 131-1 (Ex Parte)

Filed 03/01/19 Page 8 of 8