Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust et al

Filing 39

ORDERED: That the courts prior order, 30 Order on Motion to Dismiss, be, and the same hereby is, CORRECTED nunc pro tunc to instruct the clerk to enter judgment and close the case accordingly. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/15/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:17-cv-01469-JCM-VCF Document 39 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:17-CV-1469 JCM (VCF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
MAHOGANY MEADOWS AVENUE
TRUST, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before the court is the matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows
Avenue Trust, et al., case number 2:17-cv-01469-JCM-VCF. On March 16, 2018, the court
granted defendant Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) and, on
November 6, 2018, denied plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to reconsider that order
(ECF No. 34). Wells Fargo appealed, and that appeal remains pending. (ECF No. 35; 36).
The remaining defendants—Copper Creek Homeowners Association and Hampton &
Hampton Collections, LLC—have been dismissed from this action pursuant to the parties’
stipulations. (ECF Nos. 18; 20; 38).
Further, the court’s prior order dismissed all of Wells Fargo’s claims. (See ECF No. 30).
Indeed, if it did not, then this court’s order would have been neither final nor appealable. Thus,
the case should have been closed when the court adjudicated Mahogany’s motion to dismiss.
“The general rule is that once a notice of appeal has been filed, the lower court loses
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal.” Bennett v. Gemmill (In re. Combined Metals
Reduction Co.), 557 F.2d 179, 200 (9th Cir. 1977). Nevertheless, even after an appeal has been

Case 2:17-cv-01469-JCM-VCF Document 39 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 2

1

filed, a district court “may act to assist the court of appeals in the exercise of its

2

jurisdiction.” Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 1982).

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the court’s prior order

5

(ECF No. 30) be, and the same hereby is, CORRECTED nunc pro tunc to instruct the clerk to

6

enter judgment and close the case accordingly.

7
8
9

DATED July 15, 2020.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-