Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 49

ORDERED that the Motions (ECF Nos. 41 & 42 ) are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/21/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8
9
10

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01530-JAD-PAL
ORDER

Plaintiff,

(Mot Stay Deadline – ECF No. 41)
(Mot Reset Deadline – ECF No. 42)

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al.

11

Defendants.

12
13

Before the court is SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion to Stay the Dispositive Motion

14

Deadline, or in the Alternative, Motion to Reset Dispositive Motion Deadline (ECF Nos. 41, 42).

15

The court has considered the motion, plaintiff Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC’s Response

16

(ECF Nos. 43, 44), and SFR’s Replies (ECF Nos. 45, 46).

17

The motion seeks a stay until the Nevada Supreme Court decides a question certified to it

18

by Judge Boulware in The Bank of New York Mellon v Star Hill Homeowner’s Assoc et., al., Case

19

No:2:16-cv-2561 RFB-PAL. The motion argues that staying the case at this juncture will benefit

20

all parties and promote the efficient use of judicial resources. In the alternative, SFR asks for one

21

week from denial of the motion to stay to file dispositive motions. Plaintiff opposes the motion to

22

stay and for additional time because it timely filed a dispositive motion and because it believes

23

Bourne Valley is dispositive.

24

This motion was filed the day dispositive motions were due after the court granted the

25

parties request for a 45-day extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines at a

26

hearing held on January 30, 2018. The motion should have been filed 21 days before the expiration

27

of the deadline pursuant to LR 26-4. The motions are therefore untimely. Plaintiff timely filed a

28

motion for summary judgment on April 30, 2018 which is now fully briefed and under submission
1

1

to the district judge. SFR has not shown excusable neglect for failing to timely file either motion

2

and it would be unfair to require the Plaintiff to comply with the court’s discovery plan and

3

scheduling order deadlines, allow a non-compliant party to review and respond to a timely filed

4

motion for summary judgment and then get an opportunity to file its own dispositive motion.

5

Because of the volume of pending motions, the court has been unable to get these motions decided

6

until now, months after the deadline expired. Granting SFR’s request for one week after decision

7

of these motions would effectively allow SFR to grant itself an extension.

8

Having reviewed and considered the matter,

9

IT IS ORDERED the Motions (ECF No 41 & 42) are DENIED.

10

DATED this 21st day of September 2018.

11
12
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2