Federal National Mortgage Association v. Keynote Properties, LLC et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is due 14 days after the date of this order; any response to the motion is due 28 days after the filing of the motion; any reply in support of the motion will be due 21 days after the date of the filing of the response. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

ORDER
Plaintiff(s),

9
v.

10
11

Case No. 2:17-CV-1647 JCM (NJK)

KEYNOTE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Presently before the court is plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association’s motion to
schedule a limited summary judgment briefing schedule. (ECF No. 24). Defendant Mission Hills
Homeowners Association filed a response (ECF No. 26), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 27).
Plaintiff asserts that three recent Ninth Circuit decisions mandate a particular outcome in
this case. (ECF No. 29), see Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2017); Elmer v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., --- F. App’x ---, 2017 WL 3822061 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017); Saticoy
Bay, LLC v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, --- F. App’x ---, 2017 WL 4712396 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2017).
Plaintiff states that this case, along with four other similarly situated cases, presents sufficiently
similar facts and the exact same legal issues that the Ninth Circuit considered in the above cases.
As such, plaintiff requests that this court set a limited briefing schedule for summary judgment
motions related to these legal issues.
Defendant opposes the motion in part. Defendant has an outstanding motion to dismiss,
and it wants clarification that any court order does not impact consideration of defendant’s
motion.1 Further, defendant disfavors consolidation of cases, and defendant fears that it will be

28
1

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

The instant order will not impact the timeline consideration of defendant’s motion.

1

forced to respond to arguments raised by parties in related cases that do not relate to the facts of

2

this case.

3

The court will grant plaintiff’s motion. As plaintiff’s reply notes, granting the motion does

4

not consolidate this case with any related case, which negates defendant’s concerns in this regard.2

5

Further, granting coordinated limited summary judgment briefing is in the interest of judicial

6

economy.

7

The schedule is as follows: plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is due fourteen (14)

8

days after the date of this order; any response to the motion is due twenty-eight (28) days after the

9

filing of the motion; any reply in support of the motion will be due twenty-one (21) days after the

10

date of the filing of the response.3

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to set briefing (ECF No. 24) be, and the

13
14

same hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the foregoing.
DATED December 13, 2017.

15

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2

Although plaintiff asserts that the issues in five cases in front of this court are similar, the
court will consider each case independently. Therefore, defendant will not need to consider or
address claims or defenses raised in other cases.
3

This schedule is more consistent with the local rules, which offer more time to respond
than to reply, than the schedule offered by plaintiffs.
-2-