Mortgage Fund IVC Trust 2016-RN5 v. Brown et al

Filing 33

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 18 Saticoy Bay's Motion to Stay Case is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all other pending motions 8 , 27 , 28 are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 7/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MORTGAGE FUND IVC TRUST 2016-RN5,

8

Plaintiff,

9

ORDER

v.

10

Case No. 2:17-cv-2309-KJD-PAL

BROWN et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13
Presently before the Court is Defendant Saticoy Bay LLC (“Saticoy Bay”)’s Motion to

14
15

Stay Case (#18). Plaintiff filed a response (#21) to which Saticoy Bay LLC replied (#22).

16

I. Background
This case emerges from the April 29, 2014 non-judicial foreclosure sale of the property

17
18

located at 2175 Clearwater Lake Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89044 (“Property”). This case shares

19

a similar fact pattern with many cases currently pending before this Court, all having to do with

20

HOA foreclosure sales.The several motions presently pending before the Court center in whole

21

or in part around the question of what notice of default the foreclosing party was required to

22

provide Plaintiff prior to its foreclosure sale on the Property. After the Nevada Supreme Court’s

23

decision in SFR Investments Pool 1 LLC v. U.S. Bank, the Ninth Circuit decided Bourne Valley

24

Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2016), holding NRS

25

115.3116(2)’s statutory notice scheme was facially unconstitutional. In light of Bourne Valley,

26

what notice an HOA must provide prior to foreclosing on a superpriority lien remains uncertain.

27

//

28

//

1

II. Analysis

2

A. Certified Question

3

On April 21, 2017, in Bank of New York Mellon v. Star Hills Homeowners Association,

4

this Court certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court: “Whether NRS §

5

116.31168(1)’s incorporation of NRS § 107.090 requires homeowners associations to provide

6

notices of default to banks even when a bank does not request notice?” Bank of New York

7

Mellon v. Star Hill Homeowners Assoc., 2017 WL 1439671, at *5 (D. Nev. April 21, 2017).

8
9

In granting certification, the Court reasoned the following: In Bourne Valley, the Ninth
Circuit definitively answered the question that the statute’s “opt-in” framework was

10

unconstitutional. Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th

11

Cir. 2016). However, that leaves this Court with the unresolved question of what notice must be

12

provided. “It is solely within the province of the state courts to authoritatively construe state

13

legislation.” Cal. Teachers Ass’n v. State Bd. of Educ., 271 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). As

14

such, state law questions of first impression like this one should be resolved by the state’s

15

highest court. See Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U.S. 232, 237 (1944). Allowing the Nevada

16

Supreme Court to answer this question before considering any other motions will provide this

17

Court the necessary guidance as to how to handle the issues of notice and actual notice in light of

18

Bourne Valley.

19

In Bank of New York Mellon, the Court did not and could not rely upon any controlling

20

state law as to the requirements of notice. This Court faces the same predicament here. An

21

answer to the above already certified question will provide much needed clarity, and may be

22

dispositive of many of the issues currently before the Court in this case.

23

B. Stay of the Case

24

The pending motions in this case implicate the previously certified question regarding

25

what notice state law requires. To save the parties from the need to invest further resources into

26

the issues surrounding the notice requirement, the Court sua sponte stays all proceedings in this

27

case and denies all pending motions without prejudice.

28

-2-

A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the

1
2

efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S., 248, 254-55 (1936);

3

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 200).

4

When determining whether a stay is appropriate pending the resolution of another case—often

5

called a “Landis stay”—the district court must weigh: (1) the possible damage that may result

6

from a stay; (2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party may suffer if required to go forward; and

7

(3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,

8

proof, and question of law” that a stay will engender. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098,

9

1110 (9th Cir. 2005). Weighing these considerations, the Court finds that a Landis stay is

10

appropriate.

11

1. Damage from a stay

12

The only potential damage that may result from a stay is that the parties will have

13

to wait longer for resolution of this case and any motions that they have filed or intend to file in

14

the future. But a delay would also result from any rebriefing or supplemental briefing that may

15

be necessitated pending the Nevada Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question. It is not

16

clear that a stay will ultimately lengthen the life of this case.

17

Additionally, a stay of this case pending resolution of the certified question is

18

expected to be reasonably short. This Court certified the question approximately nine months

19

ago, and briefing on the pending petition in Nevada’s Supreme Court is completed. Because the

20

length of this stay is directly tied to the petition proceedings in that case, it is reasonably brief,

21

and not indefinite. Thus, the Court finds only minimal possible damage that this stay may cause.

22

2. Hardship and inequity

23

Both parties equally face hardship or inequity if the Court resolves the claims or

24

issues before the certified question has been resolved. And in the interim, both parties stand to

25

benefit from a stay, regardless of the outcome of the question. A stay will prevent any additional,

26

unnecessary briefing and premature expenditures of time, attorney’s fees, and resources.

27

//

28

//

-3-

1

3. Orderly course of justice

2

A focal point of this case is the question of what notice is now required under

3

NRS Chapter 116 in light of the Ninth Circuit decision Bourne Valley. The jurisprudence in this

4

area of unique Nevada law continues to evolve, causing parties in the scores of foreclosure-

5

challenge actions to file new motions or to supplement the ones that they already have pending,

6

resulting in “docket-clogging entries and an impossible-to-follow chain of briefs in which

7

arguments are abandoned and replaced.” Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Springs at Spanish Trail

8

Assoc., 2017 WL 752775, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2017). Staying this case pending the Nevada

9

Supreme Court’s disposition of the certified question in Bank of New York Mellon will permit

10

the parties to evaluate, simplify, and streamline the proceedings and promote the efficient use of

11

the parties’ and the Court’s resources.
Therefore, the Court orders this action stayed. Once the Nevada Supreme Court

12
13

has resolved the question certified in Bank of New York Mellon, any of the parties may move to

14

lift the stay.

15

III. Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Saticoy Bay’s Motion to Stay Case (#18)

16
17

is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all other pending motions (##8, 27, 28) are DENIED as

18
19
20
21

moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED.
Dated this 25th day of July, 2018.

22
23
24

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-4-