CitiMortgage, Inc. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

Filing 24

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the STAY IS LIFTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that stipulations, motions to modify the discovery plan and scheduling order, or in the absence of such stipulation or motions, dispositive motions are due within forty-five days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 10/29/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CITIMORTGAGE, INC,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No. 2:17-cv-3003-KJD-VCF
ORDER

v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,

11

Defendant.

12

On July 25, 2018, this Court entered an order denying Plaintiff CitiMortgage, Inc.’s

13

Motion for Summary Judgment, denying Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1 LLC’s Motion to

14

Dismiss, and staying the case. ECF No. 23. Neither party has moved to lift the stay. However,

15

given the subsequent resolution of the issues that necessitated the stay, the Court now lifts the

16

stay.

17

I.

18

This case arises from the nonjudicial foreclosure sale by Manchester Park Homeowners

Background and Analysis

19

Association on the property located at 10802 Cape Shore Ave., in Las Vegas, Nevada. This case

20

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

21

with HOA foreclosure sales. One of the issues before the Court centers in whole or in part

22

around the question of what notice of default the foreclosing party was required to provide

23

Plaintiff before foreclosure on a property. After the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in SFR

24

Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, the Ninth Circuit decided Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells

25

Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding NRS § 116.3116(2)’s statutory

26

notice scheme was facially unconstitutional).

27
28

On April 21, 2017, in Bank of New York Mellon v. Star Hills Homeowners Ass’n, this
Court certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court: “Whether NRS

1

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

2

notices of default to banks even when a bank does not request notice?” No. 2:16-cv-2561-RFB-

3

PAL, 2017 WL 1439671, at *5 (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2017).
In granting certification, the Court reasoned the following: In Bourne Valley, the Ninth

4
5

Circuit definitively answered the question that the statute’s “opt-in” framework was

6

unconstitutional. 832 F.3d at 1160. However, that left the Court with the unresolved question of

7

what notice must be provided. “It is solely within the province of the state courts to

8

authoritatively construe state legislation.” Cal. Teachers Ass’n v. State Bd. of Educ., 271 F.3d

9

1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). As such, state law questions of first impression like this one should

10

be resolved by the state’s highest court. See Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U.S. 232, 237 (1944).
On August 2, 2018, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question. See

11
12

SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018). Further, it has

13

since issued several opinions that may bear on the issues in this action. See, e.g., Wells Fargo

14

Bank, N.A. v. Tim Radecki, 426 P.3d 593 (Nev. 2018); Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Invs.

15

Pool 1, LLC, 427 P.3d 113 (Nev. Sep. 13, 2018).
A. Stay of the Case

16

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

17
18

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

19

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). A

20

stay is no longer necessary in this action where the certified question has already been decided.
B. Briefing Schedule

21

The parties may either file a stipulation or move the Court for a modified discovery plan

22
23

and scheduling order as necessary. If the parties fail to do so, dispositive motions are due no later

24

than forty-five days after the entry of this order. Any future dispositive motions must address the

25

most recent case law applicable to the issues in this case.

26

///

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

II.

Conclusion

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the STAY IS LIFTED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that stipulations, motions to modify the discovery plan and

4

scheduling order, or in the absence of such stipulation or motions, dispositive motions are due

5

within forty-five days of the entry of this order.

6

Dated this 29th day of October, 2019.

7
8
9

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-