U.S. Bank National Association v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc. et al

Filing 67

ORDER.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Extend Stay, (ECF No. 58 ), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report every 90 days, beginning on 4/13/2023, addressing the status of the PennyMac Appeal. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/17/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)

Case 2:21-cv-00455-GMN-BNW Document 67 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

US BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
5
6

Plaintiff,
vs.

7
8
9

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP,
INC. et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:21-cv-00455-GMN-BNW
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Extend Stay, (ECF No. 58), filed by

12
13

Defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title of Nevada, Inc., and Fidelity

14

National Title Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff U.S. Bank National

15

Association (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 59), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF

16

No. 60).
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Extend

17
18
19

Stay.
This case arises out of the numerous and long-standing HOA foreclosure actions

20

prevalent in Nevada. Currently at issue in these types of cases is whether a title insurance

21

claim involving an HOA assessment lien, and subsequent foreclosure sale, was covered by the

22

corresponding title insurance policy. (Mot. Extend Stay 2:1–15, ECF No. 58). The parties

23

dispute how to interpret the standard form language in the 1992 American Land Title

24

Association (“ALTA”) loan policy of title insurance and the California Land Title Association

25

(“CLTA”) 100/ALTA 9 endorsement. (Id. 3:23–4:6). In 2021, the Court granted a stay in many

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:21-cv-00455-GMN-BNW Document 67 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 4

1

of the title insurance cases, including this one, pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Wells

2

Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., Ninth Cir. Case No. 19-17332 (Dist. Ct.

3

Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-MMD-WGC) (the “Wells Fargo II Appeal”), which the parties

4

anticipated would interpret the policy language at issue in the 1992 ALTA loan policy and the

5

CLTA 100/ALTA 9 endorsement. (See Stipulation 2:1–15, ECF No. 55); (Mot. Extend Stay

6

3:23–4:5). However, the Wells Fargo II Appeal concluded without reaching the policy

7

interpretation issue. (See Memorandum/Opinion of USCA, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity

8

National Title Insurance Company, Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-MMD-CSD (D. Nev. 2019), ECF

9

No. 17) (vacating and remanding the district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss without

10

leave to amend). Defendants now claims that PennyMac Corp. v. Westcor Land Title Ins. Co.,

11

Nev. Sup. Ct. Case No. 83737 (Eighth Judicial District Case No. A-18-781257-C) (the

12

“PennyMac Appeal”), which is currently pending in the Nevada Supreme Court, will shed light

13

on the policy language because it also concerns the 1992 ALTA loan policy and the CLTA

14

100/ALTA 9 endorsement. (Mot. Extend Stay 3:12–23). See also PennyMac Corp. v. Westcor

15

Land Title Ins. Co., No. A-18-781257-C, 2021 WL 5492852, at *9–15, 21 (Nev. Dist. Ct. Oct.

16

22, 2021).

17

A district court’s power to stay a proceeding is “incidental to the power inherent in every

18

court” to manage its docket and promote the efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. North

19

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). However, “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant

20

in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that

21

will define the rights of both,” and a party seeking such a stay must “make out a clear case of

22

hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the

23

stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.” Id. In considering whether a

24

“Landis Stay” is warranted, the Court weighs “the competing interests which will be affected

25

by the granting or refusal to grant a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:21-cv-00455-GMN-BNW Document 67 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 4

1

Cir. 2005). Those competing interests are: (1) the possible damage which may result from a

2

stay, (2) hardships or inequities a party may suffer if required to go forward, and (3) the

3

“orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof,

4

and questions of law” which could be expected to result from a stay. Id.

5

Here, the Court finds that the benefits of continuing the stay outweigh any possible

6

hardships of lifting it. After a review of the issues at stake in the Wells Fargo II Appeal, the

7

PennyMac Appeal, and this case, it appears to the Court that the PennyMac Appeal may

8

provide the exact interpretation of the 1992 ALTA loan policy and the CLTA 100/ALTA 9

9

endorsement that the parties originally sought from the Wells Fargo II Appeal. Moreover, as

10

this Court has observed, “great hardship would be borne by the parties” if the case is required

11

to go forward prior to the resolution of PennyMac because the “attorneys could engage in

12

costly discovery and motions practice to the potential detriment of their clients, all while the

13

specter of a decision from the Supreme Court of Nevada capable of changing the relevant

14

issues to the case hangs overhead.” U.S. Bank National Association v. Fidelity National Title

15

Group, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00181, 2022 WL 17093198, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 21, 2022);

16

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc., et al., No. 2:19-

17

cv-00409, 2022 WL 17813070, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 1, 20220 (“While being required to defend

18

a lawsuit . . . does not constitute a clear case of hardship or inequity, being required to

19

defendant a lawsuit wherein questions of law pertinent to resolution of the merits change mid-

20

way through the litigation would pose hardship to both parties.”).

21

The Court finds no reason why waiting for the same interpretations from the PennyMac

22

Appeal would now cause prejudice or fail to serve the interests of judicial economy, especially

23

when considering that Plaintiff has not identified any hardship, other than the passage of time,

24

that it will suffer by continuing the stay. Further, any hardship caused by delay is minimal as

25

“the Supreme Court of Nevada seems close to reach a decision in PennyMac, [since] briefing

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:21-cv-00455-GMN-BNW Document 67 Filed 01/17/23 Page 4 of 4

1

has concluded.” U.S. Bank National Association, 2022 WL 17093198, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 21,

2

2022). Therefore, the “orderly course of justice” in this matter is best served by continuing the

3

stay while the Nevada Supreme Court considers the PennyMac Appeal. Lockyer, 398 F.3d at

4

1110.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Extend Stay, (ECF No. 58), is

7
8
9
10

GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report every 90
days, beginning on April 13, 2023, addressing the status of the PennyMac Appeal.

17 day of January, 2023.
DATED this _____

11
12
13

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 4 of 4