Gonzales v. Desert Land, LLC et al

Filing 177

ORDER denying as moot 175 Motion to Strike; directing Clerk to enter 142 Proposed Judgment effective 4/25/2013, nunc pro tunc, and close the case administratively. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/20/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 In re SPECIALTY TRUST, INC., 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ) ) Debtor. ) ________________________________________ ) ) TOM GONZALES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DESERT LAND, LLC et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) 3:11-cv-00613-RCJ-VPC ORDER 14 15 This bankruptcy removal case arises out of the alleged breach of a settlement agreement 16 that was part of a confirmation plan in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy action. Pending before the Court 17 is a Motion to Strike Jury Demand (ECF No. 175). For the reasons given herein, the Court 18 denies the motion as moot, enters judgment nunc pro tunc, and closes the case. Neither the 19 motion nor the response note that all claims in this case have been finally adjudicated and 20 affirmed on appeal. The timing of the jury demand is moot. 21 On December 7, 2000, Plaintiff Tom Gonzales loaned $41.5 million to Defendants Desert 22 Land, LLC and Desert Oasis Apartments, LLC to finance their acquisition and/or development of 23 land (“Parcel A”) in Las Vegas, Nevada. The loan was secured by a deed of trust. On May 31, 24 2002, Desert Land and Desert Oasis Apartments, as well as Desert Ranch, LLC (collectively, the 25 “Desert Entities”), each filed for bankruptcy, and I jointly administered those three bankruptcies 1 while sitting as a bankruptcy judge. I confirmed the second amended plan, and the Confirmation 2 Order included a finding that a settlement had been reached under which Gonzales would 3 extinguish his note and reconvey his deed of trust, Gonzales and another party would convey 4 their fractional interests in Parcel A to Desert Land so that Desert Land would own 100% of 5 Parcel A, Gonzales would receive Desert Ranch’s 65% in interest in another property, and 6 Gonzales would receive $10 million if Parcel A were sold or transferred after 90 days (the 7 “Parcel Transfer Fee”). Gonzales appealed the Confirmation Order, and the Bankruptcy 8 Appellate Panel affirmed, except as to a provision subordinating Gonzales’s interest in the Parcel 9 Transfer Fee to up to $45 million in financing obtained by the Desert Entities. 10 Gonzales sued Desert Land, Desert Oasis Apartments, Desert Oasis Investments, LLC, 11 Specialty Trust, Specialty Strategic Financing Fund, LP, Eagle Mortgage Co., and Wells Fargo 12 (as trustee for a mortgage-backed security) in state court for: (1) declaratory judgment that a 13 transfer has occurred entitling hin to the Parcel Transfer Fee; (2) declaratory judgment that the 14 lender Defendants knew of the bankruptcy proceedings and the requirement of the Parcel 15 Transfer Fee; (3) breach of contract (for breach of the Confirmation Order); (4) breach of the 16 implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (same); (5) judicial foreclosure against Parcel A 17 under Nevada law; and (6) injunctive relief. Defendants removed to the Bankruptcy Court. The 18 Bankruptcy Court recommended moving to withdraw the reference because I had issued the 19 underlying Confirmation Order while sitting as a bankruptcy judge. One or more parties so 20 moved, and the Court granted the motion. 21 The Court dismissed the second and fifth causes of action. The first, third, fourth, and 22 sixth claims against the Desert Entities and Eagle Mortgage Co. remained at that stage, and the 23 Court later granted Defendants’ counter-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff asked the Court 24 to reconsider and to clarify which, if any, of its claims remained, and Defendants asked the Court 25 to certify its March 4, 2013 summary judgment order under Rule 54(b) and to enter judgment in Page 2 of 3 1 their favor on all claims. 2 On April 25, 2013, the Court denied the motion to reconsider, clarified that it had 3 intended to rule on all claims, and certified the March 4, 2013 ruling as a final ruling on all 4 claims for immediate appeal. Defendants submitted a proposed judgment. The Court never 5 formally entered that proposed judgment, but the Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction under 28 6 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment (and subsequent orders denying 7 various requests for relief, which the Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction to review under 8 § 1292(a)(1)). The mandate has issued. Defendants have asked the Court to strike the jury 9 demand. The Court denies the motion as moot. The Court should have directed the Clerk to 10 formally enter judgment and close the case when it certified the March 4, 2013 ruling as final for 11 immediate appeal. The Court has adjudicated all claims in this case, the Court of Appeals has 12 affirmed, and the mandate has issued.1 13 CONCLUSION 14 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Jury Demand (ECF No. 175) is DENIED as moot. 16 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter the Proposed Judgment (ECF No. 142) effective April 25, 2013, nunc pro tunc, and close the case administratively. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated this 20th day of October, 2014. 20 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 1 25 The related case, Gonzales v. Shotgun Nevada Investments, No. 2:13-cv-931, remains open. Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?