Green Tree Servicing LLC v. Rainbow Bend Homeowners Association et al

Filing 54

ORDER staying case pending the Ninth Circuit's issuance of the mandate in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/23/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***
LN Mgmt v. Gelgotas
Bank of New York Mellon v. Saticoy Bay
Bank of America v. Southern Highlands
Bank of America v. Spanish Bay HOA
Bank of America v. Aliante Master Assoc.
Wells Fargo v. SFT Investments Pool
Nationstar v. Summit Hills HOA
US Bank v. SFR Investments Pool
Moberly v. Bank of America
Bank of America v. Rainbow Bend HOA
Green Tree Servicing v. Rainbow Bend HOA
Countrywide v. Willow Hills Commons HOA
Bank of America v. Huffaker Hills
Deutsche Bank v. Williamsburg Townehomes HOA
Bank of America v. Esplanade at Damonte Ranch HOA
Bank of America v. Highland Ranch HOA
Bank of America v. Yorkshire Manor I HOA
Ditech Financial v. TBR I
US Bank v. Casoleil HOA
Ditech Financial v. Dorado HOA

2:15-cv-00112-MMD-CWH
2:16-cv-00246-MMD-CWH
2:16-cv- 00404-MMD-NJK
2:16-cv-00691-MMD-VCF
2:16-cv-00962-MMD-CWH
2:16-cv-01069-MMD-VCF
2:16-cv-01637-MMD-GWF
2:16-cv-01719-MMD-CWH
3:15-cv-00122-MMD-WGC
3:15-cv-00291-MMD-WGC
3:15-cv-00297-MMD-WGC
3:15-cv-00333-MMD-VPC
3:15-cv-00502-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00004-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00120-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00154-MMD-VPC
3:16-cv-00192-MMD-VPC
3:16-cv-00227-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00307-MMD-WGC
3:16-cv-00351-MMD-VPC

17
18
19

ORDER
Staying Case Pending Issuance of Mandate in
Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank

20

The above referenced cases arise out of a homeowner’s association (“HOA”)

21

foreclosure and involve a constitutional due process challenge to Nevada Revised

22

Statute Chapter 116’s notice provisions. On August 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of

23

Appeals, in a 2-1 panel decision, found that Chapter 116’s notice provisions as applied

24

to nonjudicial foreclosure of an HOA lien before the 2015 amendment to be facially

25

unconstitutional. Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 15-15233,

26

2016 WL 4254983(9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016). The Bourne Valley decision obviously has

27

profound impact on each case. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is appropriate to sua

28

sponte impose a temporary stay until the mandate is issued in Bourne Valley.

1

A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.

2

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,

3

398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient

4

for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action

5

before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”

6

Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). “When

7

considering a motion to stay, the district court should consider three factors: (1)

8

potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving

9

party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by

10

avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated.” Pate v. Depuy

11

Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01168-MMD-CWH, 2012 WL 3532780, at *2 (D. Nev.

12

Aug. 14, 2012) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal.

13

1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v.

14

Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2007).

15

These three factors weigh in favor of a brief temporary stay. A temporary stay

16

would promote judicial economy, particularly given Bourne Valley’s ruling’s effect on the

17

due process issue raised in each case. Any potential hardship or prejudice would be

18

minimal in light of the brief duration of the stay until a mandate is issued in Bourne

19

Valley. In fact, a stay would benefit the parties as they assess Bourne Valley’s import

20

without having to file any unnecessary supplemental briefing.

21

It is therefore ordered that the above referenced actions are temporarily stayed.

22

Upon the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of the mandate in Bourne Valley, the parties in each

23

case may move to lift the stay. Until that time, all proceedings, except for service of

24

process, are stayed.

25
26

DATED THIS 23rd day of August 2016.

27
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2