Ditech Financial LLC et al v. TBR I, LLC et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 41 Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay. Discovery due by 2/16/2018. Motions due by 3/16/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/27/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/31/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DITECH FINANCIAL LLC F/K/A
GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC
and FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STONEFIELD II HOMEOWNERS
)
ASSOCIATION, AIRMOTIVE
)
INVESTMENTS, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )

3:16-cv-00227-MMD-WGC
ORDER
Re: ECF No. 41

16
Before the court is the Motion for Partial Stay of Plaintiffs Ditech Financial LLC and Federal
17
National Mortgage Association (Plaintiffs) (ECF No. 41). No opposition has been filed.
18
The court is aware of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40). No
19
response has yet been filed by any of the other parties but according to CM/ECF, responses are not due
20
until September 5, 2017. Any reply memoranda would presumably not be lodged with the court until
21
mid to late September, at which time the motion would become ripe for decision by District Judge
22
Miranda Du.
23
As the parties are presumably aware, literally hundreds of these “H.O.A. Foreclosure” cases are
24
pending on the docket of the Northern Division for the District of Nevada. In view of Judge Du’s
25
extremely congested docket, it is unlikely Judge Du will be able to address the pending motion (which
26
as noted above is not yet even ripe) in the immediate future. If, hypothetically, the motions were denied
27
and the parties were to then submit a Discovery Plan and Scheduling order, a discovery deadline would
28
likely not be established before fall of 2018 or even winter of 2019.

1

The court is not unsympathetic to the prospect of having to undertake discovery on a case which

2

might potentially be dismissed. On the other hand, the court does not view this case as being discovery

3

intensive. It is nonetheless the court’s obligation to manage its docket and ensure this and other cases

4

do not languish. Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 41) is DENIED.

5

This court has previously entered a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 23). Under that order, the

6

deadline to complete discovery is set to expire on September 11, 2017. The court recognizes, however,

7

that the amended complaint was not filed until June 16, 2017 (ECF No. 27) and that answers,

8

counterclaims and answers to counterclaims have been variously lodged up to August 9, 2017 (see, e.g.,

9

ECF No. 39).

10

Therefore, the court will extend the existing deadlines, as follows:

11

•
•
•
•
•

12
13
14

Discovery in this action shall be completed on or before February 16, 2018.
Disclosures of expert testimony are due on or before December 15, 2017.
Disclosure of rebuttal experts are due on or before January 12, 2018.
Dispositive motions shall be filed and served no later than March 16, 2018.
The Joint Pre-Trial Order shall be filed no later than April 27, 2018.
If a dispositive motion is filed, the Joint Pre-Trial Order shall be due thirty (30) days
after a decision on the dispositive motion.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: August 31, 2017.

17
____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2