Ditech Financial LLC v. Dorado Homeowners Association et al

Filing 38

ORDER approving ECF No. 33 Joint Status Report. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Case 3:16-cv-00351-MMD-VPC Document 35 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 4

1

6

ARIEL E. STERN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8276
JAMIE K. COMBS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13088
Akerman LLP
1160 Town Center Drive, Suite 330
Las Vegas, NV 89144
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2
3
4
5

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

601 W. FIFTH STREET, SUITE 300
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

AKERMAN LLP

11
12
13

Case No. 3:16-cv-00351-MMD-VPC

DITECH FINANCIAL LLC f/k/a GREEN TREE
SERVICING LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.

14
15
16

JOINT
STATUS
REPORT
AND
STIPULATION FOR PARTIAL STAY
PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND ORDER

DORADO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION;
LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC;
THUNDER PROPERTIES, INC.; and NEVADA
ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC.,

17
18

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff Ditech Financial LLC f/k/a Green Tree Servicing LLC (Ditech), and Defendants
Dorado Homeowners Association (Dorado), Las Vegas Development Group, LLC (LVDG), and
Thunder Properties, Inc. (Thunder) (collectively, the parties)1 by and through their respective
counsel of record, report to the court and stipulate as follows:

25
26
27
28

1

The clerk entered a default against defendant Nevada Association Servicers, Inc. on February 23,
2017. (ECF. No. 22).

1

Case 3:16-cv-00351-MMD-VPC Document 35 Filed 08/11/17 Page 2 of 4

1

A.

Joint Status Report

2

1.

This lawsuit involves quiet title/declaratory relief and other claims related to a non-

3

judicial homeowner's association foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to NRS 116.

4

2.

On April 5, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order to stay the

5

proceedings pending final resolution of all Bourne Valley and/or Saticoy Bay proceedings before the

6

United States Supreme Court. (ECF No. 29).

7

3.

On April 10, the Court granted the stipulation and entered the proposed order. The

8

parties were directed to "submit a joint status report and renewed discovery plan and scheduling

9

order for the Court's approval" within forty five (45) days of final resolution of all Bourne Valley

10

and/or Saticoy Bay proceedings before the United States Supreme Court. (Dkt. No. 30).

601 W. FIFTH STREET, SUITE 300
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

AKERMAN LLP

11
12

4.

petition for certiorari.

13
14

5.

No petition for writ of certiorari was ever filed in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350

Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a Div. of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

15
16

On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied Bourne Valley Trust's

6.

The parties have met and conferred on the remaining case deadlines and stipulate to

the new deadlines set forth below.

17

B.

18

7.

Stipulated Stay of Discovery deadlines Pending Motion for Summary Judgment
Ditech intends to file a motion for summary judgment regarding the application of the

19

Bourne Valley decision by August 21, 2017.

20

…

21

…

22

…

23

…

24

…

25

…

26

…

27

…

28

…
2

Case 3:16-cv-00351-MMD-VPC Document 35 Filed 08/11/17 Page 3 of 4

1

8.

Ditech's summary judgment motion will raise purely legal issues concerning the

2

application of Bourne Valley that it asserts can be resolved without discovery. LVDG and Thunder

3

believe that discovery will ultimately be required, including discovery regarding the notices that

4

were provided to Ditech and/or its predecessor-in-interest. As a result, LVDG and Thunder believe

5

that the proposed motion for summary judgment is premature. With that said, the resolution of the

6

proposed motion could conceivably affect and provide guidance on the extent of necessary

7

discovery, if any, on all issues. If it is granted, it may result in resolution of the entire case although

8

LVDG and Thunder assert that such a result would be erroneous as a matter of law at this stage.

9
10

9.

of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681,685 (9th Cir. 1988).

601 W. FIFTH STREET, SUITE 300
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

11

AKERMAN LLP

Federal district courts have "wide discretion in controlling discovery." Little v. City

10.

To determine if a stay is appropriate, the court considers (1) damage from the stay;

12

(2) hardship or inequity that befalls one party more than the other; and (3) the orderly course of

13

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

14

2007) (setting forth factors). Here, the factors support a stay of all proceedings except dispositive

15

motions based on Bourne Valley.

16

11.

The parties believe a stay is warranted because they will be able to avoid the cost and

17

expense of written discovery and depositions on issues that may be irrelevant based on the Bourne

18

Valley decision.

19

considering any discovery-related motions or protective orders.

20

…

21

…

22

…

23

…

24

…

25

…

26

…

27

…

28

…

Moreover, the court will be relieved of expending further time and effort

3

Case 3:16-cv-00351-MMD-VPC Document 35 Filed 08/11/17 Page 4 of 4

1

12.

The parties agree there will be no significant hardship or inequity against either party,

2

and it is appropriate for this Court to exercise its power to grant a stay of discovery at this time. A

3

trial date has not yet been set and the outcome of BANA's proposed Bourne Valley partial motion for

4

summary judgment has the potential to provide guidance on the extent of necessary discovery and

5

conceivably result in possible resolution of the entire case

6

DATED; August 10, 2017

7

AKERMAN LLP

ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES, LTD

8

11

/s/ Jamie K. Combs, Esq.
Ariel E. Stern, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 8276
Jamie K Combs
Nevada Bar No. 13088
1160 Town Center Drive, Suite 330
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ditech Financial LLC

/s/ Timothy E. Rhoda, Esq.
Roger P. Croteau, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 4958
Timothy E. Rhoda, Esq.
Nevada Bar No.7878
9120 West Post Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
702-254-7775 (phone)
702-228-7719 (fax)

9

601 W. FIFTH STREET, SUITE 300
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

AKERMAN LLP

10

13

Attorneys for Las Vegas Development Group,
LLC & Thunder Properties, Inc.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

THORNDAL, ARMSTRONG, DELK,
BALKENBUSH & EISINGER
/s/ Keith B. Gibson, Esq.
Michael C. Hetey, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 5668
Heather L. Trujillo, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12651
Keith B. Gibson, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 10050
1100 E. Bridger Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Attorneys for Dorado Homeowners' Association
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED:

24
25
26

_________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27
28

August 16, 2017
DATED: _________________________________
4