In RE: MCKINNEY

Filing 8

ORDER granting ECF No. 7 Stipulation to Continue Briefing Schedule. Opening brief due by 6/24/2019. Answering brief due by 7/24/2019. Reply brief due by 8/5/2019. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/21/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 7 Filed 05/16/19 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5

WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
Edgar C. Smith, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 5506
7785 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
[phone]; Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Appellant, Seterus, Inc.

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

IN RE:

Appeal Reference #: 19-07

RONNIE C. MCKINNEY, and JOAN E.
MCKINNEY aka JOAN BLAKE,

USDC Case No.: 3:19-cv-00089-LRH
Bk. Case No.: 10-50597-BTB

Debtors
-------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Nevada

SETERUS, INC.,
Appellant

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

v.

[First Request]

RONNIE C. MCKINNEY, and JOAN E.
MCKINNEY aka JOAN BLAKE,
Appellees
Appellant, Seterus, Inc. and Appellees, Ronnie C. McKinney and Joan E. McKinney aka

22

Joan Blake (collectively the “Parties”), by and through they undersigned attorneys of record,

23

hereby submit the following Stipulation and Order to continue briefing schedule.

24
25

1. This is the Parties’ first request for the extension after the Court issued the Minute Order
(“Order”) on February 19, 2019 [ECF No. 2] and is submitted in good faith and not

26
27

intended to cause any delay to the Court.

28
1

Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 7 Filed 05/16/19 Page 2 of 3

2. On April 10, 2019 this Court issued its minute order setting its briefing schedule, with

1
2

the opening brief due on April 24, 2019. The underlying proceeding took six days of

3

testimony and hundreds of pages of relevant documents.

4

3. This appeal arises from Seterus, Inc.’s Notice of Appeal [Doc. 249] filed February 14,

5

2019 from the “Order Regarding Amended Motion for Contempt” [Doc. 243] and is

6

assigned Appeal Reference No. 19-07 and Case No. 3:19-cv-00089-LRH

7
8

4. Seterus, Inc. also filed a Notice of Appeal [Doc. #280] arises from the “Order Granting

9

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Against Seterus, Inc.” [Doc. #270]. That appeal is

10

assigned Appeal Ref. No. 19-14 and Case No. 3:19-cv-00187MMD.

11
5. On April 23, 2019, Appellant filed its motion to consolidate the two appeals. A courtesy

12
13

copy is attached as Exhibit A. Both appeals arise from the same proceeding, two

14

different motions. As both orders were rendered in the same proceeding, the matters

15

should be consolidated, thereby saving judicial resources and the parties’ time and

16

resources. The appeal will otherwise address many of the same issues with the latter

17

appeal based on the reasons set forth in the original appeal.

18
19

6. The parties stipulate to move the briefing schedules out until after the Court has ruled on

20

the Motion, with the parties proposing new briefing dates beginning in 3-4 weeks from

21

today, as the court so directs.

22

7. The opening brief in the related proceeding, Appeal Ref. #19-14 is due on May 17,

23

2019.

24

8. The parties have not previously sought an extension of time for briefing.

25
26
27

///
///

28
2

Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 7 Filed 05/16/19 Page 3 of 3

1

WHEREFORE, the parties so stipulate and agree.

2

DATED this 16th day of May, 2019.

3

WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP

4
5
6
7

DATED this 16th day of May, 2019.

/s/ Edgar C. Smith
Edgar C. Smith, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 5506
7785 W. Sahara Ave., Ste. 200
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Attorneys for Appellant, Seterus, Inc.

/s/ Christopher P. Burk
Christopher P. Burke, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 004093
702 Plumas Street
Reno, NV 89509
Attorney for Appellees, Ronnie C. McKinney
and Joan E. McKinney aka Joan Blake

8
9
10

Case No. 3:19-cv-00089-LRH

11

ORDER

12
13

The Court, having considered the Stipulation of the Parties, and good cause appearing;

14

Ordered, the current briefing schedule is vacated, pending a ruling on the Motion to

15

June 24
Consolidate. Opening Brief in the instant appeal shall be filed and served __________, 2019,

16

with the Answering Brief to be filed and served ___________ and the Reply Brief to be filed
July 24, 2019

17
18
19
20

August 5
and served ___________ 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this ______ day of _________, 2019
21st
May

21
_________________________________________
HON. LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25

EXHIBIT LOG

26
27

Exhibit A

Motion to Consolidate

28
3

Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 7-1 Filed 05/16/19 Page 1 of 5

Exhibit A: Motion to Consolidate

Exhibit A: Motion to Consolidate

Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 7-1 Filed 04/23/19 Page 12of 45
Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 5 Filed 05/16/19 Page of

1
2
3
4
5

WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
Edgar C. Smith, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 5506
7785 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
[phone]; Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Appellant Seterus, Inc.

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10

IN RE:

Appeal Reference #: 19-07

RONNIE C. MCKINNEY, and JOAN E.
MCKINNEY aka JOAN BLAKE,

District Court Case #: 3:19-cv-00089
Bk. Case No.: 10-50597-BTB

11

Debtors
-------------------------------------------------

12
13

SETERUS, INC.,

14

v.

16

18

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
APPEALS AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR
FILING OPENING BRIEF

Appellant

15

17

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Nevada

RONNIE C. MCKINNEY, and JOAN E.
MCKINNEY aka JOAN BLAKE,
Appellees

19
20

Appellant Seterus, Inc., by and through their attorney of record, Edgar C. Smith, Esq. of

21
22

the law offices of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, moves to consolidate two related appeals from

23

orders entered by Hon. Bruce T. Beesley of the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of

24

Nevada and grant Appellant an extension of time to file the Opening Brief, based on the

25

following:

26
27
28

///
///

1

Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 7-1 Filed 04/23/19 Page 23of 45
Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 5 Filed 05/16/19 Page of

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

1
2

1. On February 1, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court filed the “Order Regarding Amended

3

Motion for Contempt, Motion for Sanctions for Violation of the Automatic Stay,

4
5
6

Motion for Sanctions for Violation of the Discharge Injunction, Motion for Damages
for Creditor Misconduct” [Doc. #243]. Seterus timely filed its Notice of Appeal on

7

February 15, 2019. Seterus elected to have the appeal heard in the United States

8

District Court, District of Nevada and the case has been assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-

9

00089 [Appeal #19-07].

10

2. On March 20, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court filed the “Order Granting Motion for

11
12

Attorney Fees and Costs Against Seterus, Inc.” [Doc. #270]. Seterus timely filed its

13

Notice of Appeal on April 4, 2019 and the case has been assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-

14

00187, the instant case [Appeal #19-14]

15
16
17
18

3. Although the orders were issued on separate dates, both appeals arise out of the same
underlying bankruptcy proceeding, the Debtors’ motion to seek sanctions against
Appellant. The basis for the second order [Doc. #270] is found in the first [Doc.

19

#243] wherein the Bankruptcy Court held, inter alia, that Debtors should file a

20

separate motion for attorney’s fees. The appeals share a nearly identical procedural

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

and factual history.
4. Because these appeals are closely related, the second appeal [#19-14] should be
designated as a companion case to the first, and its case no. reassigned to the first, so
that the appeals may be heard by the same district court judge.
5. For these reasons, Seterus, Inc. respectfully submits that a consolidation of these
appeals into one district court case is appropriate. Because of the significant factual,

28
2

Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 7-1 Filed 04/23/19 Page 34of 45
Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 5 Filed 05/16/19 Page of

1

procedural and legal overlap on the issues appealed, it would create efficiencies for

2

the parties, eliminate the risk of conflicting outcomes, and would create efficiencies

3

for the parties and reduce the burden on the district court and its staff.

4
5
6

6. Among other things, consolidation will (i) allow each of the parties to the appeal to
file one comprehensive appeal brief rather than attempting to file separate briefs, (ii)

7

simplifies procedures for motion filing and oral argument, and (iii) reduce needless

8

waste and duplication of effort.

9
10

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING BRIEFS
Appellant Seterus, Inc. by and through their attorney of record, Edgar C. Smith, Esq. further

11
12

moves the Court for an order vacating the current briefing schedule until after the within Motion

13

is ruled upon, and re-set the briefing schedule for not less than thirty (30) days from entry of the

14

order on this Motion.

15
16
17
18

1. No previous extensions have been requested.
2. This court has the authority to issue procedural orders relating to appeals from the
bankruptcy court under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013(b).

19

3. On April 10, 2019, this Court issued a briefing schedule so that Appellant’s Opening

20

Brief must be filed by April 24, 2019. This Motion is brought before the time Appellant

21
22
23
24

must file its brief.
4. Seterus, Inc. has filed its designation of record and statements of issue on appeal in both
appellate proceedings.

25

5. If the court grants consolidation, a new briefing schedule should issue, as the procedural

26

posture of both appeals will be substantially changed, and Appellant’s Motions will be

27
28
3

Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 7-1 Filed 04/23/19 Page 45of 45
Case 3:19-cv-00089-LRH Document 5 Filed 05/16/19 Page of

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

moot if the deadline is not changed, as the Opening Brief will be due before or near the
date the Court determines whether consolidation is appropriate.
6. The evidentiary hearing in this case took six (6) days to complete, and involved the
testimony of numerous witnesses and two experts. The exhibits in this case cover
thousands of pages.
7. Because this Motion presents no novel issues of law, Seterus, Inc. requests that this Court
waive the filing of a brief.
This Motion is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. Rule 8018(a) and Fed. R. App. Proc.
Rule 27(a).

11
12

Dated: April 23, 2019

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP

13

/s/ Edgar C. Smith
Edgar C. Smith, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 5506
7785 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
[phone]; Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

21

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP and

22

that I electronically served on the 23rd day of April, 2019, the foregoing MOTION TO

23
24
25

CONSOLIDATE APPEALS AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING OPENING BRIEF
to all parties and counsel as identified on the Court-generated Notice of Electronic Filing.

26
27
28

/s/ Tonya Sessions
An Employee of WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP

4