Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC
2:14-cv-01875
| D. Nev. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Bayview Loan Servicing filed this action; SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC moved to stay briefing and/or litigation pending the issuance of the mandate in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank.
- SFR argued the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate resolution of Bourne Valley (addressing a due-process challenge) may be dispositive here.
- Claimant-in-intervention Bank of America (BANA) opposed a full stay, arguing its summary-judgment motion does not rise or fall with Bourne Valley.
- The court evaluated the request under the stay doctrine (Landis) and the Ninth Circuit stay factors (CMAX/Leyva), balancing potential delay against hardship and judicial economy.
- The court concluded a partial stay was appropriate: issues directly dependent on Bourne Valley are stayed; all other issues proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay entire litigation pending issuance of the Bourne Valley mandate | Stay all briefing/litigation because Bourne Valley may be dispositive due to a raised due-process challenge | Opposes full stay; BANA says its summary-judgment motion is independent of Bourne Valley | Partial stay granted: stay only those issues directly dependent on Bourne Valley; deny stay as to other issues |
| Whether potential post-mandate reconsideration justifies preemptive stay | Stay to avoid later delays from motions for reconsideration if Bourne Valley is overturned | Proceed now; minimal prejudice from continuing other claims | Court found potential delay from future reconsideration outweighed minimal harm, supporting a targeted stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (Sup. Ct. 1936) (federal courts have inherent power to stay proceedings for docket control and efficiency)
- Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) (stay may be appropriate pending resolution of independent proceedings that bear on the case)
- CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) (formulation of factors to weigh in deciding a stay)
- Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court’s decision to grant or deny a Landis stay is discretionary)