Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Apollo Developments, LLC, 2:17-cv-01470

Dispute concerns whether an HOA’s nonjudicial foreclosure sale under Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 116 extinguished the senior deed of trust on property where the owner defaulted on HOA assessments.
In 2016 a divided Ninth Circuit panel in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank held that the pre-2015 Chapter 116 foreclosure scheme facially violated mortgage lenders’ due process rights (832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016)).
The Nevada Supreme Court subsequently held in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage that the Due Process Clauses are not implicated by an HOA’s nonjudicial foreclosure of a superpriority lien (388 P.3d 970 (Nev. 2017)).
Because Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay conflict on the federal due process question, the Bourne Valley losing party petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari; the appeals winner supports granting certiorari.
The district court exercised its inherent Landis authority to stay this case sua sponte pending resolution of the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Bourne Valley petition, finding a stay would simplify issues, avoid duplicative briefing, and cause minimal prejudice; administrative stay ordered, but service must proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nevada’s Chapter 116 nonjudicial HOA foreclosure scheme is facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause such that an HOA sale is void and cannot extinguish a senior deed of trust	Bourne Valley (and thus plaintiff) argues Chapter 116 as applied pre-2015 violated mortgage lenders’ due process rights, rendering HOA sales void as to deeds of trust	Saticoy Bay (and thus defendants/HOA) argues due process is not implicated and HOA nonjudicial foreclosure can extinguish a senior deed of trust	Court did not decide merits; recognized conflict between Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay and stayed the case pending Supreme Court action on certiorari
Whether the district court should stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of the Bourne Valley certiorari petition	Stay appropriate because a favorable Bourne Valley outcome would resolve or simplify key issues and avoid duplicative briefing	Opposing argument (implicit): stay delays resolution and burdens parties by pausing litigation	Court held a Landis stay is appropriate: potential prejudice from delay is minimal, the stay will simplify issues, and it is likely to be reasonably short; case administratively stayed

Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016) (panel held pre-2015 Chapter 116 facially violated lenders’ due process rights)
Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 388 P.3d 970 (Nev. 2017) (Nevada Supreme Court held due process not implicated by HOA nonjudicial foreclosure of superpriority lien)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (district courts have inherent power to stay cases to control their dockets)
Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing district court authority to manage docket, including stays)
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (factors for evaluating a stay pending resolution of related proceedings)