Case Information
*1 Case 3:15-cv-00291-MMD-WGC Document 58 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
* * *
LN Mgmt v. Gelgotas 2:15-cv-00112-MMD-CWH Bank of New York Mellon v. Saticoy Bay 2:16-cv-00246-MMD-CWH Bank of America v. Southern Highlands 2:16-cv- 00404-MMD-NJK Bank of America v. Spanish Bay HOA 2:16-cv-00691-MMD-VCF Bank of America v. Aliante Master Assoc. 2:16-cv-00962-MMD-CWH Wells Fargo v. SFT Investments Pool 2:16-cv-01069-MMD-VCF Nationstar v. Summit Hills HOA US Bank v. SFR Investments Pool 2:16-cv-01637-MMD-GWF 2:16-cv-01719-MMD-CWH Moberly v. Bank of America 3:15-cv-00122-MMD-WGC Bank of America v. Rainbow Bend HOA 3:15-cv-00291-MMD-WGC Green Tree Servicing v. Rainbow Bend HOA 3:15-cv-00297-MMD-WGC Countrywide v. Willow Hills Commons HOA 3:15-cv-00333-MMD-VPC Bank of America v. Huffaker Hills 3:15-cv-00502-MMD-WGC Deutsche Bank v. Williamsburg Townehomes HOA 3:16-cv-00004-MMD-WGC Bank of America v. Esplanade at Damonte Ranch HOA 3:16-cv-00120-MMD-WGC Bank of America v. Highland Ranch HOA 3:16-cv-00154-MMD-VPC Bank of America v. Yorkshire Manor I HOA 3:16-cv-00192-MMD-VPC Ditech Financial v. TBR I 3:16-cv-00227-MMD-WGC US Bank v. Casoleil HOA 3:16-cv-00307-MMD-WGC Ditech Financial v. Dorado HOA 3:16-cv-00351-MMD-VPC ORDER Staying Case Pending Issuance of Mandate in
Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank
The above referenced cases arise out of a homeowner’s association (“HOA”) foreclosure and involve a constitutional due process challenge to Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 116’s notice provisions. On August 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2- 1 panel decision, found that Chapter 116’s notice provisions as applied to nonjudicial foreclosure of an HOA lien before the 2015 amendment to be facially unconstitutional. Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 15-15233, 2016 WL 4254983(9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016). The Bourne Valley decision obviously has profound impact on each case. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is appropriate to sua sponte impose a temporary stay until the mandate is issued in Bourne Valley . *2 Case 3:15-cv-00291-MMD-WGC Document 58 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 2 A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court. Landis v. N. Am. Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp. , 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case .” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd. , 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). “When considering a motion to stay, the district court should consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated .” Pate v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , No. 2:12-cv-01168-MMD-CWH, 2012 WL 3532780, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2012) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co. , 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2007).
These three factors weigh in favor of a brief temporary stay. A temporary stay would promote judicial economy, particularly given Bourne Valley’s ruling’s effect on the due process issue raised in each case. Any potential hardship or prejudice would be minimal in light of the brief duration of the stay until a mandate is issued in Bourne Valley . In fact, a stay would benefit the parties as they assess Bourne Valley ’s import without having to file any unnecessary supplemental briefing.
It is therefore ordered that the above referenced actions are temporarily stayed. Upon the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of the manda te in Bourne Valley , the parties in each case may move to lift the stay. Until that time, all proceedings, except for service of process, are stayed.
DATED THIS 23 rd day of August 2016.
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2