United States District Court, D. Nevada
DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,
T-SHACK, INC., a foreign corporation; NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., a domestic corporation; DESERT SANDS VILLAS HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, a domestic non-profit corporation; and DOES I through X, inclusive, Defendants.
Sorenson, Esq. Robin E. Perkins, Esq. Jennifer L. McBee, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ditech
Financial LLC and Federal National Mortgage Association
GUTIERREZ AYON PLLC Luis A. Ayon Margaret E. Schmidt
Attorneys for Defendant T-Shack, Inc.
Christopher V. Yergensen Attorneys for Defendant Nevada
Association Services, Inc.
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C. J. William
Ebert David Markman Attorneys for Defendant Desert Sands
Villas Homeowners’ Association
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING
FINAL RESOLUTION OF PETITION(S) FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ECF No. 20, 23
Jennifer Dorsey U.S. District Court Judge
Financial LLC (“Ditech”) and Federal National
Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae,” and jointly
with Ditech, the “Plaintiffs”), Defendant
T-Shack, Inc. (“T-Shack”), Defendant Desert Sands
Villas Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”),
and Defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc.
(“NAS”), (collectively, the
“Parties”), by and through their respective
undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
lawsuit involves the parties seeking quiet title/declaratory
relief and other claims related to a non-judicial
homeowner’s foreclosure sale conducted on a property
pursuant to NRS Chapter 116.
August 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision on
appeal in Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 832 F.3d 1154, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2016), holding
that NRS Chapter 116 is facially unconstitutional. The Court
of Appeals issued its mandate in the appeal on December 14,
January 26, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its
decision in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v.
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a Div. of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 5,___ P.3d___, 2017 WL 398426 (Nev.
Jan. 26, 2017) holding, in direct contrast to Bourne
Valley, that no state action supported a challenge under
the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
Saticoy Bay decision by the Nevada Supreme Court
conflicts directly with Ninth Circuit’s ruling in
Bourne Valley, making the issue appropriate for
consideration by the United States Supreme Court.
See Sup. Ct. Rule 10(a) & (b) (noting that the
High Court will consider review when “a United States
court of appeals has . . . decided an important federal
question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state
court of last resort * * * [or] a state court of last resort
has decided an important federal question in a way that
conflicts with the decision of . . . a United States court of
parties believe the conflict should be resolved and are
seeking review of the state action issue in the United States
Supreme Court. Bourne Valley’s deadline to file its
petition for writ of certiorari of the Ninth Circuit’s
Bourne Valley decision is March 6, 2017, pursuant to
an order granting an extension of time. See Bourne Valley
Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., United States
Supreme Court Case No. 16A753. Wells Fargo’s deadline
to file its petition for writ of certiorari of the Nevada
Supreme Court’s Saticoy Bay decision is April
26, 2017. Thus, the Parties believe that the stay requested
herein is appropriate.
February 8, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order
staying its issuance of the remittitur pending the filing of
a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court, and if a petition is filed, the stay of the
remittitur will in effect until final disposition of the
certiorari proceedings before the United States Supreme
determine if a stay is appropriate, the Court considers (1)
damage from the stay; (2) hardship or inequity that befalls
one party more than the other; and (3) the orderly course of
justice. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators
Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting
forth factors). Here, the factors support a continued stay of
a. Damage from Stay: Any damage from a temporary
stay in this case will be minimal if balanced against the
potential fees, costs, and time which would surely ensue in
this matter if litigation were allowed to continue that could