United States District Court, D. Nevada
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Plaintiff,
ARLINGTON WEST TWILIGHT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; and ALESSI & KOENIG, LLC, Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Counter/Cross Claimant,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; KIMBERLY McLAUGHLIN, an individual; and JASON McLAUGHLIN, an individual, Counter/Cross Defendants.
AKERMAN LLP, JASON JOSEPH ZUMMO, ESQ. ARIEL E. STERN, ESQ.,
AKERMAN LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
GILBERT EBRON, DIANA CLINE EBRON, ESQ., JACQUELINE A.
GILBERT, ESQ., ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SFR INVESTMENTS POOL
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING
FINAL RESOLUTION OF PETITION(S) FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BANA Home Loans
Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP
(BANA) and defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (SFR)
(collectively, the parties), the only parties to have
appeared in this action, stipulate to temporarily stay this
case as follows:
lawsuit involves the parties seeking quiet title/declaratory
relief and other claims related to a non-judicial
homeowner's association foreclosure sale conducted on a
Property pursuant to NRS 116.
August 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its 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 116 is facially unconstitutional. The Court of
Appeals issued its mandate in the appeal on December 14,
2016, vacating and remanding the judgment to the United
States District Court, District of Nevada.
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
parties in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay
are seeking review of both decisions 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 April 3, 2017. 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 25, 2017. Thus, the parties
believe that the stay requested herein is appropriate.
February 8, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court stayed the
issuance of the remittitur in Saticoy Bay 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 remain in effect until final
disposition of the certiorari proceedings before the United
States Supreme Court.
Since then, several judges in this district have stayed
similar cases pending the exhaustion of all appeals before
the United States Supreme Court. E.g., Nationstar Mtg.
LLC v. Green Valley S. Owners Assoc., No.
2:16-cv-00883-GMN-GWF; Bank of America, N.A. v. Canyon
Willow Trop Owners' Assoc., No.
2:16-cv-01327-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2016); Deutsche
Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Copper Sands HOA, No.
2:16-cv-00763-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2017).
determine if a continued 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 stay of litigation.
Damage from Stay:
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 be mooted by a decision in Bourne
Valley certiorari proceedings. Indeed, the parties will
be able to avoid the cost and expense of continued legal
proceedings in light of what is unsettled law to say the
least. Moreover, the Court will be relieved of expending
further time and effort until the conflict between the
circuit and Nevada Supreme Court is resolved. Thus, a stay
will benefit all parties involved herein.
Hardship or Inequity:
will be no significant hardship or inequity that befalls one
party more than the other. This relatively equal balance of
equities results from the need for all parties to have
finality, given the split in the state and federal court
decisions. The parties agree that any ...