United States District Court, D. Nevada
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, Plaintiffs,
COPPER CREEK HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION; HAMPTON & HAMPTON P.C., Defendants.
AKERMAN LLP ARIEL E. STERN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8276 THERA A.
COOPER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 13468 Attorneys for Bank of
America, N.A. as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP and
Federal National Mortgage Association
HAMPTON & HAMPTON, P.C. MILES HAMPTON, ESQ. Nevada Bar
No. 5350 JAY HAMPTON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9050 Attorneys for
Hampton & Hampton P.C.
LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER&GARIN, P.C. KALEB D.
ANDERSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7582 AMBER M. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12301 Attorneys for Copper Creek
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING
FINAL RESOLUTION OF PETITION(S) FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge
Bank of America, N.A. as successor by merger to BAC Home
Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(BANA) and Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie
Mae), and Defendants Copper Creek Homeowners' Association
(Copper Creek) and Hampton & Hampton, P.C. (Hampton),
through their counsel of record, stipulate 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: 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
be mooted by a decision in Bourne Valley certiorari
proceedings. Indeed, the parties will be enable 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
Hardship or Inequity: There 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