United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. Dawson United States District Judge
before the Court is Defendant Mao and Zhang LV, LLC's
Motion to Stay (#38). Though the time for doing so has
passed, no response in opposition has been filed. Having read
and considered the motion and good cause being found, the
motion will be granted. Also, before the Court is
Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference (#34).
Nevada Supreme Court recently held that “the Due
Process Clause of the United States and Nevada Constitutions
are not implicated in an HOA's nonjudicial foreclosure of
a superpriority lien.” Saticoy Bay v. Wells
Fargo, 388 P.3d 970, 975 (Nev. 2017). However, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals considered the same issue in
Bourne Valley Ct. Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, 832
F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2016) and came to the opposite
conclusion: “Nevada Revised Statutes section
116.3116's “opt-in” notice scheme facially
violated mortgage lenders' constitutional due process
rights.” Parties in both Bourne Valley and
Saticoy Bay have indicated they will file petitions
for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,
leaving the constitutionality of portions of Nevada's
non-judicial foreclosure statute in question. In fact, the
Nevada Supreme Court has stayed issuance of remittitur until
June 21, 2017, to allow time for Defendants to seek
certiorari. Saticoy Bay, Nev. S.Ct. Case
No. 68630, Doc. No. 17-04543 (Feb. 8, 2017). Additionally,
the United States Supreme Court extended the deadline for the
Bourne Valley cert petition to April 3, 2017. Case
No. 16A753 (Feb 24, 2017).
issues the parties in this case have raised implicate
Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay. To save the
parties from the need to invest resources in discovery
surrounding commercial reasonableness of the sale including
any fraud, unfairness or oppression, before the United States
Supreme Court has ruled on the petitions for certiorari
review in these cases, the Court grants Defendants unopposed
motion to stay this case.
district court has the inherent power to stay cases to
control its docket and promote the efficient use of judicial
resources. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,
254-55 (1936); Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., v.
Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.
2007). When determining whether a stay is appropriate pending
the resolution of another case - often called a
“Landis stay” - the district court must
weigh: (1) the possible damage that may result from a stay,
(2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party may
suffer if required to go forward, and (3) “and the
orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions
of law” that a stay will engender. Lockyer v.
Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).
Weighing these considerations, the Court finds that a
Landis stay is appropriate.
A stay will promote the orderly course of justice.
center of this case is an HOA-foreclosure sale under NRS
Chapter 116 and the competing arguments that the foreclosure
sale either extinguished the mortgagor's security
interest or had no legal effect because the statutory scheme
violates due process and the takings clause. The United
States Supreme Court's consideration of petitions for
certiorari in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay
has the potential to be dispositive of this case or major
discrete issues presented by it. The jurisprudence in this
area of unique Nevada law continues to evolve causing parties
in the scores of foreclosure-challenge actions pending to
file new motions or supplement the ones that they already
have pending, resulting in “docket-clogging entries and
an impossible-to-follow chain of briefs in which arguments
are abandoned and replaced.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC
v. Springs at Spanish Trail Assoc., 2017 WL 752775, *2
(D. Nev. February 27, 2017). Staying this case pending the
Supreme Court's disposition of the petitions for
certiorari in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay
will permit the parties to evaluate, and the Court to
consider, viability of the claims under the most complete
precedent. This will simplify and streamline the proceedings
and promote the efficient use of the parties' and the
Hardship and inequity
parties equally face hardship or inequity if the Court
resolves the claims or issues before the petitions for
certiorari have been decided. A stay will prevent unnecessary
briefing and premature expenditures of time, attorney's
fees, and resources. While this is one of the few cases in
which multiple supplemental briefs have not been filed, the
prospect of that occurrence is greater than not while the
petitions are pending.
Damage from a stay
only potential damage that may result from a stay is that the
parties will have to wait longer for resolution of this case.
But a delay would also result from any rebriefing or
supplemental briefing that may be necessitated if the Supreme
Court grants certiorari and resolves this circuit-state
split. It is not clear that a stay pending the Supreme
Court's disposition of the petitions for certiorari will
ultimately lengthen the life of this case. The Court finds
minimal any possible damage that this stay may cause.
The length of the stay is reasonable.
a stay of this case pending the disposition of the petitions
for certiorari in Bourne Valley and Saticoy
Bay is expected to be reasonably short. The petition in
Bourne Valley is due April 3, 2017, and the petition
in Saticoy Bay is due April 25, 2017. Because the
length of this stay is directly tied to the petition
proceedings in those cases, it is reasonably brief, and not