United States District Court, D. Nevada
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWMBS, INC., CHL MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH TRUST 2004-25, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-25, Plaintiff,
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 4800 FIESTA LAKES; LOS PRADOS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.; DOE INDIVIDUALS I-X, inclusive, and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive, Defendants.
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case arises out of a homeowner's association
(“HOA”) foreclosure and involves a constitutional
due process challenge to Nevada Revised Statute Chapter
116's notice provisions. Before the Court is Plaintiff
Bank of New York Mellon's (“Plaintiff”)
Motion for Partial Reinstatement of Stay
(“Motion”), in which Plaintiff asks the Court to
stay all proceedings except the filing of dispositive motions
addressing the effect of Bourne Valley Court Trust v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016),
on this case. (ECF No. 19.) Defendant Saticoy Bay
(“Saticoy Bay”) has opposed (ECF No. 21) and
Plaintiff has replied (ECF No. 23). Defendant Los Prados
Community Association, Inc. (“Los Prados”), also
filed a joinder to Saticoy Bay's opposition. (ECF No.
Court had previously sua sponte imposed a temporary
stay because of the potential impact of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals' decision in Bourne Valley Court
Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir.
2016), r'hng denied (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016).
(ECF No. 17.) In Bourne Valley, the Ninth Circuit
found that Chapter 116's notice provisions as applied to
a nonjudicial foreclosure of an HOA lien before the 2015
amendment was facially unconstitutional. Id. at
1157-60. The Court subsequently lifted the stay after the
Ninth Circuit issued the mandate in Bourne Valley.
(ECF No. 18.) The Court reasoned that Bourne
Valley's holding is binding precedent unless and
until it is reversed, though such finality may not occur for
months. (Id.) Within days, the Nevada Supreme Court
in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo
Home Mortgage, a Division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 388
P.3d 970 (Nev. 2017), reached the opposite conclusion,
finding that Nevada's superpriority lien statutes are not
facially unconstitutional. The nonprevailing parties in
Bourne Valley and Satico Bay are seeking
review of both decisions in the United States Supreme Court.
Motion, Plaintiff asserts that Bourne Valley binds
this Court. (ECF No. 19 at 3.) As such, Plaintiff asks the
Court to partially reinstate a stay but allow the parties to
file dispositive motions addressing Bourne
Valley's effect on the outcome of this case.
(Id.) In Saticoy Bay's opposition, they argue
that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bourne
Valley is not binding precedent and that the Nevada
Supreme Court's decisions in SFR Investments Pool 1,
LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 334 P.3d 408 (2014), and
Saticoy Bay, 388 P.3d 970, provide constitutional
interpretations of Nevada law that are binding on this Court.
(See ECF No. 21 at 3-10.) In essence, the parties
dispute which decision, Bourne Valley or Saticoy
Bay, provides the correct interpretation of Nevada law
upon which this Court ought to rely.
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 (CD. Cal. 1997)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). See also Dependable Highway
Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1067
(9th Cir. 2007).
three factors weigh in favor of a temporary stay as to all
matters in this case, though the duration of the stay may be
extended depending on whether the Supreme Court will grant
Bourne Valley and Well Fargo's petitions for a writ of
certiorari. Until there is finality on the issue of whether
Nevada's superpriority lien statutes are constitutional,
a stay will benefit the parties and conserve judicial
resources. The Court will therefor sua sponte impose
a temporary stay.
therefore ordered that Defendant's Motion for a Partial
Reinstatement to Stay (ECF No. 19) is denied as moot. This
action is temporarily stayed until resolution of the
certiorari proceedings before the United States Supreme Court
in Bourne Valley and/or Saticoy Bay. The
parties must file a status report within 15 days from such
resolution. The pending motion for summary judgment ...