Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Emerald Ridge Landscape Maintenance Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 12, 2017

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
EMERALD RIDGE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION; SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; and RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Counter/cross-claimant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST; RONALD M. RHEES, an individual; CAMELLIA F. PEEBLES, an individual, Counter-Defendant.

          AKERMAN LLP, MELANIE D. MORGAN, ESQ., VATANA LAY, ESQ., Attorneys for Bank of America, N.A.

          KIMGILBERT EBRON, DIANA CLINE EBRON, ESQ. Attorney for SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

          KOCH&SCOWLLC, STEVE B. SCOW, ESQ., BRODY R. WIGHT, ESQ., DAVID R. KOCH, ESQ., Attorney for Red Rock Financial Services, LLC

          HALL JAFFE&CLAYTON, LLP, ASHLIE SURUR, ESQ., Attorney for Emerald Ridge Landscape Maintenance Association

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING FINAL RESOLUTION OF PETITION(S) FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

         Plaintiff/counter-defendant Bank of America, N.A., Defendant/counter-plaintiff SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, and Defendant Emerald Ridge Landscape Maintenance Association, Defendant Red Rock Financial Services, LLC, stipulate as follows[1]:

         1. This lawsuit involves quiet title/declaratory relief and other claims related to a non-judicial homeowner's association foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to NRS 116.

         2. On 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.

         3. On 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.

         4. The parties in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay are seeking review of both decisions in the United States Supreme Court. Bourne Valley filed its petition for writ of certiorari of the Ninth Circuit's Bourne Valley decision on April 3, 2017. See Bourne Valley Court Tr. 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 the stay requested herein is appropriate.

         5. On 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.

         6. Several judges in this district have stayed similar cases pending exhaustion of all appeals before the United States Supreme Court. See e.g., Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Green Valley S. Owners Ass'n, No. 2:16-cv-00883-GMN-GWF, ECF No. 38 (D. Nev. Oct. 5, 2016); Bank of America, N.A. v. Canyon Willow Trop Owners' Ass'n, No. 2:16-cv-01327-GMN-VCF, ECF No. 25 (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2016); Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Copper Sands HOA, No. 2:16-cv-00763-JAD-CWH, ECF No. 29 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2017).

         7. To 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.

         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 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.