United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER STAYING CASE
P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
one of many disputes over the effect of a nonjudicial
foreclosure sale conducted by a homeowners association
("HOA") after the prior owner failed to pay HOA
assessments. On August 12, 2016, a divided Ninth Circuit
panel in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo
Bank held that Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 116's
HOA nonjudicial foreclosure scheme, as it existed before the
statutory scheme was amended in 2015, "facially violated
mortgage lenders' constitutional due process
rights." 832 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 2016); but
see Id. at *6-ll (Wallace, J., dissenting). Those
motions were denied and the mandate issued on December 14,
2016. Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
9th Cir. Dkt. No. 15-15233, ECF Nos. 75, 76.
Supreme Court of Nevada recently decided Saticoy Bay LLC
Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
holding that "the Due Process Clauses of the United
Sates and Nevada Constitutions are not implicated in an
HOA's nonjudicial foreclosure of a superiority
lien." 388 P.3d 970, 975 (Nev. 2017). The losing parties
in both Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay have
indicated they intend to file petitions for certiorari in the
United States Supreme Court. Because Bourne Valley
and Saticoy Bay reached opposite conclusions, the
constitutionality of Nevada's HOA nonjudicial foreclosure
scheme may be decided by the United States Supreme Court.
See Sup. Ct. R. 10(b) (identifying as a compelling
reason for granting certiorari that "a state court of
last resort has decided an important federal question in a
way that conflicts with the decision . . . of a United States
court of appeals"). I therefore sua sponte stay
this case pending a decision on the petitions for certiorari
in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay.
district court has the inherent power to stay cases to
control its docket and promote the efficient use of judicial
resources. Landis v. N. 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 to stay a case pending the
resolution of another case, I must consider (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, (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). I find that a Landis stay is appropriate
crux of the parties' dispute is whether the HOA
foreclosure sale extinguished the deed of trust. If the HOA
sale was void because Chapter 116 is facially
unconstitutional, then the parties' dispute is, in large
part, resolved or at least simplified. The Supreme
Court's consideration of the petitions in Bourne
Valley and Saticoy Bay thus could be
dispositive of this case, or at least of significant issues
in the case. As the jurisprudence and the parties'
arguments in this area evolve, the parties file new motions
or move to supplement the pending briefs, burdening our
already-busy docket. Bourne Valley and Saticoy
Bay no doubt will inspire more motions and supplements.
Staying this case pending the Supreme Court's disposition
of the petitions in Bourne Valley and Saticoy
Bay will permit the parties to present arguments and
evidence in the context of complete and resolved precedent,
and it will allow me to evaluate the claims in light of this
legal authority. Consequently, a stay pending the disposition
of the certiorari proceedings will simplify the proceedings
and promote the efficient use of the parties' and the
the claims or issues in this case before the Supreme Court
decides whether to grant or deny the petitions could impose a
hardship on both parties. A stay will prevent unnecessary or
premature briefing on Bourne Valley and Saticoy
Bay's impact on this case.
potential damage that may result from a stay is that the
parties will have to wait longer for resolution of this case
and any motions that they intend to file in the future. But a
delay would also result from new briefing that may be
necessitated if the Supreme Court grants certiorari. So a
stay pending the Supreme Court's decision will not
necessarily lengthen the life of this case. Any possible
damage that a stay may cause is minimal.
I expect the stay pending the Supreme Court's disposition
of the petitions for certiorari to be reasonably short. The
petition in Bourne Valley was filed on April 3,
2017. The petition in Saticoy Bay is due April 25,
2017. The length of this stay is tied to the Supreme
Court's decision on the petitions for certiorari, so the
stay will be reasonably brief and is not
indefinite. The stay will remain in place until the
proceedings in the Supreme Court have concluded.
THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is administratively STAYED.
Once the proceedings in the United States Supreme Court in
Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank and Saticoy Bay
LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage have
concluded, any party may move to lift the stay.
 The Supreme Court of Nevada stayed the
issuance of the remittitur in Saticoy Bay pending
the Supreme Court's disposition of the certiorari
proceedings. No. 68630, Dkt. No. ...