United States District Court, D. Nevada
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a successor by merger to BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP fka COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
SANTA BARBARA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; and ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Counter/Cross Claimant,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., successor by merger to BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP fka COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; KATY L. LEE, and individual; and KATY L. LEE, TRUSTEE or her successor in trust, under the KLEE LIVING TRUST, dated August 10, 2006, Counter/Cross Defendants.
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case arises out of a homeowner's association
(“HOA”) foreclosure sale and involves a
constitutional due process challenge to Nevada Revised
Statute Chapter 116's notice provisions. Before the Court
is a Joint Motion to Stay (“Joint Motion”) filed
by Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants Bank of America, N.A.
(“BANA”) and Federal National Mortgage
Association (“Fannie Mae”), and Defendants SFR
Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) and Absolute
Services, LLC (“ACS”) (collectively
“Movants”) (ECF No. 43). Defendant Santa Barbara
Homeowner Association's (“SB”) filed a
response opposing the Joint Motion (ECF No. 45) to which
Movants filed a reply (ECF No. 46). Movants ask the Court to
stay all proceedings pending final resolution of the
petitions for certiorari 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), and Saticoy Bay
LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a
Div. of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 388 P.3d 970 (Nev. Jan.
26, 2017). For the stated reasons below, the Court agrees
with Movants and finds that a complete stay of the case, at
least until the Supreme Court addresses the pending
certiorari petitions, is prudent.
their opposition, SB contends that they will suffer
additional attorney's fees to monitor the pending
certiorari petitions, delay in the resolution of the
ownership of the property, and an inability to budget for
future amounts and legal costs if the case is stayed. (ECF
No. 45 at 3.) Movants, however, argue that there will be
minimal defense costs to SB in monitoring the case and that,
in the event this action is not stayed, the hardship to
Movants outweighs any harm to SB. (ECF No. 46 at 1-2.)
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 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. SB insists that a stay will create hardship
because of the attorney's fees resulting from monitoring
of this case and the uncertainty of defending the action (ECF
No. 45 at 5.) However, any damage to SB from a stay will be
outweighed by the fees that all parties will surely incur
from continued litigation because a decision by this Court
could be rendered moot by a decision in the certiorari
proceedings before the Supreme Court. 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.
therefore ordered that Movants' Joint Motion to Stay (ECF
No. 43) is granted. 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 fifteen (15) days from such resolution. The pending
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF ...