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.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 1, 2017

U.S. BANK N.A., SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, WMALT SERIES 2005-10, Plaintiff,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1 LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; SHERMAN OAKS ESTATES OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Nevada non-profit corporation. Defendant. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Counter/Cross-claimant,
v.
U.S. BANK N.A., SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, WMALT SERIES 2005-10; DAVID L. MCCOY, an individual; PAMELA MCCOY, an individual, Counter/Cross-defendants.

          BALLARD SPAHR LLP Justin A. Shiroff Abran E. Vigil, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7548 Justin A. Shiroff, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12869 Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          DENNETT WINSPEAR, LLP Gina Gilbert Winspear, Nevada Bar No. 5552 Matthew A. Sarnoski, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9176 Attorney for Sherman Oaks Estates Owners Association.

          JOINT MOTION TO AMEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER (FIRST REQUEST)

         Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant U.S. Bank N.A., successor trustee to Bank of America, N.A., successor in interest to LaSalle Bank N.A., as trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2005-10 (the “Trustee”) and Defendant Sherman Oaks Estates Owners Association (“Sherman Oaks”) (collectively, the “Moving Parties”) hereby submit this Joint Motion to Amend the Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order pursuant to LR 6-1 and 26-4.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

         1. The complaint was filed in this matter on December 6, 2016, and service was effected on SFR and Sherman Oaks on December 13, 2016.

         2. On January 10, 2017, Sherman Oaks filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for a more definitive statement. Trustee timely opposed those motions, and Sherman Oaks filed its replies in support on January 27, 2017.

         3. On January 17, 2017, SFR filed a motion to certify a question of law to the Nevada Supreme Court, its answer, and a counterclaim against Trustee and David L. McCoy, the borrower under the note and deed of trust held by Trustee.

         4. Trustee filed a timely opposition to SFR's motion to certify on January 31, 2017, and SFR filed its reply on February 3, 2017.

         5. Trustee replied to SFR's counterclaim on February 7, 2017. Mr. McCoy was served with SFR's counterclaim on February 17, 2017, but has not answered or otherwise responded.

         6. Thereafter the parties conferred and filed with the court a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order in compliance with Local Rule 26-1, setting July 10, 2017 as the discovery cutoff.

         7. In compliance with the discovery plan and scheduling order, Sherman Oaks served its initial disclosures on March 14, 2017, and Trustee and SFR served their initial disclosures on March 24, 2017.

         The Moving Parties have been diligently prosecuting this matter without intentional delays. However, the Moving Parties agree that an extension of the discovery deadline and corresponding deadlines is necessary and warranted. The early months of this case were consumed with motion practice on the Defendants' various motions and additional pleadings and, accordingly, discovery could not begin in earnest until the parties initial disclosures were produced by March 24, 2017, pursuant to the scheduling order. In responding to the discovery propounded to date, it has become clear the Moving Parties require additional time to provide complete and accurate discovery responses, and the discovery deadline now looms over the expected response timelines. To allow the parties to conduct complete discovery in this matter, the Moving Parties therefore request and stipulate to a 90 day extension of the current discovery deadline pursuant to Local Rule 7-1.

         II. LOCAL RULE ...


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.