United States District Court, D. Nevada
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,
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,
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)
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.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
complaint was filed in this matter on December 6, 2016, and
service was effected on SFR and Sherman Oaks on December 13,
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.
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.
Trustee filed a timely opposition to SFR's motion to
certify on January 31, 2017, and SFR filed its reply on
February 3, 2017.
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
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
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.
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
LOCAL RULE ...