United States District Court, D. Nevada
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Fremont Home Loan Trust Series 2006-3, Plaintiff,
LV REAL ESTATE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; LV REAL ESTATE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT GROUP LLC SERIES 9128, a Nevada limited-liability company; TERRA WEST COLLECTIONS GROUP LLC d/b/a ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, a Nevada limited liability company; and TAPESTRY AT TOWN CENTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Nevada nonprofit corporation; Defendants.
J. Stutman, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10794 Tanya N. Lewis, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 8855 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. Attorneys for
Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
for Fremont Home Loan Trust Series 2006-3.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING
FINAL RESOLUTION OF PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
hereby stipulated by and between Plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Fremont Home Loan
Trust Series 2006-3, (“Plaintiff”), and
Defendants LV REAL ESTATE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, a
Nevada limited-liability company, LV REAL ESTATE STRATEGIC
INVESTMENT GROUP LLC SERIES 9128, a Nevada limited-liability
company; TERRA WEST COLLECTIONS GROUP LLC d/b/a ASSESSMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, a Nevada limited liability company, and
TAPESTRY AT TOWN CENTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Nevada
nonprofit corporation, (collectively, the
“Parties”), by and through their counsel, as
lawsuit involves a claim for quiet title/declaratory relief
and other claims related to a non-judicial homeowner's
association foreclosure sale conducted on a property pursuant
to NRS Chapter 116.
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 Chapter 116 is facially unconstitutional. The Court
of Appeals issued its mandate in the appeal on December 14,
2016, vacating and remanding the District Court's
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.
Saticoy Bay decision by the Nevada Supreme Court
conflicts directly with Ninth Circuit's ruling in
Bourne Valley, making the issue appropriate for
consideration by the United States Supreme Court.
See Sup. Ct. Rule 10(a) & (b) (noting that the
High Court will consider review when “a United States
court of appeals has . . . decided an important federal
question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state
court of last resort * * * [or] 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
Since then, several judges in this district have stayed
similar cases pending the exhaustion of the appeal of the
Ninth Circuit's decision in Bourne Valley
pending before the United States Supreme Court. E.g.,
Nationstar Mtg. LLC v. Green Valley S. Owners Assoc.,
No. 2:16-cv-00883-GMN-GWF; Bank of America, N.A. v.
Canyon Willow Trop Owners' Assoc., No.
2:16-cv-01327-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2016); Deutsche
Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Copper Sands HOA, No.
2:16-cv-00763-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2017).
Terra West/AMS filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint
(“Motion to Dismiss, ” ECF No. 22) on May 19,
Parties believe the conflict should be resolved. Counsel in
Bourne Valley has sought review of the state action
issue in the United States Supreme Court. Bourne Valley's
petition for writ of certiorari of the Ninth Circuit's
Bourne Valley decision is pending in the United
States Supreme Court. See Bourne Valley Court Trust v.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA., United States Supreme Court Case
No. 16A753. Thus, the parties believe that a continued
litigation stay is appropriate and will not be indefinite.
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. Maheu v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court In & For Clark County, Dept. No. 6, 88 Nev.
26, 51, 493 P.2d 709, 725 (1972), quoting Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). Here, the
factors support a continued 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 enabled 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 effort until
the conflict between the circuit and Nevada Supreme Court is
resolved. Thus, a stay will benefit all parties involved
herein as well as the Court.
b. Hardship or Inequity: There will be no
significant hardship or inequity that befalls one party more
than the other. This relatively equal balance of equities
results from the need for the parties to have finality, given
the split in the state and federal court decisions. Any
hardship would be equal in terms of resources expended
without a stay. A stay prevents this expenditure for all
Parties and the parties ...