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.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. LV Real Estate Strategic Investment Group LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 15, 2017

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Fremont Home Loan Trust Series 2006-3, Plaintiff,
v.
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.

          Erica 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

          C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         STIPULATION

         It is 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 follows:

         1. This 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.

         2. On 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 judgment.

         3. On 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.

         4. The 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 appeals.”)

         5. 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).

         6. Terra West/AMS filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss, ” ECF No. 22) on May 19, 2017.

         7. The 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.

         8. To 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 ...

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.