United States District Court, D. Nevada
WILMINGTON TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT AS TRUSTEE OF ARLP SECURITIZATION TRUST, SERIES 2014-1, Plaintiff,
PARK ONE EAST TOWNHOUSE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; DOE Individual I-X inclusive; and ROE business entities XI-XX, inclusive, Defendants.
S. LARSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7785 WING YAN WONG, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13622 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
Attorneys for Park Bonanza East Townhouse Owners Association,
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP R. Samuel Ehlers Edgar C.
Smith, Esq. (SBN 5506) R. Samuel Ehlers, Esq. (SBN 9313)
Attorneys for Wilmington Trust National Association, not in
its individual capacity but as Trustee of the ARLP
Securitization Trust, Series 2014-1.
REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Wing Yan Wong Robert S. Larsen,
Esq. (SBN 7785) Wing Yan Wong, Esq. (SBN 13622) Attorneys for
Park Bonanza East Townhouse Owners Association, Inc.
JOINT MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION
Wilmington Trust National Association, not in its individual
capacity but as trustee of ARLP Securitization Trust, Series
2014-1 and Defendant Park Bonanza East Owners Association,
erroneously named as Park One East Townhouse Owners
Association (collectively as “Parties”), by and
through their respective counsel, hereby move to stay
proceedings in this action.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
a quiet title action arising from the NRS Chapter 116
foreclosure sale of the residential property located at 3827
Coral Reef Way, Las Vegas, Nevada 89110
February 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendant, seeking a declaration that the deed of trust which
was secured against the Property was not extinguished and
related reliefs. ECF No. 1 at 15:26-17:13.
to the commencement of the action, the parties have been
discussing potential resolutions of this matter. As a result,
the Parties stipulated to multiple extensions for Defendant
to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. See ECF No.
12, 14, and 16. At this time, the Parties have reached a
mutually agreeable settlement framework whereby the Property
will be placed for sale to interested third parties, with the
proceeds to be paid to Plaintiff and Defendant. The framework
is contingent on the sale of the Property, which necessarily
requires a short period of time for marketing and sale. The
Parties anticipate it may be another six (6) months for the
Property to be marketed and sold, and for the Parties to
finalize the settlement following the sale. In the interest
of judicial economy, the Parties jointly request for a brief
stay of this action in its entirety for six (6) months to
effectuate the tentative settlement framework.
LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUEMNTS
courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings before
them.” Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334
F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003). To evaluate the parties'
request to stay, this Court may consider “any potential
prejudice to the non-moving party, hardship or inequity to
the moving party if the proceedings are not stayed, and the
interests of judicial economy and efficiency.”
Mangani v. Merck & Co., No. 2:06-cv-00914, 2006
WL 2707459 at *1 (D. Nev.); Rivers v. Walt Disney
Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Calif. 1997)
(considering the same three factors when evaluating a motion
to stay). This Court may properly stay an action pending
finalizing of tentative settlement among parties. Arias
v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, 2:13-cv-00671-PMP-GWF (D.
Nev. May 1, 2014).
and Defendant jointly request for a stay of six (6) months to
effectuate a tentative settlement that involves sale of the
Property. There are two parties in this action, Plaintiff
Wilmington Trust and Defendant Park Bonanza, who are jointly
moving this Court for a stay of this litigation to effectuate
a tentative settlement framework. Therefore, no parties in
this action will suffer any prejudice as a result of the
stay. Denying the stay, however, will cause hardship to the
Parties as both parties will be forced to enter into
discovery and other case management activities. Plaintiff and
Defendant anticipate that the sale of the Property will
permit the Parties to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.
Therefore, the brief stay may obviate the need for further
litigation or assistance from the Court. In the unlikely
event that the settlement cannot be finalized, the parties
will promptly move to lift the stay and continue through the
normal course of litigation. The stay is not requested for
purposes of delay or bad faith, but only for the purposes of
limiting expenses of litigation costs and judicial resources.