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.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Thunder Properties Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 9, 2018

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee for Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-AP2, Plaintiff,
v.
THUNDER PROPERTIES INC., a Nevada corporation; EAGLE CANYON ASSOCIATION, a Nevada non-profit corporation; RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited-liability company, Defendants.

          John S. Delikanakis, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5928 Nathan G. Kanute, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12413 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. Attorneys for Plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-AP2

          LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C. Megan H. Hummel (with permission) Kaleb D. Anderson (NV Bar No. 7582) Megan H. Hummel (NV Bar No. 12404) Attorneys for Eagle Canyon Association

          KOCH & SCOW, LLC Steven B. Scow (with permission) David R. Koch (NV Bar No. 8830) Steven B. Scow (NV Bar No. 9906) Brody B. Wight (NV Bar No. 13615) Attorney for Red Rock Financial Services, LLC

          ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Timothy E. Rhoda (with permission) Roger P. Croteau (NV Bar No. 4958) Timothy E. Rhoda (NV Bar No. 7878) Attorney for Thunder Properties Inc.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION

          WILLIAM G. COBB, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-AP2 (“HSBC”), Thunder Properties Inc. (“Thunder Properties”), Eagle Canyon Association (the “HOA”), and Red Rock Financial Services, LLC (“Red Rock”, collectively with HSBC, Thunder Properties, and the HOA, the “Parties”) hereby stipulate and agree and jointly move this Court to stay discovery pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of their request for a stay of discovery, the Parties show as follows:

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION

         This Court should stay discovery in this matter pending resolution of HSBC's Motion for Summary Judgment (the “MSJ”) [ECF No. 31] because it raises potentially dispositive legal questions regarding the constitutionality of NRS § 116.3116 et seq. (the “Statute”), which the Ninth Circuit has previously determined is facially unconstitutional. See Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016). Because this case might be disposed of pursuant to the pending motion, discovery is not required at this point in time- instead, any discovery would be burdensome, inefficient, and inequitable at this stage. Therefore, this Court should stay discovery until after a ruling on the MSJ.

         BACKGROUND

         On August 5, 2016, HSBC filed its complaint in this Court against Thunder Properties, the HOA, and Red Rock seeking, among other things, declaratory relief under the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and a determination that HSBC's security interest remained on the real property commonly known as 840 Alena Way, Sparks, Nevada (the “Property”) despite the foreclosure sale conducted by the HOA. Thunder Properties is the record purchaser of the Property at the HOA foreclosure sale.

         Red Rock filed its Answer on November 14, 2016 [ECF No. 12]. Thunder Properties filed its Answer on November 15, 2016 [ECF No. 14]. The HOA filed its Answer on February 22, 2017 [ECF No. 27]. HSBC filed its MSJ on December 15, 2017 [ECF No. 31].

         LEGAL ARGUMENT

         I. Standard of Review Governing Motions to Stay Discovery

         District courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (“The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery, and its rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”). “In evaluating the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, ” courts “consider[] the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [which] directs that the ...


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.