United States District Court, D. Nevada
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-FF5, MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-FF5., a National Association, Plaintiff,
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 7920 CORAL POINT, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; TERRA WEST COLLECTIONS GROUP LLC d/b/a Assessment Management Services, a Nevada Limited Liability Company and SOUTH SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a Nevada Non-Profit Coop Corporation Defendants.
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP, Robert A. Riether, Esq.,
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee for the Holders of the First Franklin
JOHNSON SONG & GRUCHOW Ryan D. Hastings, Esq, Attorneys
for Defendant South Shores Community Association
GEISENDORF & VILKIN, PLLC, Charles L. Geisendorf, Esq,
Attorneys for Defendant Saticoy Bay, LLC Series 7920 Coral
STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY
now, Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
Trustee for the Holders of the First Franklin Mortgage Loan
Trust 2006-FF5, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2006-FF5 (“Deutsche”), Saticoy Bay LLC Series
7920 Coral Point, LLC (“Buyer”), and South Shores
Community Association (“HOA”), by and through
their respective attorneys of records, and hereby agree and
stipulate as follows.
March 31, 2017, Deutsche filed a Complaint (Docket No. 1).
filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 26, 2017 (Docket No. 9),
which is fully briefed and pending with the Court.
Buyer filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 3, 2017 (Docket No.
11), which is fully briefed and pending with the Court.
June 9, 2017 this Court entered a Scheduling Order relating
to the discovery plan in this case (Docket No. 18), setting
discovery cutoff for March 8, 2018.
Federal district courts have “wide discretion in
controlling discovery.” Little v. City of
Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
determine if a 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. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators
Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting
forth factors). Here, the factors support a stay of all
proceedings based on the pending Motions to Dismiss as well
as the pending certified question to the Nevada Supreme Court
in Bank of New York Mellon v. Star Hill
Homeowners Association, 2:16-cv-2561-RFB-PAL/Nev. S.Ct.
Case No. 72931.
parties believe a stay is warranted because they will be able
to avoid the cost of expense of continued written discovery
and depositions on issues that may be irrelevant based on the
outcomes of the pending motions and on the aforementioned
certified question. Moreover, the Court will be relieved of
expending further time and effort considering any
discovery-related motions or protective orders.
parties agree there will be no significant hardship or
inequity against any party, and it is appropriate for this
Court to exercise its power to grant a stay of discovery at
this time. A trial date has not yet been set and the outcome
of the pending motions to dismiss as well as the certified
question will potentially result in resolution of the entire
on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that
discovery on the above-identified action should be stayed
pending a decision from the Court on the pending motions to
dismiss as well as the aforementioned certified question.
herewith, IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that any
noticed depositions are vacated, and deadlines for any
pending written discovery ...