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.

Ditech Financial LLC v. Gutzmer

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 10, 2018

DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
JERRY GUTZMER; LARA WILLIAMS, Defendants.

          BRIGETTE E. FOLEY, ESQ. WOLFE & WYMAN LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff DITECH FINANCIAL LLC

          LUIS A. AYON, ESQ., ALLISON R. SCHMIDT, ESQ. AYON LAW, PLLC Attorneys for Defendants JERRY GUTZMER and LARA WILLIAMS

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY LITITGATION

         COME NOW Plaintiff, DITECH FINANCIAL LLC (“Ditech”), and Defendants JERRY GUTZMER (“Gutzmer”) and LARA WILLIAMS (“Williams”), by and through their counsel of record, and hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

         RELEVANT FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         WHEREAS the instant action concerns quiet title and declaratory relief claims regarding real property, commonly known as 737 Oakmont Avenue, Unit 1208, Las Vegas, NV 89109, following an HOA Foreclosure Sale that occurred on November 8, 2013;

         WHEREAS one of the legal issues to be addressed in the instant action is whether the HOA is required to comply with the notice requirements, as stated in NRS 116.31162 through NRS 116.31168 (prior to the October 1, 2015 amendments), and NRS 107.020.

         WHEREAS on April 21, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order in The Bank of New York Mellon v. Star Hill Homeowners Association, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-025610-RFB-PAL, certifying the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court:

Whether NRS § 116.31168(1)'s incorporation of NRS § 107.090 required a homeowner's association to provide notices of default and/or sale to persons or entities holding a subordinate interest even when such persons or entities did not request notice, prior to the amendments that took effect on Oct 1, 2015[.]
(“Certified Question”)

         WHEREAS on June 13, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court accepted the above Certified Question, and directed the interested parties to submit briefing on the same, for its consideration. See Order Accepting Certified Question, SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Case No. 72931, Docket Entry No. 17-9448 (June 12, 2017).

         WHEREAS all briefing on the Certified Question has been completed, and the matter was submitted for decision to the Nevada Supreme Court on March 21, 2018. See Order Submitting for Decision Without Oral Argument, SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Case No. 72931, Docket Entry No. 18-10980 (March 21, 2018).

         LEGAL ARUGMENT IN SUPPORT OF STAY

         To 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 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 ...


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.