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.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Travata and Montage at Summerlin Centre Homeowners' Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 19, 2018

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., successor by merger to BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Plaintiff,
v.
TRAVATA and MONTAGE AT SUMMERLIN CENTRE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION; NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC.; and SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, a Nevada Limited liability company, Counter/Cross claimant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; PHILLIP LIEBMANN, an individual; and LORRI LIEBMANN, an individual, Counter/ Cross Defendants.

          AKERMAN LLP, MELANIE D. MORGAN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8215 REBEKKAH B. BODOFF, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12703 Attorneys for plaintiff and counter-defendant Bank of America, N.A.

          LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C., J. WILLIAM EBERT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 2671 DAVID A. MARKMAN, ESQ. Nevada Bar. No. 14220 Attorneys for defendant Travata and Montage at Summerlin Centre Homeowners Association

          KIM GILBERT EBRON, DIANA S. EBRON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10580, JACQUELINE A. GILBERT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10593 KAREN L. HANKS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9578, Attorneys for defendant, counter- and crossclaimant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE PENDING RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

         Plaintiff and counter-defendant Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP (BANA), defendant Travata and Montage at Summerlin Centre Homeowners' Association and defendant, counter- and cross-claimant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC stipulate to extend the dispositive motions deadline until seventy five (75) days after the Court enters an order on BANA's motion for protective order, ECF No. 59, as follows:

         1. BANA filed its complaint on March 30, 2016 asserting a quiet title/declaratory judgment claim against all defendants, breach of NRS 116.1113 and wrongful foreclosure claims against Travata and Montage at Summerlin Centre Homeowners' Association, and an injunction claim against SFR. (ECF No. 1.)

         2. The Court entered an initial discovery plan and scheduling order on July 21, 2016 setting a December 22, 2016 dispositive motions deadline. (ECF No. 36.)

         3. The Court administratively stayed this case pending exhaustion of all appeals in Bourne Valley Court Trust v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Ninth Cir. Case No. 15-15233 on September 27, 2016. (ECF No. 45.) The case remained stayed until November 7, 2017. (ECF No. 53.)

         4. The parties subsequently filed an amended discovery plan and scheduling order on November 30, 2017, setting a March 22, 2018 discovery cut-off and April 23, 2018 dispositive motions deadline. (ECF No. 55.) The Court approved the amended discovery plan. (ECF No. 55.)

         5. SFR noticed BANA's deposition on January 29, 2018. (ECF No. 59-1 at 13.) BANA initially disputed seven of the thirteen noticed topics. The parties resolved their dispute regarding four, and BANA moved for a protective order regarding the remaining three on February 26, 2018. (ECF No. 59.) The briefing likely will not be completed before March 19, 2018. SFR has agreed to hold BANA's deposition in abeyance pending a ruling.

         6. To allow time for the Court to rule on BANA's motion for protective order, ECF No. 59, SFR to complete BANA's deposition after the Court makes its ruling, and to avoid Rule 56(d) motions, the parties stipulate to extending the dispositive motions deadline until seventy five (75) days from the date the Court enters an order on BANA's motion for protective order, ECF No. 59. The parties further stipulate SFR shall have forty five (45) days to complete BANA's deposition after the Court enters an order. The parties select these deadlines to allow sufficient time to coordinate a deposition after the Court rules and obtain transcripts before filing dispositive motions.

         7. The parties do not file this stipulation with the intent to delay, but instead to streamline the anticipated summary judgment briefing and avoid Rule 56(d) motions.

         8. This is the parties' first request to extend the dispositive motions deadline.

         IT ...


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.