United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU, CHEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
January 10, 2018, the Court resolved two pending
motions-Defendant Silver Terrace II Landscape Maintenance
Association’s (“Silver Terrace”) motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 51) and Defendant Gayle A. Kern Ltd.’s
(“Kern”) motion to dismiss (ECF No. 53)-and
continued to stay the case pursuant to the parties’
stipulation pending Defendant Ravenstar Investments,
LLC’s (“Ravenstar”) bankruptcy. (ECF Nos. 71, 74,
84.) In particular, the Court granted Kern’s motion to
dismiss and directed entry of judgment in Kern’s favor.
(ECF Nos. 74, 75.) The Court granted Silver Terrace’s
motion with respect to the second and third claims but denied
the motion with respect to the first claim for quiet title.
(ECF No. 74.) The Court continued the stay pursuant to the
parties’ stipulation due to Ravenstar’s
bankruptcy. (Id.; ECF No. 84.) Over a year
later, on April 5, 2019, the Court directed a status report
as to Ravenstar’s bankruptcy to be filed by April 19,
2019. (ECF No. 87.) The parties failed to respond. Yet, five
months later, on September 20, 2019, Plaintiff and
Counter-Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”)
filed a motion to lift stay (“Motion”). (ECF No.
88.) For the reasons discussed herein, BANA’s Motion is
the entirety of BANA’s Motion:
Plaintiff and counter-defendant Bank of America. N.A.
(BANA) moves to lift the stay entered on
April 19, 2017, ECF No. 48.
This court administratively stayed this case pending the
Ninth Circuit issuing its mandate in Bourne Valley Court
Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-15233, on
December 12, 2016. (ECF No. 44). The order instructs any
party may move to lift the stay once the mandate issues.
(Id. at 4.) The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on
December 14, 2016. Plaintiff respectfully requests the court
lift the stay and direct the parties to meet and confer.
(ECF No. 88.) However, the Motion contains several defects.
and foremost, the Court did not impose a stay “pending
the Ninth Circuit issuing its mandate” in Bourne
Valley on December 12, 2016. This case was filed only
four days before that on December 8, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On
April 19, 2017, the Court did impose a stay but it was due to
the pending certiorari proceedings before the United States
Supreme Court in Bourne Valley. (ECF No. 48.) The
Court lifted the stay about three months later on July 13,
2017 when the Supreme Court denied the petition for
certiorari in Bourne Valley. (ECF No. 50.) On
November 29, 2017, BANA moved for a stay, except with respect
to Kern’s motion to dismiss, pending Ravenstar’s
bankruptcy. (ECF No. 66.) On December 12, 2017, the Court
granted the parties’ stipulation to stay due to
Ravenstar’s bankruptcy, except for Silver Terrace and
Kern’s pending motions to dismiss which the parties
asked the Court to resolve. (ECF No. 71.) Thus, contrary to
BANA’s representation in its Motion, the Court did not
impose the current stay due to Bourne Valley.
resolution of Silver Terrace and Kern’s motions, the
Court directed the parties to file a status report within
seven days of the resolution of Ravenstar’s bankruptcy
or a lifting of the stay. (ECF No. 74.) Because the stay
extended past a year, on April 5, 2019, the Court directed a
status report to be filed by April 19, 2019. (ECF No. 87.) As
noted, no status report was filed. Thus, BANA will be
required to show cause as to why this action should not be
dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order.
In the event the Ravenstar’s bankruptcy has been
resolved or the automatic stay has been lifted, BANA is
ordered to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss
this action for BANAs failure to file a status report within
seven days of such resolution. If the Ravenstar bankruptcy
has not been resolved, then BANA is required to show cause as
to why it should not be sanctioned for seeking to lift the
stay in violation of the automatic stay and the Court’s
order staying this case. BANA will have ten days to respond
to this show cause order.
therefore ordered that BANAs motion to stay (ECF No. 88) is
Ravenstar had asserted counterclaims
and crossclaims. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.)
On September 13, 2017, Ravenstar filed
a notice of bankruptcy. (ECF No. 62.) The parties agreed that
the automatic stay does not preclude resolution of Silver
Terrace and Kern’s motions and requested that the Court
resolved these two motions but stay claims relating to
Ravenstar. (ECF No. 70.)
The Court granted the continued stay.
(ECF No. 84.) However, the status report that led to that
order erroneously identified Silver Terrace’s motion as
still pending when it was not. (ECF No. 82 at ...