HSBC BANK USA v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC

No. 2:16-cv-02762-RFB-NJK.

HSBC BANK USA, Plaintiff, v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional - State Statute
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Edward Tasca , Ballard Spahr LLP.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Plaintiff, represented by Justin A. Shiroff , Ballard Spahr LLP.

SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, Defendant, represented by Diana Cline Ebron , Kim Gilbert Ebron.

Belcrest Homeowners Association, Defendant, represented by Christopher Ammon Lund , Tyson & Mendes LLP & Thomas E. McGrath , Tyson & Mendes, LLP.

SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Diana Cline Ebron , Kim Gilbert Ebron.

SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Diana Cline Ebron , Kim Gilbert Ebron.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Counter Defendant, represented by Joel Edward Tasca , Ballard Spahr LLP & Justin A. Shiroff , Ballard Spahr LLP.


ORDER

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 21. Under Local Rule 26-1(b)(1),"[u]nless the court orders otherwise, discovery periods longer than 180 days from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears will require special scheduling review." Additionally, "[p]lans requesting special scheduling review must include . . . a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case." Local Rule 26-1(a).

In this case, Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC ("SFR") first appeared on December 19, 2016, by filing a motion for demand for security of costs. Docket No. 7. The parties, however, calculate the deadlines in their proposed discovery plan based on the subsequent date that Defendant SFR answered Plaintiff's complaint, without explaining why longer time periods should apply to this case. Docket No. 14; Docket No. 21 at 2-3. Thus, the parties' proposed discovery plan does not comply with this Court's Local Rules.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the parties' stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 21. The parties shall file a proposed discovery plan that complies with the Local Rules, no later than March 15, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases