Order Staying Case and Denying Motion Without Prejudice
[ECF No. 10]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
In the years following Las Vegas's real estate crash, lenders and investors were at odds over the legal effect of a homeowners association's (HOA's) nonjudicial foreclosure of a superpriority lien on a lender's first trust deed.
The Nevada Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the SFR principles in Saticoy Bay v. Wells Fargo and expressly held that "the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions are not implicated in an HOA's nonjudicial foreclosure of a superpriority lien."
This case concerns one of those non-judicial foreclosure sales, and HSBC Bank challenges that foreclosure sale as a violation of its right to due process, among other things, citing Bourne Valley.
A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the efficient use of judicial resources.
A. A stay will promote the orderly course of justice.
At the center of this case is an HOA-foreclosure sale under NRS Chapter 116 and the competing arguments that the foreclosure sale either extinguished the bank's security interest or had no legal effect because the statutory scheme violates due process. The United States Supreme Court's consideration of petitions for certiorari in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay has the potential to be dispositive of this case or at least of discrete issues that it presents. As the jurisprudence in this area of unique Nevada law continues to evolve, the parties in the scores of foreclosure-challenge actions pending in this courthouse file new motions or move to supplement the ones that they already have pending, often resulting in docket-clogging entries and an impossible-to-follow chain of briefs in which arguments are abandoned and replaced. Staying this case pending the Supreme Court's disposition of the petitions for certiorari in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay will permit the parties to evaluate—and me to consider—the viability of the claims under the most complete precedent. This will simplify and streamline the proceedings and promote the efficient use of the parties' and the court's resources.
B. Hardship and inequity
All parties face the prospect of hardship if I resolve the claims or issues in this case before the petitions for certiorari have been decided. A stay will prevent unnecessary briefing and the expenditures of time, attorney's fees, and resources that could be wasted—or at least prematurely spent—should the Supreme Court take up these cases.
C. Damage from a stay
The only potential damage that may result from a stay is that the parties will have to wait longer for resolution of this case and any motions that they have filed or intend to file in the future. But a delay would also result from any rebriefing or supplemental briefing that may be necessitated if the Supreme Court grants certiorari and resolves this circuit-state split. So it is not clear to me that a stay pending the Supreme Court's disposition of the petitions for certiorari will ultimately lengthen the life of this case. I thus find that any possible damage that the extension of this stay may cause the parties is minimal.
D. The length of the stay is reasonable.
Finally, I note that a stay of this case pending the disposition of the petitions for certiorari in Bourne Valley and Saticoy Bay is expected to be reasonably short. The response to the petition in Bourne Valley is due May 8, 2017, and the petition in Saticoy Bay is due April 25, 2017. Because the length of this stay is directly tied to the petition proceedings in those cases, it is reasonably brief, and it is not indefinite.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motion to dismiss