HSBC BANK USA v. SCOTTSDALE PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

No. 2:16-cv-02503-KJD-VCF.

HSBC BANK USA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOTTSDALE PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Jonathon Nitz , Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Plaintiff, represented by Michael S. Kelley , WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK, LLP.

Scottsdale Place Homeowners Association, Defendant, represented by Sean L. Anderson , Leach Johnson Song & Gruchow & Ryan Warren Reed , Leach Johnson Song & Gruchow.

Lee Family Properties, LLC, Series XV, Defendant, represented by David S. Lee , Lee, Hernandez, Landrum & Garofalo & Elizabeth C. Spaur , Lee, Hernandez, Landrum & Garofalo.

Lee Family Properties, LLC, Series XV, Counter Claimant, represented by David S. Lee , Lee, Hernandez, Landrum & Garofalo & Elizabeth C. Spaur , Lee, Hernandez, Landrum & Garofalo.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Counter Defendant, represented by Dana Jonathon Nitz , Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP & Michael S. Kelley , WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK, LLP.

Scottsdale Place Homeowners Association, Counter Defendant, represented by Sean L. Anderson , Leach Johnson Song & Gruchow & Ryan Warren Reed , Leach Johnson Song & Gruchow.


ORDER

CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is the motion to stay (ECF No. 22). No opposition has been filed. The time to file an opposition has passed. Under LR 7-2, the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney's fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion. Here, it would seem that Plaintiffs have consented to the granting of the instant motion.

A stay in this matter is appropriate pending The United States Supreme Court's consideration of petitions for certiorari in Bourne Valley, a decision which may have a significant effect on this case. See Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 15-15233, 2016 WL 4254983 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016).

A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). When determining whether to stay a case pending the resolution of another case, a district court must consider (1) the possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any "hardship or inequity" that a party may suffer if required to go forward, (3) "and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law" that a stay will engender. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

In this case, the possible damage from a stay will be mitigated by not having to relitigate issues based on possible new ruling.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to stay (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED.


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