HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 13, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01300
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL Case No.: 2:21-cv-01300-APG-NJK ASSOCIATION, 4 Order Denying Motion to Stay, Denying Plaintiff Motion to Supplement, and Denying as 5 Moot Motion to Strike v. 6 [ECF Nos. 6, 44, 45] FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP, 7 INC., et al.,

8 Defendants

9 Defendants Fidelity National Title Group, Inc., Chicago Title Insurance Company, and 10 Ticor Title Agency of Nevada, Inc. moved to stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on 11 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., case number 19-17332. ECF No. 5. 12 While the motion was pending, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in that case and the mandate 13 has issued. I therefore deny the motion to stay as moot. 14 The defendants thereafter filed a supplemental motion to stay the case, this time based on 15 a similar case pending before the Supreme Court of Nevada, PennyMac Corporation v. Westcor 16 Land Title Insurance Company, case number 83737. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA 17 moves to strike the supplemental motion as not compliant with the Local Rules. ECF No. 45. 18 I deny the supplemental motion to stay. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 19 1110 (9th Cir. 2005); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The opening brief in 20 the case before the Supreme Court of Nevada is not due for another 60 days. Thus, it is likely a 21 stay would be lengthy while the briefing is completed, the matter is set for oral argument, and a 22 decision is rendered. 23 ] The more expeditious, efficient, and just resolution of this case counsels in favor of completing discovery rather than staying the case entirely. There currently is no scheduling order in this case, so there is no deadline to file dispositive motions. See ECF No. 36. While the 4|| parties may want to revisit a stipulation to stay once dispositive motions are due depending on 5|| the progress of PennyMac before the Supreme Court of Nevada at that point, a complete stay of the case at this time is unwarranted. Because I deny the supplemental motion to stay, I deny the 7|| motion to strike as moot. 8 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motion to stay (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. 9 I FURTHER ORDER that the defendants’ supplemental motion to stay (ECF No. 44) is DENIED. 11 I FURTHER ORDER that the plaintiff's motion to strike (ECF No. 45) is DENIED as 12|| moot. 13 DATED this 13th day of January, 2022. 14 Lo 15 ANDREWP.GORDON. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23