Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Rainbow Bend Homeowners Association

Opinion

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC.; Case No. 3:17-cv-00374-MMD-WGC FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 5 ASSOCIATION, ORDER 6 Plaintiffs, v. 7 RAINBOW BEND HOMEOWNERS 8 ASSOCIATION; PHIL FRINK & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and ROSEMARIE 9 AUSTIN, an individual, 10 Defendants. 11 12 This dispute arises from the foreclosure sale of property to satisfy a homeowners’ 13 association lien. The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs 14 Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”) and Federal National Mortgage Association 15 (“Fannie Mae”) on their claim for quiet title against Defendant Rosemarie Austin because 16 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) (“Federal Foreclosure Bar”) preserved Fannie Mae’s deed of trust. 17 (ECF No. 76 at 1.) Austin moved for reconsideration, and the Court denied the motion 18 because Austin simply rehashed earlier arguments. (See ECF No. 87 at 2.) Austin now 19 moves for a stay of the Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs 20 pending appellate review. (ECF No. 88.) The Court denies the motion because Austin has 21 not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.1 22 A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court. See 23 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 24 418, 433-34 (2009) (regarding a stay pending appeal). A court must consider four factors 25 in evaluating whether to issue a stay: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong 26 showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be 27 /// 28 1The Court finds it unnecessary to wait for a response to Austin’s motion. 1 || irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure 2 || the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken, 3 || 556 U.S. at 434. “The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” /d. 4 Austin has not demonstrated that she is likely to succeed on the merits. The Court 5 || twice has considered Austin’s arguments and rejected them as unpersuasive. (ECF Nos. 6 || 76, 87.) Austin contends that she will be irreparably harmed in the absence of a stay and 7 || that Plaintiffs will not be substantially injured by a stay (ECF No. 88 at 3), but her likelinood 8 || of success on the merits is so low that a stay is not warranted. Moreover, the public interest 9 || weighs against a stay in this case. Austin has had two significant opportunities to prove 10 || her case and has failed to do so. The Court will not allow Austin to further delay resolution 11 || of this action. 12 It is therefore ordered that Austin’s motion to stay this action pending appeal (ECF 13 || No. 88) is denied. 14 DATED THIS 23" day of October 2019. 15 “a7

IRANDA M. DU 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28