Teal Petals St Trust v. NewRez LLC

Opinion

1 || ARIEL STERN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8276 2 || NATALIE L. WINSLOW, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12125 3 || PAIGE L. MAGASTER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15557 4 || AKERMAN LLP 1635 Village Center Circle, Suite 200 5 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89134 Telephone: (702) 634-5000 6 || Facsimile: (702) 380-8572 Email: ariel.stern@akerman.com 7 || Email: natalie.winslow@akerman.com 3 Email: paige.magaster@akerman.com Attorneys for NewRez LLC f/k/a New Penn 9 || Financial d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ll DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 || NEWREZ LLC f/k/a NEW PENN FINANCIAL | Case No.: 2:22-cv-00395-JAD-DJA d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE |_ Consolidated with 14 SERVICING, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01839-JAD-DJA 15 Counter-claimant, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR V. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR 16 SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. TEAL PETALS ST TRUST; DOES I through X, 122] AND UNOPPOSED MOTION 17 inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT I through X, inclusive, UNDER SEAL [ECF NO. 123] AND TO 18 STRIKE MOTION FOR SUMMARY 19 Counter-defendants. JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 122] NEWREZ LLC f/k/a NEW PENN FINANCIAL 20 || d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, 21 09 Plaintiff, ECF Nos. 122, 123, 131 V. 23 || IYAD HADDAD aka EDDIE HADDAD; RESOURCES GROUP, LLC; RESOURCES 24 || GROUP, LLC as Trustee of TEAL PETALS ST TRUST; 9863 DUBLIN VALLEY, LLC; 25 || SATICOY BAY LLC dba SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 9863 DUBLIN VALLEY ST; 26 SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 9863 DUBLIN VALLEY ST; DOES I through X, inclusive; and 27 || ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, 28 Defendants.

1 NewRez LLC f/k/a New Penn Financial d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ("Shellpoint”) 2 || and Resources Group, LLC; Resources Group, LLC as Trustee of Teal Petals St. Trust; and 9863 3 || Dublin Valley, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") stipulate as follows: 4 1. On November 14, 2024, Shellpoint and Defendants, along with the other parties to this 5 action and the matter with which it is consolidated, submitted a proposed stipulated protective order 6 for the Court's consideration, ECF No. 118. 7 2. On November 20, 2024, Defendants moved for summary judgment, ECF No. 122. 8 Defendants filed their summary judgment motion under seal together with an unopposed motion for 9 leave to file document under seal, ECF No. 123. 10 3. Later in the day on November 20, 2024, the Court entered an order on the proposed 11 stipulated protective order, ECF No. 127 (Protective Order). The Protective Order grants the parties’ 12 stipulated protective order subject to certain modifications that address the procedural and substantive 13 requirements for a motion to seal documents or information claimed to be confidential. 14 4. Shellpoint and Defendants agree the unopposed motion to seal Defendants’ summary 15 || judgment motion, ECF No. 123, is deficient in that it does not fully address the applicable standard 16 identified by the Court in its Order dated November 20, 2024. [ECF #127]. 17 5. Shellpoint and Defendants therefore agree Defendants’ summary judgment motion, 18 ECF No. 122, shall be and hereby is withdrawn without prejudice. No opposition or reply in support 19 shall be due in relation to the withdrawn summary judgment motion. 20 6. Shellpoint and Defendants further agree the unopposed motion to seal, ECF No. 123, 21 shall be and hereby is withdrawn. 22 7. Additionally, having further discussed the documents and information sought to be 23 sealed as well as Shellpoint's position that the total amount of the unpaid debt secured by the subject 24 deed of trust was foreclosed upon at the sale on May 17, 2023, Shellpoint and Defendants agree the 25 summary judgment motion shall be refiled under seal along with an unopposed motion to seal that 26 conforms with the Protective Order. 27 Lee 28 Lee

1 8. This Court has inherent authority to manage its docket and thus discretion to 2 strike improper or confidential documents from the record. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 3 (2016); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). 4 9. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 122, relies on a payoff statement 5 and breaks down various amounts owed on the subject loan prior to foreclosure. It therefore contains 6 || confidential information that is protected under the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (GLBA).' Shellpoint 7 and Defendants accordingly agreed, at Shellpoint's request, to the filing of Defendants’ summary 8 || judgment motion under seal; however, the request to seal is deficient under the subsequently entered 9 Protective Order and thus functionally equivalent to no motion to seal having been filed. 10 10. Defendants intend to refile substantially the same summary judgment motion under 11 seal along with a motion to seal that complies with the Protective Order since Shellpoint and 12 Defendants agreed to sealing of the summary judgment motion, upon the Court's approval, based on 13 the NPI it contains, but the unopposed motion to seal is deficient under the Protective Order. 14 Lee 15 Lee 16 wae 17 Lee 18 Lee 19 Lee 20 Lee 21 Lee 22 Lee 23 Lee 24 25 The GLBA defines nonpublic information (NPI) as "personally identifiable information (i) provided 26 || by a consumer to a financial institution; (ii) resulting from any transaction with the consumer or any service performed for the consumer; or (iii) otherwise obtained by the financial institution.” 15 U.S.C. § 6809(4)(A). 27 || Examples of NPI include "account balance information" and "payment history.” 12 C.F.R. § 1016.3(q)(2)(i). NPI includes personally identifiable financial information such as the original principal balance, the borrower's 28 || name, loan number, interest rate, and repayment terms. 12 C.F.R. §§ 1016.3(p)(1)G@); 1016.3(q)(2)(i).

1 11. Additionally, because the Defendants' summary judgment motion as filed contains NPI 2 and the corresponding unopposed motion to seal is deficient, and given that Defendants intend to 3 refile substantially the same summary judgment motion and a proper motion to seal, Shellpoint and 4 Defendants stipulate and jointly request that the Court strike Defendants’ withdrawn motion for 5 summary judgment, ECF No. 122, from the record. This will alleviate the possibility that information 6 || that Shellpoint views to be NPI will be made public before the Court rules on a proper motion to seal 7 in accordance with the procedure set forth in the PO. 8 DATED this 6th day of December, 2024. 9 AKERMAN LLP ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES, LTD 10 /s/ Paige L. Magaster /s/ Timothy E. Rhoda ARIEL STERN, ESQ. ROGER P. CROTEAU, ESQ. 11 Nevada Bar No. 8276 Nevada Bar No. 4958 NATALIE L. WINSLOW, ESQ. TIMOTHY E RHODA, ESQ. 12 Nevada Bar No. 12125 Nevada Bar No. 7878 PAIGE L. MAGASTER, ESQ. 2810 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 67 13 Nevada Bar No. 15557 Las Vegas, NV 89102 1635 Village Center Circle, Suite 200 14 Las Vegas, NV 89134 Attorneys for Teal Petals St Trust; Resources Group, LLC; Resources Group, LLC in its 15 Attorneys for NewRez LLC f/k/a New Penn capacity as Trustee of Teal Petals St Trust; 9863 16 Financial d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing | Dublin Valley, LLC

17 18 ORDER 19 50 Based on the parties’ stipulation [ECF No. 131] and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the unopposed motion to seal [ECF No. 123] is DEEMED WITHDRAWN, and the pending 21 motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 122] is STRUCK--all without prejudice. 22 23 LD eA 94 UNITED STATES DISTRICE-