Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc.

D. Nevada

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 13, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-00996

StatusUnknown

This text of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc., (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No.: 2:21-cv-00996-APG-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motion to Stay, Denying Motion to Supplement, and Denying as 5 v. Moot Motion to Strike

6 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP, [ECF Nos. 6, 43, 47] INC., et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Defendants Fidelity National Title Group, Inc. and Fidelity National Title Insurance 10 Company moved to stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 11 v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., case number 19-17332. ECF No. 6. While the motion was 12 pending, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in that case and the mandate has issued. I therefore 13 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. 43. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, 17 N.A. moves to strike the supplemental motion as not compliant with the Local Rules. ECF No. 18 47. 19 I deny the supplemental motion to stay. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 20 1110 (9th Cir. 2005); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The opening brief in 21 the case before the Supreme Court of Nevada is not due for another 60 days. Thus, it is likely a 22 stay would be lengthy while the briefing is completed, the matter is set for oral argument, and a 23 decision is rendered. ] The more expeditious, efficient, and just resolution of this case counsels in favor of 2|| completing discovery rather than staying the case entirely. Dispositive motions are not due until 3}/ August 17, 2022. ECF No. 37. While the parties may want to revisit a stipulation to stay at that point depending on the progress of PennyMac before the Supreme Court of Nevada, a complete stay of the case at this time is unwarranted. Because I deny the supplemental motion to stay, I deny the motion to strike as moot. 7 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motion to stay (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. 8 I FURTHER ORDER that the defendants’ supplemental motion to stay (ECF No. 43) is 9] DENIED. 10 I FURTHER ORDER that the plaintiff's motion to strike (ECF No. 47) is DENIED as moot. 12 DATED this 13th day of January, 2022. 13 4 ANDREWP.GORDON 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No.: 2:21-cv-00996-APG-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motion to Stay, Denying Motion to Supplement, and Denying as 5 v. Moot Motion to Strike

6 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP, [ECF Nos. 6, 43, 47] INC., et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Defendants Fidelity National Title Group, Inc. and Fidelity National Title Insurance 10 Company moved to stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 11 v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., case number 19-17332. ECF No. 6. While the motion was 12 pending, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in that case and the mandate has issued. I therefore 13 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. 43. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, 17 N.A. moves to strike the supplemental motion as not compliant with the Local Rules. ECF No. 18 47. 19 I deny the supplemental motion to stay. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 20 1110 (9th Cir. 2005); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The opening brief in 21 the case before the Supreme Court of Nevada is not due for another 60 days. Thus, it is likely a 22 stay would be lengthy while the briefing is completed, the matter is set for oral argument, and a 23 decision is rendered. ] The more expeditious, efficient, and just resolution of this case counsels in favor of 2|| completing discovery rather than staying the case entirely. Dispositive motions are not due until 3}/ August 17, 2022. ECF No. 37. While the parties may want to revisit a stipulation to stay at that point depending on the progress of PennyMac before the Supreme Court of Nevada, a complete stay of the case at this time is unwarranted. Because I deny the supplemental motion to stay, I deny the motion to strike as moot. 7 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motion to stay (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. 8 I FURTHER ORDER that the defendants’ supplemental motion to stay (ECF No. 43) is 9] DENIED. 10 I FURTHER ORDER that the plaintiff's motion to strike (ECF No. 47) is DENIED as moot. 12 DATED this 13th day of January, 2022. 13 4 ANDREWP.GORDON 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-fidelity-national-title-group-inc-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack