Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust

D. Nevada

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust

DecidedJuly 15, 2020

Docket2:17-cv-01469

StatusUnknown

This text of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust) 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. Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust, (D. Nev. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Case No. 2:17-CV-1469 JCM (VCF)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 MAHOGANY MEADOWS AVENUE TRUST, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12

13 Presently before the court is the matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows 14 Avenue Trust, et al., case number 2:17-cv-01469-JCM-VCF. On March 16, 2018, the court 15 granted defendant Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) and, on 16 November 6, 2018, denied plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to reconsider that order 17 (ECF No. 34). Wells Fargo appealed, and that appeal remains pending. (ECF No. 35; 36). 18 The remaining defendants—Copper Creek Homeowners Association and Hampton & 19 Hampton Collections, LLC—have been dismissed from this action pursuant to the parties’ 20 stipulations. (ECF Nos. 18; 20; 38). 21 Further, the court’s prior order dismissed all of Wells Fargo’s claims. (See ECF No. 30). 22 Indeed, if it did not, then this court’s order would have been neither final nor appealable. Thus, 23 the case should have been closed when the court adjudicated Mahogany’s motion to dismiss. 24 “The general rule is that once a notice of appeal has been filed, the lower court loses 25 jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal.” Bennett v. Gemmill (In re. Combined Metals 26 Reduction Co.), 557 F.2d 179, 200 (9th Cir. 1977). Nevertheless, even after an appeal has been 27 28 1} filed, a district court “may act to assist the court of appeals in the exercise of its 2) jurisdiction.” Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 1982). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the court’s prior order 5 | (ECF No. 30) be, and the same hereby is, CORRECTED nunc pro tunc to instruct the clerk to 6 | enter judgment and close the case accordingly. 7 DATED July 15, 2020. 8 tins ©. Malan 9 UMNITED,STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Case No. 2:17-CV-1469 JCM (VCF)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 MAHOGANY MEADOWS AVENUE TRUST, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12

13 Presently before the court is the matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows 14 Avenue Trust, et al., case number 2:17-cv-01469-JCM-VCF. On March 16, 2018, the court 15 granted defendant Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) and, on 16 November 6, 2018, denied plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to reconsider that order 17 (ECF No. 34). Wells Fargo appealed, and that appeal remains pending. (ECF No. 35; 36). 18 The remaining defendants—Copper Creek Homeowners Association and Hampton & 19 Hampton Collections, LLC—have been dismissed from this action pursuant to the parties’ 20 stipulations. (ECF Nos. 18; 20; 38). 21 Further, the court’s prior order dismissed all of Wells Fargo’s claims. (See ECF No. 30). 22 Indeed, if it did not, then this court’s order would have been neither final nor appealable. Thus, 23 the case should have been closed when the court adjudicated Mahogany’s motion to dismiss. 24 “The general rule is that once a notice of appeal has been filed, the lower court loses 25 jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal.” Bennett v. Gemmill (In re. Combined Metals 26 Reduction Co.), 557 F.2d 179, 200 (9th Cir. 1977). Nevertheless, even after an appeal has been 27 28 1} filed, a district court “may act to assist the court of appeals in the exercise of its 2) jurisdiction.” Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 1982). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the court’s prior order 5 | (ECF No. 30) be, and the same hereby is, CORRECTED nunc pro tunc to instruct the clerk to 6 | enter judgment and close the case accordingly. 7 DATED July 15, 2020. 8 tins ©. Malan 9 UMNITED,STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-

In the Matter of Combined Metals Reduction Company, Debtor (Ten Cases). Irving Bennett v. Paul Gemmill, Trustee, (Four Cases). Irving Bennett v. W. Lamonte Robison, Trustee, (Four Cases). Irving Bennett v. Paul Gemmill, Trustee, Jeremiah Milbank, and Milbank & Co., Irving Bennett, Entrada Industries, Inc. (Wasatch Chemical Division), Charles A. Steen, Individually, Charles A. Steen, as Custodian for His Sons and Heirs, and Charles A. Steen on Behalf of the Steen Foundation v. Paul Gemmill, Trustee

557 F.2d 179 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)

Alan E. Davis v. United States of America, Lt. Col. R. E. Stoffey

667 F.2d 822 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-mahogany-meadows-avenue-trust-nvd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack