Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AS 4 TRUSTEEFOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OFBANC OF AMERICA 5 FUNDINGCORPORATION, MORTGAGE 2:20-cv-01277-GMN-VCF PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO 6 2005-B, STAY, ECF. No 14

7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Defendant. 10 Before the court is SFR Investments Pool 1., LLC’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending its Motion 11 to Dismiss [ECF No.10] (ECF No. 14). For the reason’s discussed below, the motion is granted in part. 12 Because SFR’s motion to dismissed is based on a statute of limitation defense, SFR requests a stay 13 of all discovery. Id. Plaintiff’s response was a limited opposition. Plaintiff argues that there are a number 14 of ways around the statute of limitations defense. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff also states that the precise issue 15 raised in the pending motion to dismiss in this case is pending before the Nevada Supreme Court, as 16 certified by the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff requests that the court deny SFR’s Motion to Stay, “only to the 17 extent that [plaintiff] should be allowed to continue its efforts to subpoena third parties for relevant 18 documents….” 19 SFR did not file a reply and the time to reply has passed. Under LR 7-2(b), the deadline to file 20 and serve any reply in support of the motion is seven days after service of the response. Since no reply 21 was filed, it would seem that SFR agrees with Plaintiff’s limited opposition. 22 When determining whether a stay is appropriate pending the resolution of another case, the district 23 court must weigh: (1) the possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any “hardship or inequity” that 24 a party may suffer if required to go forward, (3) “and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of 25 1 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law” that a stay will engender. Lockyer 2 || v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 Applying the Lockyer factors, the court finds allowing only third-party discovery to proceed in 4 || this case, pending resolution of SFR’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, properly balances the possible 5 || damage that might result from a complete stay of discovery with any adverse consequences caused by this 6 || limited discovery. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT SFR Investments Pool 1., LLC’s Motion to Stay Litigation 9 Pending its Motion to Dismiss [ECF No.10] (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED IN PART. Discovery is 10 |} STAYED, except that the parties may subpoena third parties for relevant documents. 11 In the event resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) does not result in the 12 || disposition of this case, the parties must file a new joint discovery plan within 14 days of the issuance of 13 || the order deciding that motion. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Proposed Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, 15 |] ECF No. 15, is DENIED without prejudice to the parties conducting the limited discovery permitted by 16 || this order during the pendency of the Motion To Dismiss. = 17 DATED this 29th day of December, 2020. a wpageo SapietgeOeer □□□ 18 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25