Opinion
2:20-CV-02124-RFB-BNW
04-22-2022
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
SCOTT E. GIZER, ESQ., SOPHIA S. LAU, ESQ., EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER & MCRAE LLP KEVIN S. SINCLAIR, SINCLAIR BRAUN LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK BY LINDSAY D. DRAGON ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
SCOTT E. GIZER, ESQ., SOPHIA S. LAU, ESQ., EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER & MCRAE LLP KEVIN S. SINCLAIR, SINCLAIR BRAUN LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK BY LINDSAY D. DRAGON ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
STIPULATION TO EXTEND STAY OF CASE
RICHARD F. BOULWARE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon (“BONY”) and defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate and agree as follows, subject to the approval of the District Court:
Whereas, BONY filed this action on November 18, 2020 (ECF No. 1);
Whereas, BONY filed a first amended complaint on March 11, 2021 (ECF No. 19);
Whereas, On April 5, 2021, Fidelity moved to dismiss the first amended complaint based upon an argument that BONY breached the prompt notice provision of the subject title insurance policy (ECF No. 25);
Whereas, the Parties agreed to stay discovery in this action and to vacate the scheduling order pending the disposition of Fidelity's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 42);
Whereas the Court granted the Parties' stipulation on January 3, 2022 (ECF No. 43);
Whereas the Court denied Fidelity's motion to dismiss at hearing on March 25, 2022 (ECF No. 47);
Whereas, this is one of over 100 title insurance coverage disputes pending before the courts within the state of Nevada following an HOA foreclosure sale. The majority of cases concern the ALTA 1992 or ALTA 2006 loan policies of title insurance, along with the CLTA 100/ALTA 9, CLTA 115.1/ALTA 4, and CLTA 115.1/ALTA 5 endorsement forms;
Whereas, the Parties to this action are actively engaged in discovery in dozens of matters that are pending before courts within this jurisdiction;
Whereas, given the similar nature and overlapping issues of these disputes, the Parties anticipate that some of the discovery in this case would be duplicative of discovery already pending in other cases;
Whereas, the discovery in other pending cases may narrow the issues for discovery in this case;
Whereas, the Parties in this case are also engaged in settlement negotiations;
Whereas, the Parties respectfully agree that the interests of efficiency and judicial economy are best served by extending the stay of this case for six (6) months to allow the parties to further explore whether settlement is a possibility and to work through the particular circumstances of this action.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: the stay in the instant action shall be extended six (6) months, through October 28, 2022. The Parties shall submit a status report on or before October 21, 2022 regarding the status of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.