Opinion
2:17-cv-00445-APG-VCF
02-22-2023
PROF-2013-M4 LEGAL TITLE TRUST IV, BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE, Plaintiff, v. SPINNAKER POINT AVENUE TRUST; RIVER GLIDER AVENUE TRUST; SATICOY BAY, LLC SERIES 5982 SPINNAKER POINT AVENUE; MOUNTAIN GATE AT SUNRISE MOUNTAIN HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION; ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. SATICOY BAY, LLC SERIES 5982 SPINNAKER POINT AVENUE, Counterclaimant, v. PROF-2013-M4 LEGAL TITLE TRUST IV, BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE, Counter-Defendant
MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP Patrick J. Kane (Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, PROF-2013-M4 Legal Title Trust IV, by U.S. Bank National Association, as Legal Title Trustee BOYACK ORME ANTHONY & MCKIEVER Patrick A. Orne Attorneys for Defendant, MOUNTAIN GATE AT SUNRISE MOUNTAIN HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES Christopher L. Benner Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimants, SPINNAKER POINT AVENUE TRUST, RIVER GLIDER AVENUE TRUST, and SATICOY BAY, LLC SERIES 5982 SPINNAKER POINT AVENUE
Current Trial Date: March 27, 2023
Trial Calendar Call: March 7, 2023
Proposed New Trial Date: June 27, 2023
MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP
Patrick J. Kane (Pro Hac Vice)
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, PROF-2013-M4 Legal Title Trust IV, by U.S. Bank National Association, as Legal Title Trustee
BOYACK ORME ANTHONY & MCKIEVER
Patrick A. Orne
Attorneys for Defendant, MOUNTAIN GATE AT SUNRISE MOUNTAIN HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES
Christopher L. Benner
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimants, SPINNAKER POINT AVENUE TRUST, RIVER GLIDER AVENUE TRUST, and SATICOY BAY, LLC SERIES 5982 SPINNAKER POINT AVENUE
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL [THIRD REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL]
ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, PROF-2013-M4-Legal Title Trust IV, by U.S. Bank National Association, (“Trustee”), Defendant Mountain Gate at Sunrise Mountain Homeowners' Association (“Mountain Gate”), Defendants and Counterclaimants Saticoy Bay, LLC Series 5982 and Spinnaker Point Avenue (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by their attorneys, hereby submit the following Stipulation and Order to Continue the March 27, 2023 by ninety days (90) pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR 7-1. This is the Parties' third request to continue the currently scheduled trial date and is submitted in good faith and not intended to cause any delay to this Court.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Trustee's predecessor-in-interest filed the instant action on February 9, 2017. See Dkt. 1.
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2017, the instant action was stayed (the “Stay”). See Dkt. 21.
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2017, this Court lifted the Stay. See Dkt. 26.
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017 Trustee's predecessor-in-interest filed an Amended Complaint asserting the following claims: (1) quiet title; (2) declaratory relief; (3) permanent and preliminary injunction; and (5) unjust enrichment (the “FAC”). See Dkt. 27.
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2019, Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the FAC and filed the following counterclaims against the Trustee: (1) quiet title; and (2) declaratory relief. See Dkt. 49.
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2019, Defendants renewed their previously filed Motion to Dismiss. See Dkt. 50.
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2020, the Parties filed a “Stipulation for Extension of Time Re: Discovery,” which this Court granted on April 20, 2020. See Dkt. 69-70.
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2020, this Court granted Second Motion to Dismiss in part dismissing all of the FAC's causes of action with the exception of Trustee's unjust enrichment claim. See, Dkt. 76.
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2020, Trustee filed a motion for reconsideration requesting this Court reconsider its Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss based upon changes in applicable case law that occurred after Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed. See Dkt. at 80.
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2021, the Court denied Trustee's Motion for Reconsideration. See Dkt. at 85.
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, this Court set this matter for a bench trial on March 14, 2022 while separately setting this matter for a March 8, 2022 calendar call. See Dkt. 90.
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2021, the Parties attended a mandatory settlement conference before the Honorable Magistrate Elayna J. Yochah. See Dkt. 90.
WHEREAS, the Parties did not reach a settlement due to the pending statute of limitation question raised by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was certified to the Nevada Supreme Court captioned as U.S. Bank v. Thunder Props., Inc., Supreme Court Case No. 8112 (“Thunder Props”). Because the outcome in Thunder Props would likely bear upon the application of the statute of limitation in this case. See Dkt. 98.
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2021, the Honorable Magistrate Elayna J. Yochah issued an Order: (1) continuing the settlement conference to date after the Nevada Supreme Court issued its opinion in Thunder Props; and (2) instructing the Parties to file a joint status report within ten days of a decision in Thunder Props being issued while separately requesting the Parties submit three dates of availability to attend a second settlement conference. See Dkt. 98.
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2022, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Thunder Props holding that: (1) “declaratory relief actions are not categorically exempt from statutes of limitations under City of Fernley v. Nevada Department of Taxation, 366 P.3d 699 (Nev. 2016)”; (2) NRS 11.220's four year “catch all” statute of limitations applies to actions seeking to determine the validity of a lien under NRS 40.010; and (3) the four-year statute of limitations begins to run when “the titleholder affirmatively repudiates the lien, which does not necessarily happen at the foreclosure sale.” See Dkt. 101
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2022, the Parties filed their Joint Status Report outlining the holding of the Thunder Props decisions and providing the following dates to attend a second settlement conference: (1) March 4, 2022; (2) March 9, 2022; or (3) April 8, 2022. See Dkt. 101.
WHEREAS, Honorable Magistrate Elayna J. Yochah scheduled the continued settlement conference for May 31, 2022.
WHEREAS, Trustee's counsel contracted COVID-19 and could not attend the settlement conference as a result so the settlement conference was reset for August 11, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.
WHEREAS, the Parties attended the August 11, 2022 settlement conference and while the matter did not settle, the Parties believe they made progress towards reaching a settlement.
WHEREAS, Trustee previously filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in light of the Thunder Props' holding concerning what triggers the applicable statute of limitation (“Motion to Reconsider”). See, Dkt. 104.
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2022, the parties submitted a Stipulation to Continue Trial, which this Court granted, and trial was continued to March 27, 2023. See Dkt. 123-124.
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2022, Trustee's Motion to Reconsider was granted in full. See Dkt. a 125.
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2022, Trustee filed a Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order to allow Trustee to leave file its Motion For Summary Judgment (“Motion to Amend”), which this Court granted on September 29, 2022. See, Dkt at 127, 130.
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2022, Trustee filed its Motion for Summary Judgment as to the First Amended Complaint and Defendants' Counterclaim (“Motion for Summary Judgment”). See, Dkt. 131.
WHEREAS, Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment is fully briefed and currently pending.
WHEREAS, the Parties cannot move forward until Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment is ruled upon as the pleadings will remain unsettled until a ruling is received.
WHEREAS, trial is currently scheduled for March 27, 2023.
WHEREAS, the parties have been diligent in attempting to bring this matter to a conclusion, including settlement discussions and conducting discovery.
WHEREAS, the Parties need additional time to complete settlement discussions, prepare for trial, and for the Court to rule on Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment so the parties can narrow down the issues in this litigation before moving forward with trial preparation and any settlement discussions that may arise after the Court's ruling on Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment.
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that, subject to this Court's approval, the March 27, 2023 trial date should be continued for at least ninety days (90) or to a date convenient for this Court to allow the Parties additional time continue their good faith attempts to settle this litigation and prepare for trial, if necessary, after the parties obtain a ruling on Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Agreement
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties to this litigation as follows:
1. The March 27, 2023 trial date be continued for at least ninety days (90), or to a date convenient to this Court.
Signature Attestation
I hereby attest under the penalty of perjury that on February 21, 2023, counsel for defendants approved this Stipulation and gave me permission to electronically sign this Stipulation on his behalf.
Patrick Kane
IT IS ORDERED that the bench trial scheduled for March 27, 2023 is vacated and continued to June 26, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. The March 21, 2023 calendar call is vacated and continued to June 20, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Las Vegas courtroom 6C.
IT IS SO ORDERED.