Opinion
2:22-cv-00630-CDS-EJY
01-13-2023
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; DOES 1-10; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants
Akerman LLP MELANIE D. MORGAN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8215 SCOTT R. LACHMAN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12016 Attorneys for Bank of America, N.A. Hanks Law Group KAREN L. HANKS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9578 CHANTEL M. SCHIMMING, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8886 Attorneys for SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC
Akerman LLP
MELANIE D. MORGAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8215
SCOTT R. LACHMAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12016
Attorneys for Bank of America, N.A.
Hanks Law Group
KAREN L. HANKS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9578
CHANTEL M. SCHIMMING, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8886
Attorneys for SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE
(SECOND REQUEST)
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. stipulate to extend the dispositive motion deadline to thirty (30) days following the corut's ruling on Bank of America's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 34. The current deadline is February 6, 2023. ECF No. 37. The parties are requesting additional time in light of the pending motion as well as ongoing settlement discussions. The parties wish to save client expenses on summary judgment briefs while the motion to dismiss is pending. The parties understand that a ruling is unlikely to be made by February 6, 2023.
The parties believe it is a better use of client expenses to focus their efforts on settlement. If the parties have to draft summary judgment briefs, it could impact the amount each side has to settle the matter. SFR provided a good-faith settlement offer to Bank of America, and the Bank anticipates responding to the offer in the next two weeks. Bank of America's counsel is actively obtaining settlement authority fr om both Bank of America and the Federal National Mortgage Association.
The parties have a long history of reaching settlements in quiet title litigation and truly believe this is a matter where resolution is very likely. For example, SFR made a substantially similar offer to another loan servicer that Bank of America's counsel represents with respect to a half dozen properties. SFR and that servicer ultimately reached a global settlement, saving the parties and judiciary substantial time and expenses. The parties aim to reach a settlement here and are not too far apart from doing so. Their settlement discussions-both in written form and orally-have been productive, and they will continue these frank discussions once Bank of America's counsel obtains authority. A settlement will avoid the need for summary judgment briefing, and the court from having to rule on a motion to dismiss and two summary judgment motions.
This is the parties' second request for an extension of this deadline, and is not intended to cause any delay or prejudice to any party. To the extent the court denies this motion, then the parties request a status hearing prior to February 6, 2023.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.