U.S. Bank v. Fid. Nat'l Title Grp.

Full title: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE…

Court: United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Jan 13, 2022

2:21-cv-01186-APG-BNW (D. Nev. Jan. 13, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01186-APG-BNW

01-13-2022

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants

ANDREW P. GORDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY, DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT, AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE

[ECF NOS. 5, 39, 44]

ANDREW P. GORDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Defendants Fidelity National Title Group, Inc., Chicago Title Insurance Company, and Ticor Title Agency of Nevada, Inc. moved to stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., case number 19-17332. ECF No. 5. While the motion was pending, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in that case and the mandate has issued. I therefore deny the motion to stay as moot.

The defendants thereafter filed a supplemental motion to stay the case, this time based on a similar case pending before the Supreme Court of Nevada, PennyMac Corporation v. Westcor Land Title Insurance Company, case number 83737. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A. moves to strike the supplemental motion as not compliant with the Local Rules. ECF No. 44. I deny the supplemental motion to stay. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The opening brief in the case before the Supreme Court of Nevada is not due for another 60 days. Thus, it is likely a stay would be lengthy while the briefing is completed, the matter is set for oral argument, and a decision is rendered.

The more expeditious, efficient, and just resolution of this case counsels in favor of completing discovery rather than staying the case entirely. Dispositive motions are not due until June 27, 2022. ECF No. 36. While the parties may want to revisit a stipulation to stay dispositive motions at that point depending on the progress of PennyMac before the Supreme Court of Nevada, a complete stay of the case at this time is unwarranted. Because I deny the supplemental motion to stay, I deny the motion to strike as moot.

I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants' motion to stay (ECF No. 5) is DENIED.

I FURTHER ORDER that the defendants' supplemental motion to stay (ECF No. 39) is DENIED.

I FURTHER ORDER that the plaintiffs motion to strike (ECF No. 44) is DENIED as moot.