Opinion
2:17-cv-01775-JCM-BNW
08-25-2022
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, AS TRUSTEE FOR STANWICH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST A, Plaintiff, v. SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 9338 WILDERNESS GLEN AVENUE; YELLOWSTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendants. SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 9338 WILDERNESS GLEN AVENUE, Counterclaimant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, AS TRUSTEE FOR STANWICH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST A, Counter-Defendant.
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Robert Riether Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12076 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES, LTD Christopher L. Benner, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8963 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 9338 Wilderness Glen Avenue
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
Robert Riether Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12076
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A
ROGER P. CROTEAU & ASSOCIATES, LTD
Christopher L. Benner, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 8963
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 9338 Wilderness Glen Avenue
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SET BENCH TRIAL DATE
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Edward Brown (“Brown”), as substituted party for Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A (“Wilmington”), and Defendant/Counterclaimant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 9338 Wilderness Glen Avenue (“Saticoy”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their counsel of record, by and through their respective attorneys of records, hereby agree and stipulate as follows.
1. The sole narrow remaining issue at this stage of the case is the issue of “prejudice” as explained in U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n ND v. Res. Grp., LLC, 444 P.3d 442, 446 (Nev. 2019) (“Resources Group”) as well as the Ninth Circuit's November 17, 2021 order of reversal in this matter regarding the “notice/prejudice rule” applicable to foreclosure sales (the “Ninth Circuit Order”). (ECF No. 95).
2. On December 29, 2021, this Court issued its order (the “Supplement Order”), ordering that Brown supplement its briefing to address the limited issue of prejudice as it relates to the notice/prejudice issue. (ECF No. 99). On February 16, 2022, Brown submitted its supplement (the “Brown Supplement”). (ECF No. 106). On March 4, 2022, Saticoy Bay filed its respective supplemental opposition (the “Saticoy Bay Supplemental Opposition”). (ECF No. 111).
3. On April 15, 2022, this Court issued its order denying summary judgment (the “PostRemand Order”), holding “there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [Brown] suffered prejudice as a result of Saticoy's failure to provide notice”. (ECF No. 112 at 3:6-8). The Court further ordered the parties engage in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler where the case did not resolve. Id. at 3:15-16.
4. In the Ninth Circuit Order, the Ninth Circuit remanded “to allow the district court to evaluate in the first instance whether Wilmington has made a sufficient showing of prejudice.” (ECF No. 95 at 3 and ECF No. 112 at 1:20-22). Subsequently, in the PostRemand Order, this Court made clear that it “ordered [Brown] to supplement its motion for summary judgment as to the issue of whether it suffered prejudice...” (ECF No. 112 at 1:23-24). In denying Brown summary judgment post-remand, this Court continued, holding “there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [Brown] suffered prejudice as a result of Saticoy's failure to provide notice.” Id. at 3:6-7.
5. As a result, the Parties now stipulate to a bench trial (no more than one day) to determine the sole remaining issue of “prejudice” under Resources Group.
6. Based on the above and pursuant to this Court's August 4, 2022 Minute Order (ECF No. 118), the Parties hereby jointly request a bench trial date to be set by this Court on one of the following dates, pursuant to the Court's availability. Should this Court be unavailable on any of the two proposed date ranges below, the Parties hereby request a status check with the Court to ascertain mutually agreeable Dated:
a. Any day during the week of January 30, 2023 through February 3, 2023;
b. Any day during the week of March 6, 2023 through March 10, 2023.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned stipulation, this matter is set for a one day bench trial on March 27, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. Calendar call is set for March 22, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.