Eagle SPE NV1 Inc v Southern Highlands Development Corp et al
Filing
32
ORDER Regarding Supplemental Briefing. Parties must submit their briefs by 2/13/2013. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/4/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
EAGLE SPE NV 1, INC.,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00550-MMD-PAL
Plaintiff,
10
v.
ORDER REGARDING
SUPPLEMENAL BRIEFING
11
12
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS
DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
15
Defendants inform the Court that there are pending cases on appeal with the
16
Nevada Supreme Court presenting identical issues as this case. See Sandpointe
17
Apartments, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court of Nev., et al., case no. 59507; Nielson
18
v. Eighth Judicial District Court of Nev., et al., case no. 59823, Branch Banking and Trust
19
Company v. Nielson, case no. 60256; First Fin. Bank, NA v. Lane, et al., case no. 60927.
20
The issues presented in these appeals that are related to the questions in this case are:
21
I.
Did the Nevada State Legislature intend NRS § 40.459(1)(c) to apply to a
22
deficiency judgment when the successor-creditor acquired the right to
23
obtain the deficiency judgment before the statute’s effective date?
24
II.
Did the Legislature intend NRS § 40.459(1)(c) to apply to a deficiency
25
judgment when the successor-creditor acquired the right to obtain the
26
deficiency judgment before the foreclosure sale?
27
28
III.
Did the Legislature intend NRS § 40.459(1)(c) to apply to a deficiency
judgment when the successor-creditor is the Federal Deposit Insurance
1
Corporation (“FDIC”) or a successor-creditor which acquired the right to
2
obtain the deficiency from the FDIC?
3
Further, this Court stayed Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Yoel Iny, et al., 2:11-
4
cv-1777-MMD-VCF (dkt. no. 43) and Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Pebble Creek
5
Plaza Pad, 2:12-cv-01736-MMD-CWH (dkt. no. 15), because those cases raised the
6
above issues currently in front of the Nevada Supreme Court.
7
Given Defendants’ representation to the Court and the Court’s decision to stay
8
similar cases, the parties are HEREBY ORDERED to file supplemental briefing
9
regarding the following:
(1)
10
What is the state of the proceedings on the three issues addressed above
(I – III) before the Nevada Supreme Court?
11
(2)
12
Should this case be stayed in light of the foregoing discussion, and the
13
Court’s discretion to stay cases where a Nevada Supreme Court’s pending
14
decision will lend direction and clarity to the disputed matters in this case?
15
The parties must file supplemental briefs of no more than five (5) pages. The
16
parties must submit their briefs to the Court on or before Wednesday, February 13,
17
2013.
18
DATED THIS 4th day of February 2013.
19
20
21
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
