GREYSTONE NEVADA, LLC V. USDC-NVL, No. 13-70546 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: GREYSTONE NEVADA, LLC; U.S. HOME CORPORATION, No. 13-70546 DC Nos. 2:11 cv-1422 RCJ 2:11 cv-1424 RCJ GREYSTONE NEVADA, LLC; U.S. HOME CORPORATION, MEMORANDUM* Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, Respondent, ANTHEM HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION; FIESTA PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Real Parties in Interest. Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Argued and Submitted November 4, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. In their petition for a writ of mandamus, Petitioners seek an order directing the district court to dismiss the HOAs [Home Owner Associations ] counterclaims . . . . Since the filing of the petition, however, those counterclaims have been dismissed by the district court. This mandamus proceeding, therefore, has been rendered moot because Petitioners have already obtained all of the relief they seek in this proceeding. See ACF Indus., Inc. v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 42 F.3d 1286, 1292 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissing as moot an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss certain claims where the district court had subsequently dismissed those claims). Petitioners contend that this proceeding has not been mooted by the dismissal of the HOAs counterclaims because there remain issues on which they seek a ruling from this court. Those issues, however, are not yet ripe for adjudication because the district court has not yet rendered a definitive ruling on them. Even if they were ripe, they do not meet the five-factor Bauman test to justify issuance of the writ. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977). -2- The petition is DENIED. -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.