1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST Case No. 2:21-cv-00192-KJD-NJK COMPANY, as Trustee for DSLA Mortgage 8 Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-through ORDER Certificate, Series 2006-AR2, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP, INC., 12 et al.,

13 Defendants.

14 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Extend Stay (#32). Plaintiff filed a 15 response in opposition (#33) to which Defendants replied (#35). 16 I. Background 17 Previously, this action was stayed by stipulation of the parties (#29) pending the Ninth 18 Circuit’s ruling in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., Ninth Cir. Case 19 No. 19-17332 (District Court Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-MMD-WGC) (Wells Fargo II). Following 20 the issuance of the Order, on November 5, 2021, the Ninth Circuit remanded Wells Fargo II on 21 the basis that the district court failed to grant the lender leave to amend its Complaints to assert 22 “trade usage” allegations. Id. at

, at *2 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2021). 23 Subsequently, Defendants filed the present Motion to Extend the Stay arguing that a 24 Landis stay was still appropriate given the significant overlap between the issues raised in this 25 case and a different case, PennyMac Corp. v. Westcor Land Title Ins. Co., Eighth Judicial 26 District Case No. A-18-781257-C, Supreme Court Case No. 83737 (“PennyMac”), with a 27 substantially similar coverage dispute. On November 3, 2021, PennyMac filed its notice of 28 appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. Now, Defendants urge the Court to continue the stay until 1 the resolution of PennyMac, or even until a third case, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company 2 v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc., Eighth Judicial District Court Case No. A-20-820307-C 3 (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss), is resolved on appeal. 4 II. Legal Standard 5 A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the 6 efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. North Am. Co.,

(1936); 7 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., v. Navigators Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2007). 8 When determining whether a stay is appropriate pending the resolution of another case – often 9 called a “Landis stay” – the district court must weigh: (1) the possible damage that may result 10 from a stay, (2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party may suffer if required to go forward, and 11 (3) “and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 12 issues, proof, and questions of law” that a stay will engender. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2005). 14 III. Analysis 15 First, the Court notes that the stay in this action was never lifted. Neither Plaintiff nor 16 Defendants moved to lift the stay, nor did the parties file a stipulation lifting the stay or a 17 proposed briefing schedule. As near as the Court can tell from a close examination of the docket, 18 Plaintiff summarily filed its pending motion for partial summary judgment without seeking to lift 19 the stay. However, the parties had agreed in their stipulation to stay (#29) not to file any 20 dispositive motions while the stay was in place. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice 21 the pending motions (#31/40) filed while the stay was in place. 22 Next, the Court, having considered the arguments raised in the complaint and dispositive 23 motions and considering the issues raised to the Nevada Supreme Court in PennyMac and 24 Deutsche Bank, finds that they are extremely similar, if not identical. Further, the questions at 25 issue involve important issues of State law that should be resolved by the highest court of the 26 State of Nevada. While this Court normally resolves these questions by predicting how the 27 Nevada Supreme Court would rule, it would be a waste of judicial resources to do so while the 28 questions are currently pending before the state supreme court. ] To be sure, the Court notes that there is hardship to parties who must delay discovery or 2 | wait longer for resolution of their case. However, that hardship is balanced by potentially 3 | avoiding the cost of discovery altogether if the Nevada Supreme Court issues a ruling that either 4| disposes of claims entirely or crystalizes the benefits of settlement. The Court also recognizes 5 | that this order may conflict with prior orders that lifted or denied stays. However, the Court sees 6 | that that the “orderly course of justice” now balances in favor of a stay. Lockyer,

| 1110. Therefore, the motion to extend stay is granted. 8 | IV. Conclusion 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Stay (#32) 10| is GRANTED; 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions (#31/40) filed in violation of the 12 | stay are DENIED without prejudice. 13 | DATED this 30th day of September 2022. 14 15 ™~ 16 yo —~ 7 Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-