Opinion
Case No. 3:19-cv-00723-MMD-WGC
05-04-2020
DWIGHT CARLSON AS TRUSTEE FOR PYRAMID TRIBE TR-116, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. SUMMARY
This removed action involves a dispute over an assignment of deed of trust (the "Assignment"). Before the Court are Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper's ("Nationstar") motion to dismiss ("Nationstar's Motion") (ECF No. 6) and Quality Loan Service Corporation's ("Quality") motion to dismiss ("Quality's Motion") (ECF No. 10). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant Nationstar's Motion for lack of standing and deny Quality's Motion as moot.
Quality joined in Nationstar's Motion. (ECF No. 7.)
The Court has also reviewed the parties' related briefs. (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 13, 14, 15.)
II. BACKGROUND
The following facts are alleged in the Complaint, unless otherwise indicated.
Plaintiff Dwight Carlson as Trustee for Pyramid Tribe TR-116 purchased 2402 Sunny Slope, Dr. #9, Sparks, NV 89434 (the "Property") at a homeowner association's ("HOA") foreclosure sale. (See ECF No. 1-1 at 3; ECF No. 6-1 at 5, 23.) At that time, Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") owned the promissory ("Note") and the DOT. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.)
The Complaint states the Property is located at "2402 Sunnyslope Drive, Reno, NV." (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) Having cross referenced the Complaint's legal description and APN number of the Property (see id.) with the Deed of Trust (the "DOT") attached to Nationstar's Motion (ECF No. 6-1 at 5, 23), the Court concludes that the address identified in the Complaint is a typographical error. The correct address, as stated in the DOT, is 2402 Sunny Slope, Dr. #9, Sparks, NV 89434
On September 20, 2016, Fannie Mae filed an interpleader action in this Court against Plaintiff (Federal National Mortgage Association v. Carlson ("Carlson"), Case No. 3:16-cv-520-MMD-WGC, ECF No. 1 (D. Nev. Sep. 2, 2016)), which the Court consolidated with another case (Springland Village Homeowners Association v. Pearman ("Springland"), Case No. 3:16-cv-423-MMD-WGC, ECF No. 33 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2018)). On January 10, 2018, the Court granted Fannie Mae's motion for summary judgment and found that Plaintiff purchased the Property subject to Fannie Mae's DOT. Carlson, ECF No. 34 at 5.
While a court generally cannot consider matters beyond the pleadings on a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider documents "properly submitted as part of the complaint" and "may take judicial notice of 'matters of public record." Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Because "documents on file in federal or state courts" are "matters of public record," the Court takes judicial notice of Carlson, ECF Nos. 1 and 34, and Springland, ECF No. 33. Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012).
On April 1, 2019, the Assignment between Fannie Mae and Nationstar was recorded. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4; see also ECF No. 6-4 (Assignment).) On September 18, 2019, Nationstar and Quality recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell the Property. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.) Nationstar and Quality caused Defendant John Doe 1 to serve the notice and vacate Plaintiff's tenant from the Property. (Id.)
Here, the Court takes judicial notice of ECF No. 6-4 as recorded with the Washoe County Recorder and is thus a matter within the public record. See, e.g., Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 866 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a court may take judicial notice of a government agency's records and other undisputed matters of public record under Fed. R. Evid. 201).
Plaintiff alleges that there is a conflict of claims between Fannie Mae and Nationstar over who is the true owner of the Note and DOT, placing Plaintiff at the risk of inconsistent judgments. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts five claims: (1) declaratory relief, (2) slander of title, (3) permanent injunction, (4) wrongful eviction by John Doe 1, and (5) "wrongful actions" by Nationstar and Quality. (Id. at 4-6.)
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants assert several arguments in their respective motions. However, the Court agrees with Nationstar that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claims, which are all related to the Assignment. (See ECF No. 6 at 5.) Therefore, the Court declines to address the remaining arguments.
"The party invoking federal jurisdiction, [here Plaintiff], bears the burden of establishing [the constitutional minimum of standing]." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 61 (1992). Three elements must be met to establish standing: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly . . . traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it must be likely—not speculative—that the injury will be redressed by a favorable ruling in the action. Id. at 560 (citations and alterations omitted). These elements are an indispensable part of a plaintiff's case and therefore "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. Id. at 561 (citations omitted).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff essentially challenges Nationstar and Quality's rights to foreclose on the DOT based on the purported invalidity of the Assignment. (See generally ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff is not a party to the Assignment, nor has he alleged any involvement in it. In fact, the Assignment does not reference Plaintiff whatsoever. (See generally, ECF No. 6-4.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not asserted a legally protected interest in the Assignment and therefore lacks standing to challenge it. See Viloria v. Premium Capital Funding LLC, 2012 WL 4361252, at * 3 (D. Nev. Sept. 20, 2012) (citations omitted) ("Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the assignments of the Note and Deed of Trust . . ."); Penrose v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., No. 3:19-cv27-MMD-CBC, 2019 WL 1338393, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2019p) (holding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge a loan transaction or its securitization for which he had no involvement in).
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before the Court.
It is therefore ordered that Defendant Nationstar's motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 6, 7) is granted. Dismissal will be with prejudice.
It is further ordered that Defendant Quality's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in Defendants' favor in accordance with this order and close this case.
DATED THIS 4th day of May 2020.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE