Franco et al v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER that Countrywides Motion to Dismiss 7 is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is instructed mail a photocopy of this order to the Plaintiffs last known address: 9979 Ridgehaven Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89148. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 8/30/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
Franco et al v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A O 72 ( R e v . 8/82) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** JUAN FRANCO, an individual; and ARACELY FERIA, an individual; ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a ) Nevada corporation; COUNTRYWIDE BANK ) N.A., a Nevada corporation; DOES 1 through ) 100, and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES A-Z; ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No.: 2:09-cv-02280-RLH-LRL ORDER (Motion to Dismiss­#7) Before the Court is Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Countrywide Bank N.A.'s (collectively, "Countrywide") Motion to Dismiss (#7), filed February 11, 2010. The Court has also considered Plaintiffs Juan Franco and Aracely Feria's Opposition (#8), filed February 26, 2010. Countrywide did not reply. Plaintiffs purchased a home located at 9979 Ridgehaven Avenue in Las Vegas with financing from Countrywide. In the spring 2009, Plaintiffs were no longer able to make their mortgage payments. (Dkt. #1, Pet. for Removal Ex. A, Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs claim Countrywide 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A O 72 ( R e v . 8/82) offered them a loan modification but foreclosed on the property in September 2009, despite the fact that Plaintiffs' executed the loan modification agreement. On October 27, 2009, Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. On December 1, Countrywide removed the case to this Court based on the diversity of the parties. On February 27, 2010, Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss. The Court held a hearing on this motion on May 27; however, neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel, Jorge L. Sanchez, attended the hearing. As a result, the Court vacated the hearing. (Dkt. #12, Hr'g Mins.) Both the Court and Countrywide's counsel have made numerous attempts to contact Plaintiffs and Mr. Sanchez since the day of the hearing, all to no avail. The State Bar of Nevada recently informed the Court that the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada has issued an order temporarily suspending Mr. Sanchez from the practice of law pending the resolution of formal disciplinary proceedings against him. In the Matter of Discipline of Jorge L. Sanchez, Esq., Bar No. 10434, No. 56126, Order of Temporary Suspension (Nev. June 23, 2010). In addition, the State Bar of Nevada is attempting to locate each of Mr. Sanchez's former clients (including the Plaintiffs in this case) to inform them that they will need to retain other counsel or proceed with their cases as pro se litigants. Mr. Sanchez's suspension leaves Plaintiffs without counsel and, in all likelihood, without any information concerning the status of their case. The Court is reluctant to consider the merits of Countrywide's motion to dismiss in this situation. Plaintiffs must be given the opportunity to learn of Mr. Sanchez's suspension and decide which course of action they would like to pursue. Accordingly, the Court denies Countrywide's motion without prejudice. / / / / / 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A O 72 ( R e v . 8/82) CONCLUSION Accordingly, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Countrywide's Motion to Dismiss (#7) is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is instructed mail a photocopy of this order to the Plaintiffs' last known address: 9979 Ridgehaven Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89148. Dated: August 30, 2010. ____________________________________ ROGER L. HUNT Chief United States District Judge 3

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?