Dalby et al v. Quality Loan Service, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER that Defendant Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.s Counter Motion to Dismiss 6 is GRANTED. Defendant Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.s Counter Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens 7 is GRANTED. Defendant Mers Joinder to Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.s Cou ntermotion to Dismiss and Expunge Lis Pendens 18 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand 11 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike 18 Joinder 25 is DENIED. Clerk to enter Judgment. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. terminated. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 4/28/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 *** ) BRANDON T. DALBY, VIRGINIE G. ) ) DALBY, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) VS. ) ) QUALITY LOAN SERVICE, INC., ) MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ) REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., ) BEST RATE FUNDING ) CORPORATION, SAXON, INC. ) ) ) Defendants. ) 2:10-CV-02231-PMP-GWF ORDER Before the Court for consideration are the following motions: 17 Defendant Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.’s Counter Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6); 18 19 Defendant Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.’s Counter Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens (Doc. #7); 20 22 Defendant Mers’ Joinder to Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.’s Countermotion to Dismiss and Expunge Lis Pendens (Doc. #18) 23 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. #11); and 24 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike[18] Joinder (Doc. #25). 21 25 /// 26 /// 1 On March 14, 2011, the Court conducted a hearing regarding the above- 2 referenced motions. At the close of the hearing, the Court permitted the parties an 3 additional 30 days to consult and attempt to resolve the case during which time the 4 Court would hold an abeyance on any ruling on the foregoing motions. The Court 5 has now been advised that the parties were unable to resolve the matter amicably and 6 that ruling on the foregoing motions is now appropriate. Having read and considered 7 the foregoing motions, and further considered the arguments presented at the hearing 8 conducted March 14, 2011, the Court finds that Defendant Saxon Mortgage Services, 9 Inc.’s Counter Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6) and Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens 10 (Doc. #7) should be granted, and that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. #11) 11 should be denied. Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiffs original “Petition in the 12 Nature of Quiet Title Action and Claim for Emergency Motion for Preliminary 13 Injunction” fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 14 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and reasons set forth in Defendant’s 15 motion to dismiss fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted thereby 16 warranting dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 17 The Court further finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. #11) must 18 be denied because this action was properly removed to Federal Court on both Federal 19 Question and Diversity grounds. 20 21 22 23 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.’s Counter Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.’s Counter Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens (Doc. #7) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Mers’ Joinder to Saxon 25 Mortgage Services, Inc.’s Countermotion to Dismiss and Expunge Lis Pendens (Doc. 26 #18) is GRANTED. 2 1 2 3 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. #11) DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike[18] Joinder (Doc. #25) is DENIED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment shall forthwith be entered 6 by the Clerk of Court in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs Brandon Dalby 7 and Virginie Dalby. 8 9 DATED: April 28, 2011. 10 11 12 PHILIP M. PRO United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?