Willis et al v. Hafen et al

Filing 14

ORDER Granting 6 and 11 Motions to Dismiss, Directing Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly, and Expunging Lis Pendens. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 6/28/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

CLARENCE M. WILLIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

vs.

12

CONRAD HAFEN, et al.
13

Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00778-PMP-GWF
ORDER

15
16

On May 13, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for Damages (Doc. #1) alleging

17

multiple claims for relief against Defendants Conrad Hafen, Justice of the Peace of Las

18

Vegas Township, Janice Jacovino, Esq. of the law firm of McCarthy & Holthus, and R.

19

“Randy” Bingham, Deputy Constable of Las Vegas Township. Plaintiffs’ claims arise

20

from court proceedings occurring in the Justice Court of Las Vegas Township, Clark

21

County, Nevada, relating to an unlawful detainer action brought by the National

22

Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) to evict Plaintiffs from certain real property

23

located in Clark County, Nevada, known as 4912 Canadian Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada.

24

Plaintiffs contend that the Justice Court of Las Vegas Township had no jurisdiction over

25

the case because exclusive jurisdiction to quiet titled real property is vested in this Court

26

under 28 U.S.C. § 1346. Plaintiffs further contend that their eviction violated the Fourth

1

Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Before the Court for consideration are Motions to Dismiss (Docs. #6, #11) filed on

2
3

behalf of Defendants Jacovino, Hafen and Bingham, respectively. The Court finds that

4

Defendants’ motions to dismiss must be granted.

5

Specifically, Defendant Jacovino is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint in

6

accord with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiffs have

7

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as to her. The unlawful detainer

8

action initiated in state court had no bearing on title to the subject property because

9

Plaintiffs had already been dispossessed of title through the foreclosure process. Hence,

10

Fannie Mae was the record title holder of the subject property at the time the state court

11

proceedings were instituted. Second, Plaintiffs can state no Fourth Amendment claim

12

against Defendant Jacovino because Jacovino is not a state actor. Finally, to the extent

13

Defendant Jacovino were deemed to be a state actor, Plaintiffs’ claims would be barred

14

by qualified immunity.
Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen are barred

15
16

by the Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunity. As there is no cognizable basis for

17

finding that Judge Hafen acted in excess of his jurisdiction. Similarly, Defendant

18

Constable Bingham, who was acting in accord with an order of the Las Vegas Justice

19

Court when he executed and served the Writ of Temporary Restitution on Plaintiffs, is

20

entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, as argued in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

21

(Doc.#11).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. #6,

22
23

#11) are GRANTED, and that the Clerk of Court shall forthwith enter judgment

24

accordingly.

25

///

26

///

Page 2 of 3

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that and Lis Pendens filed against the subject
property located at 4912 Canadian Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, is hereby expunged.
DATED: June 28, 2011

4
5
6
7

PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Page 3 of 3