Archer et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 74

ORDER Denying 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Shawn Rorick, Matthew Feustel, Van Sherman, Joan Ha, Tashae Dupree, Camille Patella, Lisa Yeghiayan, Steven Deutsch, Bryan Wells, Jay Ha, Randy Jacobs, Jonathan Knights, Terry Putman, Lel and Ozawa, Pamela Donovan, Evelen Corro-Sammarco, Charli Jacobs, Robert Barfield, Leon Gauthier, Benito Pichardo, Steve Yeghiayan, Louis Cushler, Eric Fizthugh, Janelle Ozawa, Carol Einhorn, Hermenegildo Ramirez-Soto, Thayer Burton, Arthur Einhorn, C arlos Verduzco, Leslie Archer, Jeannie Thompson, Jeffrey Thompson, Kelley Deutsch, Titan Eggstaff, Cynthia Putman, Roger Donner, Tyrone Newton, Spencer Chung, Danny Regensberg, Vincent Patella, Xuefang Mei, Deirdre Connell, Steve Hastings, Abdulkadir Tura, Timothy Bradley, William Woodard, Francis Wilson, Robert Wilson, John Duffy Taylor, Natali Hiscocks, Dianne Knights, Linda Ramirez-Soto, John Sammarco, Rose Bonilla, Rose Huffman, Casey Korth, Jacalyn Curtis, Joell Reed, Homer Nichols, Laddawan Wood, Eugene Hallett, Kyle Korth, Mirela Micula, Troylette Burton, Sandra Stucki, Kenneth Hiscocks, Tina Tran. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/19/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ARIEL E. STERN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8276
JACOB D. BUNDICK, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9772
AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP
400 South Fourth Street, Suite 450
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Bank of America Corporation;
Bank of America, National Association;
Recontrust Company, N.A., and Federal
National Mortgage Association

9

AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP

400 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, SUITE 450
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LESLIE ARCHER; ROBERT BARFIELD,
ROSE BONILLA; TIMOTHY BRADLEY;
THAYER BURTON; TROYLETTE BURTON;
SPENCER CHUNG; DEIDRE CONNELL;
EVELEN CORRO-SAMMARCO; JACALYN
CURTIS; LOUIS CUSHLER; KELLEY
DEUTSCH; STEVEN DEUTSCH; ROGER
DONNER; MICHAEL DONOVAN; PAMELA
DONOVAN; TASHAE DUPREE; TITAN
EGGSTAFF; ARTHUR EINHORN; CAROL
EINHORN; MATTHEW FEUSTEL; ERIC
FITZHUGH; LEON GAUTHIER; STPHANIE
GOINS; JAY HA; JOAN HA; EUGENE
HALLETT; STEVE HASTINGS; KENNETH
HISCOCKS; NATALI HISCOCKS; ROSE
HUFFMAN; CHARLI JACOBS; RANDY
JACOBS; DIANNE KNIGHTS; JONATHAN
KNIGHTS; CASEY KORTH; KYLE KORTH;
ZUEFANG MEI; MIRELA MICULA; TYRONE
NEWTON; HOMER NICHOLS, JANELLE
OZAWA; LELAND OZAWA; CAMILLE
PATELLA; VINCENT PATELLA; BENITO
PICHARDO; CYNTHIA PUTMAN; TERRY
PUTMAN; HERMENEGILDO RAMIREZSOTO; LINDA RAMIREZ-SOTO; JOELL
REED; DANNY REGENSBERG; SHAWN
RORICK; JOHN SAMMARCO; VAN
SHERMAN; SANDRA STUCKI; JOHN
{22391439;1}

1

Case No.: 2:11-cv-01264-JCM-LRL

[Proposed]
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1
2
3
4

DUFFY TAYLOR; JEANNIE THOMPSON;
JEFFREY THOMPSON; TINA TRAN;
ABDULKADIR TURA; CARLOS
VERDUZCO; BRYAN WELLS; FRANCIS
WILSON; ROBERT WILSON; LADDAWAN
WOOD; WILLIAM WOOD; LISA
YEGHIAYAN; STEVE YEGHIAYAN,

5

Plaintiffs.

6

vs.

7

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, BAC HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP; RECONTRUST COMPANY,
NA; FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR
TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC; CAL-WESTERN
RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION; MTC
FINANCIAL INC. d/b/a TRUSTEE CORPS;
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

8
9

AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP

400 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, SUITE 450
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

10
11
12

Defendants.

13
14

This Court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 22) on

15

October 5, 2011. Having considered the written submissions, and arguments of counsel at the

16

hearing, the Court finds as follows:

17

Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of demonstrating that a preliminary injunction should

18

issue. Under Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008), a " plaintiff seeking a

19

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

20

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

21

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Plaintiffs did not meet these factors.

22

First, plaintiffs fail to establish likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiffs plead three

23

causes of action: (1) violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, (2) Promissory

24

Estoppel, and (3) Wrongful Foreclosure. They are unlikely to succeed on their claim for violation of

25

the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices (codified at Nev. Rev. Stat. Ch. 598) because the statute

26

applies to transactions involving goods and services, not real estate. They are unlikely to succeed on

27

their claim for promissory estoppel because they did not allege, and did not present any evidence of,

28

a specific promise by the defendants or of specific conduct by them in reliance on a promise by the
{22391439;1}

2

1

defendants. They are unlikely to succeed on their claim for wrongful foreclosure because plaintiffs

2

have admitted their default on their loans. Under Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d

3

610, 623 (Nev. 1983), a plaintiff in default cannot state a claim for wrongful foreclosure. In

4

addition, most plaintiffs' properties have yet to be sold, making the claim premature.

of preliminary relief. Under Winter, granting a "preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of

7

irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary

8

remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief."

9

Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. The Court finds that plaintiffs failed to make a clear showing of irreparable
c

10
AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP

Second, the Court finds that plaintiffs are not likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
c

6

400 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, SUITE 450
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

5

harm – they failed to explain why monetary damages cannot redress any loss, and provided no

11

reason for the court to prevent the defendants from enforcing plaintiffs' deeds of trust.

12

c
Third, the Court finds the balance of hardships tips against the issuance of an injunction

13

because defendants are not receiving payments to which they are legally entitled as a result of the

14

plaintiffs' default.

15

continue to use and enjoy the properties would be inequitable.

Granting a preliminary injunction despite plaintiffs' default while plaintiffs

16

Fourth, the Court does not find that the public interest warrants preliminary relief.
c

17

In light of the Court's findings, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
c

18

that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
19th
DATED this _____ day of October, 2011.

19
20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
{22391439;1}

3

1

Submitted By:

2

AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP

400 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, SUITE 450
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

10

/s/ Jacob D. Bundick
ARIEL E. STERN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8276
JACOB D. BUNDICK, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9772
400 South Fourth Street, Suite 450
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Defendants
Bank of America Corporation; Bank of
America, National Association; Recontrust
Company, N.A., and Federal National
Mortgage Association

11
12

Reviewed by:

13

CALLISTER + ASSOCIATES, LLC

14

17

/s/ Mitchell S. Bisson
MATTHEW Q. CALLSTER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1396
MITCHELL S. BISSON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11920
823 Las Vegas Blvd. So., 5th Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

18

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15
16

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{22391439;1}

4