Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC v. Akbari et al

Filing 10

ORDER Denying 7 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 07/05/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ASHRAF AMIN AKBARI,

13

Defendant.

2:11-cv-1781-LRH-VCF
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is defendant Ashraf Amin Akbari’s (“Akbari”) motion to dismiss.

16

Doc. #7.1 Plaintiff Ocwen Loan Servicing (“Ocwen”) filed an opposition to the motion. Doc. #8.

17

I.

18

Facts and Procedural History
In June 2011, Ocwen and Akbari entered into a purchase and sale agreement for real

19

property in Las Vegas, Nevada. Ocwen transferred title to the property to the escrow company,

20

Premium Title Services, Inc. (“PTI”), but did not receive the purchase money from Akbari.

21

Subsequently, Ocwen brought the underlying complaint for breach of contract. Doc. #1.

22

In response, Akbari filed the present motion to dismiss for failure to name an indispensable

23

party. Doc. #7.

24

///

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket

entry number.

1
2

II.

Discussion
Akbari moves to dismiss the present action for failure to name an indispensable party under

3

Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. #7. Specifically, Akbari argues that Ocwen

4

cannot receive full relief for its claims without adding PTI as a defendant to the action.

5

A failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19 is a basis to dismiss an entire action.

6

See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(7). A party is indispensable under Rule 19 if the court cannot accord

7

complete relief among the existing parties. FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)(1)(A).

8
9

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that
PTI is not an indispensable party to Ocwen’s claims. Ocwen’s claims relate to a breach of contract

10

for the purchase of real property on the basis that it did not receive money from Akbari. See

11

Doc. #1. In his motion, Akbari alleges that PTI did not transfer his money to Ocwen properly. Even

12

if this is true, PTI is still not an indispensable party. Ocwen’s claim for breach of contract arises out

13

of the sale and purchase agreement to which PTI was not a party. Thus, the court may afford

14

Ocwen complete relief without PTI being a defendant in this action. Accordingly, the court shall

15

deny Akbari’s motion to dismiss.

16
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #7) is DENIED.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
DATED this 5th day of July, 2012.
19
20
21

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26

2