Nguyen v. Washington Mutual Bank N.A. et al

Filing 66

ORDER that 62 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 12/19/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

14

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

15

Before the court is plaintiff Hanh Nguyen’s (“Nguyen”) objection to the court’s order

9

HANH NGUYEN,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.;
et al.,

13
Defendants.

2:11-cv-1799-LRH-NJK
ORDER

16

denying his motion to reconsider (Doc. #611). Doc. #62. Defendants filed an opposition to the

17

motion. Doc. #63.

18

I.

19

Facts and Procedural History
In September 2007, Nguyen purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of

20

trust. Eventually, Nguyen defaulted on the mortgage note and defendants initiated non-judicial

21

foreclosure proceedings.

22

Nguyen filed a complaint against defendants in state court. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Defendants

23

removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. Subsequently, the

24

defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. #43) which was granted by the court (Doc. #51). In

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

response, Nguyen filed a motion to reconsider (Doc. #55) which was denied by the court

2

(Doc. #61). Thereafter, Nguyen filed the present objection. Doc. #62.

3

II.

Discussion

4

In its order denying the motion for reconsideration, the court stated the following:

5

8

In her motion, Nguyen contends that this court was without jurisdiction to
hear this action, and therefore, all of the court’s orders were in error. The
court disagrees. As addressed at length in the court’s order denying her
motion to remand (Doc. #7), the exercise of diversity jurisdiction is
appropriate in this matter because there is complete diversity between the
parties. See Doc. #15. Thus, it was not error for the court to exercise
jurisdiction in this action and enter its prior orders.

9

Doc. #61. Nguyen objects to the court’s ruling on the basis that her motion did not challenge the

6
7

10

court’s jurisdiction. See Doc. #62 (“The court has confused me with someone else. My motion said

11

no such thing.”). However, Nguyen’s motion did, in fact, suggest and argue that the court

12

improperly exercised its jurisdiction by failing to grant her motion to remand. See Doc. #55, p.5-6.

13

Thus, the court properly construed and rejected Nguyen’s jurisdictional argument. Therefore, the

14

court finds that it did not err in its prior order and shall deny Nguyen’s objections.

15
16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s objection to the court’s order (Doc. #62) is
DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 19th day of December, 2013.

20

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

2