LN Management, LLC Series 5664 Divot v. Dansker et al

Filing 85

ORDER that the Motion to Compel ECF No. 75 is DENIED as moot; the parties shall consult with the Magistrate Judge forthwith to establish a scheduling order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 08/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

______________________________________
)
)
LN MANAGEMENT, LLC SERIES 5664
)
DIVOT,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KIT DANSKER et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

2:13-cv-01420-RCJ-GWF
ORDER

12
13

This is a removed quiet title action between the buyer of a property at a homeowners’

14

association foreclosure sale and the holders of the first deed of trust. The deed of trust holder

15

moved for summary judgment under Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832

16

F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016). The buyer countered that the Court should remand for lack of

17

diversity under Weeping Hollow Ave. Tr. v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2016). Because

18

diversity depended on the citizenships of the yet unknown deceased homeowner’s successor(s)-

19

in-interest and the buyer LLC’s member(s), the Court gave the parties several months to engage

20

in jurisdictional discovery.

21

The parties have noted at a status conference that the only fact question potentially

22

preventing diversity jurisdiction would be if one or more of Kit Dansker’s successors-in-interest

23

were Nevada residents. But the parties have yet to discover the identities of Dansker’s heirs.

24
1 of 2

1

The dispositive issue at this time is therefore the fact that Dansker’s successors have not been

2

served. The possibility of a future quiet title action by one of those persons does not destroy

3

complete diversity where the state citizenships of such persons is unknown. There being no lack

4

of diversity between the joined and served parties, the Court is satisfied of its jurisdiction and

5

will not delay the case any longer. Any party later discovering a lack of subject matter

6

jurisdiction may bring the issue to the attention of the Court.
CONCLUSION

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 75) is DENIED as

8
9
10
11
12
13

moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall consult with the Magistrate Judge
forthwith to establish a scheduling order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24th day August, 2017.
Dated this 9th day of of August, 2017.

14
15
16

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 of 2