Pengilly et al v. Nevada Association Services, Inc. et al

Filing 160

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 143 the Motion for District Judge to Reconsider re 142 Order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Court GRANTS Ke Aloha Holdings LLC summary judgement as to its quiet title claim as to Plaintiff Pengilly and DISMISSES Plaintiff Pengilly's quiet title claim as to Ke Aloha Holdings LLC. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/20/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JAMES W. PENGILLY et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01463-RFB-NJK
ORDER

11
12

v.

13
14
15

NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is Cross Defendant Ke Aloha Holdings, LLC’s Motion (ECF No. 143)
for District Court Judge To Reconsider Order. In its Motion, the Defendants seek two holdings:
a.) reconsideration of the Court’s finding in its previous order (ECF No. 142) that “Fannie Mae
has been the owner of the loan continuously since origination” and b.) a finding for Ke Aloha
Holdings LLC against Pengilly as to its claims for quiet title and declaratory relief.
The Motion (ECF No. 143) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The Court declines
to revise its finding regarding Fannie Mae’s alleged ownership of the loan. The Court grants the
Motion as to its request for a finding that Ke Aloha Holdings LLC’s quiet title claim is superior to
the claim of Plaintiff Pengilly. This is finding does not establish Ke Aloha Holdings LLC’s
property interest as to the other parties in this litigation. It is limited to Ke Aloha Holidngs LLC’s
interest versus that of Plaintiff Pengilly.

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

The Court previously issued an Order (ECF No. 142) (hereinafter the “Order”) resolving

3

various motions in this case. In that Order the Court summarized the procedural history of this

4

case and made various findings of fact and legal determinations. The findings of that Order are

5

incorporated by reference here except as to any finding being reconsidered in this order.

6
7

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, a court may reconsider a previous order

9

upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

10

evidence; (3) an adverse party’s fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) a void

11

judgment; (5) a satisfied, released or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief

12

from the operation of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion must be filed

13

within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), or (3), not more than one year after the judgment

14

or order was entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).

15
16

III.

DISCUSSION

17

The Court first finds it unnecessary to address the Defendants’ Motion regarding the

18

finding with respect to Fannie Mae and its potential ownership of the loan in this case. The

19

Defendants did not object to this assertion of an undisputed fact in the motions that were the subject

20

of the Court’s previous Order. However, the Court holds that this finding within its Order is

21

limited to the Order and does not represent a finding of fact for the case in its entirety. The Court

22

further holds that this finding was not central to the rulings of the previous Order.

23

The Court does find it appropriate to clarify its rulings regarding the claims between Ke

24

Aloha Holdings LLC and Plaintiff Pengilly for a few reasons. First, the Court’s previous findings

25

in its Order do support a final determination of summary judgment in favor of Ke Aloha Holdings

26

LLC as to its quiet title interest against that of Pengilly. Second, Pengilly has renounced his

27

ownership interest in the subject Property pursuant to the Defendants’ filing in ECF No. 153.

28

Based upon these considerations, the Court does clarify its Order that it is granting Ke Aloha

-2-

1

Holdings LLC’s quiet title claim as to the property interests of Plaintiff Pengilly. Plaintiff

2

Pengilly’s claim as to quiet title against Ke Aloha Holdings LLC is dismissed.

3
4

IV.

CONCLUSION

5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion (ECF No. 143) for District Judge to

6

Reconsider re Order (ECF No. 142) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court declines

7

to revise its factual finding regarding Fannie Mae but nonetheless limits it to the Order (ECF No.

8

142) itself.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Court GRANTS Ke Aloha Holdings LLC summary

10

judgement as to its quiet title claim as to Plaintiff Pengilly and DISMISSES Plaintiff Pengilly’s

11

quiet title claim as to Ke Aloha Holdings LLC. This finding does not determine or resolve the

12

property interests as they relate to the remaining parties in this litigation.

13
14

DATED this 20th day of February, 2018.

15

__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-