Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 107

ORDER Granting 75 Motion to Dismiss and Substitute. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC's complaint (ECF No. 1) be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that Bank of America, N. A. be substituted in place of Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC as the real party in interest with respect to SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's counterclaim. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/29/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 8 9 10 Case No. 2:14-CV-1875 JCM (GWF) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is plaintiff and counterdefendant Bayview Loan Servicing, 14 LLC’s (“Bayview”) motion to dismiss its own claims against defendant and counterclaimant SFR 15 Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) and substitute Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) as 16 counterdefendant. (ECF No. 75). SFR did not file a response. 17 Bayview initially commenced this action to quiet title for property located at 7617 Amato 18 Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 (“the property”) against SFR. (Id. at 2). SFR filed an answer 19 to the complaint as well as a counterclaim against Bayview. (ECF No. 41). Since that time, 20 Bayview has assigned its interest in the property to BANA by an assignment of deed of trust dated 21 August 24, 2015, and recorded the assignment in the Office of the Clark County Recorder on 22 August 31, 2015, as Instrument No. 20150831-0000299. (ECF No. 75 at 2). Accordingly, Bayview 23 no longer claims any right, title, or interest in the property. (Id.). Thus, on October 29, 2015, BANA 24 filed a motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25(c) (ECF No. 76), which 25 the court granted. (ECF No. 78). 26 Bayview asserts that it no longer claims any right, title, or interest in the property, and is 27 therefore no longer the appropriate party to prosecute a quiet title claim related to the property. 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 (ECF No. 75 at 5). See FRCP 17(a). Bayview further argues that substituting BANA as the 2 counterdefendant will not destroy this court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Id.). 3 A response to Bayview’s motion was due by November 15, 2015. No response has been 4 filed. Nevada LR 7-2 provides in pertinent part that “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points 5 and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” 6 D. NEV. R. LR 7-2. 7 FRCP 41(a)(2) further provides that “[i]f a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before 8 being served with the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the 9 defendant's objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication.” 10 Therefore, because SFR has filed no response in opposition to Bayview’s motion and 11 because dismissing Bayview’s underlying claim and substituting BANA as counterdefendant will 12 not destroy this court’s diversity jurisdiction over this case, Bayview’s motion is granted. 13 14 15 16 IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Bayview’s motion to dismiss and substitute (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC’s complaint (ECF No. 1) be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bank of America, N.A. be substituted in place of 18 Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC as the real party in interest with respect to SFR Investments Pool 19 1, LLC’s counterclaim, and that the case caption be amended accordingly. 20 DATED June 29, 2016. 21 22 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?