Green Tree Servicing LLC v. SFR Investments Pool1, LLC et al

Filing 106

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 103 the parties stipulation be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that claims (3) and (4) of Ditechs complaint 44 be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER OR DERED that 21 the HOAs third-party complaint against ACS be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment in favor of SFR in accordance with 87 the courts February 23rd order and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, 8 9 10 Case No. 2:15-CV-476 JCM (VCF) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL I, LLC, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 14 Presently before the court is a stipulation for extension of time regarding the dispositive motions deadline. (ECF No. 103). 15 On February 23, 2017, the court granted SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion 16 for summary judgment (ECF No. 68), to which Elkhorn Community Association (the “HOA) 17 joined (ECF No. 72), on its quiet title counterclaim (ECF No. 13) against Ditech Financial LLC 18 f/k/a Green Tree Servicing, LLC (“Ditech”). (ECF No. 87). In light of the court’s February 23rd 19 order, the claims that remain are as follows: Ditech’s claims against the HOA for breach of NRS 20 116.1113 and wrongful foreclosure (ECF No. 44); and the HOA’s third-party complaint against 21 Absolute Collection Services, LLC (“ACS”) for breach of contract, indemnity, and contribution 22 (ECF No. 21). 23 In the instant stipulation, Ditech, the HOA, and ACS (collectively, as the “parties”) assert 24 that a mediation request has been submitted to the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”), but 25 “despite the statutory requirement that NRED appoint a mediator within 60 days,” NRED has yet 26 to appoint a mediator. (ECF No. 103 at 2). The parties thus request a 90-day extension of the 27 dispositive deadline to allow continued efforts to complete mediation. (ECF No. 103). 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 As an initial matter, nothing in NRS 38.330 provides that NRED’s failure to appoint a 2 mediator within 60 days constitutes exhaustion, nor does the statute place the burden on NRED to 3 complete mediation within a specified period of time. Rather, the burden is on the parties to either 4 complete mediation within 60 days after the filing of a written claim or agree to extend the time to 5 complete mediation. Specifically, subsection (1) of NRS 38.330 states that “[u]nless otherwise 6 provided by an agreement of the parties, mediation must be completed within 60 days after the 7 filing of the written claim.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.330(1). 8 Subsection (1) of NRS 38.310 provides, in relevant part, as follows: 9 11 No civil action based upon a claim relating to [t]he interpretation, application or enforcement of any covenants, conditions or restrictions applicable to residential property . . . or [t]he procedures used for increasing, decreasing or imposing additional assessments upon residential property, may be commenced in any court in this State unless the action has been submitted to mediation. 12 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.310(1). Subsection (2) continues by stating that a “court shall dismiss any 13 civil action which is commenced in violation of the provisions of subsection 1.” Nev. Rev. Stat. 14 § 38.310(2). 10 15 While Ditech has submitted a request for mediation, the parties have not participated in 16 mediation. Thus, Ditech has not exhausted its administrative remedies and must mediate certain 17 claims—specifically, its wrongful foreclosure and breach of NRS 116.1113 claims—prior to 18 initiating an action in court. 19 A “civil action” includes any actions for monetary damages or equitable relief. See Nev. 20 Rev. Stat. § 38.300(3). “A wrongful foreclosure claim challenges the authority behind the 21 foreclosure, not the foreclosure act itself.” McKnight Family, L.L.P. v. Adept Mgmt., 310 P.3d 22 555, 559 (Nev. 2013) (citing Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev. 1983)). 23 “The material issue in a wrongful foreclosure claim is whether ‘the trustor was in default when the 24 power of sale was exercised.’” Turbay v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:12-CV-1367-JCM-PAL; 2013 25 WL 1145212, at *4 (quoting Collins, 662 P.2d at 623). “Deciding a wrongful foreclosure claim 26 against a homeowners’ association involves interpreting covenants, conditions or restrictions 27 applicable to residential property.” McKnight Family, L.L.P., 310 P.3d at 559. “This type of 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2- 1 interpretation falls under NRS 38.310.” 2 “contain[ing] conditions and restrictions applicable to residential property.” Id. at 558. Id. Additionally, NRS 38.310 applies to laws 3 Similarly, Ditech’s breach of NRS 116.1113 claim alleges a NRS violation, which requires 4 an interpretation of the regulations and statutes that contained conditions and restrictions 5 applicable to the property so as to fall within the scope of NRS 38.310. Consequently, Ditech must first submit these claims to mediation before proceeding with 6 See e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Woodchase Condo. Homeowners Ass’n, No. 7 a civil action. 8 215CV01153APGGWF, 2016 WL 1734085, at *2 (D. Nev. May 2, 2016); Saticoy Bay, LLC Series 9 1702 Empire Mine v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, No. 214-cv-01975-KJD-NJK, 2015 WL 5709484, 10 at *4 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2015). 11 Relatedly, NRS 38.350 expressly tolls the statute of limitations applicable to Ditech’s 12 claims that are subject to mediation under NRS 38.310. Specifically, NRS 38.350 provides that 13 “[a]ny statute of limitations applicable to a claim described in NRS 38.310 is tolled from the time 14 the claim is submitted to mediation . . . until the conclusion of mediation . . . of the claim and the 15 period for vacating the award has expired.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.350. Therefore, Ditech’s claims 16 are not prejudiced by the statute’s requirement that the parties participate in mediation prior to 17 initiating an action in court. 18 In light of the foregoing, the court will dismiss, without prejudice, claims (3) and (4) of 19 Ditech’s complaint (ECF No. 44) for Ditech’s failure to mediate pursuant to NRS 38.310. See, 20 e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.310(1); McKnight Family, L.L.P. v. Adept Mgmt., 310 P.3d 555 (Nev. 21 2013). 22 Further, the court will dismiss, without prejudice, the HOA’s third-party complaint (ECF 23 No. 21) against ACS as the claims asserted therein are predicated on the outcome of Ditech’s 24 claims that are subject to mediation. Upon the conclusion of mediation, Ditech and the HOA may 25 reassert their claims in a new case. 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 103) be, and the same 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge hereby is, DENIED. -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that claims (3) and (4) of Ditech’s complaint (ECF No. 44) be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the HOA’s third-party complaint against ACS (ECF No. 21) be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment in favor of SFR in accordance with the court’s February 23rd order (ECF No. 87) and close the case. DATED July 13, 2017. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -4-

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?