Hinds v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting 5 , 10 , 11 , and 12 Motions. The Clerk is Instructed to Close the Case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/22/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CLIFTON HINDS,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:15-CV-492 JCM (NJK)
ORDER

v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s (“BOA”) motion to

14

dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. # 5). Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

15

(“MERS”) and Quality Loan Service Corporation (“Quality Loan”) joined BOA’s motion to

16
17

dismiss. (Docs. ## 11, 12). Plaintiff has not filed a response and the deadline to do so passed on
April 12, 2015.

18

Also before the court is defendant BSI Financial Services, Inc.’s (“BSI”) motion to dismiss.

19

(Doc. # 10). Quality Loan joined BSI’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 12). Plaintiff has not filed a

20

response and the deadline to do so passed on April 17, 2015.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Finally, before the court is defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation’s (“QLS”) motion
to dismiss. (Doc. # 12). Plaintiff has not filed a response and the deadline to do so passed on April
20, 2015.
I.

Background
At the onset, the court notes that plaintiff Hinds provided no recitation of the facts for this

case in either his complaint or his previous application for emergency injunctive relief. The court
must therefore rely on the facts the defendants have provided.

1

This case arises out of foreclosure proceedings on the real property located at 4517 Ranch

2

Foreman Road, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89032 (“the property”). (Doc. # 4 p. 2). Sheila Gloekler

3

purchased the property on or about June 13, 2008. (Id. at 3). Gloekler executed a first-position

4

deed of trust on the property, which was recorded on June 13, 2008, and secured a promissory

5

note.

6

Countrywide Bank, FSB (“Countrywide”) was the lender in the transaction and MERS was

7

Countrywide’s nominee beneficiary. (Id. at 3). Reconstruct Company was assigned as the trustee.

8

(Id.). The trustee was subsequently reassigned several times, resulting in Quality Loan being

9

assigned as the trustee as of September 24, 2013. (Id. at 3–4, Exh E). Similarly, the beneficial

10

interest under the deed of trust was reassigned multiple times, resulting in beneficial interest resting

11

with Cam VII Trust (“Cam VII”). (Id. at 4, Exh F–G).

12

In the interim, Gloekler conveyed the property to an entity listed as 4517 Ranch Foreman

13

Rd, LLC (“Ranch Foreman”). (Id. at 3, Exh D). The Nevada secretary of state lists no record of

14

Ranch Foreman existing as a limited liability company or any other form of business entity. (Id.

15

at 4). The Clark County assessor still lists Ranch Foreman as the current property owner. (Id.).

16

On June 23, 2014, Quality Loan recorded a notice of default on the property. (Id. at 4–5).

17

On September 1, 2014, a certificate from the State of Nevada Foreclosure Mediation Program was

18

recorded on the property, permitting CAM VII to proceed with the foreclosure. (Id. at 5). On

19

February 4, 2015, a notice of trustee’s sale was recorded against the property, setting the sale for

20

March 3, 2015. (Id.).

21

However, before CAM VII could complete foreclosure and sale, two individuals claiming

22

to each have a five percent interest in the property filed separate Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions

23

on December 9, 2014, and January 1, 2015. (Id.). Automatic stays were issued pursuant to 11

24

U.S.C. § 362. The bankruptcy court in the Central District of California lifted the first stay on

25

February 11, 2015. (Id., Exh L). The bankruptcy court in the District of Nevada set a hearing on

26

the second stay for March 20, 2015. (Id. at 6). The status of this second stay is unclear to the

27

court.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

On February 25, 2015, Hinds filed the instant case pro se in the Eighth Judicial District of

2

Clark County, Nevada, and defendants removed the case to this court. (Doc. # 1-1). His complaint

3

included the ex parte application for an emergency restraining order and preliminary injunction,

4

which this court denied on April 3, 2015. (Doc. # 13).

5

The court did not reach the merits of Hinds’ request for injunctive relief, because he failed

6

to establish that he had standing in this case. The court denied without prejudice Hinds’ ex parte

7

application for an emergency restraining order and preliminary injunction. In its order the court

8

urged Hinds to provide a recitation of the facts in his responses to the motions to dismiss the court

9

now considers. The court encouraged Hinds to include in his statement of facts an explanation of

10

his alleged interest in the property. Hinds has been silent and has failed to respond to any of

11

defendants’ three motions to dismiss.

12

II.

Discussion

13

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

14

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.

15

Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Where

16

a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of

17

the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing Bell Atlantic, 550

18

U.S. at 557). However, where there are well pled factual allegations, the court should assume their

19

veracity and determine if they give rise to relief. Id. at 1950.

20

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, an opposing party must file points and authorities in response

21

to a motion and failure to file a timely response constitutes the party’s consent to the granting of

22

the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. See LR IB 7-2(d); United States v. Warren, 601

23

F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required to weigh

24

several factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

25

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

26

disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali v.

27

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

28

1986)).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-

1

Defendants assert that Hinds cannot establish standing in this case, because he neither owns

2

the property nor has any recordable interest in it. Hinds has failed to file any responses to

3

defendants’ motions.

4

“Standing is ‘an essential and un-changing part of the case-or-controversy requirement of

5

Article III [of the U.S. Constitution].’” McDermott v. Donahue, No. 2:11-CV-00311-MJP, 2011

6

WL 742550, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 23, 2011) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

7

555, 560 (1992)) (alteration in original). “Standing requires a plaintiff to show (1) injury-in-fact

8

(an actual or imminent harm that is concrete and particularized), (2) causation, and (3)

9

redressability.” Id. (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560).

10

After searching through the exhibits both parties presented, the court can find no evidence

11

that Hinds has any ownership interest directly in the property or in the purported limited liability

12

company that is listed as the current owner. Hinds therefore cannot show that the foreclosure and

13

sale of the property will cause him some form of cognizable injury and thus cannot establish

14

standing in this case.

15

Considering Hinds’ failure to respond to any of defendants’ motions to dismiss, failure to

16

plead any facts to suggest he has standing to pursue this case, and weighing the factors identified

17

in Ghazali, the court finds dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint appropriate.

18

III.

Conclusion

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant Bank of

21

America, N.A.’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint (doc. # 5), which defendants Mortgage

22

Electronic Registration Systems and Quality Loan Service Corporation joined (docs. ## 11, 12),

23

be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendant BSI Financial Services, Inc.’s motion to

25

dismiss (doc. # 10), which defendant Quality Loan joined (doc. # 12), be, and the same hereby is,

26

GRANTED.

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-4-

1
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation’s
motion to dismiss (doc. # 12), be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

3

The clerk is instructed to close the case.

4

DATED April 22, 2015.

5
6
7

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
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

-5-