Buckles v. Green Tree Servicing LLC et al

Filing 40

ORDER that 14 Defendant Ditech's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that the following questions of law are CERTIFIED to the Nevada Supreme Court pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. FURTHER ORDE RED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Nevada Supreme Court under the official seal of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. See NEV. R. APP. P. 5(d). Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/25/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 3 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

1
2

SANFORD BUCKLES, on behalf
of himself and others similarly
situated,

3
4
5

Case No.: 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-(CWH)
CERTIFICATION ORDER TO
THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT

Plaintiff,

6
v.

7
8

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC
and WALTER INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION,

9
10
11

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Before the Court is Defendant Ditech Financial LLC’s (formerly known as
Green Tree Servicing LLC) (“Ditech”) motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in this putative class action (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff Sanford Buckles (“Plaintiff”)
filed a response (ECF No. 20), and Ditech filed a reply (ECF No. 24). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court has decided that the motion to dismiss raises a
statutory “question of law of this state which may be determinative of the cause” as
to which it appears to the Court that “there is no controlling precedent” in the
decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court. See NEV. R. APP. P. 5(a). The Court
therefore certifies questions of Nevada statutory law to the Nevada Supreme Court.
I.

NATURE OF THE CASE
Plaintiff has filed a putative class action against mortgage servicer Ditech,

claiming it violated Nevada Revised Statutes 200.620 by recording telephone
conversations involving him and other class members without each class member’s
consent. ECF No. 13 (amended complaint). Plaintiff has defined the class to

Page 1 of 10

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 4 of 13

1

include “All persons in Nevada whose inbound and outbound telephone

2

conversations were monitored, recorded, and/or eavesdropped upon without their

3

consent by [Ditech] within three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint

4

in this action.” Id. ¶ 39.
Ditech moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (1) that Nevada Revised

5
6

Statutes 200.620 does not govern telephone calls recorded by persons outside

7

Nevada on equipment located outside of Nevada, and (2) that the United States

8

Constitution precludes extraterritorial application of Nevada Revised Statutes

9

200.620 to telephone recordings made outside of Nevada. This Court has

10

determined that Ditech’s motion turns on a dispositive question of Nevada’s

11

statutory law best decided by the Nevada Supreme Court, since “there is no

12

controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of this state.” See

13

NEV. R. APP. P. 5(a).

14

II.

STATUTES AT ISSUE

15

Nevada Revised Statutes 200.620(1) provides, in relevant part:

16

Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive,

17

209.419 and 704.195, it is unlawful for any person to intercept or

18

attempt to intercept any wire communication unless:

19

(a) The interception or attempted interception is made with the

20

prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and

21

(b) An emergency situation exists and it is impractical to obtain

22

a court order as required by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive,

23

before the interception, in which event the interception is

24

subject to the requirements of subsection 3. If the application

25

for ratification is denied, any use or disclosure of the

26

information so intercepted is unlawful, and the person who

Page 2 of 10

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 5 of 13

1

made the interception shall notify the sender and the receiver of

2

the communication that:

3

(1) The communication was intercepted; and

4

(2) Upon application to the court, ratification of the

5

interception was denied.

6

The Nevada Revised Statutes include the following definitions:

7

1. “Person” includes public officials and law enforcement officers of

8

the State and of a county or municipality or other political subdivision

9

of the State.

10

2. “Wire communication” means the transmission of writing, signs,

11

signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds by wire, cable, or other

12

similar connection between the points of origin and reception of such

13

transmission, including all facilities and services incidental to such

14

transmission, which facilities and services include, among other

15

things, the receipt, forwarding and delivering of communications.

16

3. “Radio communication” means the transmission of writing, signs,

17

signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by radio or other wireless

18

methods, including all facilities and services incidental to such

19

transmission, which facilities and services include, among other

20

things, the receipt, forwarding and delivering of communications. The

21

term does not include the transmission of writing, signs, signals,

22

pictures and sounds broadcast by amateurs or public or municipal

23

agencies of the State of Nevada, or by others for the use of the general

24

public.

25

Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.610.

26

Page 3 of 10

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 6 of 13

1

“Intercept” means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire,

2

electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic,

3

mechanical or other device or of any sending or receiving equipment.

4

Nev. Rev. Stat. 179.430.

5

The Nevada Revised Statutes contain the following penalties:

6

A person who willfully and knowingly violates NRS 200.620 to

7

200.650 inclusive:

8

(a) Shall be punished for a category D felony as provided in

9

NRS 193.130.

10

(b) Is liable to a person whose wire or oral communication is

11

intercepted without his or her consent for:

12

(1) Actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per

13

day of violation but not less than $1,000, whichever is

14

greater;

15

(2) Punitive damages; and

16

(3) His or her costs reasonably incurred in the action,

17

including a reasonable attorney’s fee,
all of which may be recovered by civil action.

18
19

Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.690(1).

20

III.

21

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
Ditech is a Delaware limited liability company which was headquartered in

22

Minnesota at the time the complaint was filed, and which has since moved its

23

headquarters to Florida. Ditech has customer call centers equipped to record

24

telephone calls. Those call centers are located in Arizona and Minnesota. The

25

company does not have any telephone recording equipment in Nevada. Ditech is a

26

home mortgage servicer that regularly services mortgages of Nevada properties.

Page 4 of 10

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 7 of 13

Plaintiff resides in Nevada in a home whose mortgage is serviced by Ditech.

1
2

Plaintiff alleges that from 2013 through 2014, Ditech engaged in telephone

3

conversations with Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff’s mortgage and recorded such

4

telephone conversations without Plaintiff’s consent.

5
6

IV.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

7

The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted Nevada Revised Statutes

8

200.620 to “prohibit the taping of telephone conversations with the consent of only

9

one party.” Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938, 940 (Nev. 1998). Ditech has

10

moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, arguing Nevada Revised Statutes 200.620

11

does not apply to telephone calls recorded outside of Nevada. Specifically, Ditech

12

argues that NRS 200.620 applies only to recordings that take place with recording

13

equipment in the State of Nevada.

14

Ditech relies primarily on McLellan v. State, 182 P.3d 106 (Nev. 2008). In

15

that case, the Nevada Supreme Court held that a telephone recording made in

16

California was admissible against a Nevada defendant who was party to the call

17

because the recording was not made in Nevada and thus 200.620 did not apply. Id.

18

at 109–10. Ditech also relies on authority from the Washington Supreme Court,

19

followed in McLellan, holding that the law of the State where the recording is

20

made determines whether interception of the telephone call is lawful. See State v.

21

Fowler, 139 P.3d 342, 347 (Wash. 2006) (en banc); Kadoranian v. Bellingham

22

Police Dept., 829 P.2d 1061, 1065 (Wash. 1992) (en banc).

23

Plaintiff argues that 200.620 applies to telephone calls recorded outside of

24

the State if a person in Nevada is party to the call and does not consent. Plaintiff

25

argues that McLellan is distinguishable because it turned on an evidentiary rule

26

(Nevada Revised Statutes 48.077), not 200.620. Plaintiff relies primarily on a
California Supreme Court decision, Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 137 P.3d
Page 5 of 10

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 8 of 13

1

914 (Cal. 2006). Kearney held that California’s two-party consent statute applied

2

to recordings made outside California because to hold otherwise would

3

disadvantage California residents. Id. at 917, 937.

4

V.

DISCUSSION
If Nevada revised Statutes 200.620 does not apply to recordings made

5
6

outside of Nevada by Ditech, Ditech’s motion to dismiss is due to be granted. If

7

the statute applies to telephone recordings made outside of Nevada by Ditech,

8

however, this Court must decide Ditech’s constitutional challenge to the statute

9

under the Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United

10

States Constitution. The necessity of reaching these serious constitutional

11

questions depends upon resolution of prior, potentially dispositive, questions of

12

Nevada statutory law. This Court believes there is “no controlling precedent” from

13

the Nevada Supreme Court on these precise “questions of law” and therefore has

14

decided to certify the questions to that court. See NEV. R. APP. P. 5(a).

15
16
17

VI.

PARTIES’ PROPOSED CERTIFIED QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW
The Parties have met and conferred on the issue but could not agree as to the

18

language of the question(s) of law to be certified to the Nevada Supreme Court.

19

They therefore respectively propose the following:

20
21

Plaintiff’s proposed question: Does Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 apply to

22

telephone recordings made by a party outside Nevada, who regularly records

23

telephone conversations with Nevada residents, of telephone conversations with a

24

person in Nevada without that person’s consent?

25
26

Defendant’s proposed question: Does Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 apply to
telephone recordings made by a party outside Nevada who uses equipment outside
Nevada to record telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without that
Page 6 of 10

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 9 of 13

1

person’s consent? If so, does that decision apply retroactively or prospectively

2

only?

3

Parties’ explanation for competing positions:

4

First, Plaintiff maintains that the question presented should include the fact

5

that Defendant “regularly records telephone conversations with Nevada residents,”

6

a fact that was considered in Kearney. Defendant maintains that the question

7

presented should not include this because the allegation is not relevant. Defendant

8

believes the question should include the fact that the equipment used to record is

9

also located outside Nevada. Plaintiff proposes not to include that concept.

10

Second, Defendant believes that implicit in the question to be certified is

11

whether any decision to apply the statute to recording that takes place on

12

equipment outside Nevada should apply retroactively or prospectively only.

13

Defendant submits that this issue is subsumed within the question to be certified

14

but should be made explicit, is raised by Plaintiff’s reliance on Kearney1, and is

15

now appropriate to raise since the Nevada Supreme Court is the court with the

16

power to make application of the statute prospective only. Plaintiff disagrees that

17

this is appropriate since this issue has never been raised in the Parties’ briefing

18

and, furthermore, it is outside of the scope of this Court’s Order for the Parties to

19

submit this joint brief.

20
21

Accordingly, the parties have submitted competing proposals on the
question(s) to be certified.

22
23
24
25
26

1

The California Supreme Court applied its decision in Kearney prospectively,

however, due to prior uncertainty in the law. Id. at 937–39.

Page 7 of 10

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 10 of 13

1
2

VII. CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ditech’s motion to dismiss

3

(ECF No. 14) is DENIED without prejudice, with permission to renew the

4

motion within 30 days of the resolution of the Court’s certified question to the

5

Nevada Supreme Court.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following questions of law are

7

CERTIFIED to the Nevada Supreme Court pursuant to Nevada Rule of

8

Appellate Procedure 5:

9

Plaintiff’s position: Does Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 apply to telephone

10

recordings made by a party outside Nevada, who regularly records telephone

11

conversations with Nevada residents, of telephone conversations with a person in

12

Nevada without that person’s consent?

13

Defendant’s position: Does Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 apply to telephone

14

recordings by a party outside Nevada who uses equipment outside Nevada to

15

record telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without that person’s

16

consent? If so, does that decision apply retroactively, or prospectively only?

17

See NEV. R. APP. P. 5(c)(1). The nature of the controversy and a statement of the

18

facts are discussed above. See NEV. R. APP. P. 5(c)(2)–(3). Because Defendant

19

Ditech is the movant, Ditech is designated the Appellant and Plaintiff Buckles is

20

designated the Respondent. See NEV. R. APP. P. 5(c)(4). The names and addresses

21

of counsel are as follows:

22
23
24
25
26

Counsel for Plaintiff
Michael Kind
Kazerouni Law Group, APC
7854 W. Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89117
800-400-6808
[e-mail]
Page 8 of 10

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 11 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

David H. Krieger
Haines & Krieger, LLC
8985 S. Eastern Avenue
Suite 350
Henderson, NV 89123
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant
Michael R. Brooks
Nevada Bar No. 7287
Gregg A. Hubley
Nevada Bar No. 7386
BROOKS HUBLEY LLP
1645 Village Center Circle, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Elizabeth Hamrick
Nevada Bar No. 9414
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
200 Clinton Avenue West, Suite 900
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

22
23
24

See NEV. R. APP. P. 5(c)(5). Further elaboration upon the certified question is
included in this Order.

25
26

Page 9 of 10

Case 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH Document 39 Filed 05/23/16 Page 12 of 13

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward a

2

copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Nevada Supreme Court under the official

3

seal of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. See NEV. R.

4

APP. P. 5(d).

5

25
DATED this ___ day of May, 2016.

6
7
8
9

_____________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Page 10 of 10