Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

Filing 34

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff wishes to refile its motion to amend the complaint with a corrected proposed complaint, it must do so within seven (7) days of the date of this order. Defendant shall have seven (7) days from the date that motion is filed to submit its response. There will be no reply; denying 28 Motion. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-1702 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before this court is plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s motion to amend its

14

complaint to add parties (ECF Nos. 24, 25), and defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s

15

(“SFR”) motion to certify a question of law (ECF No. 28). To the former motion, defendant filed

16

a response that included its non-opposition; however, defendant contests the facts as stated in

17

plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 26). To the latter motion, plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 29),

18

and defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 30).

19

I.

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states: “[A] party may amend its pleading only

21

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave

22

when justice so requires.” Moreover, “[a] district court determines the propriety of a motion to

23

amend by ascertaining the presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the

24

opposing party, and/or futility.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999).

25

Indeed, “this determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the

26

motion.” Id. “Where there is a lack of prejudice to the opposing party and the amended complaint

27

is obviously not frivolous, or made as a dilatory maneuver in bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion

28

to deny [a motion to amend].” Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190–91 (9th Cir. 1973).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Motion to amend complaint

1

Although defendant does not oppose plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint, this

2

court cannot allow the amended complaint to be filed in its current form. See (ECF Nos. 25, 26).

3

Plaintiff’s motion indicates that it wishes to add Suncrest Homeowners Association and Nevada

4

Association Services, Inc. as parties to this action, but the submitted proposed amended complaint

5
6

neither names those entities as parties with sufficient clarity nor properly alleges this court’s
jurisdiction over them. (ECF Nos. 24, 25).
Therefore, the court must deny the motion because the proposed amended pleading is

7

inadequate. See LR 8-1 (“The first allegation of any complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-

8

party complaint, or petition for affirmative relief must state the statutory or other basis of claimed

9

federal jurisdiction and the facts to support it.”); LR 15-1 (“The proposed amended pleading must

10

be complete in and of itself . . . .”); see also United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–575 (1958)

11

(describing how the local rules have the force of law); (ECF No. 25) (lacking any explicit mention

12

of Suncrest Homeowners Association).

13
14
15
16

II.

Motion to certify a question of law

Next, defendant requests that this court certify to the Nevada Supreme Court the question:
“Whether NRS § 116.31168(1)’s incorporation of NRS § 107.090 requires homeowners’
associations to provide notices of default to banks even when a bank does not request notice?”
(ECF No. 28 at 1).

17

Plaintiff responds that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells

18

Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), is dispositive of the issue and controls this action.

19

(ECF No. 29). This court agrees; the Ninth Circuit held—in a published opinion—as follows:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Bourne Valley argues that Nevada Revised Statute section 116.31168(1), which
incorporated section 107.090, mandated actual notice to mortgage lenders whose
rights are subordinate to a homeowners’ association super priority lien . . . .
According to Bourne Valley, this incorporation of section 107.090 means that
foreclosing homeowners’ associations were required to provide notice to mortgage
lenders even absent a request.
....
If section 116.31168(1)’s incorporation of section 107.090 were to have required
homeowners’ associations to provide notice of default to mortgage lenders even
absent a request, section 116.31163 and section 116.31165 would have been
meaningless. We reject Bourne Valley’s argument.
Bourne Valley Court Trust, 832 F.3d at 1159.

-2-

1

Accordingly, the court will deny SFR’s motion to certify this question to the Nevada

2

Supreme Court. See Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 1033, 1041 (9th Cir.

3

2014) (reasoning that the applicability of “controlling precedent” permitted the denial of a request

4

to certify a question to the Oregon Supreme Court).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

III.

Conclusion

In sum, plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is denied for insufficiency of the
proposed amended complaint. Next, defendant’s motion to certify a question of law is denied
because its offered question has already been answered in a controlling disposition by the Ninth
Circuit.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to
amend the complaint (ECF No. 24) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff wishes to refile its motion to amend the

13

complaint with a corrected proposed complaint, it must do so within seven (7) days of the date of

14
15
16
17
18
19

this order. Defendant shall have seven (7) days from the date that motion is filed to submit its
response. There will be no reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to certify a question of law (ECF
No. 28) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED February 21, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-