Ditech Financial LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 98

ORDER Denying 91 Motion to Substitute Party without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/8/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
DITECH FINANCIAL LLC,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00127-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 91)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to substitute parties. Docket No. 91. Defendant

17

SFR filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 93, 96. The Court finds the

18

motion properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the

19

motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

20

Whether to permit substitution of parties upon a transfer of interest is a matter entrusted to the

21

Court’s discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c). The motion acknowledges that discretionary consideration,

22

but provides in total two sentences of “legal argument.” Docket No. 91 at 4. After SFR noted several

23

factual concerns, the reply attempts to bolster the motion by contending for the first time that its

24

“Assignment of Deed of Trust” constitutes competent evidence of a transfer of interest subject to judicial

25

notice and that various “instructive” factors support substitution. Docket No. 96 at 2-5. As to the

26

former issue, Plaintiff cites provisions in the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding judicial notice, but

27

provides no legal authority of any kind interpreting those rules as allowing judicial notice of documents

28

similar to the Assignment at issue here. Docket No. 96 at 3. This shortcoming is especially problematic

1

since the thrust of SFR’s response is that the accuracy of such documentation is the subject of reasonable

2

questioning. Compare id. (noting standard for judicial notice) with Docket No. 93 at 3-5 (noting

3

potential for inaccuracy). With respect to the newly identified discretionary factors, Plaintiff provides

4

no explanation as to why such discussion was not provided in its motion. The Court declines to consider

5

arguments that were raised in reply for the first time. See, e.g., Bazuaye v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th

6

Cir. 1996).

7

Accordingly, the motion to substitute is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed

8

motion must provide meaningfully developed argument showing (1) that a transfer of interest has been

9

established through the motion and any exhibits thereto, and (2) that the Court should exercise its

10

discretion to afford the relief sought.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: November 8, 2017

13
14

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2