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)

Download PDF
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

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?