Bank of America, N.A. v. Sonrisa Homeowners Association et al

Filing 83

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 43 defendant/counterplaintiff SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's motion to reconsider be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 42 SFR's motion to strike be, an d the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 31 BANA's motion for demand for security costs be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 40 SFR's motion to reconsider be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 50 SFR's reply be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN from the record. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/9/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 8 Plaintiff(s), 9 10 11 ORDER v. SONRISA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendant(s). 12 13 14 Case No. 2:16-CV-848 JCM (GWF) Presently before the court is defendant/counterplaintiff SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion to reconsider. (ECF No. 43).1 15 Also before the court is SFR’s motion to strike. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff/counterdefendant 16 Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) filed a response (ECF No. 51), to which SFR replied (ECF No. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 54). On July 5, 2016, BANA filed a motion for demand for security of costs pursuant to NRS 18.130, alleging that SFR is a nonresident of Nevada. (ECF No. 31). On July 8, 2016, the court entered an order granting BANA’s motion for demand for security costs. (ECF No. 36). In the instant motions, SFR moves for reconsideration of the July 8th order (ECF No. 36) and for BANA’s motion (ECF No. 31) to be stricken from the record. (ECF No. 43). SFR argues that NRS 18.130 does not apply because it is not a resident of Nevada, nor is it a foreign corporation. (ECF No. 43). 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge SFR’s motion (ECF No. 40) is a duplicate filing of SFR’s motion to reconsider (ECF No. 43) and will be stricken. Similarly, SFR’s reply (ECF No. 50) will also be stricken because it filed a reply where there was no response. See, e.g., Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that district courts have inherent power to control their own dockets); see also LR IC 7-1 (“The court may strike documents that do not comply with these rules.”). 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that “the court may relieve a party or its 1 2 legal representative from a[n] . . . order . . . for the following reasons: 3 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 4 5 6 7 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 9 In the instant motions, SFR argues that NRS 18.130 does not apply because it is a resident 10 of Nevada and not a foreign corporation. (ECF No. 43 at 2). 11 In response, BANA contends that the citizenship of a limited liability company depends on 12 the citizenship of all of its members. (ECF No. 51). BANA asserts that SFR’s members are John 13 Gibson, who is domiciled in South Africa, and Xiemen Investments Ltd., which is a Canada 14 corporation. (ECF No. 51 at 5). BANA thus maintains that SFR is a resident of Canada and South 15 Africa, not Nevada. (ECF No. 51 at 5). 16 The court disagrees. Residency under NRS 18.130 differs from citizenship under a 17 diversity analysis. BANA sets forth no authority in support of its contention to the contrary, nor 18 dose it dispute that SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company. 19 20 21 The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “federal district courts have inherent power to require plaintiffs to post security for costs.” Simulnet E. Assocs. v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1994). A federal district court typically follows the forum state’s practice 22 regarding security of costs, particularly when a party is a non-resident. See, e.g., 10 Charles Alan 23 Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2671 (3d ed. 1998). Section 18.130 24 of the Nevada Revised Statutes provides that the court may require an out-of-state plaintiff to post 25 a security for costs in an amount up to $500.00 upon request by a defendant. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 26 18.130. 27 In light of the foregoing, the court will grant SFR’s motion to reconsider (ECF No. 43), as 28 well as its motion to strike (ECF No. 42). James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2- 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendant/counterplaintiff 3 SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s motion to reconsider (ECF No. 43) be, and the same hereby is, 4 GRANTED. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SFR’s motion to strike (ECF No. 42) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BANA’s motion for demand for security costs (ECF No. 31) be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SFR’s motion to reconsider (ECF No. 40) be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SFR’s reply (ECF No. 50) be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN from the record. DATED December 9, 2016. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -3-

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?