JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 55

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 49 Chase's Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 4/18/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2

***

3

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
4

Case No. 2:16-cv-02005-JCM-VCF

Plaintiff,
5

vs.

ORDER

6

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al.,

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY PLAINTIFF (ECF
NO. 49)

7

Defendant.

8
9

Before the Court are JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“Chase’s”) Motion to Substitute Party

10

Plaintiff (ECF No. 49), SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR’s”) Response (ECF No. 52), and Chase’s

11
12

Reply (ECF No. 53). The Court has reviewed the briefs and applicable rules. For the reasons stated
below, Chase’s Motion is granted.

13

I. Discussion
14
15
16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) allows the substitution of parties if an “interest” is
transferred, but relies on other substantive law to define “interest.” A district court has ample discretionary

17

power to “substitute parties plaintiff.” U. S. for Use of Acme Granite & Tile Co. v. F. D. Rich Co., 437

18

F.2d 549, 552 (9th Cir. 1970), opinion adhered to on denial of reh’g, 441 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1971).

19

This quiet-title action arises out of a non-judicial foreclosure sale of real property. Chase’s Motion

20

seeks to substitute MetLife Home Loans, LLC, Successor by Merger to MetLife Home Loans, a Division

21

of MetLife Bank, NA (“MetLife”) in its place because it assigned its interest in the Deed of Trust to

22
23

MetLife and no longer has an interest in the property at issue. (ECF No. 49 at 3). SFR objects on the
grounds that Chase failed to “establish by competent evidence that the DOT was validly conveyed to it in

24
25

1

order for it to validly convey the DOT to [MetLife]” and substitution would unduly prejudice SFR. (ECF
1
2

No. 52 at 2).

3

The Deed of Trust was originally recorded on March 31, 2009. (ECF No. 49-1). The Lender

4

under that Deed of Trust was MetLife Home Loans, a Division of MetLife Bank, N.A. (Id.) The

5

Beneficiary was Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), “solely as nominee for

6

Lender … and Lender’s successors and assigns.” (ECF No. 49-1). That Deed of Trust, Chase argues,

7

was later assigned to it. (ECF Nos. 49-2; 42 at 4, ¶ 19 (“Chase holds the Note and Deed of Trust”)). After

8

Chase commenced this action, however, it asserts that it assigned its interest in the Deed of Trust to

9
10

MetLife. (ECF No. 49-3).
Chase has shown that it has a cognizable interest within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c) and

11

that it has transferred that interest to MetLife. SFR relies on Edelstein v. Bank of New York Mellon to
12

argue that Chase must prove standing to enforce the Note and Deed of Trust. In Edelstein, the Supreme
13
14
15

Court of Nevada stated that “[s]eparation of the note and security deed creates a question of what entity
would have authority to foreclose, but does not render either instrument void.” Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y.

16

Mellon, 286 P.3d 249, 260 (Nev. 2012). After being split, “[t]he documents, and their respective interests,

17

survive even if held by different parties.” In re Montierth, 354 P.3d 648, 650 (Nev. 2015). “[S]uch

18

separation is not irreparable or fatal to either the promissory note or the deed of trust, but it does prevent

19

enforcement of the deed of trust through foreclosure unless the two documents are ultimately held by the

20

same party.” Edelstein 286 P.3d at 260. Neither Chase, nor MetLife is seeking to foreclose; this is a

21
22
23

quiet-title action to determine the rights and interests of the parties in the property at issue. NRS 40.010.
“To prove that a previous beneficiary properly assigned its beneficial interest in the deed of trust,
the new beneficiary can demonstrate the assignment by means of a signed writing.” Edelstein 286 P.3d

24

at 260. Attached to its Motion, Chase has provided the Deed of Trust and the assignment from the previous
25

2

beneficiary, MetLife Home Loans, a Division of MetLife Bank, N.A., to Chase, and the assignment from
1
2
3

Chase to MetLife. In any event, the Court takes judicial notice of the recorded documents for this
property.1

4

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Chase’s Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff (ECF No. 49) is

6

GRANTED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

18th
DATED this ____ day of April, 2017.

9
10

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

To be sure, the need to conduct additional discovery and to re-notice MetLife’s deposition will require additional work on
SFR’s part. But the Court finds that SFR will not be unduly prejudiced.
1

25

3