Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 51

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 49 Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's Motion for Default Judgement Against Mashelle Clark is Granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 3 , 23 the notices of lis pendens filed in this case are expunged. IT IS FURT HER ORDERED that 16 the $500 cash deposit, plus any accrued interest be returned to the Legal Owner designated in the certificate. IT IS FURTHER DECLARED that Mashelle Clark and any of her successors and assigns have no right, title or interest in the property and that SFR is the rightful title owner of the property. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 5/4/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF -cc: Finance - JQC)

Case 2:16-cv-02756-RFB-VCF Document 51 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A.,

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02756-RFB-NJK
ORDER

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10
11

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC et al,
Defendants/Third Party Plaintiff.

12
13
14

I.

15
16

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) Motion for Default

Judgment against Cross-Defendant Mashelle Clark (“Clark”). ECF No. 49. The Court grants the motion.

17
18

II.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff Wilmington Trust, N.A. filed its complaint on December 2, 2016. ECF No. 1. The

20

complaint sought declaratory relief that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted under Chapter 116 of the

21

Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) did not extinguish its deed of trust on a Las Vegas property. Id. SFR

22
23

answered the complaint on February 21, 2017, and asserted counterclaims against Plaintiff and crossclaims
against Clark. ECF No. 20. Clark was served via publication in June and July 2017. ECF Nos.33, 39. On

24

March 9, 2018, the Clerk entered default against Clark. ECF No. 41. On April 4, 2018, the Court stayed
25

Case 2:16-cv-02756-RFB-VCF Document 51 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 4

1

the litigation pending the Nevada Supreme Court’s resolution of pertinent certified questions. ECF No. 45.

2

On December 11, 2018 the Court granted a stipulation of dismissal that dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims

3

against defendants and lifted the stay. ECF No. 47. On November 27, 2019, SFR moved for default

4

judgment against Mashelle Clark. ECF No. 49.

5

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

III.
6

SFR alleges as follows in its cross-complaint and motion for default judgment: Clark obtained title
7

to property located at 5434 Stella Amore Street, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89011 in March 2006. The
8
9

property was subject to the conditions, covenants, and restrictions of the Giavanna Homeowners

10

Association (the “HOA”). On September 17, 2013, the HOA foreclosed on its lien for delinquent

11

assessments, and SFR acquired the property at the sale. The foreclosure deed was recorded on September

12

20, 2013.

13

IV.

LEGAL STANDARD

14

The granting of a default judgment is a two-step process directed by Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure (“Rule”) 55. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). The first step is an entry of

16
17

clerk's default based on a showing, by affidavit or otherwise, that the party against whom the judgment is
sought “has failed to plead or otherwise defend.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

The second step

18

is default judgment under Rule 55(b), a decision which lies within the discretion of the Court. Aldabe v.
19

Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).
20
21
22

Factors which a court, in its discretion, may consider in deciding whether to grant
a default judgment include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of the substantive

23

claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, (5) the possibility of a dispute

24

of material fact, (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the Federal Rules' strong

25

policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72.
-2-

Case 2:16-cv-02756-RFB-VCF Document 51 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 4

1

If an entry of default is made, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint

2

as true; however, conclusions of law and allegations of fact that are not well-pleaded will not be deemed

3

admitted by the defaulted party. DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 2007).

4

Additionally, the Court does not accept factual allegations relating to the amount of damages as

5
6

true. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). Default establishes a party's
liability, but not the amount of damages claimed in the pleading. Id.

7

V.

DISCUSSION

8

In considering the seven Eitel factors, the Court finds default judgment against Clark is warranted.

9
10

The first and sixth factors warrant granting default judgment because Clark has failed to appear in this

11

matter, prejudicing SFR from obtaining clarification as to ownership of the property. Likewise, the failure

12

to appear for almost three years suggests that Clark could not demonstrate excusable neglect if she were to

13

appear now.

14

The second, third, and seventh factors also counsel in favor of granting default judgment. NRS

15

Chapter 116 entitles a homeowners’ association to a superpriority lien for nine-months of unpaid

16
17

association fees. SFR Investments Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank, 334 P.3d 408, 411 (Nev. 2014). The Court finds
based upon the undisputed allegations that the foreclosure sale by the HOA extinguished Clark’s interest

18

in the property. See Bank of America v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“Diamond Spur”), 427 P.3d 113,
19

121 (Nev. 2018). As there are no longer any remaining pending claims, the Court closes the case.
20
21
22
23
24
25

VI.

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion for

Default Judgement Against Mashelle Clark (ECF No. 49) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the notices of lis pendens filed in this case (ECF Nos. 3, 23)
are expunged.
-3-

Case 2:16-cv-02756-RFB-VCF Document 51 Filed 05/04/20 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the $500 cash deposit, plus any accrued interest (ECF No. 16)
be returned to the Legal Owner designated in the certificate.
IT IS FURTHER DECLARED that Mashelle Clark and any of her successors and assigns have
no right, title or interest in the property and that SFR is the rightful title owner of the property.

5

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case.

6

DATED: May 4, 2020.

7
8
9

__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-4-