The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWABS, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-BC2 v. Washington & Sandhill Homeowners Association et al

Filing 64

ORDER.IT IS ORDERED that 60 Defendant EQ Partners Solutions LLC's Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 61 Intervenor-Defendant Catamount Properties 2018, LLC's Motion to Intervene is GRANTED . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 63 Intervenor-Defendant Catamount Properties 2018, LLC's Motion to Expunge is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to reopen the Case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/23/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 8 9 10 11 12 13 Case No. 2:17-cv-02006-RFB-GWF Plaintiff, ORDER v. WASHINGTON & SANDHILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; CSC ACQUISITION & HOLDING GROUP LLC; EQ PARTNERS SOLUTIONS, LLC; ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC, Defendants. 14 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Before the Court is Defendant EQ Partners Solutions LLC’s (“EQ Partners”) Motion to Set 18 Aside, Intervenor-Defendant Catamount Properties 2018, LLC’s (“Catamount”) Motion to 19 Intervene, and Intervenor-Defendant Catamount Properties 2018, LLC’s Motion to Expunge Lis 20 Pendens. ECF Nos. 60, 61, 63. For the following reasons, the Court grants EQ Partner’s Motion 21 to Set Aside and Catamount’s Motion to Intervene, but denies Catamount’s Motion to Expunge 22 the Lis Pendens. 23 II. 24 Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon (“Plaintiff”) began this action by filing a complaint on 25 July 24, 2017. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff sought declaratory relief that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale 26 conducted under Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) did not extinguish its 27 interest on a Las Vegas property. Id. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including Defendant EQ 28 Partners Solutions LLC, who Plaintiff alleged had acquired the property via a quitclaim deed from PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 Defendant CSC Acquisition & Holding Group, LLC, recorded on October 2, 2013. 2 Plaintiff filed a notice of lis pendens on July 24, 2017. ECF No. 4. On October 12, 2017, 3 Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon moved for service by publication and extra time for service of 4 process. ECF No. 14. The Court granted the motion on October 13, 2017. ECF No. 18. On February 5 9, 2018, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Defendant EQ Partners Solutions, LLC. ECF 6 No. 48. On July 10, 2018, the Court stayed the case pending the Nevada Supreme Court’s 7 resolution of a certified question of law relevant to the case. ECF No. 57. The Court also granted 8 Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant EQ Partners Solutions, LLC on that 9 same date, and a separate motion for default judgment against Defendant CSC Collections, LLC. 10 Id. On July 25, 2018 the Court granted a stipulation of dismissal as to Defendants Washington & 11 Sandhill Homeowners Association and Absolute Collection Services, which dismissed the 12 remaining defendants in the case. ECF No. 59. The case was terminated on that date. Id. Defendant 13 EQ Partners Solutions, LLC filed the instant motion to set aside the default judgment on April 17, 14 2019. ECF No. 60. No opposition was filed. Catamount filed its motion to intervene and then its 15 motion to expunge the lis pendens on November 8, 2019 and November 12, 2019, respectively. 16 ECF Nos. 61, 63. No opposition to either motion was filed. 17 III. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to relieve a party 19 from final judgment when the judgment is void.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). A judgment entered 20 without personal jurisdiction over the parties is void. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). 21 Motions brought under Rule 60(b)(4) can be brought at any time. Meadows v. Dominican 22 Republic, 817 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1987). If a party can demonstrate that service was defective, 23 then the default judgment can be vacated without demonstrating a meritorious defense. Zurich Am. 24 Ins. Co. v. Sealink Ins. Serv. Corp., 752 F.App’x 406 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Thos. P. Gonzalez 25 Corp. v. Consejo Nacional de Produccion de Costa Rica, 614 F.2d 1247, 1256 (9th Cir. 1980). 26 IV. DISCUSSION 27 a. Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 28 Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows parties to follow the applicable -2- 1 state law when serving a summons on an individual. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (e)(1). Rule 4 of the Nevada 2 Rules of Civil Procedure allows for service via publication. N. R. C. P. 4.4 1. To comply with 3 service via publication requirements, Plaintiff, through its process server, posted a copy of the 4 summons and complaint in a conspicuous area at EQ Partner’s last known address for its registered 5 agent and mailed a copy of the same to that address on October 25, 2017. Plaintiff also published 6 notice of the summons and complaint in the Nevada Legal News on October 25, 2017, November 7 1, 2017, November 8, 2017, November 15, 2017, and November 22, 2017. ECF Nos. 37, 38. 8 In its motion to set aside, Defendant EQ Partners argues that service against it was never 9 proper, because on October 25, 2017, the same date on which Plaintiff mailed and posted a copy 10 of the summons and complaint to EQ Partners, EQ Partners had changed its registered agent and 11 filed a form informing the Nevada Secretary of State of the change. Subsequently, EQ Partners did 12 not have notice of the lawsuit. Defendant EQ Partners claims that it did not learn of the default 13 judgment entered against it until February 2019, when notice of the default was recorded against 14 the property at issue in this case. 15 The Court grants Defendant EQ’s motion. There may be some doubt as to whether 16 Plaintiff’s service was improper, given that Plaintiff submitted proper proof of service by 17 publication in Nevada Legal News, and Plaintiff did mail and post a copy of the summons and 18 complaint to Defendant EQ Partner’s last known address at the time. However, in light of the 19 strong preference of resolving cases on the merits, the fact that Defendant EQ Partners alleges no 20 actual notice of the lawsuit until after default judgment had already been entered, and Plaintiff’s 21 failure to oppose the motion, the Court will set aside the default judgment. See S.E.C. v. Internet 22 Solutions for Business Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007)(plaintiff bears burden of proving 23 proper service unless defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit prior to entry of default judgment). 24 b. Motions to Intervene and Expunge Lis Pendens 25 Intervenor-Defendant Catamount moves to intervene and for the Court to expunge the lis 26 pendens on the ground that it purchased the property at issue in this case on June 26, 2019 at a 27 28 1 In 2017, when service was attempted, the rules for service by publication were located at NRCP 4(e)(1)(i). -3- 1 foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to a senior deed of trust held on the property. 2 Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[o]n timely motion, the 3 court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an interest relating to the property of 4 transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a 5 practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties 6 adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. When determining whether a motion is 7 timely, the Court must consider (1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to 8 intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay.” United 9 States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2004). 10 The Court finds that the motion is timely filed. Catamount only gained an interest in the 11 property at issue in this case in June 2019. The motion to intervene was filed in November 2019. 12 There is no prejudice to other parties given that the case had already been closed and all defendants 13 dismissed from the case, and the only relief Catamount seeks is to expunge the lis pendens. Further, 14 the Court finds that Catamount has an interest in the property as the current title owner, its ability 15 to protect this interest would be impeded in this action, and there is no party currently present in 16 the lawsuit to adequately represent its interests. The Court therefore grants Catamount’s motion 17 to intervene. 18 However, the Court will deny the motion to expunge the lis pendens. Nevada state law 19 allows for a lis pendens to be filed when there is an action that affects the title or possession of real 20 property. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.015. Now that the judgement against Defendant EQ Partners has 21 been set aside, EQ Partners may still assert that it has an interest in the property as the title owner 22 pursuant to the nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted under NRS Chapter 116, which could 23 conflict with Catamount’s assertion that it is the title owner of the property pursuant to a 24 nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted under the senior deed of trust. Because these are now live 25 issues, the Court will not expunge the lis pendens. 26 V. 27 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant EQ Partners Solutions LLC’s Motion to Set Aside the 28 CONCLUSION Default Judgment (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED. -4- 1 2 3 4 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intervenor-Defendant Catamount Properties 2018, LLC’s Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intervenor-Defendant Catamount Properties 2018, LLC’s Motion to Expunge (ECF No. 63) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to reopen the Case. 6 7 DATED: March 23, 2020 ____________________________ RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5-

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?