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)
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?