Ditech Financial LLC v. Clearwater Cove Homeowners Association et al
Filing
13
ORDER Granting 8 Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants are enjoined from taking any further action to record a deed transferring title to Saticoy Bay, or to cease Plaintiff's efforts to redeem the Subject Property, until a hearing is held on the request for preliminary injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall become effective upon the payment of $500.00 security by the Plaintiff.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a ruling on the Emergency Motion f or Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10) is DEFFERED until the matter is heard before the Court.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants file Responses to Plaintiffs Motions by Tuesday, February 20, 2018.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Defendants. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/13/2018. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - BEL)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
10
DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware
corporation,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
14
15
Case No. 2:18-cv-00250-RFB-PAL
CLEARWATER COVE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, a Nevada non-profit
corporation; SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES
8891 SANIBEL SHORE AVENUE, a Nevada
corporation; RED ROCK FINANCIAL
SERVICES, a Nevada corporation,
16
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF No. 8) and
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10)
Defendants.
17
18
Before the Court is Plaintiff Ditech Financial LLC (“Plaintiff”)’s Amended Motion for
19
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 8), and Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for
20
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
21
Motion for TRO and defers ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
22
23
I.
BACKGROUND
24
Plaintiff filed its Complaint on February 9, 2018, asserting claims for declaratory relief,
25
quiet title, equitable tolling, and in the alternative, statutory breach against Defendants. (ECF No.
26
1). The same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for TRO. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff subsequently filed an
27
Amended Motion for TRO on February 12, 2018 (ECF No. 8). In the Motion for TRO, Plaintiff
28
requests that the Court prohibit Defendants, severally and jointly, from ceasing and/or thwarting
1
redemption efforts under Nevada Revised Statute § 116.31166 and recording a deed in favor of
2
Saticoy Bay LLC 8891 Sanibel Shore Avenue (“Saticoy Bay”) against the real property commonly
3
known as 8891 Sanibel Shore Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89147 bearing the APN 163-17-719-059
4
(“the Subject Property”). Plaintiff requests that, once a preliminary injunction hearing is held, the
5
preliminary injunction remain intact until the Court can properly determine title rights to the
6
Subject Property.
7
Plaintiff also filed an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 10). In the
8
Motion, Plaintiff argues that the injunction should issue because NRS § 116.31166(3) may be
9
tolled to avoid harsh and unfair consequences. Plaintiff additionally contends that an injunction
10
should issue because Plaintiff has a reasonable probability of success on the merits due to the
11
Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Facklam v. HSBC Bank, USA, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Sept.
12
14, 2017). As in the Motion for TRO, Plaintiff argues that it faces irreparable harm and that
13
damages are an inadequate remedy, while the risk to Defendants if the preliminary injunction is
14
granted is minimal because Defendants do not face immediate loss of property or of monetary
15
value. Plaintiff also requests a nominal bond.
16
17
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
18
A temporary restraining order may be issued without notice to the adverse party only if the
19
moving party: (1) provides a sworn statement clearly demonstrating “that immediate and
20
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard
21
in opposition,” and (2) sets forth the efforts made to notify the opposing party and why notice
22
should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). TROs issued without notice “are no doubt
23
necessary in certain circumstances, but under federal law they should be restricted to serving their
24
underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is
25
necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126,
26
1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439
27
(1974)). The analysis for a temporary restraining order is “substantially identical” to that of a
28
-2-
1
preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co, Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d
2
832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).
3
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a
4
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
5
555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four elements:
6
“(1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm
7
in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that
8
the public interest favors an injunction.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758
9
F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended (Mar. 11, 2014) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. 7, 20
10
(2008)). A preliminary injunction may also issue under the “serious questions” test. Alliance for
11
the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming the continued viability
12
of this doctrine post-Winter). According to this test, a plaintiff can obtain a preliminary injunction
13
by demonstrating “that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of
14
hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” in addition to the other Winter elements. Id. at 1134-
15
35 (citation omitted).
16
17
III.
DISCUSSION
18
The Court finds that the requirements for issuing a TRO without notice are satisfied.
19
Plaintiff alleges that irreparable injury may occur before Defendants can be heard in opposition,
20
as Defendants may record a deed to transfer title of the property to Saticoy Bay as early as February
21
13, 2018. Plaintiff states that the following efforts to give notice were made: (1) Plaintiff
22
electronically noticed the Motion for TRO to all Defendants and counsel for Defendants, if known,
23
on February 9, 2018, and (2) Plaintiff served the Complaint, Summons, Amended Motion for TRO
24
and Motion for Preliminary Injunction were sent with Plaintiff’s counsel’s runners service on
25
February 12, 2018 at 12:00pm. Plaintiff argues, however, that notice should not be required
26
because the Defendants are not immediately prejudiced nor harmed by the issuances of the TRO.
27
The Court also finds that the four Winter factors are present. Plaintiff has established a
28
likelihood of success on its quiet title, equitable tolling, and statutory breach claims, as Plaintiff
-3-
1
alleges that it would be able to exercise its right of redemption if Defendant Saticoy Bay provided
2
the redemption amount specified in Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) § 116.31166(3). Plaintiff has
3
also established irreparable injury, as the 60-day period allotted under NRS § 116.31166 for
4
redemption of a property that is purportedly foreclosed upon will lapse on February 13, 2018, and
5
Plaintiff’s lien may be extinguished if title transfers to Saticoy Bay. While Plaintiff does not
6
explicitly argue the balance of equities and public interest factors, the Court finds both factors are
7
established. The most serious potential injury for Plaintiff would be the loss of its interest, while
8
requiring Saticoy Bay to not take any further action would only maintain the status quo. Further,
9
the public interest favors Plaintiff, in that the public has an interest in upholding the statutory right
10
of redemption afforded under NRS § 116.31166(3).
11
12
IV.
CONCLUSION
13
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF
14
No. 3) and the Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 8) are GRANTED.
15
Defendants are enjoined from taking any further action to record a deed transferring title to Saticoy
16
Bay, or to cease Plaintiff’s efforts to redeem the Subject Property, until a hearing is held on the
17
request for preliminary injunction.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall become effective upon the payment of
$500.00 security by the Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a ruling on the Emergency Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 10) is DEFFERED until the matter is heard before the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants file Responses to Plaintiff’s Motions by
Tuesday, February 20, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Defendants.
25
26
DATED this 13th day of February, 2018.
27
__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
-4-
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?