Mesi et al v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL F.A. et al

Filing 84

ORDER DENYING Defendant California Reconveyance Company's 80 Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 03/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
FRED MESI and ERIC MESI,

7
8

3:09-CV-582 JCM (VPC)

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

WASHINGTON MUTUAL F.A., et al.,

11
Defendants.

12
13

ORDER

14

Presently before the court is defendant California Reconveyance Company’s motion to

15

expunge lis pendens. (Doc. # 80). Pro se plaintiffs Eric Mesi and Fred Mesi responded (doc. # 81),

16

and California Reconveyance Company filed a reply (doc. # 82). Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply without

17

leave of the court. (Doc. # 83).

18

I.

Procedural History

19

This case was transferred to multi-district litigation (“MDL”) panel at an early stage. (Doc.

20

# 40). On April 28, 2010, the MDL panel issued an order of remand. (Doc. # 43). The MDL panel

21

retained claims 4-12 and part of claims 1, 2, and 13. (Id.). The MDL remanded claim 3 and part of

22

claims 1, 2, and 13 back to this court. (Id.).

23

Following the remand, all the following defendants filed a motion to dismiss the remanded

24

claims: Western Exchange Services Corp; Western Title Company, Inc.; Geneva Martrinjus;

25

Meshelle Baggerman; Danita F. Fallen; and, Bank of America Corporation, N.A. (See docs. ## 47,

26

48, and 54). This court granted the motions to dismiss as to the remanded claims. (See docs. ## 66

27

& 69).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1
2

This court also dismissed with prejudice, via a stipulation, defendants Mortgage Electronic
Registration System, Inc., and Merscorp, Inc. (Doc. # 68).

3

On October 3, 2011, the MDL panel remanded a second wave of claims back to this court.

4

(Doc. # 70). The MDL panel retained claims 1, 4, 7-10, 14, and part of claim 2. (Id.) The MDL

5

panel remanded to this court claims 3, 5, 6 and part of claim 2. (Id.). Upon remand of the second

6

wave of claims, none of the remaining defendants have sought to dismiss any of the remanded

7

claims.

8

This court dismissed without prejudice, via a stipulation, defendant California Reconveyance

9

Company. (Doc. # 76). Dismissed defendant California Reconveyance Company filed the instant

10

motion to expunge lis pendens. (Doc. # 80).

11

II.

Discussion

12

In its motion, California Reconveyance Company moves the court to expunge the lis pendens

13

on the subject property because “this litigation has concluded.” (Doc. # 80). That is not accurate.

14

Not all parties and claims in this case have been dismissed. Specifically, in the MDL panel’s second

15

remand order it remanded back 5, 6, and whatever may be left of claims 2 and 3. Defendants

16

Western Exchange Services Corp., Western Title Company, Inc., and Bank of American Corporation

17

N.A. remain parties to this litigation. Since plaintiff still has some causes of action against some

18

parties, the court cannot expunge the lis pendens. See Oniszk-Horovitz v. Saxon Mortg., no. 2:11-cv-

19

00243, 2011 WL 6002959, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2011) (expunging lis pendens “because [the

20

entire action] was dismissed” by the court”).

21

Accordingly,

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that defendant California

23

Reconveyance Company’s motion to expunge lis pendens (doc. # 80) be, and the same hereby is,

24

DENIED.

25

DATED March 25, 2013.

26
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-