Lee et al v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc., a California corporation et al

Filing 79

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the stay in case no. 3:09-cv-0590-LRH-RAM entered on 3/6/2010, is hereby LIFTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants have twenty (20) days after the issuance of this order to answer or otherwise respond to the remanded claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/19/2011.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/28/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

RICHARD F. LEE and AUNETTA M.
ROACH,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.
SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE
COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants.

14

3:09-cv-00590-LRH-RAM
ORDER

15
16
17

Before the court is District Judge for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg’s
(“Teilborg”) order of remand filed on March 21, 2011. Doc. #68.1

18

In 2009, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“panel”) consolidated

19

numerous cases in which plaintiffs allege that MERS engaged in improper business practices when

20

processing home loans. The panel assigned Judge Teilborg to oversee these cases, and he will

21

preside over all issues (discovery, dispositive motions, settlement) except for trials. In re:

22

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) Litigation, MDL No. 2119.

23
24

In various transfer orders the Panel consolidated several cases, one of which is the current
matter Lee v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Co., 3:09-cv-0590-LRH-RAM. However, as part of the

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

transfer order, the Panel transferred only those claims that “relate to the formation and/or operation

2

of MERS.” The Panel held that all other claims “unrelated to the formation and/or operation of the

3

MERS system are separately and simultaneously remanded” to the district court in which they were

4

first brought. Thereafter, on March 6, 2010, the court stayed the proceedings pending Judge

5

Teilborg’s order parsing the claims and remanding the unrelated defendants and claims back to this

6

court. Doc. #47.

7

On April 23, 2010, Judge Teilborg issued an initial remand order. Doc. #50. Pursuant to that

8

order Judge Teilborg remanded: (1) claim 1 for unfair lending practices; (2) the part of claim 14 for

9

fraud in the inducement that relates to allegations that defendants “failed to disclose the material

10

terms of the loans and incidental services to Plaintiff at the execution of the closing papers,”

11

“concealed the true terms of the loans, and the risks of the transactions, including but not limited to,

12

negative amortization, prepayment penalty provisions, the risk of default and the risk of foreclosure

13

from Plaintiff,” and “misrepresented the ability of Plaintiff to qualify for the loans;” (3) claim 3 for

14

injunctive relief as it relates to the remanded claims; and (4) claim 4 for declaratory relief as it

15

relates to the remanded claims. Id.

16

However, after the initial order on remand, Judge Teilborg granted plaintiffs leave to file an

17

amended complaint. See Doc. #1055, case no. 2:09-md-2119-JAT. On August 16, 2010, plaintiffs

18

filed a first amended complaint in the multi-district litigation against defendants alleging eleven

19

causes of action: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) debt collection violations; (4)

20

violation of Nevada’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, NRS 598.0923; (5) violation of

21

Nevada’s Unfair Lending Practices Act, NRS 598D.100; (6) breach of the covenants of good faith

22

and fair dealing; (7) violation of NRS 107.080; (8) quiet title; (9) fraud in the omission; (10) fraud

23

in the inducement; and (11) unjust enrichment.2 Doc. #1073, case no. 2:09-md-2119-JAT.

24
25
26

2

Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim was improperly identified as the fourteenth (14) cause of
action in the first amended complaint.
2

1

Subsequently, on March 21, 2011, Judge Teilborg issued an amended remand order relating

2

to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. Doc. #68. Pursuant to that order Judge Teilborg remanded:

3

(1) claim 3 for debt collection violations; (2) claim 4 for violation of Nevada’s Unfair Lending

4

Practices Act, NRS 598D.100; (3) claim 5 for violation of Nevada’s Unfair Lending Practices Act,

5

NRS 598D.100; (4) claim 6 for breach of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing; (5) claim 7

6

for violation of NRS 107.080; (6) claim 11 for unjust enrichment; (7) claim 1 for injunctive relief

7

as it relates to the remanded claims; and (8) claim 2 for declaratory relief as it relates to the

8

remanded claims. Id.

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stay in case no. 3:09-cv-0590-LRH-RAM entered
on March 6, 2010, is hereby LIFTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants have twenty (20) days after the issuance of
this order to answer or otherwise respond to the remanded claims.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED this 28th day of June, 2011.

16
17
18

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3