Regas v. Fremont Investments & Loan et al

Filing 44

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' 6 motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' 12 motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 12/15/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

Regas v. Fremont Investments & Loan et al

Doc. 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TROY P. REGAS, Plaintiff, v. FREEMONT INVESTMENTS & LOAN; et al., Defendants.

3:10-cv-0366-LRH-VPC ORDER

Before the court is defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing ("BAC") and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s ("MERS") motion to dismiss. Doc. #6.1 Also before the court is defendants Quality Loan Service Corporation ("QLS"), LSI Title Company, and LSI Title Agency, Inc.'s (collectively "LSI") motion to dismiss. Doc. #12. On February 1, 2007, Regas purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of trust originated by defendant Fremont Investment & Loan. Regas defaulted on the mortgage and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. On May 5, 2010, Regas filed a complaint against defendants. Doc. #1, Exhibit 1. In response, moving defendants filed the present motions to dismiss. Doc. ##6, 12. Thereafter, Regas filed a motion to file an amended complaint (Doc. #22) which was granted by the court (Doc. #26).

Refers to the court's docket entry number.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

An amended complaint was subsequently filed on August 16, 2010. Doc. #27. The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, moving defendants' motions to dismiss the original complaint are now moot. The court shall deny the motions without prejudice because moving defendants have not yet had the opportunity to respond to the new allegations and claims in the amended complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. #6) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. #12) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 15th day of December, 2010.

__________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2