Tang et al v. Bank Of America et al

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS ORDERED that the 12 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and any lis pendens on the Property is EXPUNGED. FURTH ORD that the 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 11 Motion for Judgment on the pleadings are DENIED . FURTH ORD that the oral argument scheduled for July 5, 2011 is VACATED. FURTH ORD that the Clerk shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/20/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
VINCENT TANG et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
vs.
9
BANK OF AMERICA et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:11-cv-00182-RCJ-RAM
ORDER

This is a standard foreclosure case involving one property. The Property is in Fernley,

13

Nevada but Plaintiffs reside in California according to their own filings. The Property is

14

therefore either a second home or rental or investment property. The Complaint lists twenty-six

15

causes of action (mostly alleging federal failure-to-disclose violations). Plaintiffs have moved

16

for a preliminary injunction and for judgment on the pleadings, and Defendants have moved to

17

dismiss.

18

Plaintiffs made a $206,471 promissory note and deed of trust (“DOT”) to lender

19

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. to purchase real estate at 662 Canary Cir., Fernley, NV 89408.

20

(See DOT 1–4, Mar. 15, 2006, ECF No. 12-3). The trustee was Recontrust Co., N.A. (See id. at

21

2). Recontrust filed a notice of default (“NOD”) in December 2009 based on a default since

22

September 1, 2009. (See NOD 1–2, Dec. 9, 2009, ECF No. 12-10). The state foreclosure

23

mediation program certified the property for foreclosure because no request for mediation was

24

made or mediation was waived. (See Certificate, June 8, 2010, ECF No. 12-11). Recontrust

25

noticed a trustee’s sale for March 18, 2011. (See Notice of Trustee’s Sale 1–2, Feb. 25, 2011,

1
2

ECF No. 12-12). The foreclosure was statutorily valid. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(2)(c).
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this Court on March 10, 2011, listing twenty-six claims:

3

(1)-(12), (16)–(18), (21)–(22) Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) Violations; (13)–(15), (19)–(20),

4

(23)–(24) Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) Violations; (25) Quiet Title; and

5

(26) Injunctive Relief. The statutes of limitations on TILA and RESPA claims ran no later than

6

March 2009. See Weingartner v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 702 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1286–87 (D.

7

Nev. 2010) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1635(f), 1640(e); 12 U.S.C. § 2614). Next, the quiet title claim

8

fails because the foreclosure was proper under section 107.080(2)(c). Finally, the prayer for

9

injunctive relief fails because there is no substantive claim remaining to support it.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED and
any lis pendens on the Property is EXPUNGED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 9) and
Motion for Judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 11) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument scheduled for July 5, 2011 is
VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall close the case and enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2011.

21
22
23

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

24
25
Page 2 of 2