Ging v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al

Filing 6

ORDERED that the request for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that P shall show cause by 7/20/2011 why the case should not be dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/5/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
AARON GING,

11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12

This is a standard foreclosure case involving one property. The Complaint, filed in state

7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. et al.,
10
Defendants.

3:11-cv-00435-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

13

court, is a MERS-conspiracy-type complaint listing nine causes of action: (1) Debt Collection

14

Violations under Chapter 649; (2) Deceptive Trade Practices under Chapter 598; (3) Unfair

15

Lending Practices under Chapter 598D; (4) Violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair

16

Dealing; (5) Violations of section 107.080; (6) Quiet Title; (7) Fraud; (8) Slander of Title; and

17

(9) Abuse of Process. The case is not part of Case No. 2:09-md-02119-JAT in the District of

18

Arizona but appears eligible for transfer. In the Complaint, Plaintiff requests a temporary

19

restraining order and a preliminary injunction. For the reasons given herein, the Court denies

20

injunctive relief and orders Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed.

21

I.

22

THE PROPERTY
Plaintiff Aaron Ging gave lender Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”) a

23

$150,000 promissory note against property at 2 Castle Way, Carson City, NV 89706 (the

24

“Property”). (See Deed of Trust (“DOT”) 1–4, May 26, 2006, ECF No. 1-4). Recontrust Co.,

25

N.A. was the original trustee on the DOT. (See id. 2). Mortgage Electronic Registration

1

Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is listed as the “nominee” and “beneficiary.” (See id.). Recontrust filed

2

a notice of default (“NOD”) based on a default of unspecified amount as of June 1, 2010. (See

3

NOD, Sept. 3, 2010, available at http://www.ccapps.org/cgi-bin/diw200). The foreclosure was

4

therefore statutorily proper, and Plaintiff does not appear to deny default. See Nev. Rev. Stat.

5

§ 107.080(2)(c). Recontrust noticed a trustee’s sale for Dec. 29, 2010, (see First Notice of

6

Trustee’s Sale (“NOS”), Dec. 9, 2010, available at http://www.ccapps.org/cgi-bin/diw200), and

7

again for April 20, 2011, (see Second NOS, Mar. 30, 2011, available at

8

http://www.ccapps.org/cgi-bin/diw200). The mortgage is no longer eligible for the state

9

Foreclosure Mediation Program (“FMP”). (See FMP Certificate, Nov. 9, 2010, available at

10

http://www.ccapps.org/cgi-bin/diw200).

11

II.

12

ANALYSIS
The foreclosure was statutorily proper, as the original trustee filed the NOD and NOS.

13

The affirmative claims fail under the respective statutes of limitations, as the case was filed

14

almost five years after the sale, as well as for reasons given in substantively identical cases.

15
16
17
18

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause within fourteen (14) days

19

why the case should not be dismissed.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

DATED: this 225th day of July, 2011.
Dated This nd day of June, 2011.
__________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

23
24
25

Page 2 of 2