Soto et al v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the 37 Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/19/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
LEO L. SOTO et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
vs.
9
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:11-cv-00693-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

The Court granted motions to dismiss in this residential foreclosure case because the

13

foreclosure was statutorily proper based upon the public records adduced. Plaintiffs have asked

14

the Court to reconsider. The motion consists of a copy of Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 255 P.3d

15

1281 (Nev. 2011) without attendant argumentation. In Pasillas, the Court held that when a

16

mortgagee fails to send a representative to the state Foreclosure Mediation Program (“FMP”)

17

mediation with authority to modify the loan, or when that representative fails to bring certain

18

documents to the mediation, a district court abuses its discretion in ordering the issuance of an

19

FMP certificate and failing to award sanctions under Nevada Revised Statutes 107.086(5). See

20

id. at 1285–87.

21

Defendants in the present case had obtained an FMP certificate permitting non-judicial

22

foreclosure to proceed. (FMP Certificate, June 8, 2011, ECF No. 3-1, at 32). A party aggrieved

23

by the FMP process may obtain de novo review in the state district court. See Pasillas, 255 P.3d

24

at 1284–85 & n.8 (citing Nevada F.M. Rule 21(5)). The rule vests jurisdiction for direct review

25

of mediation proceedings exclusively in the state courts. See F.M. Rule 21(1) (2011) (“A party to

1

the mediation may file a petition for judicial review with the district court in the county where

2

the notice of default was properly recorded. A hearing shall be held, to the extent that the court

3

deems necessary, for the limited purposes of determining bad faith, enforcing agreements made

4

between the parties within the Program, including temporary agreements, and determining

5

appropriate sanctions pursuant to NRS Chapter 107 as amended.”). Insofar as Plaintiff implicitly

6

means to ask the Court to amend the Complaint to plead a claim for direct review of the

7

propriety of the FMP proceedings, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

8
9
10
11
12
13

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 37) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of December, 2011.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2 of 2