Pereos v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing 120

ORDER denying ECF Nos. 106 / 117 Defendant's Motions in Limine and 113 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike ECF No. 111 is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/20/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

C. NICHOLAS PEREOS aka COSTA N.
PEREOS,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

10
11

Case No. 3:13-cv-00386-MMD-VPC
ORDER

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

I.

SUMMARY

15

This Order addresses four pending motions. (ECF Nos. 106, 111, 113, 117.) For

16

the reasons discussed herein, Defendants’ two motions in limine (ECF Nos. 106, 117)

17

and counter motion for leave to file reply (ECF No. 113) are denied. Plaintiff’s motion to

18

strike (ECF No. 111) is denied as moot.

19

II.

BACKGROUND

20

The factual background is recited in the Court’s February 18, 2015, Order

21

(“Dismissal Order”), granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss and granting Plaintiff leave

22

to amend. (ECF No. 72.) In the Dismissal Order, the Court declined to address

23

Defendant’s “cursory total preemption argument without the benefit of more in-depth

24

briefing.” (ECF No 72 at 4-5.) The Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege compliance

25

with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) to assert a private right of action under

26

that section and granted leave to amend to the extent Plaintiff can allege facts showing

27

that he complied § 1681s-2(b). (Id. at 5-7.) (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a Third

28

Amended Complaint to which Defendant filed an answer. (ECF Nos. 75, 76.)

1

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or

3

evidence in a particular area. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th

4

Cir.2009). It is a preliminary motion that is entirely within the discretion of the Court. See

5

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984). In limine rulings are provisional. Such

6

“rulings are not binding on the trial judge [who] may always change his mind during the

7

course of a trial.” Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n. 3 (2000); accord Luce,

8

469 U.S. at 41 (noting that in limine rulings are always subject to change, especially if

9

the evidence unfolds in an unanticipated manner).

10

IV.

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE SPECULATIVE DAMAGES – ECF NO. 106

11

Defendant’s motion was not timely when filed and failed to comply with the

12

personal consultation requirement. Trial was initially set for October 25, 2016. (ECF No.

13

103.) The April 7, 2016, Order Regarding Trial provides that motions in limine must be

14

fully briefed and submitted for decision no later than thirty (30) days before trial. (ECF No

15

104 at 1.) That Order also directs counsel to meet and confer on the issues raised before

16

filing the motion “and must include a statement certifying compliance with this personal

17

consultation requirement.” (Id.) These requirements — the filing deadline and personal

18

consultation requirements — are similar to the amendments to the Local Rules as

19

incorporated in LR 16-3, which became effective on May 1, 2016. Defendant’s motion

20

was filed on September 23, 2016, which would not be fully briefed thirty (30) days before

21

October 25, 2016, trial date. Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff about the motion,

22

but counsel did not engage in any discussion, let alone personal consultation, about the

23

issues raised in the motion.

24

Setting aside these deficiencies, the Court disagrees with Defendant and will deny

25

the motion. Defendant offers Plaintiff’s deposition testimony where he explained what he

26

did in connection with his attempt to refinance the apartment complex in Reno and why

27

he did not make application to refinance the Las Vegas condominium to argue that

28

Plaintiff’s claim of damages as a result of the “failure to refinance” these two properties
2

1

are speculative. (ECF No. 106.) However, Plaintiff’s testimony, assuming he will testify

2

consistent with his deposition testimony, offers sufficient evidence for the jury to decide

3

whether Plaintiff can establish his damages. The jury may infer from Plaintiff’s testimony

4

that given the information he received from Wells Fargo and from Heritage Bank, it

5

would have been an exercise in futility for Plaintiff to submit a formal application to

6

refinance the apartment complex and submit application to refinance the condominium.

7

Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 106) is denied.

8

Defendant filed a reply without leave of court in violation of LR 16-3(a), and tried

9

to cure by filing a countermotion to file its reply after Plaintiff moved to strike. (ECF No.

10

113.) However, the Court finds a reply is not helpful and denies Defendant’s

11

countermotion for leave to file a reply (ECF No. 113).1 Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF

12

No. 111) is denied as moot.

13
14

V.

MOTION IN LMIINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATING TO CREDIT
REPORTING — ECF NO. 117

15

Defendant seeks to exclude its credit reporting activities on two grounds: (1) there

16

is no evidence that a credit reporting agency notified Defendant of a claim as required

17

under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) for Plaintiff to bring a private action under the Fair Credit

18

Reporting Act; and (2) Plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted. (ECF No. 117.) The

19

Court agrees with Plaintiff that both grounds raise legal issues that should have been

20

asserted in a dispositive motion and are inappropriate to present on a motion in limine.

21

Moreover, in the Dismissal Order, the Court specifically declined to address preemption

22

because of Defendant’s “cursory” argument. (ECF No 72 at 4-5.) Defendant’s motion in

23

limine relating to credit reporting activities (ECF No. 117) is therefore denied.

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1Defendant

argues that a reply is warranted because Plaintiff’s opposition brief
fails to adequately address the premise of its motion. (ECF No. 113.) The Court can read
the parties’ briefs and discern the parties’ respective arguments without the need for a
reply and additional briefings on a motion to file reply and a motion to strike.
3

1

VI.

CONCLUSION

2

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several

3

cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and

4

determines they did not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the

5

pending motions.

6

It is ordered that Defendant’s two motions in limine (ECF Nos. 106, 117) are

7

denied. Defendant’s countermotion to file a reply (ECF No. 113) is denied. Plaintiff’s

8

motion to strike (ECF No. 111) is denied as moot.

9

DATED THIS 20th day of December 2016.

10
11
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4