Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al
Filing
12
ORDER denying ECF No. 9 Motion for Demand for Security for Costs. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 06/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
*****
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
9
Plaintiff,
v.
10
11
12
13
3:17-cv-00332-LRH-WGC
ORDER
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC;
THE FOOTHILLS AT WINGFIELD
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION;
FULLER JENKINS CLARKSON, P.C.,
Defendants.
14
Before the court is SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion for security for costs
15
16
pursuant to NRS 118.130(1). ECF No. 9.
17
This case involves a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) non-judicial foreclosure of real
18
property in Sparks, Nevada. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank is the beneficiary of the
19
subject property’s deed of trust, which the foreclosure purportedly extinguished under
20
NRS 116.3116 et seq. Id. Wells Fargo filed suit in this court against the HOA and SFR, the
21
property’s purchaser, claiming that the Nevada statute is unconstitutional on its face and as
22
applied.1 Id. Wells Fargo has also brought state-law claims, asserting that the foreclosure sale
23
violated NRS 116.3116 and resulted in unjust enrichment. Id. at 12–13. Ultimately, Wells Fargo
24
is seeking quiet title and declaratory relief establishing that its deed of trust was not extinguished
25
and that the foreclosure sale and transfer of title are void. Id. at 14.
26
27
28
Specifically, Wells Fargo claims that NRS 116.3116 violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings
Clause and Due Process Clause, as well as the Supremacy Clause. ECF No. 1 at 7–9; see also
ECF No. 4.
1
1
SFR now moves for security for costs pursuant to NRS 18.130(1). The statute states in
2
pertinent part that, “[w]hen a plaintiff in an action resides out of the State, or is a foreign
3
corporation, security for costs and charges which may be awarded against such plaintiff [not to
4
exceed $500] may be required by the defendant, by the filing and service on plaintiff of a written
5
demand therefor within the time limited for answering the complaint.” Nev. Rev. Stat.
6
§ 18.130(1). While such security is not required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]t
7
has been the policy of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to enforce the
8
requirements of NRS § 18.130 in diversity actions.” Hamar v. Hyatt Corp., 98 F.R.D. 305 (D.
9
Nev. 1983).
10
However, “[w]hen suit is brought under a federal statute, state provisions requiring
11
security for costs or expenses clearly are inapplicable.” 10 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
12
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2671 (3d ed.). Instead, the court may apply its own
13
rules or state practice to require security for costs as a discretionary matter, taking into account
14
the policy of the underlying federal statute, the defendant’s ability to recover costs from an out-
15
of-state plaintiff if the defendant prevails, the plaintiff’s solvency, and any other pertinent
16
factors. Id.
17
Here, Wells Fargo filed suit in this court pursuant to both federal-question and diversity
18
jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 1. However, it is evident from its complaint that its claims are
19
primarily constitutional in nature. The court finds that it would be contrary to public policy to
20
automatically require security for costs under NRS 18.130 in cases involving alleged violations
21
of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, SFR has made no attempt to present grounds for requiring
22
security for costs on the facts of this case. The court will therefore deny its motion.
23
24
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s motion for security
for costs pursuant to NRS 118.130(1) (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
DATED this 29th day of June, 2017.
27
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?