Newlands Asset Holding Trust v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al
ORDER denying ECF No. 12 Motion for Security of Costs. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
NEWLANDS ASSET HOLDING TRUST,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00370-LRH-WGC
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC;
Before the court is defendant SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion for
security of costs pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) § 18.130(1). ECF No. 12.
This case involves a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) non-judicial foreclosure of
real property. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Newlands Asset Holding Trust (“Newlands”) is the
purported beneficiary of the subject real property’s deed of trust, which the foreclosure
purportedly extinguished under NRS 116.3116 et seq. Newlands filed suit against both SFR
and the HOA governing the subject property, defendant Stonefield Homeowners Association,
claiming that the Nevada statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the underlying
non-judicial foreclosure and subsequent sale of the property to SFR.
SFR now moves this court for an order securing costs pursuant to NRS § 18.130(1).
That statute states in pertinent part that, “[w]hen a plaintiff in an action resides out of the State,
or is a foreign corporation, security for costs and charges which may be awarded against such
plaintiff [not to exceed $500] may be required by the defendant, by the filing and service on
plaintiff of a written demand therefor within the time limited for answering the complaint.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.130(1). While such security is not required under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, “[i]t has been the policy of the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada to enforce the requirements of NRS § 18.130 in diversity actions.” Hamar v. Hyatt
Corp., 98 F.R.D. 305 (D. Nev. 1983). However, “[w]hen suit is brought under a federal statute,
state provisions requiring security for costs or expenses clearly are inapplicable.” 10 Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2671 (3d ed.). Instead, the
court may apply its own rules or state practice to require security for costs as a discretionary
matter, taking into account the policy of the underlying federal statute, the defendant’s ability
to recover costs from an out-of-state plaintiff if the defendant prevails, the plaintiff’s solvency,
and any other pertinent factors. Id.
Here, Newlands filed suit in this court pursuant to both federal-question and diversity
jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. However, it is evident from its complaint that its claims are primarily
constitutional in nature. The court finds that it would be contrary to public policy to
automatically require security for costs under NRS § 18.130 in cases involving alleged
violations of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, SFR has made no attempt to present grounds for
requiring security for costs on the facts of this case. Therefore, the court shall deny SFR’s
motion for security of costs.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for security of costs
(ECF No. 12) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of September, 2017.
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?