United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 21). Pro se
plaintiff Philippe Laurent has not filed a response.
filed a complaint against defendant on June 3, 2014, alleging
five claims for relief regarding defendant's foreclosure
of real property, at 9508 Bluff Ledge Ave., Las Vegas,
Nevada, that allegedly belonged to plaintiff: (1) violation
of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"); (2) violation of Nevada Revised Statute
116.3116(2); (3) negligence; (4) declaratory judgment to
quiet title; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional
distress. (ECF No. 1).
now argues in its uncontested motion for summary judgment
that neither plaintiff nor it still have an interest in the
real property at issue. (ECF No. 21). Specifically, defendant
asserts that "[o]n June 1, 2015, plaintiff recorded a
deed transferring his interest in the property to Proper
Investments" and that defendant similarly "assigned
its interest in the [p]roperty to [Carrington Mortgage
Services, LLC] in September 2014." (Id. at
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that "there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose
of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims . . . ." Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should
be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the
non-moving party must "set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id.
determining summary judgment, the court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. "When the party moving for
summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it
must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at
trial." C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden
Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000).
Moreover, "[i]n such a case, the moving party has the
initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue
of fact on each issue material to its case."
contrast, when the non-moving party bears the burden of
proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its
burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an
essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2)
by demonstrating that the non-moving party failed to make a
showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that
party's case on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at
323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden,
summary judgment must be denied and the court need not
consider the non-moving party's evidence. See Adickes
v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159- 60 (1970).
moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the
opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact
conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the
claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge
to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth
at trial." T. W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec.
Contractors Ass 'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.
defendant is the moving party, and plaintiff has not filed
any opposition to the present motion. See (ECF No.
21). A failure to oppose a motion for summary judgment is not
dispositive. See LR 7-2(d). But "[i]f a party
fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to
properly address another party's assertion of fact,
" then a district court may exercise its authority to
"grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting
materials-including the facts considered undisputed-show that
the movant is entitled to it." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e);
see also Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 917
(9th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff's second, third, fourth, and fifth claims of
has filed a copy of the quitclaim deed wherein plaintiff
transferred his interest in the real estate to Prosper
Investments, LLC. (ECF No. 21 at 41-43). Defendant has
asserted no evidence contesting the inference that he
currently has no possible interest in the real property that
serves as a foundation of this case. See Celotex
Corp., 477 U.S. ...