United States District Court, D. Nevada
before this court is plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC's
motion to amend its complaint to add parties (ECF Nos. 24,
25), and defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's
(“SFR”) motion to certify a question of law (ECF
No. 28). To the former motion, defendant filed a response
that included its non-opposition; however, defendant contests
the facts as stated in plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 26).
To the latter motion, plaintiff filed a response (ECF No.
29), and defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 30).
Motion to amend complaint
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states: “[A] party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave. The court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.” Moreover,
“[a] district court determines the propriety of a
motion to amend by ascertaining the presence of any of four
factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing
party, and/or futility.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp.,
Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). Indeed,
“this determination should be performed with all
inferences in favor of granting the motion.”
Id. “Where there is a lack of prejudice to the
opposing party and the amended complaint is obviously not
frivolous, or made as a dilatory maneuver in bad faith, it is
an abuse of discretion to deny [a motion to amend].”
Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190-91 (9th
defendant does not oppose plaintiff's motion to file an
amended complaint, this court cannot allow the amended
complaint to be filed in its current form. See (ECF
Nos. 25, 26). Plaintiff's motion indicates that it wishes
to add Suncrest Homeowners Association and Nevada Association
Services, Inc. as parties to this action, but the submitted
proposed amended complaint neither names those entities as
parties with sufficient clarity nor properly alleges this
court's jurisdiction over them. (ECF Nos. 24, 25).
the court must deny the motion because the proposed amended
pleading is inadequate. See LR 8-1 (“The first
allegation of any complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim,
third-party complaint, or petition for affirmative relief
must state the statutory or other basis of claimed federal
jurisdiction and the facts to support it.”); LR 15-1
(“The proposed amended pleading must be complete in and
of itself . . . .”); see also United States v.
Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574-575 (1958) (describing how the
local rules have the force of law); (ECF No. 25) (lacking any
explicit mention of Suncrest Homeowners Association).
Motion to certify a question of law
defendant requests that this court certify to the Nevada
Supreme Court the question: “Whether NRS §
116.31168(1)'s incorporation of NRS § 107.090
requires homeowners' associations to provide notices of
default to banks even when a bank does not request
notice?” (ECF No. 28 at 1).
responds that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bourne
Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832
F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), is dispositive of the issue and
controls this action. (ECF No. 29). This court agrees; the
Ninth Circuit held-in a published opinion-as follows:
Bourne Valley argues that Nevada Revised Statute section
116.31168(1), which incorporated section 107.090, mandated
actual notice to mortgage lenders whose rights are
subordinate to a homeowners' association super priority
lien . . . . According to Bourne Valley, this incorporation
of section 107.090 means that foreclosing homeowners'
associations were required to provide notice to mortgage
lenders even absent a request. . . . .
If section 116.31168(1)'s incorporation of section
107.090 were to have required homeowners' associations to
provide notice of default to mortgage lenders even absent a
request, section 116.31163 and section 116.31165 would have
been meaningless. We reject Bourne Valley's argument.
Bourne Valley Court Trust, 832 F.3d at 1159.
the court will deny SFR's motion to certify this question
to the Nevada Supreme Court. See Slayman v. FedEx Ground
Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 1033, 1041 (9th Cir. 2014)
(reasoning that the applicability of “controlling
precedent” permitted the denial of a request to certify
a question to the Oregon Supreme Court).
plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint is denied for
insufficiency of the proposed amended complaint. Next,
defendant's motion to certify a question of law is denied
because its offered question has ...