United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley's report and
recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 190).
Pro se defendant Clarence Moses Willis
(“Willis” or “defendant”) filed an
objection (ECF No. 195), to which plaintiff Federal National
Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae” or
“plaintiff”) responded (ECF No. 201).
case arises from allegations of fraud, conspiracy to defraud,
slander of title, unjust enrichment, fraudulent conveyance,
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1723(a), trespass, and quiet
title to real property against defendants Willis, Ernest C.
Aldridge, Geri L. McKinnon, and Creative Solutions 4 U, LLC.
owns the following eight (8) real properties: 230 Flint
Street, Fernley, Nevada 89408 (APN No. 020-323-06) (the
“Flint property”); 330 Garden Lane, Fernley
Nevada 89408 (APN No. 020-729-15) (the “Garden
property”); 5373 Homeria Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
89113 (APN No. 163-28-720-01) (the “Homeria
property”); 7240 Mountain Moss Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada
89147 (APN No. 163-15-710-093) (the “Mountain Moss
property”); 7116 Cornflower Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada
89128 (APN No. 138-27-515-029) (the “Cornflower
property”); 2523 Palma Vista Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada
89121 (APN No. 162-12-310-045) (the “Palma Vista
property”); 4912 Canadian Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada
89130 (APN No. 125-36-814-012) (the “Canadian
property”); and 5654 Thunder Spirit Street, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89148 (APN No. 163-30-816-006) (the “Thunder
Spirit property”) (collectively, as the “subject
properties”). (ECF No. 41 at 5-14).
alleges that over the course of several months, defendants
have engaged in a conspiracy to defraud plaintiff of its
interest in these eight (8) Nevada properties. Plaintiff
further asserts that defendants, without any legal right or
authorization by plaintiff, prepared, executed, and recorded
deeds purporting to transfer title from plaintiff to
appears that defendants executed all eight (8) schemes using
substantially similar patterns. Fannie Mae acquired its
ownership interest in a subject property pursuant to a
trustee's deed upon sale recorded in the official records
for the appropriate county. Then, defendant Aldridge would
record and subsequently re-record a quitclaim deed. For each
property, plaintiff would purportedly deed the property to
defendant Aldridge for the amount of $10.00. Defendant Willis
would then sign the quitclaim deed as purported authorized
agent for Fannie Mae. The quitclaim deeds would list
plaintiff's mailing address as 4912 Canadian Drive, Las
Vegas, Nevada 89130.
asserts that defendant Willis is not, nor has ever been, an
employee of Fannie Mae and is not an agent or authorized
representative of plaintiff in any capacity. Moreover, 4912
Canadian Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 is not
plaintiff's mailing address. Plaintiff further claims
that it never authorized defendant Aldridge to prepare,
execute, or record any quitclaim deed, nor did plaintiff
authorize defendant Willis to prepare, execute, or record any
quitclaim deed on its behalf.
(4) of the properties, as detailed fully in plaintiff's
motions for TRO and preliminary injunction, have had a grant,
bargain, sale deed recorded in the records of Clark or Lyons
County. (ECF No. 17). “Pastor Ernest C. Aldridge and
his successor, a corporate sole, ” has purportedly
deeded each of these properties to one of defendants
McKinnon, CS4U, or Willis for $10.00.
January 13, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's ex
parte motion for a TRO. (ECF No. 19). On January 26,
2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 32).
February 3, 2016, defendant Aldridge filed a 12(b) motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 34). On February 25, 2016, plaintiff filed
an amended complaint, which contained no changes to parties.
(ECF No. 41). The amended complaint alleges nineteen (19)
causes of action against the various defendants. (ECF No.
21, 2016, plaintiff served written discovery requests
including interrogatories, requests for production, and
requests for admission on Willis. On August 22, 2016, Willis
filed a motion for protective order (ECF No. 86) in regard to
plaintiff's written discovery. On September 14, 2016, the
court denied Willis's motion and instructed him to
respond to plaintiff's written discovery requests by
September 27, 2016. Willis, however, did not respond to
plaintiff's written discovery. After Willis informed
plaintiff that he was not available to attend his deposition
scheduled for September 16, 2016, plaintiff rescheduled and
re-noticed his deposition to December 21, 2016. On multiple
occasions, plaintiff communicated with Willis in regard to
his deposition in an attempt to coordinate. Willis did not
attend the deposition despite having received notice.
requests that the court impose sanctions against Willis,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, for failing
to provide discovery and for failing to comply with the
court's orders. Willis argues that he was not required to
“offer information” to plaintiff because
plaintiff did not comply with Rule 26. (ECF No. 168 at 2).
September 21, 2016, the court denied the following motions:
ECF Nos. 47, 66, 74, 78, 80, 81, 83, and 90). (ECF No. 114).
On October 25, 2016, the court denied the following motions:
ECF Nos. 119, 120, and 121. (ECF No. 131). On March 16, 2017,
Willis filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 181), which the court denied on March
20, 2017 (ECF No. 185).
R&R, Magistrate Judge Foley recommends that
plaintiff's motion for sanctions against Willis (ECF No.
160) be granted, that Willis's answer (ECF No. 39) be
stricken, and that ...