United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Premier One Holdings,
Inc.'s (“Premier”) motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 42). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”)
filed a response. (ECF No. 44). Premier has not replied, and
the period to do so has since passed.
case involves a dispute over real property located at 3817
Bella Legato Avenue, North Las Vegas, Nevada, 89081 (the
March 6, 2014, Nevada Association Services, Inc.
(“NAS”) filed a complaint in interpleader against
BANA and various defendants in Nevada state court (case no.
A-14-697287-C). (ECF No. 42-1). On July 28, 2014, BANA filed
a counterclaim against Premier. (ECF No. 42-2). On October
23, 2014, Premier filed a counter-counterclaim against BANA,
NAS, Absolute Collection Services, LLC (“ACS”),
and Red Rock Financial Services, LLC (“Red
Rock”). (ECF No. 42-3). In that counter-counterclaim,
Premier sought, inter alia, to quiet title as to
several properties, including the subject property in the
instant matter (3817 Bella Legato Avenue). (ECF No. 42-3 at
5). On October 25, 2016, NAS, Premier, BANA, Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, and Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc. stipulated to stay the state court action pending full
resolution of the issues by the Ninth Circuit and the Nevada
Supreme Court. (ECF No. 42-4). The state court entered an
order granting the stay the next day. (ECF No. 42-4).
February 18, 2016, BANA filed the instant complaint against
Giavanna Homeowners Association (the “HOA”),
Premier, and ACS, alleging four claims for relief: (1) quiet
title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2) breach
of NRS 116.1113 against ACS and the HOA; (3) wrongful
foreclosure against ACS and the HOA; and (4) injunctive
relief against Premier. (ECF No. 1).
instant motion, Premier moves to dismiss BANA's complaint
because a state court action involving the same factual and
legal issues related to the subject property has existed
since March 2014. (ECF No. 42).
Legal Standard & Discussion
“‘the pendency of an action in the state court is
no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the
Federal court having jurisdiction.'” Chapman v.
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1043
(9th Cir. 2011), certified question answered sub nom.
Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 302 P.3d
1103 (Nev. 2013) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292 (2005)).
“However, ‘[c]omity or abstention doctrines may,
in various circumstances, permit or require the federal court
to stay or dismiss the federal action in favor of the
state-court litigation.'” Id. (quoting
Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 292).
Chapman, the Ninth Circuit found that the United States
Supreme Court's prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine
“is a mandatory jurisdictional limitation” and
held, in relevant part, as follows:
Accordingly, where parallel state and federal proceedings
seek to “‘determine interests in specific
property as against the whole world'” (in
rem), or where “‘the parties' interests
in the property . . . serve as the basis of the
jurisdiction'” for the parallel proceedings
(quasi in rem), then “the doctrine of prior
exclusive jurisdiction fully applies.” [State
Eng'r v. S. Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone
Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir. 2003)] (alterations
omitted) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1245
Id. at 1043-44; see also United States v. One
1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir.
1989); accord Penn Gen. Casualty Co. v.
Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 189, 195 (1935); In re
Simon, 153 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 1998); Metro.
Fin. Corp. of Cal. v. Wood, 175 F.2d 209, 210 (9th Cir.
Ninth Circuit has made clear that, “[t]he purpose of
the rule is the maintenance of comity between courts; such
harmony is especially compromised by state and federal
judicial systems attempting to assert concurrent control over
the res upon which jurisdiction of each depends.”
United States v. One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d
1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Penn Gen. Cas. Co. v.
Pennsylvania ex rel. Schnader, 294 U.S. 189, 195
property at issue in BANA's quiet title and wrongful
foreclosure claims is also the subject of Premier One's
counter-counterclaim filed in Nevada state court. Under
Nevada law, quiet title and wrongful foreclosure are
considered in rem or quasi in rem;
therefore, the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine applies.
Chapman, 302 P.3d at 1107. Any damages recovered
with respect to BANA's wrongful foreclosure claim are
“incidental to the central relief requested in the
complaint: possession of, and title to, the property.”
Chapman, 651 F.3d at 1046.
court first assuming jurisdiction over the property may
maintain and exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of
the other.” Penn Gen. Cas. Co., 294 U.S. at
195. Jurisdiction attaches upon the ...