United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendants Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's (“the
Bank”) Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment”)
(ECF No. 38); (2) Plaintiff Glenn Galvin's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41); (3) Defendants' Motion to
Strike Untimely Motion For Summary Judgment (“Motion to
Strike”) (ECF No. 43); (4) Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike Portions of the Defendants' Summary Judgment
and/or the Entire Document (ECF No. 45); (5) Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 61); (6)
Defendants' Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental
Briefing on Their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion
to Supplement”) (ECF No. 63); and (7) Plaintiff's
Motion for Stay in the State Court Proceedings (ECF No. 65).
The Court has review the responses and replies relating to
these motions. For the reasons discussed below,
Defendants' Motion to Supplement and Motion for Summary
Judgment are granted, and the remaining motions are denied.
following facts are taken from the Complaint and the
documents attached to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff is the owner of real property located at
7866 Morgan Point Circle in Reno, Nevada (“the
Property”). (ECF No. 9 at 2.) In December 2005, he
obtained a loan (“Loan”) from MILA, Inc.
(“MILA”) secured by a Deed of Trust
(“DOT”) on the Property. (ECF No. 9 at 5; ECF No.
38-1.) The DOT identifies MERS as the nominee for MILA. (ECF
Loan was allegedly sold and transferred several times since
origination between 2005 to 2012. (ECF No. 9 at 2, 5.) In
particular, on April 22, 2010, an assignment of the DOT was
recorded by MERS as nominee for MILA in favor of Aurora Loan
Services, LLC (“Aurora”). (ECF No. 38-3.) This
assignment (“Assignment) was recorded on May 4, 2010.
(Id.) On October 11, 2012, Aurora assigned the DOT
to Nationstar Mortgage (“Nationstar”). (ECF No.
alleges the Assignment is fraudulent. (ECF No. 9 at 5.)
According to Plaintiff, Theodore Schultz signed the affidavit
on the Assignment as “VP Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems” when he was an employee of Aurora
and therefore lacked authority to execute the Assignment.
(Id. at 6, 8.) Based primarily on his allegations
that the Assignment is fraudulent, Plaintiff asserts four
state law claims for statutory concealment of a material
fact, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting
another's breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive
fraud. (Id. at 9-19.)
Related State Court Case
asserts that “[t]his case arises from the
‘Judicial Foreclosure' in the state court
cv12-02785.” (ECF No. 9 at 3.) The state court case
involved Nationstar's judicial foreclosure action against
Plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada
(“Foreclosure Case”) filed in November
2012. On December 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Answer and Counterclaims. (Federal Case, ECF No.
9-1.) He challenged the assignments of the DOT to Nationstar
as fraudulent, among other claims. (ECF No. 63-2 at 4.)
February 21, 2017, the state court granted summary judgment
in favor of Nationstar. (ECF No. 63-2.) In doing so, the
court found that the assignments of the DOT gave National the
right to foreclose on the Property. (Id. at 9.) In
addressing Plaintiff's claim that the assignments are
fraudulent, the court found that Plaintiff lacked standing to
challenge the assignments and fraud in connection with the
assignments is not a valid defense to a judicial foreclosure
Plaintiff's motions raise threshold issues that the Court
will address first. Plaintiff moved to strike Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment, asking that the Court strike
documents or Defendants' entire Motion because some of
the documents purportedly placed MERS' existence into
question and Defendants' Motion was based on documents
“signed by the tortfeaser in this case, Nationstar
Mortgage.” (ECF No. 45 at 2.) Plaintiff's motion is
without merits. Even accepting Plaintiff's claim that the
documents purportedly placed in question the assignments of
the DOT to Nationstar, such contention is not sufficient to
deprive Defendants of the ability to seek summary judgment.
Plaintiff's motion to strike (ECF No. 45) is denied.
asked the Court to stay the Foreclosure Case. (ECF No. 65.)
Plaintiff's motion is rendered moot by the entry of
summary judgment in the Foreclosure Case. Moreover, the Court
agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has presented no legal
grounds for this Court to enjoin a state court action
initiated several years before this case was filed. ...