Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ditech Financial LLC v. Buckles

Supreme Court of Nevada

September 14, 2017

DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, F/K/A GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Appellant,
v.
SANFORD BUCKLES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondent.

         Certified question pursuant to NRAP 5 concerning the application of NRS 200.620. United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge.

          Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP and Daniel F. Polsenberg and Joel D. Henriod, Las Vegas; Brooks Hubley LLP and Michael R. Brooks and Gregg A. Hubley, Las Vegas; Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, and Elizabeth A. Hamrick, Michael R. Pennington, and Scott Burnett Smith, Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellant.

          Haines & Krieger, LLC, and David H. Krieger, Las Vegas; Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Abbas Kazerounian and Michael Kind, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

          Peterson Baker, PLLC, and Tamara Beatty Peterson, Las Vegas, for Amicus Curiae.

         BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

          OPINION

          GIBBONS, J.

         NRS 200.620 prohibits a person from recording a telephone call unless both parties participating in the call consent to the recording. In response to a certified question submitted by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, we consider whether NRS 200.620 applies to telephone recordings made by a party outside Nevada who uses equipment outside Nevada to record telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without that person's consent. We answer the certified question in the negative, thereby holding that NRS 200.620 does not apply to the recording of interstate calls when the act of recording takes place outside Nevada.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This original proceeding arises out of a class action suit brought by respondent Sanford Buckles against appellant Ditech Financial LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Ditech, a Delaware limited liability company, is a home-mortgage servicer that was headquartered in Minnesota at the time Buckles initiated the underlying litigation. Although Ditech is now headquartered in Florida, it has customer call centers equipped to record telephone calls in Arizona and Minnesota. Buckles is a Nevada resident whose home mortgage is serviced by Ditech. In his complaint, Buckles alleges Ditech violated NRS 200.620 by unlawfully recording certain telephone conversations without Buckles's consent.[1]

         Ditech moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing NRS 200.620 does not apply to telephone calls recorded by persons and on equipment located outside of Nevada, and if NRS 200.620 does apply, the extraterritorial application of NRS 200.620 would violate the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause and Dormant Commerce Clause. The federal court concluded:

If [NRS] 200.620 does not apply to recordings made outside of Nevada by Ditech, Ditech's motion to dismiss is due to be granted. If the statute applies to telephone recordings made outside of Nevada by Ditech, however, this Court must decide Ditech's constitutional challenge to the statute under the Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, The necessity of reaching these serious constitutional questions depends upon resolution of prior, potentially dispositive, questions of Nevada statutory law.

         The federal court therefore decided to certify a question under NRAP 5 concerning the applicability of NRS 200.620. Because the parties ultimately were unable to agree upon the appropriate language of the question to be certified, the federal court certified two questions to this court:

Plaintiffs position: Does [NRS] 200.620 apply to telephone recordings made by a party outside Nevada, who regularly records telephone conversations with Nevada residents, of telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without that person's consent?
Defendant's position: Does [NRS] 200.620 apply to telephone recordings by a party outside Nevada who uses equipment outside Nevada to record telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without that person's consent? If so, does that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.