United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pending before the Court are Defendant Ocwen Loan
Servicing's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 50], and
Plaintiff Alejandrito Abad's Motion for Summary Judgment
[ECF No. 58]. For the reasons discussed below, the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 44) raises the following causes of
action: Quiet Title, Violation of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and Violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).
Plaintiff's Complaint also lists “Invasion of
Privacy” as a cause of action, but does not elaborate
on any facts as to this cause of action. The Court does not
construe this claim as a separate cause of action.
Court finds the following facts to be undisputed. Alejandrito
Abad brings this quiet title claim to establish an interest
in the property located at 6236 Narrow Isthmus Avenue, Las
Vegas, NV 89139 in his favor. On June 21, 2006, Plaintiff
executed a promissory note for $650, 000 to refinance a
mortgage loan on the property. The note was secured by a
first deed of trust for the benefit of BrooksAmerica Mortgage
Corporation. BrooksAmerica was named as “Lender”
and Mortgage Electronic Registration Services
(“MERS”) as beneficiary “solely as nominee
for Lender and Lenders' successors and assigns.”
MERS later assigned the deed of trust to BAC Home Loans
Servicing, Bank of America's predecessor in interest.
Servicing of this loan subsequently transferred to Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”).
claims he made good faith offers to pay his outstanding debt
but Ocwen did not respond to these offers. Ocwen disputes the
validity of these offers to pay. Plaintiff claims that on his
original loan application, all the written information
regarding his income was falsified before the loan documents
were given to Plaintiff to sign, and that therefore all of
the documents underlying his mortgage transaction are null
and void. (ECF No. 53, at 2-3). Plaintiff has provided an
affidavit stating that “the lender did not, in fact,
provide an actual loan to the Trustor on the date of June 21,
2006” of his original Note, and that “there was
no actual due consideration paid to the Trustor for signing
said Note, thereby, making the Note also invalid, null,
void.” (ECF No. 50, at 50). However, the Adjustable
Rate Note, signed by Plaintiff as Borrower, states that he
made a promise to pay $650, 000, in consideration for a loan
that he received. (ECF No. 50, at 59).
filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on October 8,
2015, against Ocwen Loan Servicing. Discovery ended on April
11, 2016. The last date to amend pleadings and add parties,
according to the Scheduling Order, was January 12, 2016.
Plaintiff filed his third Motion to Amend on March 25, 2016,
requesting to add Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing as a party.
Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing filed its Motion for Summary
Judgment on May 11, 2016. (ECF No. 50). Plaintiff filed a
Response on May 26, 2016. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff filed his
Motion for Summary Judgment on June 13, 2016. (ECF No. 58).
Defendant Responded on July 7, 2016, and Plaintiff Replied on
July 21, 2016. (ECF Nos. 61, 62).
judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,
the court views all facts and draws all inferences in ...