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.

Agha-Khan v. Pacific Community Mortgage, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 23, 2018

SALMA AGHA-KHAN, M.D., Plaintiff(s),
v.
PACIFIC COMMUNITY MORTGAGE, INC., et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendants Christopher Flaharty, Nichole Flaharty, [1] and the Flaharty Family Trust's (“the Flaharty defendants”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 172). Plaintiff Salma Agha-Khan filed a response (ECF No. 178), to which defendants replied (ECF No. 179).

         I. Facts

         The instant case centers around a dispute over real property located at 1967 Cherry Creek Circle, Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF No. 1).

         On July 30, 2004, plaintiff purchased the property for $964, 102 pursuant to a grant, bargain and sale deed. (ECF No. 172-4). Also on July 30, 2004, a deed of trust was recorded in favor of Ghanima Masarani, Mounir Mokaddam, and Joseph Saddi in an amount of $350, 000.[2] (ECF No. 172-5).

         On September 8, 2004, plaintiff obtained a loan from Pacific Mortgage Company for $615, 000. (ECF No. 172-7). This loan was secured by a deed of trust, recorded on September 8, 2004 (“the Pacific DOT”). Id.

         On October 26, 2006, plaintiff obtained an open-ended line of credit for $200, 000 from GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (ECF No. 172-8).

         On January 13, 2010, Pacific recorded a notice of breach and default and election to sell under the Pacific DOT. (ECF No. 172-9). On May 4, 2010, Pacific recorded an assignment of its deed of trust to Aurora Loan Services. (ECF No. 172-10). On May 14, 2010, a notice of trustee's sale under Pacific DOT was recorded. (ECF No. 172-11). On September 2, 2010, Steven Joe and Michael McNeill purchased the property $594, 891.05 pursuant to a trustee's deed upon sale (recorded on September 13, 2010). (ECF No. 172-12).

         On February 24, 2011, the Flaharty defendants purchased the subject property from Joe and McNeill for $722, 500. (ECF No. 172-13). In order to finance the purchase, the Flaharty defendants obtained a loan secured by a deed of trust in favor of Wells Fargo. Id.

         On May 19, 2016, five years and nine months after the foreclosure sale, plaintiff filed the instant complaint. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed three causes of action against all defendants: unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and negligence. Id. These are the only causes of action that reference the Flaharty defendants. See id.

         On February 3, 2017, the court granted eight motions to dismiss and denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended the complaint. (ECF No. 137). In relevant part, the court held,

Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 19, 2016, regarding alleged actions that either occurred in 2004 or, at the latest, 2010. (ECF No. 1). Therefore, the only claim that could still be live is her fourth claim, breach of contract. However, plaintiff claims that the loan contract was immediately breached when the loan was executed-in 2004. (Id.). Therefore, the period for bringing that claim has expired as well. (Id.); see also NRS 11.190(1).

Id.

         II. Legal Standard

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment 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 a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose of summary judgment is “to ...


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.