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. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 8, 2018

SALMA AGHA-KHAN, Plaintiff,
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          C. W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge.

         Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 45), filed on January 8, 2018. Defendants Fidelity National Default, LSI Title Agency, Inc., Servicelink, Chicago Title Agency Nevada, and Loancare filed a response (ECF No. 48) on January 9, 2018. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

         Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for clarification of order (ECF No. 62), filed on February 6, 2018. Defendants have not filed a response.

         I. Motion for Reconsideration

         Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court's order (ECF No. 40) granting Defendants' motions for demand of security costs (ECF Nos. 10 and 24). Plaintiff argues that the order was made based on a misunderstanding of her correct address and place of residence. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiff has not shown that the Court has made any error regarding her address or place of residence.

         Plaintiff brings her motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which provides two categories of relief. First, Rule 60(a) allows for the Court to correct clerical mistakes, oversights, or omissions in an order. Plaintiff does not argue that the Court made any such mistake, and the Court does not find any. Second, under Rule 60(b), a Court can relieve a party from an order for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Construing Plaintiff's claims liberally, the Court will also consider the request as a motion for reconsideration, which requires that a moving party demonstrate that there is newly discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion was filed, that the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or that there was an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1. Defendants' motions for demand of security costs were brought under Nev. Rev. Stat. 18.130, which provides that “[w]hen a plaintiff in an action resides out of the State [of Nevada], or is a foreign corporation, security for the costs and charges which may be awarded against such plaintiff may be required by the defendant[.]”

         The Court's order granting Defendants' motions was based on a finding that Plaintiff was a resident of California. Order, at p. 2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is based on her contention that she is also a resident of Nevada. Plaintiff argued in her response to the original motions that she is a resident of Nevada because she “has maintained a residence in Nevada for over fifteen years[, ] owning properties as second homes in Las Vegas, Nevada.” Resp. to Mot. at p. 6 (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff further asserted in her response that she “does reside and has intended to reside in both Los Angeles and Las Vegas” and that she “acquired more than one piece of property in Las Vegas and does reside there, maintain her second home . . . Plaintiff currently maintains a physical residence in both cities . . . her intent is to reside in both Los Angeles and Los Vegas [sic].” Id. at 6-7. Based on these representations, and the exclusive use of a Los Angeles, California ...


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.