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.

Cruz v. Sables, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 20, 2018

CAROLINA B. CRUZ, Plaintiff,
v.
SABLES, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER [32] AND [34] MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court are Plaintiff's and Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 34, 32. This case arises from Defendant's allegedly improper attempts to collect on Plaintiff's debt. Based on the reasons below, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) and denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34).

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant on April 7, 2016. ECF No. 1. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 4, 2016. ECF No. 4. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion on March 20, 2017. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff's only remaining claim is for violations of § 1692f(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Defendant was given until April 4, 2017 to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on this claim. Id.

         Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 29, 2017. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff responded on April 24, 2017. ECF No. 37. Defendant replied on May 8, 2017. ECF No. 38.

         Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 4, 2017. ECF No. 34. Defendant responded on April 21, 2017. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff did not reply.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary 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 the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2011).

         Where the party seeking summary judgment does not have the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, it “has both the initial burden of production and the ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for summary judgment.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). “In order to carry its [initial] burden of production, the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Id. If the movant has carried its initial burden, “the nonmoving party must produce evidence to support its claim or defense.” Id. at 1103. In doing so, the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for summary judgment rests with the moving party, who must convince the court that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1102.

         IV. UNDISPUTED FACTS

         The Court finds the following facts to be undisputed based upon the record which includes the filings of both parties as to the dispositive motions in this case. In April 2007, Plaintiff purchased a home at 4120 East Cincinnati Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89104 (the “Property”). Plaintiff executed a note payable to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide) for a principal balance of $202, 250.00. ECF No. 4, Ex. A. On that same date, Plaintiff executed a deed of trust securing the Property in favor of Countrywide. ECF No. 4, Ex. B.

         On March 14, 2011, a Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust from the Mortgage Electronic Service (“MERS”) to The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee for the benefit of the Certificate holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-9 was recorded in the Official Records of Clark County, Nevada. ECF No. 4, Ex. C. On June 10, 2014, a Corrective Assignment of Deed of Trust from MERS as nominee for Countrywide to The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-9 (BNY Mellon) was recorded in the Official Records. ECF No. 4, Ex. ...


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.