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.

Yang v. Buffalo Ranch Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 5, 2018

YANG YANG, Plaintiff,
v.
BUFFALO RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          LLOYD D. GEORGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The plaintiff, Yang Yang, purchased a house in November 2013. Yang, however, continued to reside at a different location. He alleges that the address of the house where he resided was identified as his mailing address in the purchase documents. Defendant Buffalo Ranch Homeowners Association, through its agent defendant Absolute Collections Services, subsequently foreclosed on the newly-bought property because Yang was delinquent on that property's homeowner's association assessments. Yang alleges these defendants never attempted to locate or serve him at his residence.

         Defendant Saticoy Bay purchased the home at the foreclosure sale and subsequently sold the property to defendant Nattinan Wandeevong.

         Yang brought this action, alleging state claims for quiet title and unjust enrichment against all defendants, state claims for wrongful foreclosure and negligence against Buffalo Ranch and Absolute Collections, and a federal claim for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act brought solely against Absolute Collection.

         Presently before the Court are:

1) Yang's Motion to Show Cause Why a Prejudgment Writ of Attachment Should Not Issue Against Saticoy Bay (ECF No. 22);
2) Saticoy Bay's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24);
3) Saticoy Bay's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 42);
4) Buffalo Ranch's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 66);
5) Saticoy Bay's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68); and
6) Wangdeevong's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 86).

         Motion to Dismiss

         Saticoy Bay argues that this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Yang's state law claims as those claims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as Yang's federal debt collection claim against Absolute Collections. Alternatively, even if the Court determines the state and federal claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, Saticoy Bay asks that the Court exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case. Buffalo Ranch and Wangdeevong have joined Saticoy Bay in its motion.

         Supplemental jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear and decide state claims along with federal claims when they "are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy .. .." 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). As a general rule, supplemental jurisdiction extends over state claims brought against a party even when that party was not subject to the federal claims primarily at issue. In Executive Software North America, Inc. v.. U.S. Dist. Ct, 24 F.3d 1545, 1552 (9th Cir. 1994), the Court of Appeals recognized that the Supreme Court has broadly authorized the federal courts to assert jurisdiction over state law claims when "the state and federal claims . .. derive from a common nucleus of operative fact," the claims are such that a plaintiff "would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding," and the federal issues are "substantial." Nevertheless, "district courts may ...


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.