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.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Independence II Homeowners' Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 18, 2019

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF IMPAC SECURED ASSETS CORP, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, Plaintiff,
v.
INDEPENDENCE II HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION; SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; and NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Counter/Cross Claimant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDRES OF IMPAC SECURED ASSETS CORP, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-01; and CAROLINA OSPINA MEDINA, Counter/Cross Defendants.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         This dispute arises from the foreclosure sale of property to satisfy a homeowners' association lien. Before the Court are Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) as Trustee for the Certificateholders of IMPAC Secured Assets Corp, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 107) and Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's (“SFR”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 108). The Court has reviewed the parties' responses (ECF Nos. 109, 110) and replies (ECF Nos. 113, 114). For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.

         Dora Ardolino and Carolina Ospina Medina (“Borrowers”) purchased real property (“Property”) located within Independence II Homeowners' Association (“HOA”) on December 11, 2006. (ECF No. 107-1 at 3-4, 22-24.) The Borrowers financed the purchase with a $263, 150 loan (“Loan”) evidenced by a note (“Note”) and secured by a first deed of trust (“DOT”). (Id. at 3-4.) The DOT names Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the nominee beneficiary. (Id. at 4.)

         Plaintiff asserts that MERS assigned the DOT to Plaintiff on February 16, 2012 (“2012 Assignment”). (ECF No. 107 at 2 (citing ECF No. 107-2 at 2-3 (2012 Assignment)).) This is the only assignment that Plaintiff attached to its motion for summary judgment. SFR asserts that Plaintiff is not the beneficiary of the DOT and that the 2012 Assignment is invalid based on another assignment dated April 14, 2011 (“2011 Assignment”) that Plaintiff did not attach to its motion. (ECF No. 110 at 2-4, 10-14; ECF No. 108-22 at 2 (2011 Assignment).)

         The Borrowers failed to pay HOA assessments, and the HOA eventually foreclosed on the Property, presumably extinguishing the DOT. (ECF No. 107-7 at 2-4.)

         Deutsche Bank filed the Complaint on March 10, 2016, asserting the following claims: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all Defendants; (2) breach of NRS § 116.1113 against the HOA and Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”); (3) wrongful foreclosure against the HOA and NAS; and (4) injunctive relief against SFR. (ECF No. 1 at 6-12.) SFR asserts counterclaims for declaratory relief/quiet title and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 20 at 14-15.) ///

         III. DISCUSSION

         SFR challenges Plaintiff's Article III standing and prudential standing, arguing that Plaintiff is not the current beneficiary of the DOT. (ECF No. 110 at 2-4, 10-14.)

         “Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to ‘Cases' and ‘Controversies.'” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516 (2007). “To satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC) Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990).

         Prudential standing “encompasses the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Las Vegas Dev. Grp., LLC, 106 F.Supp.3d 1174, 1179 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting United States v. Lazarenko, 476 F.3d 642, 649-50 (9th Cir. 2007)). “The question of prudential standing is often resolved by the nature and source of the claim. Essentially, the standing question in such cases is whether the [statute] on which the claim [relies] properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff's position a right to judicial relief.” Id. (quoting The Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane County, 632 F.3d 1162, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011)).

         SFR bases its argument on the 2011 Assignment and 2012 Assignment. (See ECF No. 110 at 2-4, 10-14.) At first glance, both assignments seem to name Deutsche Bank as the assignee, but SFR asserts this is not the case. In the 2011 Assignment, MERS assigned the DOT to “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee under thePooling and Servicing Agreement Relating to IMPAC Secured Assets Corp., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1” (ECF No. 108-22 at 2 (emphasis added)). In the 2012 Assignment, MERS assigned the DOT to “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for the Certificateholders of IMPAC Secured Assets Corp., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1” (ECF No. 108-25 at 2 (emphasis added)). SFR contends that the first assignee is a ...


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.