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.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. East Trop 2073 Trust

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 8, 2019

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
EAST TROP 2073 TRUST AND CANYON WILLOW TROP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Defendants.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         In this case concerning the foreclosure sale of real property located at 5710 Eas Tropicana Ave, Unit 2073, Las Vegas, Nevada 89122 (“Property”), Defendant East Tro 2073 Trust (“Purchaser”) has filed a motion for relief from judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 55). The Court will deny the Motion.

         In order to preserve the finality of judgments, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedur limit a party's ability to seek relief from a final judgment. Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3 1120, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Rule 60(b) lists six grounds under which a party may see relief from a final judgment:

(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 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).

         Here, Purchaser seeks relief from the Court's orders and final judgment in favor of Nationstar on the fourth ground. (ECF No. 55.) The Court previously found that the Property remained encumbered by Fannie Mae's deed of trust pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) (Federal Foreclosure Bar). (ECF Nos. 45, 46, 48, 49.) Purchaser contends that the final judgment is void as against it because Nationstar failed to properly effectuate service upon it and therefore the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over it when the Court rendered its judgment. (ECF No. 55.) Notably, Purchaser challenges the Court Clerk's entry of default judgment against it based on Nationstar's service on the Nevada Secretary of State (“Secretary”) in lieu of service on Purchaser personally. (Id. at 5, 6-7.) By the time the Clerk entered default against Purchaser, Nationstar had also twice attempted to serve Purchaser to no avail. (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 17, 31.)

         Due to insufficiencies in the briefing, the Court held a hearing on the Motion on April 10, 2019 (“Hearing”) and ordered that the parties provide supplemental briefing regarding the sufficiency of Nationstar's affidavits related to service on Purchaser (id.). (ECF No. 64.) Considering the parties' supplemental briefing (ECF Nos. 65, 68), the Court cannot find that Nationstar failed to exercise due diligence under NRS § 14.030(3) before serving Purchaser via the Secretary. The Court therefore concludes that Nationstar has substantially complied with the pertinent service requirements and Purchaser has failed to show otherwise.

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h), a domestic or foreign corporation, partnership or other unincorporated association that is subject to suit under a common name may be served (i) by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to “an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law [, i.e., statute] to receive service of process . . .”; or (ii) in accordance with state law regarding service of such entity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). At the Hearing, the Court made clear to the parties its position that NRS § 14.030 provides the applicable law based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)'s reference to state law and statute and because the Purchaser does not dispute Nationstar's apparent position that Purchaser failed to register itself-or an agent-with the Nevada Secretary of State (ECF No. 65 at 3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). Thus, as an initial matter, the Court rejects Purchaser's persistent reliance on Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1) and 4(d)(2) as governing the issue of service here. (See, e.g., ECF No. 68 at 3-4.)

Pertinently, NRS ยง 14.030 authorizes service on the Secretary were the plaintiff make or cause to be made and filed an affidavit setting forth facts, showing that due diligence has been used to ascertain the whereabouts of the officers of the artificial person to be served, and the facts showing that ...

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.