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.

Medina v. Bank of America, N.A.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 3, 2019

JESUS R. MEDINA, an individual as Trustee of the JESUS R. MEDINA AND ANGELICA M. MEDINA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. a foreign corporation; MTC FINANCIAL INC., dba TRUSTEE CORPS; BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICE, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a nominee for AEGIS WHOLESALE CORPORATION, as beneficiary; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, a foreign corporation; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants.

          ORDER

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court are Plaintiff Jesus Medina's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 1-1 at 20, and Motion to Remand to State Court, ECF No. 11. Also before the Court is Defendants Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Bank of New York Mellon, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12.

         The Court dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction as the Court finds that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of California.

         II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff sued Defendants in state court on May 7, 2019. ECF No. 1-1. On Plaintiff's motion, the state court issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from foreclosing on Plaintiff's property. Id. Defendants removed the matter to this Court on May 20, 2019. ECF No. 1. The Court extended the temporary restraining order, set a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, and ordered briefing on whether a preliminary injunction should issue. ECF Nos. 3-4, 6.

         On the parties' stipulation, the Court delayed the hearing on the preliminary injunction. ECF No. 6. The Court also ordered briefing on whether the matter should be transferred to the Eastern District of California for referral to the Bankruptcy Court. Id. The Court noted that the Bankruptcy Court had previously approved a cramdown stipulation between Plaintiff and Defendant Bank of New York Mellon in relation to the property that Defendants seek to foreclose on. Id.

         Plaintiff now moves to remand the matter to state court, ECF No. 11, and Defendants move to dismiss the matter, ECF No. 12. Both motions are opposed. ECF Nos. 16, 18. The motion for preliminary injunction has not been resolved. See docket.

         The Court has vacated the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, opting to issue a written order instead. ECF No. 14. Since vacating the hearing, Defendants filed a status report, indicating their intent to foreclose on the property absent an order enjoining the foreclosure. ECF No. 20.

         III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The Court makes the following factual findings. Plaintiff purchased the property at 230 Wicked Wedge Way, Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 in 2006. Plaintiff claimed bankruptcy in March 2013 in the Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of California. The bankruptcy action affected and altered the mortgage payments on the Wicked Wedge property. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court issued a cramdown order in 2014 according to a stipulation reached between Plaintiff and Defendant Bank of New York Mellon. The cramdown order creates a payment plan on the mortgage of the property, setting the monthly payment at $1, 281.91.

         Plaintiff submitted mortgage payments to Defendants from May 2014 to January 2017 in the amount of $1, 097.75-not $1, 281.91, the amount stated in the cramdown order. Plaintiff alleges that he believed $1, 097.75 was the amount required under the bankruptcy plan. Defendants accepted the payments and failed to inform Plaintiff that the monthly payments were insufficient.

         In February 2017, Defendants informed Plaintiff that he owed $12, 819.10 in arrears. Plaintiff has attempted to cure the deficiency, but Defendants allegedly rebuffed the attempts.

         Plaintiff now sues Defendants, alleging three claims: (1) fraud and slander of title, (2) breach of contract laches waiver, and (3) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff also ...


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.