United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is the Bank of New York Mellon's
(“BNYM”) motion to remand to state court. (ECF
No. 7). Defendant Rivendell Homeowners Association
(“Rivendell”) filed a response (ECF No. 11), as
did defendants Anthony S. Noonan IRA, LLC
(“Noonan”) and LP Financial, Inc.
(“LP”) (ECF No. 14). BNYM did not reply but did
file a notice regarding its motion to remand to state court.
(ECF No. 31).
before the court is BNYM's contemporaneous motion for
attorney's fees. (ECF No. 8). Defendants responded (ECF
Nos. 12, 15), and BNYM replied (ECF Nos. 19, 21).
before the court is Rivendell's motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 13). Noonan and LP joined in the motion. (ECF No. 22).
BNYM responded. (ECF No. 23). No party replied.
before the court is Noonan and LP's motion to dismiss.
(ECF No. 28). BNYM responded (ECF No. 32), and there was no
before the court is BNYM's motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 34). Defendants responded (ECF Nos. 40, 41), and
BNYM replied (ECF Nos. 42, 43).
instant action arises from a dispute regarding the HOA
superpriority-lien foreclosure sale of 6982 Mirkwood Avenue,
Las Vegas, Nevada in March of 2007. (ECF Nos. 1, 7). The home
was initially purchased by Richard Chen, who borrowed $584,
500 dollars from Preferred Home Mortgage to do so. (ECF No. 7
at 2). As security for the loan, Chen executed a deed of
trust in favor of Preferred Home Mortgage. Id.
March 2012, and August 2014, Rivendell recorded a notice of
delinquent assessment lien against the property, rejected
Bank of America's tender of the superpriority amount,
foreclosed on the property, and sold the property to Noonan
and LP. Id.
and LP, as purchasers of the property, filed a quiet title
action against Chen in the Eighth Judicial District Court for
Clark County, Nevada, case number A-14-706118-C. Id.
Noonan and LP amended their complaint to include Preferred
Home Mortgage. Id. BNYM alleges that Preferred Home
Mortgage did not have an interest in the property at the time
the complaint was amended because it had already designated
MERS as the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Id.
Nonetheless, Noonan and LP sought and received a default
judgment against Preferred Home Mortgage. Id. BNYM
and MERS then sought to intervene in the state court action
and set aside the default judgment. Id.
was able to intervene and set aside the default judgment, but
the Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case on
appeal. Id. at 3. BNYM moved to substitute in place
of Preferred Home Mortgage in the ongoing action.
Id. BNYM simultaneously initiated the instant action
against Noonan, LP, and Rivendell in state court, case
A-18-784416-C, asserting a variety of state-law claims
including quiet title, declaratory relief, breach of NRS 116,
and wrongful foreclosure. Id. Noonan and LP timely
removed the action, and BNYM moved to remand. Id.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought
in a [s]tate court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §
United States district court to have diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the parties must be completely
diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,
000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty
Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2003). A removing
defendant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the jurisdictional amount is met. See
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398,
403-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
a defendant has thirty (30) days upon notice of removability
to remove a case to federal court. Durham v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)). Defendants are not
charged with notice of removability “until they've