RECINE.

O
Ftt.î.l .
- -- Sgfwf.n():
--- ENJERE.C EèFR-
Z-I
-SDFRf.oq:
C.
----- gguss
l
2 2f.S 2 8 2010

3 ZLEFA US Dlu jjjt

;lcûtlql
l'T l IOFHU XOX
4 cxlu o STATESols mcTc(% R% 0:?:'
Ct
BY: .
5 DISTR IC T O F N EV ADA

6
CAROLINE J.KARL, )
7 ) 1
Plaintiff, ) i
8 )
vs. ) 3:10-cv-00473-RCJ-VPC
9 ) '
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.etal., ) ORDER 1
,
l0 )
Defendants. ) f
11 ) (
12
13 Thiscase arisesoutthe foreclosure ofresidentialrea!property. Plaintiffhastiled a '

14 MotiontoRemand(ECFNo.9),andDefendantQualityLoanServiceCom.(ç1QLS'')hastileda
15 M otionforSummaryJudgment(ECF No.8).Forthereasonsgivenherein,theCourtdeniesthe
16 motiontoremandandgrantsthemotionforsummaryjudgmentinpart.
17 1. FAC TS AND PR O CED UR AL Y STO R Y
Karl v. Quality Loan Service Corporation et al Doc. 20

18 PlaintiffCarolineJ,Karlistheownerofrealpropcrtylocated at8928W ynneSt.,Reno,

19 Nevada,89506,APN:080-893-01(the'çproperty'').(Compl.!1,May24,2010,ECFNo,1-2).
20 Plaintiffdoesnotallege factsconcerning the term softhe prom issoly note ordeed oftrust

21 ($1DOT''),butsimplynotesthatQLSrecordedaNoticeofBreachandDefaultandElectionto
22 Sell(ttNOD'')onM ay4,2010.(Seeid.jI2).Plaintiffadmitsdefault,allegedlyduetoan
23 upwardlyadjustinginterestrateonthenote.Lseeid.! 10).Shecarmotsellthehometosatisfy
24 the note,because due to thecrash ofthe housing m arketthe hom e isworth farlessthan tlle

25 balanceonthenote.(f#.).

Dockets.Justia.com
 1 DefendantQLSattachestheDOT toitsmotionforsummaryjudgment.Plaintiffgavethe
2 DOT onthePropeo tosecureanadjustable-rate,thilly-yearloanof$232,000.(SeeDOT 1-2,
3 Nov.3,2006,ECFNo.8-l,at1;AdjustableRateR-ider1,Nov.3,2006,ECFNo.8-1,atl7).
4 The lenderand trustee underthe DOT w asnon-party UniversalAm erican M ortgage Co.of

5 California(ttUAM C''),andMortgageElectronic'RegistrationSystems,lnc.(QSM ERS'')waslisted

6 astheS%nominee''anddtbeneficiary.''(SeeDOT 1-2).Theintercstrateonthenotewasfixedat
7 6.75% perannum untilDecember1,2011,(seeAdjustableRateRider1),makingPlaintiff's
8 allegationthatherdefaultwasductotheadjustablenamreofthenotenotonlyimplausible,but
9 impossible.QLS recorded theNOD on M ay4,2010.LseeNOD 1,M ay4,2010,ECF No.8-2).
10 OnJune14,2010,America'sServicingCo.(ttASC'')recordedMERS'assignmentoftheDOT
l1 (initscapacityasUAMC'Snominee)from UAMC toHSBC.(SeeAssignmentofDOT 1-2,June
12 14,2010,ECF No.8-3,at1-2).
!3 Plaintiffallegesseveraldefects in theN OD . First,she arguesthatthe NO D w asdefective

14 because itfailed,as required by paragraph 22 ofthe DOT,to notify herofthe defaultorto

15 specify the factofdefault,action required to cure it,a date thirty daysorm ore thereafterby

16 which tbc dcfaultm ustbe cured,and thatfailure to tim ely cure would resultin acceleration ofthe

17 noteandsaleoftheProperty.(SeeCompl.! 13,A-13.B).Second,sheargucsthattheNOD was

18 defective because itviolated herrightunderparap aph 19 ofthe D OT to have enforcem entofthe

19 DO T discontinued priorto the earliestofGve daysbefore the sale,any existing pre-sale statutory

periodofredemption,orentryofjudgmentenforcingtheDOT.(Jecid.jIl3.C).Plaintiffalso
2 1 allegesin heraffidavitthatshe cannottellifthe sir atureson thedocum entsprovided in the

22 motionforsummaryjudgmentareherswithouttheoriginalcopies,(seeKarlAff.16,Aug.24,
23 2010,ECF No.11-2),butthisisnotconvincing. Thesignaturesarevery clearandperfectly
Iegible,the copiesare clearly m echanicalreproductions,and production ofthe original
25 documcnts would notincrease tbe clarity cxceptperhapsto discern the coloroîthepen uscd to

Pagc 2 of 14
 t

1 sign. lfPlaintiffcannottellifthese signaturcsare hersbased on the copies adduced,the oliginals

2 w illnotassist,and a m echanically produced photocopy ofa docum entisadm issible asa

3 ftduplicate.''Fed.R.Evid.1001,1003. There isno genuine question asto the authenticity ofthc

4 relevantdocum ents. Plaintiffsunlikely statem entputs hcron dangerousground,having been

5 signedunderpenaltyofperjury.
6 Plaintiffsued QLS;HSBC Bank,USA ('%HSBC'');and ASC in statecourton Gvecauses
7 ofaction:(l)DeclaratoryRelief;(2)DebtCollectionViolationsUnderNcvadaRevisedStatutes
8 ($$NRS'')Chapter649,
.(3)UnfairandDeceptiveTradePracticesUnderNRSChapter598,
.(4)
9 UnfairLendingPracticesUnderNRSChapter59817*
,and(5)QuietTitle.Defendantsremoved
10 andhavemovedforsummaryjudgment.Plaintiffhasmovedtoremand.
ll II. LEG AL STAN DAR DS
12 A. FederalJurisdiction

13 tt-f'
hedistrictcourksshallhaveoriginaljurisdictionofa1lcivilactionswherethematterin
controversyexceedsthe sum orvalueof$75,000,exclusiveofinterestand costs,and is

15 be> een...citizensofdifferentStates.. .''28U.S.C.j1332(a)-(a)(1).

I
Exceptasothenviseexpresslyprovidedby ActofCongress,any civilaction brought
in a State coul'
t of whicb the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction,mayberemovedbythedefendantorthedefendants,tothedistrictcourt
ofthe United States for the districtand division em bracing the place where such
action ispending.

j1441(a).
Prom ptly afterthe tiling ofsuch notice ofrem ovalofacivilaction the defendant
ordefendants shallgive written noticethereofto aIIadverse partiesand shalltile a
21 copy ofthe notice w ith the clerk ofsuch Statecourt,which shalleflkctthe
rem ovaland the State courtshallproceed no furtherunlessand untilthe case is
22 rcm anded.

23 j 1446(d).Remandispermittedforlackofsubjcctmatterjurisdictionordefectsintheremoval
24 procedure.Seejl447(c),
25 ///

Page 3 of 14
 I

'

@
: 1 B. Sum m ary Judgm ent à

j 2 TheFederalRulesofCivilProccdureprovideforsummaryadjudicationwhenStthe
I
ë 3 pleadings,depositions,answersto interrogatorirs,andadmissionson file,togetherwith the

4 affidavits,ifany,show thatthereisnogenuineissueasto any materialfactandthattheparty is

5 entitledtoajudgmentasamatterorlaw '.Fed.R,civ.p.56(c).M aterialfactsarethosewhich
.

6 m ay affectthe outcom e ofthe case.SeeAnderson v.Liberty Lobby,Inc.,477 U .S.242,248

i 7 (1986).A disputeasto amaterialfactisgenuineifthereissufticientevidence forareasonable

I
8 jurytorcturnaverdictforthenonmovingparty.Seeid.A principalpumoseofsummary
9 judgmentislçtoisolateanddisposeoffacmallyunsupportedclaims.''CelotexCorp.v.Catrett,
10 477U.S.317,323-24(1986).Indeterminingsummaryjudgment,acourtusesaburden-shifting
11 scheme:

12 W hen thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentwouldbeartheburdenofproofat
trial,itm ustcom e fonvgrd w ith evidencewhich w ould entitle itto adirected verdict
13 iftheevidencewentuncontroverted attrial.In such a case,the m ovingparty hasthe
initialburden ofestablishing the absence ofa genuine issue of facton each issue I
14 m aterialto its case.

15 C.A.R.Transp.BrokerageCo.v.DardenRests.,Inc,2l3F.3d474,480(9thCir.2000)(citations !
!
16 and internalquotation marksomitted).ln contrast,when thenonmovingpartybearstheburden
17 ofprovingtheclaim ordefense,themovingpartycanmectitsburdenintwoways:(1)by
l8 presentingevidencetonegateanessentialelementofthenonmovingparty'scase;or(2)by
19 demonstrating thatthe nonm oving pal'ty failed to m akc a show ing sufficientto establish an
20 elcm entessentialto thatparty'scase on which thatparty willbearthe burden ofproofattrial.See '
21 Celotex Corp.,477 U .S.at323-24. lfthe m oving party failsto m eetitsinitialburden,sum m ary

22 judgmentmustbedeniedandthecourtneednotconsiderthenonmovingparty'sevidence,See
23 Adickesv.S.H.Kress(f:Co.,398U.S.144,159-60(1970).
24 lfthe m oving pal'ty m eets itsinitialburden,theburden then shiftsto the opposing party to

25 establish agenuine issue ofm aterialfact.SeeM atsushita E lec.Indus.Co.v.Zenith Radio Corp.,

Page 4 of 14
 l 475U.S.574,586(1986).Toestablishtheexistenceofafactualdispute,theopposingparty
2 need notestablish am aterialissue offactconclusively in itsfavor, ltissufficientthatttthe

3 claimedfactualdisputebbshowntorequireajuryorjudgetoresolvetheparties'differing
4 versions ofthe truth attrial.''r IE E lec.Jent,Inc.v.Pcc.Elec.ContractorsAss'n,809 F.2d

5 626,63i(9thCir.1987).Inotherwords,thenonmovingpartycalmotavoidsummaryjudgment
6 by relying solely on conclusory allegations thatareunsupported by factua!data.See United

7 Statesv.Denlinger,982F.2d233,237(7thCir.1992)(d<Neithersurnmaryjudgmentnordirected
8 verdictcan beavoided bysimply saying,tnevertheless,itisnotso.''');Taylorv.List,880 F.2d
9 l040,1045(9thCir.1989).lnstead,theoppositionmustgobeyondtheassertionsand
allegations ofthe pleadingsand setforth specific factsby producing com petentevidence that

11 showsagenuineissuefortrial.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.56(e);Celotex Corp.,477U.S.at324.
Atthesummaryjudgmentstage,acourt'sfunctionisnottoweightheevidenceand
13 determ ine the tnlth butto determ ine whetherthere isa genuine issuefortrial.SeeAnderson,477

U.S.at249.TheevidenceofthenonmovantisSçtobebelieved,andalljustifiableinferencesare
15 to be drawn in hisfavor.''f#.at255.Butifthe evidenceofthe nonm oving party ism erely

colorableorisnotsignificantlyprobative,summaryjudgmentmaybegranted.Seeid.at249-50. '
111. A NALYSIS

A. FederalJurisdiction

Plaintiffcorreclly notes thatthere isno federalquesticm in this case butdoesn0tallege a

20 lackofdiversity.Plaintiffarguesonlythat;(1)theCourtlacksjurisdictionoverthecasebecause
21 astatecourtalreadyhasinremjurisdictionovertheProperty;and(2)theCourtshouldabstain
22 underColoradoRiverWaterConsenntionDistrictv.UnitedStates,424U.S.800(1976).
23 First,thisCourtdoesnotIackjurisdictionsimplybecausethecaseoliginatedinstate
24 court. Plaintifffailsto distinguish betwecn the situation where a federalaction isparallelto a

25 continuingstatecourtaction,seeKliney,
.BurkeConstr.Co.,260U.S.226(1922),andthe

Page 5 of 14
'

E
E

j '
j
i
'
I 1 sim ation here,where the state action isrem oved to federalcourtand thereby ceases to existin the
I 2 state court. The distinction isneithercom plex norobscure. In Kll.
ne,Kline had broughtan

3 equitable action in state courtafterBurke had broughtan action atIaw in federalcourt.SeeK line,

4 260 U .S.at227. Kline filed a counterclaim in federalcourtforthe sam e claim she had brought

5 in the state courtsuit.See id.at228. Burkereciprocated by filing a counterclaim in the state

6 courtaction forthc sam e claim s ithad broughtin federalcourt.See f

'#. Tbcre then existed

7 parallelfederaland state courtactions with identicalclaim s and counterclaim s,butwhere the

8 plaintiffin federalcourtw asthe defendantin state court,and vice versa.See id. Burke then

9 removedthestatecourtactionbasedondiversityandfederalquestionjurisdiction.Jceid.The
l0 Kline Courtnoted:

11 lt is settled thatwhere a federalcourthas firstacquired jurisdiction of the

subject-matterofacause,itmayenjointhcpartiesfrom proceedinginastatecourt I
l2 ofconcurrentjurisdictionwhcretheeffectoftheactionwouldbetodefeatorimpair '
thejurisdiction ofthefederalcourt.W heretheaction isin rem theeffectistodraw
l3 to the federalcourtthe possession orcontrol,actualorpotential,ofthe res,and the .
exercisebythestatecourtofjurisdictionoverthesameresnecessarilyimpairs,and
14 maydefeat,thejurisdictionofthefederalcourtalreadyattached.Theconverseofthe
ruleisequallytrue,thatwberethejulisdictionofthestatecourthasGrstattached,the
15 federalcourtisprecludedfrom exercisingitsjurisdictionoverthesamerestodefeat
orimpairthestatecourt'sjurisdiction. '
16

17
ttltissettled that,w hen a state coul'tand a courtofthe United Statesm ay each take i
18 jurisdictionofamatter,thetribunalwhosejurisdictionfirstattachesholdsit,tothe
exclusionoftheother,untilitsdutyisfullyperfonned,andthejurisdictioninvolved
l9 is exhausted.'' . .. The rule is Iim ited to actions which deal either actually or '
potentiallywithspecificpropertyorobjects.
20 t
ld.at229-32(quotingCovellv.Heyman,111U.S.176(1884)).TheCoul'tthenruledthatthe
2l '
courtofappealshadnoauthoritytoenjointhestatecourtproceedingsbecausethefederalcourt's !
22
jurisdictionovercontrolofareswasnotthreatened. h
23
Plaintifffails to note thatin the presentcase,therew asneverany parallelstate
24
proceeding. The state proceeding no longerexistsby virtue ofthe case'srem ovalto federal
25
court.See28U.S.C.û1446(d)('dpromptlyaftcrtbetilingofsuchnotictofremovalofacivil
Page 6 of 14
 I

1 action the defcndantordefendants shallgive written notice thereofto alladversepartiesand shall I

2 file a copy ofthe notice w ith the clerk ofsuch Statecourt,which shalleflkctthercmovaland the

3 Statecourtshallproceednofurtherunlessanduntilthecaseisremanded.''(emphasisaddedl).
4 ThisCourt'sjurisdictionoverthecasethereforedoesnotthrcatenthecontinuingjurisdictionof
5 the state courtoverany res,because Congresshas provided thatrem ovaldiveststhe state courtof

6 jurisdiction.HadDefendantsGledasecondactioninfederalcourtaherthestatecourtobtained
7 inrem jurisdictioninthepresentcase,dismissalofthatsecondactionwouldperhapshavebeen.
8 appropriate underKline,butDcfendants have rem oved the state courtaction,notGled a
9 duplicative action in federalcourtwhile the state courtaction w aspending. The use ofthe '
' j
10 rem ovalstatute doesnotim plicate the problem ofparallelin rem proceedings,because itsimply '

ll m ovesthe proceedings across the street,so to speak,withoutduplicating tbem and creating a risk ,
12 ofcompeting dccreesovera res. Plaintiff'sreading ofthe law would preventtherem ovalofany

l3 in rem proceeding.N eitherthe rem ovalstam te norK line indicates such abroad lim itation on

14 removaljurisdiction.
l5 Second,Plaintiffarguesthatthe Courtshould abstain underColorado River. Thatcase

16 involved parallelstate and federalproceedingsconcerning w aterrights in Colorado. TheU nitcd

l7 States tiled suitin federalcourtto secure itq righà to certain w aterasagainstapproxim ately 1000

l8 individualusers. O ne ofthe defendantsin the federalaction then filed a parallelsuitin state

19 court,and severalotherdefendantsfiled a m otion to dism issthe federalaction forlack of

20 jurisdiction.n edistrictcourtgrantcdthemotion.TheSupremeCourtheldthatfederal
2l jurisdictionwasnotIackingandthatnodoctrinerequiredthefederaldistrictcourttoabstain,but
22 itruled thatdism issalwasappropriate based on the need to avoid duplicative litigation and

23 çstwlisejudicialadministration,givingregardtoconservationofjudicialresourcesand
24 com prehensive disposition oflitigation.''Colorado River,424 U .S.at817. Colorado Rivepdid .

25 notinvolve rem ovalofa case,butratherparallelproceedings. Even iftherehad been parallcl

Page 7 of 14
I

!
i
l proceedings here,Colorado Riveristightly fact-bound to the water-rightscontext,seeArizona v.
E
i
2 sancarlosApacherrîzcofArir,463U.s.545:571(1983),andanomalousevenwithinthe
3 abstcntioncasesbecauseitpermittedafederalcourttodismissacaseoverwhichitinfacthad

4 jurisdictionandwithrespecttowhichabstentionwasnotappropriate,seeColoradoRiver,424
5 U.S.at821-26(Stewart,J.,dissenting). ColoradoRiverin nowaysupportsabstention here.
6 ThisCourtw ould like nothing m ore than to rem and en m asse the m ountain ofrem oved

7 foreclosure actions currently clogging itsdocket,butthe Courthasa duty to hearalIcasesover

8 whichithasjurisdiction,andafulldocketisnotavalidgroundforabstention,particularlyFhere
9 remandwillnotconservejudicialresourcesoverallbutsimplyservetodumpaheavyloadof
10 cases onto the state courts.

11 B. Sum m ary Judgm ent

12 1. Declaratory Relief ,

13 a. Im proper Foreclosure U nder N RS Section 107.080

14 Plaintiffseeksa declaration thatthe N OD is$1nu11an
'd void.'' The m ostcom m on stam tory I

15 defectin foreclosure in N evada occursw hen a foreclosing entity failsto adhere to N RS section
16 107.080,recording a N OD before ithasbcen nam ed asthe trustee,and w ithoutany evidence of I

17 agency on behalfofthetrustee orbeneticiary ofthe underlying debtatthe tim e ofrecordation.

l8 SeeNev.Rev.Stat.j l07.080(2)(c).Plaintiffdoesnotallegeaviolationofthisstatute,butrather
I
19 allegesthattheNOD failedtoincludecertainnoticesasrequiredundertheDOT. I
I
1
20 QLSwasapparentlyneitherthetrusteenorthebeneficiarywhen itrecorded theNOD. .
:
21 However,itclaimedontheNOD tohavebeenSW GENT FOR BENEFICIARY,''(seeNOD 3),
22 anditidentifiedthebeneticiaryasUAMC,(seeid.1).Theonlyevidenceintherecordastothe
23 identityofthebeneficiaryatthetimetheNOD wasrecordedistheDOT itselt whichnames
24 UAM C asthe lender,m aking itthe beneficiary asa m atteroflaw ,regardless ofthe D OT's 1

25 language aboutM ERS being a Ssbeneticialy '' Although M ERS isnota beneficiary,its agency for

Page 8 of 14
*

1 the beneticiary underthe DOT extendsto adm inistering the DO T forpum oses offoreclosure.

2 W hetherUAM C directly commanded QLS tofiletheNOD orM ERS commanded QLS to do so,
3 thereisnodefectinforeclosurehereundersection 107.080(2)(c),asthereisincaseswherea
pum orted tnlstee w ho isnam ed nowhere on the D OT,and forw hom evidence ofsubstitution as
5 trustee appcars now herc,filcsa NOD . Plaintiffadduces no contrary evidence. There isno

questionoffactthatQLS Gled theNOD astheagentofM ERS,whowastheagentofthe

beneficiaryUAMC,andtheforeclosurewasthereforenotimproperundersection107.080(2)(c).
8 b. ImproperForeclosureUndertheDOT j
i. Paragraph 22 ofthe Deed ofTrust

The question rem ainswhetherforeclosurew asim properundertbe tennsofthe DOT.

11 Paragraph22requires(inaIlboldprint)thatpriortoaccelcrationofthel
oanfollowingdefault, l
the lcnderm ustnotify the borrow erofdefault,action rcquircd to cure,a date atleastthirty days

13 thereafterbywhicbtocure,andthatfailuretotimelycuremayresultin acceleration.(SeeDOT
! 22).QLS arguesthatsuch noticesneed notbeintheNOD itself butmaybegiven viaother l

l5 methods.QLSthenarguesthatbecausePlaintiffdoesnotallegethatsuchnoticeswerenot
given,butonlythattheywerenotincludedintheNOD,itisentitledtosummaryjudgment.The
textoftheDOT supportsQLS'readingofit;however,QLS'characterizationofPlaintiff's .
allegationsare notconvincing. Although Plaintiffindeed allegcsthatthe NO D itselfdid not
contain these notices,itisa reasonable inference from the Com plaintthatPlaintiffm eans to
1
,
.
allegesheneverreceivedsuchnoticeselsewhere,either.QLSprovidesnoevidenceofhaving
21 provided such noticesby separatc com munication,and they do notappearin the N OD . Rather,

inadditiontothefactofandamountofdefault,(seeNOD l),theNOD instructsPlaintiff:

'CN OTICE. You m ay have the rightto cure the default....To determ ine ifreinsutem entis

possibleandtheamount,ifany,tocurethedefault,contact:(ASC'Saddressandtelephone
numberlz''(1
W.2).Thisisnotsufticienttosatisfytherequirementinparapaph22oftheDOT

Page 9 of 14
l thatsuch inform ation be directly provided to the borrower. Underthe plain language ofthe
D OT,the lenderbearsthe burden ofproviding certain noticesconcerning defaultand cure to the

borrower. The borrowerdoesnotbeartbe burden ofseeking outthe infonnation.

.

QLSalsoarguesthatasalemayonlybesetasideforfailuresubstantiallytocomplywith
the statutory requirem ents,notthe DOT itself. Butneitherparty allegesa sale,and there isno
cvidence ofa sale. Plaintiffhassued to stop foreclosurc before sale and seeksa declaration that

the N OD isinvalid because itfailsto com ply w ith the terms ofthe DOT. Thererem ainsa

gcnuine issueofm aterialfactas to whetherthe NO D was defectiveunderthc term softhe DOT,

andtheCourtdeniessummaryjudgmentonthisbasis.
Paragraph 19 ofthe Deed ofTrust
Plaintiffargues thatthe NO D w asalso defective because itviolated herrightunder

paragraph19oftheDOT tohaveenforcementoftheDOT discontinued(undercertain

conditions)priortotheearliestofGvedaysbeforethesale,anyexisting pre-salestatutoryperiod
ofredemption,orentryofjudgmentcnforcingtheDOT.(SeeCompl.! 13.C).Theproblem with
Plaintiff'sallegationsisthatthosettcertain conditions''areunambiguous:(l)theborrowermust
payallsumsdueasifaccelerationhadneveroccurred;(2)borrowermustcuredefault;(3)
borrowermustpayexpensesofenforcingtheDOT;and(4)musttakeotherreasonableactionsto
securethelcnder'sintcrest.(SeeDOT ! 19).Althoughthereappearstobenoquestionthat
Plaintiffhasnotcom plied w ith these conditions,there rem ainsa question offactasto whether

acceleration was properin the tirstinstanceunderparag aph 22. lfitwas not,Plaintiffneed not

even argue underparagraph 19.

2. DebtCollectionViolationsUnderNevadaRevised Statutes(ttNRS'')Chapter
649

PlaintiffallegesviolationsofN RS section 649.370,which creates an independentstate

law causeofactionforviolationsoftheFairDebtCollectionPracticesAct(CtFDCPA'').
Specifically,PlaintiffsallegethatQLSviolatedFDCPA byfailingtoincludecertainlanguagein
Page 10 of 14
 1 theNOD mandatedby 15U.S.C.jj 1692e(11)and 1692g(a)(l)-(5),bymakingafalseand
2 m isleading attem ptto collecta debtby failing to include the noticesrequired underthe DOT,and

3 by m isrepresenting thatacceleration had occurred w hen itcannotyethave occurred underthe

tenns ofthc D OT.

5 QLS iscorrect,however,thatdlmortgageesand theirbeneficiaries,includingmortgage

servicingcompanies,arenotdebtcollectorssubjecttotheFDCPA.''SeeMansourv.Cal-Western '
ReconveyanceCorp.,618F.Supp.2d 1178,ll82(D.Ariz.2009)(citingPerr.vv.StewartTitle
Co.,756F.2d 1197,1208(5thCir.1985)(ùt-
l-helegislativehistoryofsection 1692a46)indicates
conclusively thata debtcollectordoesnotinclude the consum er'screditors,a m ortgage servicing

com pany,oran assignee ofadebt,as Iong asthe debtwas notin defaultatthe tim e itwas

11 assigned.''ll;accordhfontgomety v.HuntingtonBank,346F.3d693,698(6thCir.2003).Here,
QLSwasactingonbehalfofUAMCwbenitt
ilcdtheNOD,andUAMCwasnotapost-default '
)
assignee.TheCourtthereforepantssummaryjudgmentonthiscauseofaction.
3. Unfair and D eceptive Trade PracticesU nderN RS Chapter598

l5 PlaintiffallegesviolationsofNRSsection598.092341)and(3)basedonQLS'
16 conducting a businesswithouta required license and violating a state orfederalstatuteor

l7 regulation relating to the sale orlease ofgoodsorservices. PlaintifftheorizesthatQLSviolated

18 these sectionsoftheN RS by sending Plaintiffthe deficientN OD .

19 QLScorrectlynotesthatbecauseitwasnotactingasadebtcollector,itdidnotneedtobe
20 licenscdasone.ItalsonotesthatE'lslecuringorcollectingdebtsorenforcingmortgagesand
21 security interests in property securing thedebts''doesnotconstim te ttdoing business''in Nevada.

22 SeeNev.Rev.Stat.980.015(h).TheCourtthercforegrantssummaryjudgmentonthiscauseof
23 action.

24 4. UnfairLending Practices UnderN RS Chapter598D

25 PlaintiffallegesviolationsefNRS secticm 59817.100 because Defendantsallegcdly made

Page l1 of 14
 . I

' I

l the loan to Plaintiffwithoutdetennining she had the ability to repay it. ln addition to noting that
2 the pre-2007 version ofthestatute appliesin th'
iscase, QLSarguesthatthestatuteofIimitations
I
3 has run and thatthere isno successorliability underthe statute. Plaintiffindeed doesnotallege

4 thatmovantQLSwasthelender.ThecauseofactionisimplausibleasagainstQLS forthis
5 reason alone. Furtherm ore,thisstatutory cause ofaction istime-barred,because the present

6 action was filed on M ay 24,20l0,m ore than three yearsafterthe Ioan was m ade on Novem ber3,

7 2006.SeeNev.Rev.Stat.jll.l90(3)(a).TheallegationsintheComplaintarealsoinsufficient. '
8 Plaintiffreceived the presentm ortgageon oraboutNovember3,2006. Section 598D.100 was

9 am ended in 2007,with an effective date ofJune 13,2007.See 2007 N ev.Stat.2844-46.

10 Therefore,thepre-2007 version ofthe statute applies to thepresentcase. n e priorstatute,

1l which applieshere m ade itactionable ifa lenderm ade $ça hom e loan to a borrow erbased solely
12 upon the equity ofthe borrowerin the hom e property and w ithoutdetennining thatthe borrower

13 hastheabilitytorepaythehomeloanfromotherassets....'Nev.Rev.Stat.j59817.100(2006). (
l
14 Thecurrentstatute broadens theprotection given to consum ersby m aking itactionable w hen a
l5 Ienderknowingly orintentionally m akes tta hom e loan ...w ithoutdeterm ining,using any I
'
!
16 commerciallyreasonablemeansormechanism,thattheborrowerhastheabilitytorepaythe )
17 homeloan.''Nev.Rev.Stat.â598D,100(2010).Plaintiffhasnotallegedfactsindicatinga '
18 violation ofeitherversion ofthe stam tebuthassim ply alleged in conclusory fashion that
19 Defendantsviolat
editTheCourtgrant,ssummaryjudgmentonthiscauseofaction.
. l
20 5. QuietTitle
21 Plaintiffseeksto quiettitle to the Property underNRS section 40.010. Sheallegesthatno f
1

22 Defendantow nsthe debtorhasstanding to sue heron the note orforeclose on the Property.
23 QLSnotes thatdçplaintiffisnotentitled to a free hom e,''w hich isessentially the conclusion 1
'

24 Plaintiffasksthe Courtto reach. Although Plaintiff stheory thatthe use ofthe M ERS systcm
25 invalidates a11loansand security intcrestsagainstthe Property is indeed baseless,thisfactdoes

'
Page12of14 ,
f
1
'

1
.

' i
j

l notnecessarily m ake any quiettitle action whatsoeverim possible. Plaintiffcould obtain a much

2 narrowerdeclaration,how ever,thathertitle to the Propefty issuperiorto thatofone orm ore .

3 Dcfendants'.SeeNev.Rev.Stat.j40.010.(ttAnactionmaybebroughtbyanypersonagainst
4 anotherwho claim s an estate orinterestin realproperty,adverse to the person bringing the

5 action,forthepum oseofdetermining such adverseclaim .''). )

6 Moreover,aquiettitleactionismerelyaspeciesofdeclaratoryjudgmentactionandis 1
.

'
l
7 therefore inherently redtm dantw ith the firstcause ofaction in thiscase,Jce Kress v.Corey,189 .

8 P.2d352,364(Nev.1948)(dils'ormanyyearspriortotheadoptionof(declaratoryjudgment) '
9 statutescourtshavenonethelessbeenrenderingdeclaratoryjudgments,thatis,thedeclarationof
10 the pre-existing rightsofthe litigantswithoutany coercive decree,in such casesasquiettitle
1l suits '').Redundantornot,Defendantisnotentitledtosummaryjudgmentonthisclaim.
. .. . k
. 1
12 Plaintiffallegesthathertitle to the Property issuperiorto thatofDefendants'based on various

13 defectsin foreclosure,and atIeastonesuch defectthatPlaintiffhasidentitied--oLs'failureto i

14 complywithnoticerequiremcntsintheNoD- survivessummaryjudgment.Successonthis
15 cause ofaction w ould neitherdischarge the debtnorinvalidate the security interestbutw ould

16 sim ply resultin a declaration thatunless and untilforeclosure isproperly carried out,Plaintiff .

17 holdssuperiortitletothePropertyasagainstoneormoreDefendants.Withthisunderstanding, ,
)
18 theCourtdeniessummaryjudgmentonthiscauseofaction. '
i
(
'

19 CO N CLUSIO N l

20 IT IS HEREBY OIIDERED thattheM otiontoRemand(ECFNo.9)isDENIED.

21 IT ISFURTHER ORDERED thattheMotionforSummaryJudgment(ECFNo.8)is
22 G RAN TED in partand D ENIED itin part. The m otion isG RAN TED as to allcausesofaction '

23 exceptdeclaratoryjudgmentandquiettitle.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED .
25 Dated this 29th day ofDecem ber,2010. '

Page 13 of 14
 I
. *
,

1 . .
ROBE C.JON ES
2 U nited S sD is.trictJudge
.
1
'

3 j
1
1
4

5 l
6 ' '

7 '

l0
ll

12 ;
;
13

14

15

16

17

18

19 1
'
;
20

21
i
22

23

24

25

Page 14 of 14 i
1