2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DWIGHT CARLSON AS TRUSTEE FOR Case No. 3:19-cv-00723-MMD-WGC PYRAMID TRIBE TR-116, 7 ORDER Plaintiff, 8 v.

9 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, 10 et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 I. SUMMARY 13 This removed action involves a dispute over an assignment of deed of trust (the 14 “Assignment”). Before the Court are Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. 15 Cooper’s (“Nationstar”) motion to dismiss (”Nationstar’s Motion”) (ECF No. 6) and Quality 16 Loan Service Corporation’s (“Quality”) motion to dismiss (“Quality’s Motion”) (ECF No. 17 10).1 For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant Nationstar’s Motion for lack of 18 standing and deny Quality’s Motion as moot.2 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 The following facts are alleged in the Complaint, unless otherwise indicated. 21 Plaintiff Dwight Carlson as Trustee for Pyramid Tribe TR-116 purchased 2402 22 Sunny Slope, Dr. #9, Sparks, NV 894343 (the “Property”) at a homeowner association’s 23 24 1Quality joined in Nationstar’s Motion. (ECF No. 7.) 25 2The Court has also reviewed the parties’ related briefs. (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 13, 14, 26 15.)

27 3The Complaint states the Property is located at “2402 Sunnyslope Drive, Reno, NV.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) Having cross referenced the Complaint’s legal description and 28 APN number of the Property (see id.) with the Deed of Trust (the “DOT”) attached to (fn. cont…) 2 Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) owned the promissory 3 (“Note”) and the DOT. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.) 4 On September 20, 2016, Fannie Mae filed an interpleader action in this Court 5 against Plaintiff (Federal National Mortgage Association v. Carlson (“Carlson”), Case No. 6 3:16-cv-520-MMD-WGC, ECF No. 1 (D. Nev. Sep. 2, 2016)), which the Court consolidated 7 with another case (Springland Village Homeowners Association v. Pearman 8 (“Springland”), Case No. 3:16-cv-423-MMD-WGC, ECF No. 33 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2018)).4 9 On January 10, 2018, the Court granted Fannie Mae’s motion for summary judgment and 10 found that Plaintiff purchased the Property subject to Fannie Mae’s DOT. Carlson, ECF 11 No. 34 at 5. 12 On April 1, 2019, the Assignment between Fannie Mae and Nationstar was 13 recorded. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4; see also ECF No. 6-4 (Assignment).5) On September 18, 14 2019, Nationstar and Quality recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell the Property. 15 (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.) Nationstar and Quality caused Defendant John Doe 1 to serve the 16 notice and vacate Plaintiff’s tenant from the Property. (Id.) 17 Plaintiff alleges that there is a conflict of claims between Fannie Mae and Nationstar 18 over who is the true owner of the Note and DOT, placing Plaintiff at the risk of inconsistent 19 20 Nationstar’s Motion (ECF No. 6-1 at 5, 23), the Court concludes that the address identified 21 in the Complaint is a typographical error. The correct address, as stated in the DOT, is 2402 Sunny Slope, Dr. #9, Sparks, NV 89434 22 4While a court generally cannot consider matters beyond the pleadings on a motion 23 to dismiss, the Court may consider documents “properly submitted as part of the complaint” and “may take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record.” Lee v. City of Los 24 Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Because “documents on file in federal or state courts” are “matters of public record,” the 25 Court takes judicial notice of Carlson, ECF Nos. 1 and 34, and Springland, ECF No. 33. Harris v. Cty. of Orange,

(9th Cir. 2012). 26 5 Here, the Court takes judicial notice of ECF No. 6-4 as recorded with the Washoe 27 County Recorder and is thus a matter within the public record. See, e.g., Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc.,

, 866 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining 28 that a court may take judicial notice of a government agency's records and other undisputed matters of public record under Fed. R. Evid. 201). 2 permanent injunction, (4) wrongful eviction by John Doe 1, and (5) “wrongful actions” by 3 Nationstar and Quality. (Id. at 4-6.) 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 Defendants assert several arguments in their respective motions. However, the 6 Court agrees with Nationstar that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claims, which are all 7 related to the Assignment. (See ECF No. 6 at 5.) Therefore, the Court declines to address 8 the remaining arguments. 9 “The party invoking federal jurisdiction, [here Plaintiff], bears the burden of 10 establishing [the constitutional minimum of standing].” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

, 61 (1992). Three elements must be met to establish standing: (1) the plaintiff 12 must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is 13 (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; 14 (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of— 15 the injury has to be fairly . . . traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) 16 it must be likely—not speculative—that the injury will be redressed by a favorable ruling in 17 the action.

(citations and alterations omitted). These elements are an 18 indispensable part of a plaintiff’s case and therefore “must be supported in the same way 19 as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner 20 and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.

at 561 21 (citations omitted). 22 In the Complaint, Plaintiff essentially challenges Nationstar and Quality’s rights to 23 foreclose on the DOT based on the purported invalidity of the Assignment. (See generally 24 ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff is not a party to the Assignment, nor has he alleged any involvement 25 in it. In fact, the Assignment does not reference Plaintiff whatsoever. (See generally, ECF 26 No. 6-4.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not asserted a legally protected 27 interest in the Assignment and therefore lacks standing to challenge it. See Viloria v. 28 Premium Capital Funding LLC,

, at * 3 (D. Nev. Sept. 20, 2012) 1 || (citations omitted) (“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the assignments of the Note and 2 || Deed of Trust. . .”); Penrose v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., No. 3:19-cv27-MMD-CBC, 2019 3 || WL 1338393, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2019p) (holding that plaintiff lacked standing to 4 || challenge a loan transaction or its securitization for which he had no involvement in). 5 || IV. CONCLUSION 6 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases 7 || not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 8 || that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before Q || the Court. 10 It is therefore ordered that Defendant Nationstar’s motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 6, 11 || 7) is granted. Dismissal will be with prejudice. 12 It is further ordered that Defendant Quality’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is 13 || denied as moot. 14 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor in accordance 15 || with this order and close this case. 16 DATED THIS 4" day of May 2020. 17 — 18 Ags MIRANDA M. DU 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28