preliminary injunction is moot because the foreclosure sale has been completed. See Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. _ 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010). Concerning appellant's quiet title cause of action, this claim is properly dismissed against these respondents because they no longer have an interest in the property. Therefore, they are not proper defendants in a quiet title action.' See Schwob v. Hemsath, 98 Nev. 293, 294, 646 P.2d 1212, 1212 (1982) (holding that the legal owner of a property was a necessary party to an action adjudicating title to the property). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

Hardesty

b.lot Parraguirre

'The district court dismissed appellant's quiet title cause of action after finding that he lacked standing. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to appellant, it appears that he had standing to assert the quiet title cause of action because he alleged that he was a co-owner of the property. Nevertheless, because appellant did not name the proper parties in seeking to quiet title in this action and he has since filed a separate quiet title action against the purchaser of the property, dismissal of this cause of action was proper. Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 575, 747 P.2d 230, 233 (1987).

2 1n light of this order, we deny Montessa, LLC's February 21, 2013, motion to consolidate this case with Centento v. Montessa, LLC, Docket No. 62506.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Martin Centeno Houser & Allison, APC Tiffany & Bosco, P. A. Greenberg Traurig, LLP/Las Vegas Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

3