This case was a qui tam action brought by two private plaintiffs under Nevada’s False Claims Act (NRS Chapter 357) on behalf of the state and its counties against more than 40 financial institutions, including Fannie Mae. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knowingly filed false State of Nevada Declaration of Value forms with county recorders to avoid or underpay real property transfer taxes on thousands of transactions, improperly claiming exemptions as government entities or misidentifying parties on trustee’s deeds. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked statutory standing because they were not original sources of the information under NRS § 357.100; they had merely researched publicly recorded forms rather than possessing direct and independent knowledge, so only the Nevada Attorney General could pursue such claims based on public disclosures. The Attorney General had declined to intervene.
This case concerns a Nevada foreclosure dispute in which plaintiff Vega challenged the validity of a 2009 MERS assignment of a deed of trust from original lender CTX to Chase, alleging it failed to properly transfer the underlying note and rendered the subsequent foreclosure defective. After earlier dismissing most claims and temporarily enjoining foreclosure due to uncertainty over MERS’s authority, the court granted the motions to dismiss and for relief from the mediation requirement filed by CTX, Bartosh, and Matthews. The court reasoned that these defendants had disclaimed any interest in the property, did not conduct the foreclosure, and were not the current beneficiary or trustee, even though the affidavit they submitted was flawed and failed to resolve the assignment issues. Chase and Cal-Western, the entities actually pursuing foreclosure, remain subject to the prior orders.
The case arose from the 2006 bankruptcy of USA Commercial Mortgage Company, a mortgage broker and loan servicer, after which Compass acquired interests in thousands of Loan Servicing Agreements (LSAs) with Direct Lenders, financed by Silar and later assumed by Asset Resolution through foreclosure. Plaintiffs, consisting of Direct Lenders, sued Compass, Silar, and Asset Resolution seeking declaratory relief on LSA interpretations and damages for alleged breaches related to loan servicing, compensation, and handling of loan proceeds. Following pretrial rulings and a jury trial, the court entered final judgment awarding plaintiffs declaratory relief on servicer compensation and repayment priorities under the LSAs, approximately $79,000 in compensatory damages plus fees and interest, and $5.1 million in punitive damages for claims including breach of contract, fiduciary duty violations, conversion, and conspiracy, while denying defendants' post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial based on the jury's findings and contractual language.
This case involves three firefighters who sued their employer, Day & Zimmermann Hawthorne Corp., alleging a racially and sexually hostile work environment, pregnancy discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and negligent training and supervision. The district court addressed the defendant's motions for summary judgment on each plaintiff's claims under Title VII and state law. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part for plaintiffs Brophy and Armstead, allowing their gender- or race-based hostile work environment claims, pregnancy discrimination claims, and (for Armstead) retaliation claims to proceed to trial due to genuine factual disputes, while dismissing other claims for lack of evidence or jurisdiction. The court granted summary judgment in full against plaintiff Lightfoot on all claims for failure to show adverse employment actions or other required elements. It also dismissed the negligent supervision and training claim for all plaintiffs because Nevada law requires physical harm, which was not alleged.
In this consolidated case, Incline Energy sued two groups of defendants in state court over alleged failures to repay loans and comply with a loan modification agreement tied to worker's compensation claims against Walmart and a separate $270,000 loan. Defendants removed the actions to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for improper venue or transfer for convenience. The court denied the motions, applying standards under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 and related case law on venue and jurisdiction, while noting forum selection clauses favoring Nevada and discussing potential champerty issues in the funding agreements without resolving them as grounds for dismissal.
This case consists of two consolidated foreclosure actions brought by plaintiff S. Burke Smith against Community Lending, Inc. and related entities concerning investment properties in Fallon, Nevada. The plaintiff alleged eleven causes of action challenging MERS's authority to assign deeds of trust, the validity of subsequent foreclosures by BAC and Recontrust, and related claims under debt collection and lending statutes. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that federal-question jurisdiction existed due to FDCPA claims incorporated into Nevada law and that non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined. It granted the motions to dismiss, reasoning that deed-of-trust language granted MERS sufficient agency to transfer interests, foreclosure is not debt collection under the FDCPA, and remaining claims were either time-barred or meritless.
