Clark v. New Century Mortgage Company

D. Nevada

Clark v. New Century Mortgage Company

DecidedMay 12, 2025

Docket2:18-cv-02241

StatusUnknown

This text of Clark v. New Century Mortgage Company (Clark v. New Century Mortgage Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. New Century Mortgage Company, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ALFRED CLARK, Case No.: 2:18-cv-02241-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order (1) Denying Motion to Reconsider Expungement of Lis Pendens, and 5 v. (2) Granting Motion for Attorney’s Fees

6 NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE [ECF Nos. 53, 54] COMPANY, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 I previously ordered that the notice of lis pendens that plaintiff Alfred Clark recorded 10 against the subject property be expunged. No. 52. Clark now moves for reconsideration of that 11 order, claiming he did not oppose the defendants’ motion to expunge because he did not receive 12 it. ECF No. 53. That seems improbable given that he seems to have received every other filing 13 in this case. And after the defendants filed their notice of non-opposition (ECF No. 51) and I 14 filed my order, Clark did not reach out to the defendants’ counsel inquiring about the motion to 15 expunge. 16 More importantly, Clark has not shown any right to maintain his lis pendens. I dismissed 17 this action on September 10, 2019. ECF No. 31. Because no lawsuit is pending, I must cancel 18 the lis pendens. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.015(3, 5). In his several recent filings, Clark still has not 19 demonstrated any legal or factual right to keep his lis pendens on the County records. 20 I also previously granted the U.S. Bank defendants’1 request for an award of their 21 attorneys’ fees and ordered them to file a brief detailing the fees they incurred. ECF No. 52. The 22

1 “The U.S. Bank defendants” refers to defendants U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee 23 for MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-HE5 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE5; Western Progressive – Nevada, Inc.; and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. 1} defendants’ brief (ECF No. 54) complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B) and 2|| Local Rule 54-14 and satisfies the factors set out in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (Nev. 1969) and Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). The rates charged and time spent on the various tasks are reasonable in this market. I grant the motion and award the U.S. Bank defendants $2,792.50 in attorney’s fees. 6 I THEREFORE ORDER that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider (ECF No. 53) is 7|| denied. 8 I FURTHER ORDER that the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 54) is granted. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of defendants U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-HES Mortgage 11] Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE5; Western Progressive — Nevada, Inc.; and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and against plaintiff Alfred Clark in the amount of $2,792.50. 13 I FURTHER ORDER the clerk of court to close this case. 14 DATED this 12th day of May, 2025. 15 G-— ANDREWP.GORDON. 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ALFRED CLARK, Case No.: 2:18-cv-02241-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order (1) Denying Motion to Reconsider Expungement of Lis Pendens, and 5 v. (2) Granting Motion for Attorney’s Fees

6 NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE [ECF Nos. 53, 54] COMPANY, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 I previously ordered that the notice of lis pendens that plaintiff Alfred Clark recorded 10 against the subject property be expunged. No. 52. Clark now moves for reconsideration of that 11 order, claiming he did not oppose the defendants’ motion to expunge because he did not receive 12 it. ECF No. 53. That seems improbable given that he seems to have received every other filing 13 in this case. And after the defendants filed their notice of non-opposition (ECF No. 51) and I 14 filed my order, Clark did not reach out to the defendants’ counsel inquiring about the motion to 15 expunge. 16 More importantly, Clark has not shown any right to maintain his lis pendens. I dismissed 17 this action on September 10, 2019. ECF No. 31. Because no lawsuit is pending, I must cancel 18 the lis pendens. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.015(3, 5). In his several recent filings, Clark still has not 19 demonstrated any legal or factual right to keep his lis pendens on the County records. 20 I also previously granted the U.S. Bank defendants’1 request for an award of their 21 attorneys’ fees and ordered them to file a brief detailing the fees they incurred. ECF No. 52. The 22

1 “The U.S. Bank defendants” refers to defendants U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee 23 for MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-HE5 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE5; Western Progressive – Nevada, Inc.; and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. 1} defendants’ brief (ECF No. 54) complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B) and 2|| Local Rule 54-14 and satisfies the factors set out in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (Nev. 1969) and Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). The rates charged and time spent on the various tasks are reasonable in this market. I grant the motion and award the U.S. Bank defendants $2,792.50 in attorney’s fees. 6 I THEREFORE ORDER that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider (ECF No. 53) is 7|| denied. 8 I FURTHER ORDER that the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 54) is granted. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of defendants U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-HES Mortgage 11] Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE5; Western Progressive — Nevada, Inc.; and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and against plaintiff Alfred Clark in the amount of $2,792.50. 13 I FURTHER ORDER the clerk of court to close this case. 14 DATED this 12th day of May, 2025. 15 G-— ANDREWP.GORDON. 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clark v. New Century Mortgage Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-new-century-mortgage-company-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack